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

Schiller Institute—ICLC Conference
"Continue the American Revolution"

President's Day Weekend
February 16-17, 2002

Panel 4—Questions and Answers with
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

(go to questions and answers)

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Conference Program and Audio/Video Files

Panel I- Keynote of Lyndon LaRouche

William Warfield -- Music
Amelia Boynton Robinson Introduction:
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. - Keynote
Is Enron "Cluster's Last Stand?"
Next Comes the Cluster-Bust!
Dr. Simbi Mubako: Zimbabwe Under Siege
Dialogue with LaRouche

Panel II --Aftermath of Sept. 11 Brzezinski's and Huntington's Universal
Fascism: The Special Case of Sharon's Israel."

Jeffrey Steinberg
Harley Schlanger

Panel III -- Keynote II:
The Dialogue of Cultures
Amelia Boynton Robinson --
Helga Zepp LaRouche

Panel IV - Open Discussion:
Dialogue with Lyndon LaRouche

Panel V - American History Panel :
The American Intellectual Tradition:
Key to Economic Recovery.

Nancy Spannaus
Graham Lowery
Anton Chaitkin
Richard Freeman

Panel 4 of the Presidents' Day Conference, on February 17, 2002 was the Open Discussion. The moderator was Tony Papert, and questions were directed to Lyndon LaRouche or other speakers. Subheads have been added. What follows is an unedited transcript.


QUESTION: Hi Lyn. My name is Seth Weber. I came here from Olympia, Washington. In the summers, I work for the Forest Service, so one of my main concerns is resource management. In particular, that Americans consume resources, such as timber and oil, at a much faster rate than they can be managed. You talk about improving the standard of living in other countries, but if the whole world had the same standard of living as Americans, these resources would be consumed at an even faster rate. That raises the question of developing alternate energy sources, such as solar energy, and also alternatives to timber-derived paper products, such as industrial hemp. What are your thoughts on resource-management?

LAROUCHE: Well, solar energy is a disaster. It has two problems: First of all, generally, it costs more in the long run to develop, than the benefit you get out of it. You have to look at the energy pay-back factor, and you have to look at the energy costs of the so-called energy systems as a total cost of the energy production, by that mode, to the entire economy. So, the solar energy, which is highly boosted by the so-called Malthusian movement, is not an alternative. There are applications—for example, if you're in a desert, with a small piece of apparatus, and you need some power to make something work, it may be very useful to have a device which does that. But, as a way of sustaining society: No. That's not the answer.

I've addressed this problem in general, by reference to the—as I did in Moscow and elsewhere—to the work of Vladimir Vernadsky, and I won't go into too much of that here, because I've written a lot about that. This stuff is available. My writings are available; my lectures in Moscow are available, and so forth, on this subject. But the point is—. Let me just go through the highlights of what this is, in anticipation of any other questions in the same direction, or in any further discussion that my remarks now may provoke on this question.

First of all, the way we understand the universe, or should understand the universe, as I've argued this, is that, what we know, we know from our proof of physical principles. By physical principles, I mean, one: that we discover an anomaly, that is, a contradiction, a self-contradiction, within the world as perceived by our senses. And we thus realize that what we see with our senses is not the real universe, but a shadow of the real universe. And the job is to discover what the object is which has caused the shadow, and how to control the object which causes the shadow. From that, we develop physical principles; we develop them as hypotheses, in the strict Platonic sense of hypothesis, as all great discoveries of fundamental scientific principle have been discovered, and in no other way. We know nothing about universal physical principles that we have not discovered in the method of hypothesis as defined by Plato. There is no other possible way of doing it.

However, once we have discovered these principles as hypotheses, we have to prove them. What we have to prove is, that the principle actually enables us to efficiently control a physical result in a way which nothing else can do. For example, you have the preliminary demonstration of this, in one way, by Pasteur, who, in dealing with questions of tartrates, and so forth, in the studies of wine, showed that, from an optical standpoint, the living processes produce a different combination of physical results than non-living ones do. This has been generalized—it was shown, for example, by Vernadsky, by examining the world from the standpoint of geology, and to show that most of the planet, the surface of the planet, is developed by living processes. That most of the planet's surface is a fossil of living processes. The atmosphere was not created by an abiotic process. It was created by life. The waters of the oceans and rivers and streams were created by living processes, not by abiotic systems.

So therefore, we conduct experiments to prove principles which are based on the assumption: One, that we're dealing with a principle which operates in the universe independently of considerations of life as a principle. Number two, we find principles which are living processes, which operate only as living processes, and whose physical effects can be determined, experimentally, as those of physical processes. Thirdly, we find the case of the biosphere; that down to most of the minerals on which we depend, are not minerals that came directly from the core of the Earth, but they are minerals which are made available to us by the fact that they exist in a fossil-form, as by-product of living processes, earlier. And this gets to the point.

And [fourth]ly, we find that the universe is physically changed by an act of cognition, by actions which come only from the discovery and validation of universal physical principles. And thus, in this way, we know, from physical proof, that the human cognitive processes are different than the mental processes, or equivalent, that occur in any other form of living process. Therefore, we know, experimentally, from a standpoint of physical experiments, that the human mind is different from anything to be found in any living process. And that it's an efficient—the human mind—is an efficient controller of the universe. That is the meaning of knowledge, from a scientific standpoint.

Now, therefore, that means, that since the universe, since the Earth depends upon, to a large degree, upon fossils—. Let's take one case, a typical case. We are consuming minerals from the fossil-area of this planet at a rate which is more than double the rate at which the planet is taking minerals from the core and bringing them to the surface, as replacements for the fossil form of energy. For example, when you mine for gold or something, you're not mining from the core of the Earth, from an abiotic process. You're mining from a residue, which is largely created from a by-product of a living process. So therefore, in managing resources, we have to say what resources are fossil resources, which are generated by the planet's living characteristics at a certain rate, and what happens if we are consuming these resources more rapidly than they are being produced?

Well, there are two things we can do, generally: First, we can find a better way to help living processes generate this resource. For example, we can build more forests. We can engage in large-scale water-management. We can turn the deserts into fertile areas, and similar kinds of things. So therefore, by a policy of managing the biosphere, as by the work of the Corps of Engineers, which has been terminated by the ecologists, so called, eh? When you terminate the work of the Corps of Engineers, you're destroying the environment! Because the environment, so-called, depends upon man's ability to improve upon it, by so-called artificial means.

Now, on the question of energy as such: The most efficient form of energy we know presently, are nuclear forms of energy. And we know of three forms, two of which are proven—one of the two needs to be developed; and the third, whose existence is known, but whose control is not yet discovered. The first is nuclear fission: that is ten times more efficient, generally, than other forms of energy. Therefore, if you want to solve the energy problem, you must use nuclear fission; there is no way of avoiding that. If you decide not to use nuclear fission, you're going to degrade the quality of existence of the human race as a whole. You're going to commit genocide. More people will be killed by not using nuclear fission than the alternative.

Thermonuclear fusion, which is orders of magnitude more efficient and more powerful than fission energy—this is necessary. For example: Why do we have to pull oil from all over the world to fuel automobiles in East Podunk? There's no need for it! If we have efficient, highly efficient fission stations, such as high-temperature, gas-cooled reactors, say; or, better still, if you have a thermonuclear-fusion facility, we will not use oil; we will not use fuel, or coal, extracted from the Earth; we will not burn things for energy, generally. What we will do, is we will produce hydrogen, synthetic methane, and so forth; we will produce them locally; we will probably use fuel-cell, and similar types of methods in vehicles; we can power jet aircraft much more efficiently with these fuels than we can with gasoline, for example. And therefore, we will be generating what becomes a recyclable resource, fuel, which we will generate as human beings, rather than taking it from the product of earlier biological processes. Or abiotic processes, such as those which are operating in producing petroleum and natural gas.

But, we will be replacing the requirement of the human race on fuels which are devised as fossil fuels; we will be creating new fossils for our use, and we will be replenishing them as we make them.

We have a third kind of energy which is known, but which is not yet mastered, shall we say, a long way [off] yet, for example, which is called matter-antimatter reactions, which would be orders of magnitude more dense, in energy-density, than those of thermonuclear fusion. And these will become very important to develop, if you wish to take trips into the outer planets of the Solar System. You would not be able to do it very comfortably with thermonuclear-fusion fuels even; you would require matter-antimatter reactions control, or the equivalent, or something like that, to be able to efficiently, that is, on a mass-energy ratio, to get into the outer area of the Solar System with human occupants.

So, these are necessary. And the basic point is we have to have a philosophy, a philosophy which does not go with free trade, or globalization, or similar kinds of nonsense. We have to have a philosophy which is based on the fact that the universe is composed of three phase-spaces of universal principle: Phase Space number one, experimentally defined: so-called abiotic processes, the phase-space of abiotic processes; second: the phase-space of living processes; third: the phase-space of cognitive processes. We, as man, who represents the cognitive process, we must manage the entire planet, and also, more and more of the Solar System. Eventually, you know, the Sun's going to blow up, not in the immediate future—actually, Enron will collapse first—but it will, unless we do something about it. So therefore, we have to take a view, that if the human race is going to continue to exist, we have to take responsibility, conscious responsibility, for managing the noosphere, the biosphere, and the abiotic dimensions of the planet. We have to manage these for the stability of the planetary system; we have to manage these for the benefit, above all, for human life and the development of human life.

So therefore, you're right that we should not be using up resources which we are not prepared to replace; we should find alternatives, and they do exist; but, we do need high-energy-density sources; and, we do require a creative process, based on an enlarged conception of basic economic infrastructure, going beyond the Tennessee Valley Authority, for example, a larger conception of managing the planet, to create the conditions under which production and human life, decent human life, can occur. And that eliminates the need for worrying about "ecology." So, scrap the word "ecology," or similar kinds of notions, and say that: We must at last take responsibility, especially from the standpoint of governmental policy, a policy for managing the planet, managing the area of a nation, in order to deal with precisely these kinds of problems, because they are all inherently manageable. And if they're problems, and they are manageable, therefore, we have to manage them.

Chesterton, Belloc, and Universal Fascism

THREE RELATED QUESTIONS FROM THE INTERNET(Sweden, Germany, Ireland): Why do you label the Catholic writers and economists Hilaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, and Archbishop LeFebvre as fascist and/or anti-Semitic? One question also asked about Pat Buchanan. Another asks, why do you support the anti-Christian, New Age Assisi meeting 2002?

LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, there's no question about the problems of Chesterton and Belloc. There're people who believe, because they've been told to believe that, that these guys have been unjustly criticized. But, if you go back to the history of the 1920s and 1930s, the Chesterton movement, and Belloc in particular, were closely associated with support for Adolf Hitler. Now, their teachings, like the Distributists, and so forth, are sometimes considered an alternative to the doctrines Pope Leo XIII, under Rerum Novarum, but they are actually not. These people are an integral part of the international fascist movement; they are identified with, for example, the Carlists of Spain, with whom they were closely associated, which, in a sense, is the Spanish version of the fascist movement in Europe.

Now, the attack on Assisi, on the recent conference at Assisi, was a personal attack on John Paul II. That's where the attack comes from, and the questioner is actually supporting the libels directed against the Pope, John Paul II, so, you can not exactly call my views on this matter "anti-Catholic." As I said yesterday, sometimes I say that only the Pope and I understand theology. This is one of the cases in that case.

But, on this question of Pat Robertson [Buchanan?] and so forth, this is absolute nonsense. Pat Robertson [Buchanan?] is not really much of a Christian. He's very close to a proto-fascist movement, and, as we have said, in the United States, the key of fascism in the United States today, is centered around two groups—and they both have the same mother, or the same step-mother: One, is the Nashville Agrarians, an organization, which is associated with, again—supported by the Chesterton's crowd, which is a fascist organization, headed by the guy who created Henry Kissinger, out of mud, William Yandell Elliot, and this group is the basis for the worst kind of fundamentalist—the fascist variety—in the United States. They are in close cooperation with a group which calls themselves Catholics, but are actually radical gnostics; they're not Christians, though some of them are nominally in the Church, who are supporters of an explicitly fascist movement called Carlism, and its offshoots, and the Belloc-Chesterton crowd are part of that.

Now, what happens, is that people wish to, from a single-issue standpoint, pick on what they think are single issues, and say, these single issues are good, Catholic issues, in this case, and then try to say that people who advocate a position on these single issues are therefore good Catholics and good Christians. But that doesn't follow. It's a case of the devil quoting Scripture, this sort of thing.

And it is a problem. Today, what is happening to the world at large, the destruction of civilization, the introduction of this mass universal fascist movement, today, is of the same root as Francisco Franco, the Carlists of the 1920s and 1930s, and earlier—this is the same thing as Nazism and Fascism—the same crowd. This is the H. Smith Ricardson Foundation; this is the American Enterprise Institute; this is the Mont Pelerin Society; this is the Heritage Foundation; this is the Olin Foundation, the Olin Institute; these institutions which we've identified, in this paper which is out there at the stands—we've identified this stuff. These are the enemy of civilization; they're the enemy of mankind. They represent everything which is a repudiation of Christianity, and those who criticize my views on this should study the matter more carefully, because I'm sure they would not like to be in bed with fascists, which, implicitly, by supporting these guys, they are.

Accelerate the Triumph of the Good

QUESTION (Braintree, Mass): First of all, I have a lot of respect for Mr. LaRouche's view of a dialogue of civilizations versus a class of civilizations.... As I mentioned, I'm a Muslim person, and in our book, the Quran, God says, "You people, I created you from one man and one woman, and made you different nations, and different tribes, to do what? To know each other; to talk to each other, not to fight each other.

Secondly, also, in the Quran, God says to Muslims to talk to other people from other religions, he order through—talking through the Prophet Mohammed says, "Say, you people from other religions, with the books, come together in one world, to believe in one God, and live in peace together," and make up hope that whoever tried to create these problems to all human beings, will be receiving punishment from God.

Also, yesterday, Mr. LaRouche said, after the Sept. 11 disaster, just right away, the media, the White House, and Mr. President, and his Cabinet, pointed their fingers to Islamic groups, and we, as Arab-Muslim Americans live here in the states, we start from the first second, to receive the reaction of the media and anybody else. And I have couple questions to Mr. LaRouche about our democracy here in the United States.... We should ask ourselves if our democracy means we take action against other countries based on suspicion? Do we have any proof that anybody or any country was involved in this event? Is our democracy allowing us to discriminate against other people, religions, and cultures, as the head of the Justice Dept., Mr. Ashcroft, said in public, "Islam is the religion, God asks you to send your son to die for His sake, and Christianity is the faith that God sent His Son to die for you." I think that when something like this comes from someone like Mr. Ashcroft, it's against our democracy....

If we are going to war against terrorism, first question is: Who is going to be considered as a terrorist? And, if we answer this question, we can go to the other question.... The reason that the media point to the Muslim and Arab people as the terrorism, is the conflict in the Middle East. If we want to define who is the terrorism, is Mr. Sharon, and our government supporting him with money, $4 billion from your tax dollars....

I would like to know what Mr. LaRouche thinks about the Clash of Civilizations and Armageddon war that it's supposed to destroy two-thirds of the national and international population, for Jesus Christ the Prophet to come back. I would like to have an answer, if God wants us to fight each other here, and if Jesus Christ, who the Quran describes as the Prophet of Peace, would be happy to come back after we've killed each other?

LAROUCHE: I can respond briefly to this, because, first of all, on the question of Clash of Civilizations it is clear. I do not disagree with the observations, obviously, that were made just now. And the series of indictments against the policy—I would phrase them differently, in many cases, but I don't disagree with the argument. I would say, instead of objecting to what the enemy is doing, I'd say we have to, in a sense, eliminate the essential enemy: the enemy is not necessarily a person. The enemy is an agency, an agency of evil. People have been talking about "axes of evil," and this and that—there is an agency of evil; that evil on this planet, by certain forces, to establish a regime, a caricature of the Roman Empire, which is universal fascism.

Our job is to expose the character of that movement for universal fascism, and to destroy the power of that movement, by mobilization of the people of the world, to understand what the choice is. The choice is the crimes. For example, the case of Israel, is a perfect example. We now have, what—? Over 200 signators, Reservists of the Israeli military, who in the leadership of a revolt against the murderous policies of Sharon. Therefore, our concern is not only to oppose evil, which Sharon and the IDF leadership certainly represents, but it's to defeat evil, decisively, by educating and mobilizing those who can be educated and mobilized, to realize this is not an injustice by the U.S. government. This is an injustice which has taken control of the U.S. government. And we have to free this government from the control by that injustice. The way we do that is, essentially, moral and political, by educating people as to the nature of the danger.

I have great confidence in people. I often have been given reason to believe otherwise, but I retain that confidence, that, in the end, that man is made inherently good by birth. And there has to be a time and place and way in which the goodness inside the human individual can be brought forth to cause evil to be righted.

I would say one other thing on this question. Rather than saying that as a generality, I would add this: Look at the condition of mankind. Mankind has been on this planet for, maybe, two million years, as man. We know that from artifacts which we can date, which were created by a human mind, not an ape. Look at the condition that mankind has gone through. Look at what has happened to mankind since historic times, since the Ice Age melt, which began between 19,000 and 12,000 years ago. See the rise of civilizations, so called; see the rise and fall of peoples; see the great evils that were done; but nonetheless, see today that there's a certain cumulative triumph of humanity over evil, which is not completed, but remains to be completed. If we look at the history of human progress, despite the evil, despite the Dark Ages, despite the destructions of entire national civilizations, we see that, in the end, the Good is tending to triumph.

What we must do is try to accelerate the process of triumph of the Good.


QUESTION: (Danny B.): Scrooge, Ebenezer Scrooge was really mentally blocked. When he was confronted by charity, they asked, you know, if you don't give for these people, they might die, and he said, "Good. Surplus population. It might help curb it." Later, he's confronted by his old business partner, Jacob Marley, who's tied down with all the chains of things that he'd created throughout his life: ledgers, money chests, and whatnot. And Scrooge asked him, "How can you be so unhappy? You were so good at your business." And Marley replies, "My business? That was—my professional trade, was but a teaspoon in the ocean of my business, which should have been devoted to the common good of everyone."

And so, he sends this intervention [to Scrooge] by these three spirits, who have a serious edge to them. They ridicule him for his comments about "surplus population": they show him where things are going to end up, if things continue this way. And so, Scrooge goes through this profound change, where he's so happy by the end, he's tangled up in his stockings like the "Laocoon," and he's vowed that he's going to live his life for all the Past, the Present, and the Future.

And so, with trying to convey an idea to somebody, there seems to be a conscious kind of a decision about whether you're going to go for—as I just kind of go for—the nice ideas. And sometimes, that seems like that's the way to answer some things, but other times, there's a serious tragedy element to it. So, is that something that you actually choose, or is it something that has to be developed? Or, would it be better off, for someone whose talents are maybe in fairy tales and comedy to focus on that? Or, does everybody need to have a serious "edge," at sometimes? Because, I seem to lack that.

LAROUCHE: (Laughs.) Well, you know: What in the Dickens was wrong with England? That, actually, Dickens was a courageous person of insight, writing in difficult times. And he tried to do a job. And he became a part of the English-speaking culture, and justly so. I think many of us who, in the days when you still read books in schools, we benefitted from that sort of thing. But, the issue is this: The problem is, how do you come to believe in the Good? People have a sense of right and wrong, in the sense of rules. That some things are good and some things are bad. You believe that they are bad, or relatively good. Sometimes you believe that you have to put up with the bad, you have to be "realistic," you have to be pragmatic, you have to go along with popular opinion. But, you know, regrettably, that you're going along with the bad, but because it's popular opinion, you have to go along with popular opinion—otherwise, people won't like you!

So, where's the efficiency of this process of fighting for the Good?

Now, let's take the case of a scientist—and this is just an example—a scientist who makes a discovery of a universal physical principle. Now, if you think about scientists, real scientists...

[tape change]

...kinds of discoveries, and when you've gone through the work of many of them, as I have, you realize that they started out with certain propositions, paradoxes, which they set out to solve, and they committed most of their life to solving these paradoxes, these challenges. And they solve [them], in the course of their lives, several times. But, look at the amount of time that was spent by virtually every important discoverer, in developing that discovery. In other words, you don't make a discovery as an inspiration, as a thought, as an hypothesis of a moment: "Ah! Now, I see! Now I've got to conduct the experiment and prove it's true." Not so simple. To prove that something is not only true, in the sense that you can experimentally demonstrate something to do that, but that it's universally true, occupies the better part of a lifetime of work, sometimes by many people, working together. There are many cases in science—I won't bother going through it here—time will run out. But, the point is this. What about the experience of the person who goes through the cognitive process, which may span over years, or relives, as a student, the experience of someone who actually made such a discovery, or several people who made such discoveries.

Like the work of Kepler; read the work of Kepler for example: From his Mysterium Cosmographicum, to his World Harmonics—read that, and you find in that period, that span of his lifetime, from the beginning of a germ of a discovery, the development of the hypothesis, the experimental proof of the hypothesis, which was proven completely by him, to a certain degree, then was developed further through the work of Fermat, of Huyghens, of Leibniz, and others, which has not completed until the work of, in a sense, even partially, until the work of Riemann, following Gauss.

Now, if you, as a student, have followed that history, of the discovery of principle, and realize that the ideas which are generated and validated through cognition and experimental method are efficient: They enable man to increase his power, per capita, in the universe, in terms that would have been unimaginable prior to that time; and you have a sense of the POWER of ideas—. See, the problem with people who believe in the Good, is they don't believe in the power of ideas. And therefore, when they're confronted with a challenge, they say, "Well, maybe you have a good idea, but people aren't going to go along with it." You say, "Wait a minute, buddy. These ideas are not simply choices, like pieces in a delicatessen; it's not a smorgasbord—you can't pick this, pick that, or pick that. That's not the nature of ideas. Ideas, real ideas, represent real power. They represent universal power. And when people get a sense of the kind of ideas that represent, inherently, power, then they have confidence in those ideas, and they don't flinch in the face of public opinion. Any scientist who capitulated before public opinion, was not worth a hill of beans. People whose opinions are shaped by public opinion, are people whose opinions are not worth a hill of beans.

And then we have a lot of people running around with "ideas." But their ideas are not worth a hill of beans, because they have no sense of the power of ideas. And therefore, [don't] know that mere public opinion is a nothing compared to the authority of the power of valid ideas. That's where the problem lies.


QUESTION: (Julian B., Austin): I have two questions. One, in talking to people, I periodically get these answers about: "There's only the spiritual solution to things." And there's no effort or no desire on their part, the religious, just hopeless about the situation, and think that there's no political solutions to what's going on, in creating a new monetary system, and all. So, I'd like some comments on that, if you would.

And then, the other thing I'd like for you to clarify is the issue you have against—as I'm understanding some of the readings—is "gnosticism." Because when I read some different books, like Mathew Fox's book on "Original Blessing," and there's this great list of what may be called Christian mystics, they exemplify certain—man created in the image and likeness of God, and the universal principles that Helga was speaking of earlier today, better than anybody; like Hildegard of Bingham and Julian of Norwich and [??] Jesus, and other figures. So, if you could clarify the issue that you have against gnosticism, because when I think of the word, some its root meaning—knowledge, having a sense of knowledge, I want you to clarify that, those two things. Thank you.

LAROUCHE: Well, the problem is, on gnosticism, is the word actually does not mean knowledge, it means knowledge which is not based on knowledge. It means essentially mysticism, that is, for example: This comes up in most of the religious sects in the United States, some nominally Catholic, some Protestant, are largely, essentially gnostic. What I referred to—the case of Belloc, the case of—discussing that earlier; the case of Chesterton, that crowd—they are essentially gnostics; they are not Christians, in any sense.

What's the meaning? In Christian theology, the term "spiritual," that is, in theology, the term spiritual means the same thing that it means in Plato's Dialogues. A spiritual exercise is a cognitive experience, which is based on being confronted with a paradox, which is unassailably a paradox. It's not an illusion, it's a real paradox. For example, the fact that light, in some ways, is refracted through the air, when it's projected from the air, it's reflected in equal angles. When it's refracted instead, through another medium, from the air, it's refracted in a different way. These both involve the refraction of light; they're both observed with the senses, as refraction, or the equivalent of refraction. They should be the same, sense-perception says. But they're not the same! That light actually follows, in refraction, quickest time. And when you've made the discovery that proves that, it proves that light in reflection is also following quickest time, not shortest distance. So, the principle of quickest time, rather than shortest distance, is demonstrated to be a principle. This is a very elementary thing in science, this question, as posed by Fermat, and treated on isochronic principles, and so forth, by later discoverers such as Huyghens, and so on.

But, therefore, spirituality does not pertain to inspiration, antic inspiration, arbitrary belief. Spirituality always involves deep questions of unassailable paradoxes. That is, they are unassailably paradoxes. They call into question the authority of the senses, and they show that the solution to these problems can not be discovered through sense perception, but can be discovered through scientific methods of hypothesis and experimental proof. Therefore, the power to change man's power over the universe through science comes as a spiritual act.

Now, you have to understand what you mean by "spirit." Spirit does not mean something outside the universe. Spirit means that the power of cognition, or the nature of God, as creativity, is always in the universe, and that quality is also an efficient quality of the human mind, and only the human mind, not that of the animals. Therefore, we call the act of discovery of a valid physical principle, universal physical principle, a "spiritual act." That defines the meaning of spirit. There are other kinds of experiences which have the same kind of significance, because they have the same quality of generation, but the physical-experimental one is the easiest one to use as a point of illustration.

Therefore, there are no mysteries; they don't exist. There are unknowns, but there are no things that exist mysteriously outside the comprehension of the human mind. The human mind can understand—. For example: When I've discussed, several times during this conference, the question of the nature of human identity, and I say the identity of man must be—if man understands himself—that your identity is located in the immortality within your mortality. That is, through your cognitive powers, and by doing useful things for mankind, for the past and for the future as well as the present, through your cognitive powers, you are important to all humanity, formerly existing, present, and future. Therefore, you have an immortal self-interest in doing the things which make your having lived meaningful.

When you have that viewpoint, then you locate your interests, not in your sense perception, not in your physical gratifications, but you locate your identity in the cognitive powers typified by the ability to make an original scientific discovery of universal principle. That doesn't mean you always have to make it originally, yourself, but you have to go through the original experience of replicating what has been done by somebody else. That is, when you actually experience what happened in the mind of Archimedes, or any other famous discoverer, as in school, and you live through the act of discovering that universal principle, you have gone through what would be classified in theology, as a spiritual exercise, whose other name is a cognitive exercise, as opposed to a deductive exercise.

And that, when you say that, then, you see that all the ideas, that there are mysterious forces out there that we couldn't understand, which are operating from underneath the floorboards of the universe, and that if you propitiate them, good will come to you, is like the guy who's shooting craps in a corner, and he's gambling, you know, other gamblers are there, and he says, you know, "God, give me seven!" Hoping that somehow, a force from outside reality is going to manipulate those dice and cause them to come in his favor at the crap table, or at the Las Vegas gambling table.

And that's what the gnostics do, is they talk about things that they feel good about, and say these are good. As for example: You run into, in Texas, a lot of them, of these so-called fundamentalists, who believe that the Battle of Armageddon will lead to the Rapture, and they won't have to pay the rent next month. I mean, that is what I mean by mysticism, as opposed to spiritual. But a spiritual exercise is a very important thing. It is the basis of all human civilization. And therefore, to understand these problems, you have to be able to confront one thing: Are you willing to realize that your moment-to-moment experience as sense-perceptual experience, of pleasure-and-pain experience, from moment to moment in life, even to the pain of dying, is only that. It's only a mortal experience. That what is important—and when people become older and wiser they begin to appreciate that—what is important is what your life means for humanity. And implicitly, what it means in the service of God.

TONY PAPERT: I'll abbreviate, somewhat. Sara Madueño, the leader of our movement in Peru, writes: "About 20 people are gathered here in the EIR office in Lima, following the conference closely. Another group is listening in the northern Peruvian city of Sullana [ph], and many other friends are listening at home.

My question is this: Bush has announced he will visit Peru in March. The press is speculating that the real motive is for the U.S. to set up a military base in the Peruvian jungle, given the imminent escalation of the war against narco-terrorism in Colombia. How do you evaluate this scenario? Is it part of Bush's phase 2 against terrorism? Is it a concession to one-worldist concept of limited sovereignty? Or is it a matter of making common cause against a common enemy? How do you distinguish beyond doubt?"

(May I put the other two together? I think they're not the same, but there's a kinship.) That's from Sara Madueño.

Jorge Angeles Torres [ph] asks: "Is it possible for our country, Peru, to implement a modern economic system without the support of the government, the IMF and the World Bank? And how to overcome the economic crisis in our neighbor, Argentina?"

And, finally, Eduardo Edgar Chavez Collantes [ph] asks: "Communications media are promoting movies inducing paganism under the guise of entertainment—'Dungeons & Dragons,' 'Harry Potter,' and 'Lord of the Rings.' How dangerous is it, for youngsters and children to watch? How do they harm the mind? What danger lurks behind fantasy literature, such as Tolkien?"

LAROUCHE: Well, these things—the latter one—are dangerous mostly to younger children and to adolescent children, particularly in adolescence—because they take one form in young children, and a slightly different form in adolescent children. In young children, they become dangerous because they destroy the sense of reality. Because the child gets an emotion attachment, or an emotional experience, in a totally escapist mode. And, that destroys the cognitive powers of the child. For example, the worst example of this, which only illustrates the point for literature, is the Nintendo game, like Pokemon. The Nintendo game, with young children, turns the child into a homicidal killer. And, they may not all become homicidal killers, but the propensity which results from a conditioning by playing Nintendo games habitually, is to produce a killer. And, that child, by playing Nintendo games, may be able to, one day—after having never used a weapon, as has occurred!—one day, pick up a pistol, which he's never handled before, and shoot somebody, accurately, with head-shots. And, this is the result of a Nintendo game.

The problem on younger children, particularly pre-puberty children, is precisely that danger: That you're going to produce a bunch of immoral zombies, from your own children. And, that's not a good idea.

Now, with the adolescent, it becomes dangerous in a different way. And, it becomes dangerous in a way that some other kinds of recreation do the same thing: They create escapism. Now, the biggest problem (and we were discussing this, with some of the younger people, today), the greatest problem we face, that people—even of the Baby-Boomer generation, and younger generations today, do not believe in reality. You say, you want to discuss reality? "Let's drop the subject." What they're interested in, is gimmicks. Escapist gimmicks. They have a life-style. What's happening in the real world is of no concern to them. They don't want to discuss it; they're angry, if you try to bring it in.

Someone says, "Well, I think this Bush thing is dangerous to all of us." "We don't discuss politics, here."

"Hitler's coming in with his armies. They're going to invade the United States. They're on the beaches. They're coming in." "We don't discuss politics, here."

And, that's what that tends to do—this Lord of the Rings, and that kind of thing, among adolescents, will actually destroy thEIR ability to respond to moral problems.

Now, on Bush going in March: Look, don't assume that Bush has intentions. [laughter] That is, not rational intentions. Look at the way he operates. I mean, a man who read three words, which he didn't write, and said them, simply because they're on a computer screen, is not an intellectual giant—"axis of evil." That's not a giant.

What he does is, he responds. We know this. We know this from all kinds of people in society. And, you see it in Bush repeatedly. He responds emotionally, with conviction, to totally irrational conceptions—there's no rationality to what he's saying, what he's doing; but he adopts it. Now, therefore, he's influenced, by what? Bush's behavior, as governor of Texas, and as President, so far, is characterized by a domination of a person only by one thing: habits of style. He uses words, phrases, and so forth, in a certain way, according to a certain style of reaction. "I made up my mind. Therefore, it's going to happen." "I said these words, therefore, they're my policy." Style.

Now, one of the styles he's adopted, despite his quarrels with some of these people who he's having problems with, like McCain—and don't overrate Bush and ignore McCain; don't overrate Lieberman—there's a real case of evil on your hands. And he's not as dumb as Bush. He's clever. He's dangerous. McCain is much more dangerous—he's a real Manchurian [Candidate]; he's a hand grenade, rolling in our political process, and he might go off at any time.

So, when Bush is going to Peru, if he's going to talk about putting up some base in the jungle, he's reacting with style, of putting up U.S. military bases as an expression of his sexual pleasure in exerting power! I mean, this is like a Caligula phenomenon: The expression of power for the sake of power. The imposition of a style of imposing power, for the sake of doing it. Adopting phrases, because he likes the phrase, and makes the phrase a policy, even though he doesn't know what it means! And, then insists upon it, and enforces its. So, that's your problem.

Now, in terms of Peru's future: There's only one hope for Peru. There are no Peruvian solutions. There is a Peruvian role in a solution, but not a Peruvian solution. There's nothing at this point, Peru can do. Peru lost its sovereignty, with a legalized coup d'état which threw Fujimori out of government. That was a coup d'état, orchestrated by the United States government, with the backing of the drug lobby, which had a big interest, in this operation. Soros, for example; drug lobby.

Now, Peru can be a modern society—we've worked on this question, of its possible development. It has everything needed, to become a successful, modern nation-state—as does Argentina, in effect. The question is, is how do we get the combination of power in reorganizing the international financial system, through a reform, which makes this possible. Under those conditions, there is no limit to the rate of development of Peru. It has jungle, which it has not tapped, really. It has water resources, it has not begun to develop; it has all kinds of potentialities. It has a people with a certain history, and a sense of integrity. It's a nation—a real nation. And, it can do good things. It has an internal cadre, an intelligentsia, which is respectable, and can do things, can make decisions. It's a cultured nation, in terms of the nation as a whole. Under the right conditions, it can do everything.

South and Central America (what was referred to as Meso-America, by Marivilia [Carrasco], earlier today), it can do a great deal. What it needs, is a system, in which to do it. And, what we need to have is a sense of solidarity among the nations of the Americas, among the leaders of the nations of the Americas, and just say, "We're going to do it. We have to get the power to go ahead and do it." And that's our job.

PAPERT: I'm told that Rafi de Jesus had a question for Helga, at the student panel earlier.

DE JESUS: Actually, it's directed to Lyndon. Sorry about that [laughter]. I just want to say that (I got you back!) [laughter]; I just want to say that you're such an inspiration for my youth. For example, myself, because, I've been into politics, but as a kid, I've always been into video games also, and I decided to study computer animation, but, like, ever since I heard about you, I've been going with my ambition in political science. I just wanted to commend you for sticking up for what you believe in, and giving us youth of today, like, the right to go for what we think is right, instead of what we think'll be fun. [applause]

My question was really—earlier you said that we should go out, and, you know, talk to the youth—not only the youth—but the people, on what's going on in the world. And, you were speaking on deployments and stuff like that. But, something I came up with, with the help of the group I came with in New Jersey, is that: Human beings, we really don't for what we hear, as much as what we see, you know. It's great, you know, that you're speaking to us, and we know what you're all about, we know what we're all about; and, you know, we will support you all the way. But, what about the people that don't know about you? Right now, you're like the Caesar Sosa [ph?] of politics, you know? They hear great things about you, but they're like, "who's Lyndon?" Where I'm from, in my borough, where I live at, I speak about you a lot—you're like God. Everybody that knows me, "Oh, here comes Rafi. He's going to start talking about Lyndon," you know, "and on politics." But, I want my friends and everybody in my community to know about you, because the things that are happening now in the United States, as we all know it, it's just atrocious, you know? We have to do something about this.

And, I want to know, in your part, what are you doing to, like, go into communities, like in the Bronx; and, not only that, but in, like, places in the South, where, you know, racism is just like second nature to them. We need people like yourself, or your group to just go out and start talking to people, not only through things like what we're doing right now, but also through TV. I understand that the government has been like millions of dollars, just to keep you out of the media, but, there has to be a way, that we have to fight that—to get you to the media. Because, like I said, people only believe in what they see, with thEIR eyes. So, they can hear all these great things, but as long as they don't see it, as long as they don't see you, I think a lot of people don't know what you look like, you know? So, we have to do something about that, you know, because that's a problem! [applause, laughter]

So, in all favors, what can we do, to show people what you're all for? And show people, you know, what you have done? And spread your word out. I know deployment is good, but deployment is not all that. You know, we need to show people; we need to show them what you're doing.

LAROUCHE: Well, you know, there's a process in history, and you can not abstract yourself from the process, and imagine how you could work under any condition. You have to locate yourself in the process, in which you found yourself.

There is, at the present moment, a great change occurring in politics, social movements, and other things worldwide. This weekend's events featured, at least at my instigation, the question of the "cluster-bust." And the cluster is busting. The slime mold is disintegrating. And it's becoming very popular. We've got pictures of that slime mold on television (at least on our television), and we got people to see that that is what they're talking about, when they're talking about Enron!

"Oh! That's a disgusting thing! How do we get rid of it!"

"Well, how did we ever get it on our backs? Is it in our cellars, perhaps? We better clean the refrigerator: There might be some of that in there!"

Things like that. So, we've come to a time, in which we have certain pagan gods, which have ruled the United States. One is the mass media. What is the mass media? As I've said before, simply, shortly: The United States is ruled by a combination of a financier group; large, major law firms, like those in Washington and New York, and so forth; large accounting firms, which function just like law firms do, as enforcers—as we see in the Andersen case, in the case of Enron. And then, a mass media, which is controlled by the same thing. The entire mass media of the United States, is controlled top-down, by a fascist political animal—eh?—called the mass media! This includes, what? Not only television; not only major newspapers and magazines; not only networks as such, as well as the mass media, as such; but also mass entertainment which has a much greater influence on the mentality of the American population, than the so-called mass news media.

It is not the lies told by the mass news media, which are the primary driver of the corruption of the morals and mind of the American people. It is mass entertainment: And, if you want to understand how the mass news media works to corrupt and destroy the morals of people who become addicted to it—just as it's almost another version of Nintendo games!—what is done in the news media, is to replicate the mass entertainment media, as a so-called news media. If you study it, you recognize that very easily: Just look at it. There is no mass news media.

Once, we had what we called a mass news media, in the 1950s, 1960s, even into the 1070s. With the 1990s, the mass news media disappeared! Walter Cronkite is still alive, 85 years old, and off someplace doing something, still. But Cronkite and the CBS evening news, doesn't exist any more. News broadcasts like that don't exist; newspapers have become totally degenerate. They play into, with a few little communications underneath the tablecloth, so to speak, in the Washington Post, and so forth—you can pick things out of there, which is symptomatic—but that's the problem.

So, people sense that you can't do anything in politics, unless you can crack into the mass media, including the TV media. But, look, as I said before, earlier this weekend: What is the characteristic of the mass entertainment media? What is the characteristic of so-called "American democracy"? "American democracy" is a disgusting, immoral thing. It is "Crisis in Democracy"; it is Project Democracy; it is a controlled Congress, in which both the Republican and Democratic Party are controlled by Project Democracy, which runs both parties from the top-down, on national policy—issues. It's orchestrated. It's Big Brother. But, what's the other characteristic of it? The characteristic of mass entertainment, is mass entertainment: It is a replication in the modern electronic and other forms, of what? It's a replication of the Roman arena, the pagan Roman arena. It's blood and circuses; vox populi and popular opinion are the same thing. They are, as in ancient Rome, they are controlled by the mass entertainment media, including the bodily contact sports, such as the so-called rock video media, which is another strange form of bodily contact sports, eh? (Or, "unbodily contact sports," if you keep watching them long enough.)

So, that's where the problem is. We have to recognize, therefore, that the strategy for victory against these enemies, does not lie in trying to seduce them, into being nice to me. They will not do that. They will not do that—they never have, and they never will. I'm the enemy! Why should they be seduced by me? They hate me! They would like to obliterate the very notion that I exist! They have spent a great deal of money to that effect. It hasn't fully succeeded, but they spent a lot on it. And people who work with us, complain about the fact, "You are being obliterated by the media!" "Well, that's deliberate, buddy."

But, what happens on the day, that the mass media loses its authority? Then you have new politics. So, the only way you can do this, and you have to have a sense of the power of ideas to do that—not a sense of what the postures ought to be—the only way you can do that is, be patient. Terribly patient; awfully patient; and awfully impatient at the same time.

You have to realize, the system is coming down. The New Economy is dead! It was a farce, and it's now dead. The market, so-called, which was a god—you get into Congress: What do they talk about? The "market"! What are the Congressmen talking about? The "market"! "How's the market doing?" They were high or low, in emotions that day, based on "the market": "How's the market doing?" The god called "the market" is about to die. What is the mass media devoted to, largely? The so-called "news media"? It's largely Wall Street: It's "the market." What do you see on the evening news? Or the daily news, or the all-day news? The market! The market! The market! What's happening to the market? They say there's a recovery in process: Oh-ho-ho! Dracula's back again! There is no recovery; it's collapsing. When the institution of the so-called "recovery," the eternal Dracula, is discredited; when these other institutions are discredited, that is the time that a people suddenly,—and they're doing it now; we're getting a lot of indications of it: They're doing it now. They come out of the ether. And, they go to new ways, of responding, new ways of thinking, new ways of responding. The trick is to be there.

Now, what Rafi has mentioned, which is true, is that the weakness in this organization (and I've been complaining about it for a long time—for about 20-odd years, in fact)—the weakness in this association, has been a resistance to a policy of outreach. The tendency has been, for people to try to organize, by saying, "The latest news is" the following. And, by peddling the news, to get some sexual excitement into what you have to say. "Did you hear the latest?" "Did you hear the latest?" "Did you hear the latest?" "Did you hear the latest?" So, you're following events, not making them. Outreach consists of talking to people, in terms of forecasting. Of saying "Here's what is happening now. You know that, don't you? Of course. Here's what is about to happen. You know that, don't you? You don't agree, do you, huh? Well, you're wrong! Well, you're wrong! But you don't agree—I know you don't agree. You believe in this nonsense, don't you? And, it's coming down: Here's how it's going to come down. Do you want to know?"

That's how you organize. And, it's not that simple, but that is a succinct summation, of what must be done. You have people out there, who are divorced from reality, they don't understand what's going on in the world. They say, "I can't understand this stuff. I can't be involved." Most of the American voters are not involved in politics. They've turned away from the parties. They're out there—nobody pays any attention to them. People pay attention to people, who are likely to vote! That's what the politicians pay attention to—"who is likely to vote?" Politics and propaganda is based on addressing those, who they think are likely to vote. What is the condition of most Americans? They are unlikely to vote! Nobody pays any attention to them. And they pay no attention to themselves. They sit there, and they suffer, like slaves, who have no rights at the big, white master's house. Our job, is to get the slaves into revolt. The slaves are those who are not organized, who are not moving, who are inert, because they don't see there's any possibility they could make it. They just want to survive. They want to roll over that credit-card account. They want to hope, that they don't lose thEIR mortgage. They want to hope, that they don't lose all thEIR jobs. They're desperate and frightened. They're numb! Intellectually numb! with the situation, in which they find themselves—the hopelessness of it.

Somebody has to go out, and inspire them to see, the situation is not hopeless—it's only desperate. And, what is needed, is that outreach.

PAPERT: Moise Cesar [ph] had lined up at the mike from New York.

Q: [paraphrase] My name is Moise Cesar from New York; my business is a sewing machine company.

I heard Mr. LaRouche, last night, talking about professional business, and intelligent people have to know how you have to act. But, so many people know about the collapse, and they are able to do nothing. If they have a mind to create something, perhaps it might happen.

My question to Mr. LaRouche is about business: The situation is that so many people in business don't see what's going on. From 1982-1989, business was OK. Up to 1982, there were too many taxes, and many people went out of business, closed offices. The mass of people working lost thEIR jobs. They could no longer afford to hang onto thEIR businesses—some kept going just barely. Why? Everything is gone—the market, today, you see, the market is down. What do you think about industry coming back into the United States—whether clothing manufacturing, construction, or manufacturing? What do you envisage for that, in the American economy.

LAROUCHE: I've written something, which is fairly long, which is in the process of being published. A total issue of EIR will be devoted to that. Now, in that, what I address is the subject of that, essentially a continuation of what was the foreword of "At the End of a Delusion." What it is, is an outline, which is being completed in part—it will be supplemented by the work of John Hoefle and Richard Freeman, on the various implications of this. But, it's an outline of the approach to an economic recovery for the United States, under the present and immediately impending conditions. One of the points I emphasize, to which your question is relevant, in that (and I refer to it, in that sense, which comes in in the second chapter of this report), is the question of what we call "small business," or the "entrepreneur." By small business, I mean largely firms, which are closely held, which are less than 150 employees—from several to 150, or something like order; 200 in Germany, in some cases, which are called in Germany, "the Mittelstand." These, I refer, especially, to all firms—and there're typical firms like this in Italy. I referred to this, also, as in Northern Italy, as in Vicenza, where I was recently: where the largest small firm in the city, which is a very prosperous city in one sense, 150 employees, or about 140-odd employees. It's a high-tech firm. It's a buttress of the export industry of Italy, which is located in five of the states of Italy, in the north. And, this is typical, these small businesses.

Now, what happened in the United States, was—and you reflect that, in your discussion of this period 1982-89, and then later: The fact is, that the gut of business in the United States, was never the large corporation. The gut of industry in the United States, was the privately held, or the closely held, entrepreneurship; which was generally run by one person, at the top, who was the leader of the organization; who had special qualities, which I refer to in this report, which made him or her successful as the leader of that business.

Now, the problem is, the large corporation, which is a financier-related, usually Wall Street-controlled stock corporation, does not take intellectual risk. It does not take a true long-term view. It follows trends: It doesn't make them. Therefore, progress in the United States, as in the case of Germany, or the case of Italy: Genuine progress always comes from the entrepreneur of this type, of the so-called private or closely held business enterprise, which is led by one or two or several individuals, who have some unusual talent, individually or collectively. And, you would see these firms go bankrupt, as a result of the their taking over, after the primary leader and founder of the firm had died, or had retired. Because they would go to methods of "business management," rather than entrepreneurship! They would get away from cognition. They would try to "play it safe." They would let their accountant tell them how to run their business, which is the best way to go bankrupt.

Now, the point is, if we're going to rebuild the U.S. economy, I emphasize, that we've got to recognize the role of the entrepreneurship. And, we need, not a Small Business Administration, because that became a foolish thing, in the way it was done. What you need, is a focus on entrepreneurship, with such weapons as low-cost credit—1 to 2% long-term interest, special considerations; protection, in the terms of lawful protection of certain categories of businesses, which can not survive to make it, without that kind of protection; and, especially, high technology; and providing, as Kennedy tried to, when he was President, an investment tax credit system: where you put the taxes on the capital gains by financiers, but you have a compensatory lowering of the tax rate, in the form of an investment tax credit, on the entrepreneur, who is investing for the future and development of that firm, and the economy.

So, the key thing is, under the present conditions, the situation of the economy of the United States, is at this moment, hopeless! It is hopeless for everyone! I don't think people in the United States, or even in this room, have yet fully realized the rate of the collapse, which is now already ongoing in the United States! It's not something which I'm predicting: It's what is happening! This economy is disintegrating, as we stand here, sit here, right now. So, that's inevitable! The shock of that, has to be used, and mobilized, to mobilize people to begin to take political action, to kick the Cain out of McCain! And similar kinds of things. And, to get Lieberman screaming for love! Things like that.

We've got to move. But you can't just move: You've got to have a mission. You've got to have an orientation. You've got to have a plan—at least a mission plan—not necessarily a detailed plan, but a mission plan. And, one of the things we have to do, is get people, in an area like New York, who are small businessmen, who do things—who can do things; and let them say, "We are ready to come forth, if the government will provide this kind of credit, this kind of program. We'll meet with the government, to get this part of the economy going again."

We're not going to get the money, up front. We're going to have to get the politics up front, to get the money delivered, to do the job.

PAPERT: Jack Stockwell, the famous talk-show host, who had a famous dialogue with Lyndon LaRouche, while the events of the morning of Sept. 11 were playing out, has a question....

JACK STOCKWELL: Good afternoon, and greetings from the only truly theocratic state in the Union [laughter]. My question, I think, is along that line. We're kind of out there, in the "Marlboro Man" utopia, where we kind of spend half the day thanking God, we're not New York and California, and the other half of the day wondering why the rest of the Union can't see that. They're concerned about abortion; they're concerned about Second Amendment; they're concerned about welfare state—everything. One out of a hundred people might think the way I've been trying to get my listeners to think on my radio show. My question is, kind of unique to our area, I think: In how to deal with a theocratic organization, where most of your state legislature is made up of the predominant religion. And you're dealing with people, who see themselves in a real unique light, not so much that they're not so worried about making it to Heaven, rather than Hell; but, the highest level of Heaven. This seems to be the thing that occupies their time, more than anything else.

So, the whole orientation of my show, is to try to get people to quite worrying about abortion; quit worrying about the Second Amendment; quite worrying about whether the first bomb over the Pacific has got Russian letters or Chinese letters on it: But to look at the fact that Geneva Steel is shut down, already—there's 1,000 people laid off. Iomega has shut down; Thiokol is cutting back, who makes the Shuttle booster rockets. And, I guess the question's in the context: When you're living in a religious state [Utah], what would you be saying to those people? And, Helga, perhaps you might have some input, here, as well.

Thank you.

LAROUCHE: [laughing] Well, sometimes in a case like that—. Of course, I've had some encounters out there, in that state. I've met Ezra Taft Bentsen [ph], on one occasion, for about an hour; and, met with circles associated with him; and Claude Cleon [ph] for a longer period time. I got a fairly good exposure, in a short period of time, to exactly what I was looking at. And, coming from my background, and understanding what I knew and knowing very little about them, just from the outside: I would say, that, in a case like that, my tendency would be, rather, as I have done, actually—as you may have noticed—I tend to ignore them. Which seems to offend them.

But, the reason I ignore it, I don't like to get into religious conflicts, for several reasons: First of all, I don't think that's the way to go at it. I don't want to fight with people about religious belief. If something really stinks, and is evil, is trying to do some damage, well, I'll mention that, and I'll deal with that, in that point. But, I believe that the religion and state must be actually separated. That may not be popular in that particular state, but I believe that state and religion should not be mixed. I don't care what the religion is! I do not believe in an integralist form of society, in which the religion and the state are one and the same thing. In which the religion dictates the policy of the state, and the state dictates the policy of the religion: I don't believe in that—it's wrong.

I believe, and I think we should have learned from history, then—and we should have learned from Christianity—actual Christianity, not these packaged doses that they have for special people; but we should have learned that, Christianity was right. Christ was right, and I stand by that. But that doesn't require that I go around imposing Christ, as a government, on various governments! It doesn't require that. I simply have to do what I have to do; state what I'm doing; state who I am. And, say the state must be run by universal principles, which are not necessarily those of any church. They may coincide with what a good religion ought to believe. But they're not going to be, on the basis of saying, they are a theocratic state!

Therefore, if I am speaking as a political figure, I'm going to address the issues that the state should address, as a state. And, I'm not going to mix up the religious questions, with the questions of the state. We had, for example: From the time of—even earlier—in the Norman-Venetian alliance, in the history of medieval Europe, we had a long range of the ultramontanism, which was largely controlled, first by Byzantium. And, then, was taken over by Venice, in alliance with the Normans, who were a pestilence upon all Europe. And, you had the specific period, from Henry II of England, through the getting rid of Richard III of England; but especially in the period up until the fall of the Lombard bankers in the 14th Century: You had a Europe, which had developed—as typified by the Chartres school and the other good cathedral-builders, and so forth—you had a beautiful development of culture in Europe, which was destroyed by "ultramontanism." Which became a form of religious warfare, between state and church. This is what led to the great Dark Ages, in which half or so, of the population of Europe was wiped out in religious warfare.

We had from 1511 to 1648, another spate of an effort at religious warfare. Therefore, I think it's a matter of principle, that the state says, "We are blind to the existence of church." And, the politician, who wishes to make the solutions, should not appeal to the churches as churches, on political issues; but, rather, appeal directly to the citizen, as a citizen, on the question of the religious issues. But, not as religious issues: as moral issues, as issues of principle. And, there's no need for anything different.

What I would do, with a case like Utah, is say—as you mentioned: "The joint's going belly-up! Now, the spaceship's not coming to fly in, to rescue you, right now! But the government might. So, keep religion and the state, separate. Government will take responsibility for what the Federal government should take responsibility for, in terms of leadership."

And, I think, that if we give a picture—as I tried to, in this report, which is the process of being published—if we give people in the United States, not merely emphasis, as I've had to do, on the negative sides of what's happened; but more emphasis on what we can do, in terms of rebuilding this economy, and how rapidly we can do it, I would hope that we can inspire people, at the moment they're about to plunge into desperation and hysteria, and inspire them to have a vision of what can become of the future. Now, the best Christians will automatically go along with me—the real ones, all of them. Why? Because the best Christians believe in the simultaneity of eternity, at least in some degree. Therefore, they believe that what they do, now, for the benefit of present and future humanity, is the source of the immortal interest of thEIR life. And, therefore, they're willing to put thEIR life at risk, if necessary, in order to ensure the future. Because, after all, the future's the only thing you have, when you're going to die, aren't you? We're all going to die: Therefore, the only thing we can cling to, is the future, beyond our death. Therefore, the future beyond our death, is our most fundamental interest, if we have the sense to recognize it.

Now, many people recognize that, in degree. You wouldn't have had many families, but for that. When parents raise children, they make sacrifices—or used to (and probably, they make sacrifices of the children, today, for all I know!), but they used to make sacrifices for the children, not of them! They were thinking of the future; they were thinking of developing children, who would become better, more accomplished, than they were. And, they would think this investment in developing children, fighting for thEIR education, fighting for thEIR opportunities, fighting for self-development, was worth sacrificing for! So, that most of the population still has, in it, some of that sense. It's often misused by family-value doctrines and so forth. But, the sense of the future, a commitment to the future, "Beyond my death, there is something waiting, which I am creating now."

That's, I think, the only way to address these guys: Is to get under thEIR skins; ignore thEIR pitch; get to the real message of Christianity, which is not just a Christian message: It's the idea of the commitment, that "My immortal interest demands that you and your children have a future. That's my immortal interest. And, here's what I want you to have. Here's what you can take for yourself. Would you please help me get it for you." It's possible. And, it's by that kind of inspiration, that I think we can move and salvage a lot of this population. I don't think there's any other way to do it.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I just want to add one thing, which is, one could start with the truth, and call "Lieberman," "Boeseman"! Lieberman means "nice man," and obviously, he's not so nice, so he should be called "evil man." It's a pun—anyway. It obviously does not function in English.

I would just like to share with you, some of the—

LYNDON LAROUCHE: [aside] Call him, "Mr. Bad Nerd."

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Or "Not So Lieberman." I would just like to share with you, some of the discussions I had, in the recent period, in Berlin, which is actually very interesting, because, officially people say what they say. But there is an earthquake underneath, and that is, that people in actually conservative circles, but also Social Democratic circles, church circles: They, basically, behind closed doors, and only among themselves, discuss that we are at a situation, just shortly before the collapse of the D.D.R. [East Germany] in '89. And, this is about to happen in the West, in general. And, then these circles discuss, what can be done, and this is a literal quote, "What can be done, then, to save civilization and culture?" Now, I find this absolutely remarkable. And, when I shared that perception with some ambassadors, they said, "Look: This is exactly what we thought. But we didn't know people here were thinking about it. And we know that what happened in Argentina, could happen anytime, where all of a sudden, you have new governments. And the population doesn't stop the pots-and-pans demonstrations, because they don't trust what the government is saying, the moment the first speech is being made."

So, this is the reality. And, I would just find ways of communicating that to people. I think the problem you described for Utah—and I was with Lyn, when we went there, some years ago; I think it's only a little bit more aggravated than the rest of the United States, but not much. Because, the problem—and I raised this some years ago—that, the media control of this country is so enormous, that you think you know what's going on in the world, and you don't! I know it, because I try, every time, to look for things I know are going on, and they're never reported. I mean, you have the most important speeches being made, by other heads of state; you have extremely important developments; and if it does not fit what is perceived to be the immediate American interest, you will never find out about it.

But, for example: Something which is really earthshaking, and completely new, is that, after the Bush speech of the State of the Union Address, there was about 3-4 days complete silence in Europe. Nobody made any comment that he even gave a speech. The fact that the speech was given, was maybe a two-line or three-line note, but nobody touched it! But, obviously, it caused a complete earthquake. And, then immediately following that came the annual military conference, of, basically, the North Atlantic Alliance, the so-called Wehrkunde European security conference in Munich, where you had Lieberman, McCain, Perle, and Wolfowitz making these absolutely incredible statements. I've forgotten now, who said what, exactly, if it was McCain; he said, "We do it alone," you know; basically, "We don't need NATO any more." And, this was such a shocking experience: The combination of the "axis of evil" speech, the absolute unilateral behavior, and, for example: McCain would say these unbelievable things, and he would be grinning all the time. You know, he said [in falsetto]: "We go to war. Here! We go to war!" And, people really got convinced, that they're dealing with something totally crazy, dangerous.

And, after some initial shock, and people were really shell-shocked: It took them a week or so, to conceptualize what was going on. But, then, people started to say, flat, "No." That they completely disagree with the "axis of evil" policy. These were politicians from the CDU, the SPD, the FDP—so, the entire political spectrum in Germany, came out, for the first time, saying, "No" to what Bush had said; "no" to the attacks on Iraq. And, this is unprecedented.

Then, around the same weekend, you had all political parties in Germany, coming out, simultaneously through their spokesmen, condemning the Israeli policy. For example, the spokesman of the CDU—conservative party, pro-American, pro-Atlantic [Alliance]; I mean, you can't get more pro-American parties than these parties: But, this guy, his name is Lammers [ph], he said, "Germany committed once a crime, but we would make ourselves guilty, not to speak against the policies of Israel, today, because we would repeat making ourselves being guilty, by not speaking out against it." Now, in Germany, this is a complete no-no; it's a taboo. You can not criticize Israel. You can not say there is a second Holocaust, because there is only one Holocaust. So, for German politicians to come out in this way, is really an earthquake! And, the same thing happened in France, where Védrine, Jospin, and so forth, they all completely distanced themselves from this Bush policy. And, this all a reflection of the fact, that, while nobody says, "Look, this system is finished," a lot of people know it.

So, I think that, I were you, in Utah, with a radio show—look, what I would do, is, knowing that this country is like—I always can't get this word: But you have many good French and Italian cheeses, and you put a glass over it, so that the smell doesn't come out: I mean, this is the control of the media. And, what is lacking, is some fresh air from the outside. So, what I would do, I would just start to report, whenever something really important happened, which is not covered by the other media. Like, for example, when President Mubarak makes an important speech, or when you have other important things, which are completely against the spirit of the times transmitted by the media, I would just report it—factually. And if somebody opposes it, well, you just say, "Well, this just happened," you know. And, that way, you build up an awareness in the population, that they're being completely deprived of the real developments of the world. And, I think there are ways of how to—and I fully agree with Lyn; that's what I always do: If I'm talking to somebody who's obviously ideologically, totally stuck, and fixed, I always ignore that, and I just keep talking to this person, as if he would be completely sane. [laughter] And, in most of the cases, it works, after a while.

Because I believe in the reality principle. I think that, if people start to see that the world is not this cheese tray, then they start to conceptualize that the world looks different. Now, if you want, we can help you with that, because we normally have a very good overview of what are the crucial things, and I don't know if that fits the ability of your show. But, I would just start doing that. What do other leaders in the world say? Because you never, ever, in the United States find a newspaper article, which honestly covers what anybody else in the world says. It's worse than the Soviet propaganda, at the time of the Soviet Union; and that is not an exaggeration.

PAPERT: Daniel Mark wanted to ask a question earlier, in the student meeting. Is he here?...

Q: My name's Daniel Mark, I'm here from Indiana University. I believe in growth and progress, specifically economically. I also believe in improving education, getting knowledge, advancing technology. But, I also understand that my view of growth and progress is specific to my own culture, and other cultures might not think of growth, progress, or even success, as I do. So, my question is regarding the mixture of the Land-Bridge, the Dialogue of Civilizations, and culture. If we build the entire the Land-Bridge, affecting practically every culture in the world, will we be imposing our beliefs about growth and progress on cultures that don't view the world as we do? Would we be inviting our technology, corporations, and ways of life to parts of the world, that may not want them, and may be better off without them? And, will the world simply become so interconnected, that we will blend into one large culture?

LAROUCHE: Well, what you express is the objection, which is called "cultural relativism," which was a doctrine, which was introduced by the British, in defense of oppression of colonial peoples. The British said: The people in colonial countries, such as India, where I was for a time; or northern Burma, where I was, for a time, during military service, would say, [affecting a veddy British accent] "Oh, those people, you know. They're a bit of different culture. We cawn't impose our culture upon them." And, the oppression continued. And, cultural relativism is always used as a standard.

Now, what standard should you use, in dealing in the distinction between imposing some oppressive on people, and giving them something, or introducing something to them, which they need? Well, you have to start from a principle of truth. What is the truth, about what is beneficial to a human being? What is the truth, about the nature of a human being, as distinct from an animal. So, therefore, the first guide we should always take, in respect to such matters, is the question of truth. Now, the truth indicates, that what if you don't give them a Land-Bridge program? What happens to them? Hell. If you do not cooperate with China, with India, with Russia, with Kazakstan, with Korea, and the other countries, which are already—and also Iran, the other country which has also expressed this desire for a Land-Bridge program. So, there really is—except for very isolated pockets, which are very politically orchestrated, there is no opposition, to a Land-Bridge program from a cultural standpoint, in any part of Asia, which is affected! So, there is no objection.

So, should we worry about something, which is truthfully required, by the benefit of these people, and for which there is no objection? The problems involved in this, are of a different nature. They're problems of "do we dare do it, in defiance of the Anglo-Americans?" That's the only objection. Now, of course, there are academics, who are living in an academic glass-house, who will say, "No, the people in these countries are concerned about thEIR relative cultural values. We're going to destroy thEIR cultural values." Now, most of what they're talking about, is: You had here, this ambassador from Zimbabwe. They're trying to express thEIR culture. What is thEIR culture, and what is the oppression? The oppression, the British say, is to take away poverty from the Zimbabweans, by giving them the land that was promised them, is unfair, it's immoral, and sanctions should be imposed upon the Zimbabweans for trying to do that to thEIR people! You heard the Zimbabwe ambassador, speak of this: Was Zimbabwe objecting, to the kind of policies which we have proposed in terms of the Land-Bridge? No, it doesn't exist.

What happened was, essentially that: For example, you have a famous case in southern Sudan. Southern Sudan has an interesting history. There was a fellow called Evans-Pritchard, who was the father of the notorious Evans-Pritchard, the correspondent who used to go after President Clinton, here in Washington, D.C. He was an anthropologist. Now, what he did, was the following: His career followed in the track of Kitchener's conquest of Sudan, and the British conquest of the entire Great Lakes region of Central Africa. And, he went into this area of the southern part of Sudan, in furtherance of the British effort to split southern Sudan from the rest of Sudan. He created a category, called "Nilotic peoples." And said, there had to be a nation of "Nilotic peoples," who would be a separate nation from Sudan. Now, this was always British policy: Was to control the water resources of the whole Nile system, by having some kind of a puppet government in a region, where they could control the water resources, which would control life and death for that entire area of the world.

Now, there are no "Nilotic peoples." The peoples in that area, are of many different cultural backgrounds; they're simply a spillover into a relatively swampy and mountainous area of populations, from other populations of the area. So, there is no homogeneous culture. The problem in that area, has been, to the extent that the cultural relativists have gotten into it, is they stir up constant fights among the peoples in the area. And, the objective in the area, is to say, that the water development of the area must never occur. There's a project planned for development of canal systems and water-management systems, which would turn that part of Africa, into a control point for the breadbasket for much of that part of Eastern Africa. And would benefit all of the people of the entire region; and a great benefit to all the people in that area. They want that.

But, somebody comes in from the British monarchy, from Thatcher's friends, and says it must not happen. That's typical. And this has always gone on. There is no danger of what the cultural relativists complain about. There are other questions. The question is elementary: The question is, a question of sovereign nation-state; that every people, which does constitute a nation, a nationality, which has that kind of cultural continuity, which is able to be a responsible sovereign nation-state, has the right to be a sovereign nation-state. That's traditional American policy, American patriotic policy. Therefore, the issue is only, not "are we imposing our culture on other people?" In some academic circles, that thing is argued. But I would argue, all those academic circles are either evil, or just plain incompetent. There is no legitimate basis for it. The basis is: Do we recognize, the principle of sovereignty, of a people? And, do we do things, not by imposing something upon them, but, we do it, with thEIR agreement. And, that solves the problem.

PAPERT: Alonso Jackson from Columbia, Maryland, had lined up at the mike. Here he comes.

Q: I have a question for Mr. Lyndon LaRouche: Where would the Russia and U.S. space program been, if the SDI was implemented?

LAROUCHE: Well, what I did, essentially, was this; it was a very interesting thing. I'll try summarize it very quickly, because it was a long process: What I was concerned about, at that time, was two things: First of all, we had the greatest depression in the world coming on, and the danger of fascism emerging as a result, specifically of what had happened in 1971, with Nixon breaking up the world monetary system of that time. I also was concerned about the fact, which I got more and more to during the early 1970s: That the agreements that had been reached under Kissinger, between the Soviet Union and the United States were not going to be a guarantee of peace, but were actually were a threat of unleashing a war, a future war between the Soviet Union and the United States. That is, the so-called missile agreements—the ABM agreement, and the SALT I agreement, were not—and the proposal of what later became SALT II—was not a way of avoiding war, but was a way of cranking up, under those economic conditions, toward the inevitability of war.

Therefore, my question was: How do we stop that? Given the character of the U.S. government; given the character of the Soviet government, of that time. What I concentrated upon, was the fact that, we had had a defective space program, which, essentially, was being destroyed, from 1967 on. If you look at the '66-'67 budget, and, if any of you come from New England and are old enough to remember, you recall that there was a disaster that struck New England, in that year, and immediately following, when you had a collapse of the so-called "Route 128 high-tech area," which had been the space-science area. And, that part of the world has never fully recovered. There was a blurb upon [Interstate highway] 495, and up into New Hampshire, but that also collapsed, later on. So, there has been no real progress in that area, with the collapse of the space program. That was typical of the problem.

By 1979, in point of fact, we had reached the point, we no longer, in the United States, had the technological capability to have made the Moon space-shot. We had destroyed many of the industries, which were integral to the ability to do that. So, therefore, had two views: The United States was going to Hell; the economy was going to Hell. The Soviet economy outside of its military-industrial complex, was in a process of disintegration, because of the intrinsic incompetence, of the Soviet method of management of the so-called civilian sector and its related policies.

Then, I got wind of, in 1975, papers by circles of Brzezinski, who then had set up the Trilateral Commission, and was going to become the dictator of a prospective Carter Administration, especially since the meeting in Tokyo, which established the Trilateral Commission under Carter's candidacy. And, I knew that the policies of Brzezinski, and of the Carter crowd around Brzezinski—if implemented, under these conditions—could lead to a thermonuclear showdown between the United States and Soviet Union. That, under those conditions, the ABM Treaty and the SALT I Treaty were worthless pieces of paper; they were the worst possible thing to do. Therefore, I began, in 1977, in particular, after running a campaign to try to stop Carter, or try to put the spoke in the wheel, of Carter—on this danger: Because, we had documents, at the time, which indicated the policies of the Brzezinski-Schlesinger etc. crowd, were policies of plan for a nuclear confrontation. So I wanted to stop it.

Therefore, my view was, if we could somehow get the Soviet Union, to recognize that it was disintegrating, economically—which it did—and that the United States was also disintegrating—that is, losing the potential that it had in the early 1960s, which was the case; if we also recognized that the so-called "developing countries" were victims of a great injustice, which had just been magnified by the 1971 slashing and destruction of the monetary system, by Nixon; that we needed a solution, which was the real solution, to the real problem. The real problem, at that time, was not a danger of a threat between the Soviet Union and the United States: There was no legitimate reason of interest for such a war! That was not the problem. The problem was: That if these economies continued to degenerate, then the impulse for war, was inevitable, as the United States side showed.

The issue, which was crucial in this was: What is the policy of the two nuclear complexes, with respect to the fate and welfare of the developing sector? Now, my view was: How do we get back to a Franklin Roosevelt approach to the postwar world, as opposed to the so-called Truman approach? My view was that the major powers, that is, at that point, the Soviet Union and the Atlantic Alliance—that these two power groups must resume the Roosevelt intention for the postwar world, as it affected cooperation and affected also the developing nations. That was our purpose. This is how I got involved in the 1975 Middle East plan for peace; the later production of the Oasis Plan—the same thing, all the same continuity. My concern was, as our work in Africa; our work in South and Central America—my concern was, always—and also India; my concern was: How do we find a way, to rebuild, under those conditions, the kind of new policy, which would lead to the kind of result, as which Roosevelt had aimed, and would have carried out, had he not died prematurely, in the postwar period. To create, in a sense, a real American Century, with the initiative the United States would carry forward, the true purpose of the United States—at least of my United States—is to build a concert of nations (somebody would call it a "multipolar world"); a concert of nations, dedicated to a common purpose; a concert formed upon the sponsoring initiative of the United States, itself, build the kind of world, in which these issues could become resolved.

Now, what happened was, that for various reasons, the Reagan Administration, or people in the Reagan Administration, in December 1981, approached me, in response to a message I had sent to people in high-ranking positions of the administration, on a Soviet approach to me, personally. And, the response was, to suggest that I conduct a back-channel discussion with the Soviet government. This was in December of 1981. I had already proposed what became known as the SDI. I had proposed it in August 1979, in a paper we produced on this subject, as part of my campaign for the Presidential nomination that year. Reagan and I had had an interesting encounter in New Hampshire. We talked together briefly about rather inconsequential measures, but we became acquainted at that table in a New Hampshire political event. So that, when the Reagan transition was becoming President, after being elected, I had a lot of meetings in Washington, with Reagan circles; the transition government, and with certain people in the Reagan Administration itself. And, I had a lot of friends, and respect among people in various influential circles around Washington.

So, at that point, I decided to move down, into the Washington area. But, at the same time, the government asked me to undertake this back-channel discussion with the Soviet government. I said, "Well, I don't know how useful role I could play, unless they would support the idea that I would independently present—what I was already in the process of presenting—is a proposal for U.S. and Soviet cooperation, in developing what would be later named, by Reagan, the SDI. So, from February of 1982 through February of 1983, I conducted a series of meetings on behalf of the U.S. government, with a Soviet representative. In which these transmissions between the Soviet government and me, were going on, and I was, in the meantime of course, sharing and reporting on what I was discussing with relevant people in the National Security Council.

At a certain point, President Reagan adopted that policy, in early 1982. And, despite the fact that Andropov had already notified me, indirectly, that his government would not accept this, and there was a discussion of that, and I had made a counter-proposal that they reconsider. But, at that point, Reagan decided to go ahead: He got his speechwriter assigned to write a small part of the speech, which he was going to deliver as a television announcement—a national television announcement—on the 23rd of March. It was about a five-minute length segment of that speech, at the end of the speech. On the day before, that is, on the 22nd of March, James Baker III got wind of this five-minute segment, and pulled it, from the speech; other people in the National Security Council got together with the President, and told him that this part had been pulled from the speech—and the President put it back in, without informing James Baker III. [applause]

And, that's how it happened. Today, the same thing applies: As a result of this transaction, there were people inside the former Soviet apparatus, and others—. I should also say, that key people in the military, in France, in Italy, in Germany, in other countries, became active during this period, in full support. General Karst, for example, who just recently died this past month, who was actually the founder of the Bundeswehr, or spiritually, in a sense, the leader of the founding of the Bundeswehr; who has been a friend of mine, essentially, since that time, in 1982. We met in Bonn, in 1982, and he became the key figure, and we had a lot of the German military command—leadership, senior figures—who I would meet with and we would meet with regularly; with the top command of the French military; leading generals and admirals of the Italian [military], and so forth, around the world, were meeting with me. So, at the time, that the President made the announcement and the offer on March 23, 1983, a lot of people in the world were lined up behind that.

So, when the Soviet Wall came down, and I came out of prison, at that time, already, this presentation of my role in this affair, was presented by Helga and others, in meetings with Russian officials, who had also been top Soviet officials, in meetings in Germany and elsewhere. So, on that basis, when I came out of prison, and went to Russia, things began to click: Because I am known among the Russian circles, who were in the relevant positions at the time, as a legendary figure. A legendary, historical figure. And, therefore, I have a certain influence in the world today, in many circles, because of that. And, that's how this thing developed.

Today it's valid, because it's the same thing: You recall that, in 1988, I made the same proposal in a different form, but the same proposal in principle, in a speech I delivered in Berlin on Columbus Day, Oct. 12, 1988: which I proposed what became known as the "European Triangle," in effect; saying that, in the immediate period ahead, that the Soviet system was going to disintegrate, and the reunification of Germany was imminent; and that new policies, between the United States and Russia, and so forth, and these countries, had to be based on this consideration.

So, it's been a continuous process over the period I've just described, to the present, of that. That is my policy today. The conditions have changed, somewhat. Opportunities have changed: But the basic principle is the same. What Franklin Roosevelt intended to do, in continuation of the policies of people like John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, and so forth—what he intended to do, with the world, should he have lived to the end of the war, in ending the colonial system, and establishing a system of global reconstruction, and reorganization, and decolonialization, is my policy today. And, therefore, I've been through the mill—not all the mill, but a lot of the mill—on many of these issues, over a period, especially of the past 30 years. And, therefore, I'm somewhat seasoned and familiar with all the details of this kind of business. [applause]

PAPERT: Kathy Wolfe submitted a written question, but wouldn't you rather ask it, rather than have me read it?

Okay. She wants me to read it. "Yesterday, in your keynote, Lyn, you referred to a proliferation of new wars, threatened by the utopian military grouping, which has been undermining our Republic for decades. Our briefing is rightly focussed on the enormous dangers in the Mideast. Could you also give us your estimate of these utopians might be willing to go, in actually attempting to prosecute wars, in other widely distributed geographical areas? How far these utopians might be willing to go, in prosecuting wars in other widely distributed areas? You mentioned China and Russia as ultimate targets: What vehicles might they use to do that?

LAROUCHE: Well, as I said, the basic danger comes from the Bush Administration side—and not only the Bush Administration side—as a matter of style, even more than plan: That, they're like a wild, stupid beast, a crazed beast, which has certain propensities—its style. It reacts according to its style. If you think of it as an animal, more than human, you understand it better. It reacts with style: How does a cat kill? How does a cat kill a dog; a large dog? By getting on the dog's head, and clawing its eyes out. That's what a cat does. That's why a cat is dangerous to a dog. How does a tiger kill? How does a hyena kill? How does a snake kill? They react, like an animal, with certain tropisms, built into them, like President Bush, as I described his style of response. Now, they do make plans, but thEIR reactions, come in the form of style. They have a long-term perspective: It's vague; it's muddy; it's ideological. But they have it perfected: They believe, essentially, that power is the power of the secret police, the assassin, and military power of that form. They believe crushing force, assassination, murder, mass-murder—similar methods; like what you're seeing in Guantanamo Bay. That's what they believe in. That's thEIR method. And, they react like an animal, with those tropisms, to the situation.

They are determined to rule this planet. They are determined to grab all the natural resources, of every continent, and deprive the people of those continents, of access to those resources, and take them directly under Anglo-American control. They want China to die. See, but, you've got a problem there: Because George Bush, the Bush family's money comes, in significant part, from Prescott Bush's dealings with China. George Bush made a lot of money from China, when he was Ambassador to China, and thereafter. The Bush family have been bought by China. They may not honor the deed, but they've been bought! And, so, somehow or other, it gets through to the son, that China is a good place to go.

So, they would like to play China against Russia; China against Japan; Japan against China; both against Korea; all against Southeast Asia, and so forth and so on; and Central Asia. That is the way they think. Just think how the Romans thought: How did the Romans control a large population? By getting the subject peoples to kill each other! That's called "geopolitics"; and that's what they will do. They will do—in these areas, they will not go with a grand invasion, though they may do things like that, but that's not thEIR basic policy. ThEIR policy is to threaten grand invasions, to intimidate; to take the victim, and reduce him to the state of quivering jelly, when he loses his power to resist. And then, strike him! Or get somebody else to strike him. But, what they intend to do, is to destroy the whole region. They intend, in effect, to destroy this planet.

Look, the people behind this, know thEIR ideology: They think a population of a billion people on this planet, is far too much to tolerate. And, they plan to correct that error. That's thEIR long-term thinking. They're Malthusians. They're against technology; they're against science. That's what the New Economy was. The New Economy is technology, without technology of science. There's no science; there's no scientific progress. To get a permanent system. This came up in MIT in the 1970s, around this lunatic, Prof. Marvin Minsky, Noam Chomsky's buddy. And, they came up with the idea, of the "perfect machine": You would build the "perfect machine," based on what's called "artificial intelligence." And, this machine, once started, would do everything. And, you wouldn't need people any more. That's Minsky: What Minksky is, is a creation of, what? Of the Bertrand Russell machine. He's a creation of the entire utopian crowd, which ran the radiation laboratory at MIT, in the entire postwar period, which runs it to the present day. You can not overlook the factor of absolute lunacy, in these circles. So, they have certain long-term axiomatic assumptions, which we know—we've published this stuff! We know this stuff, we've documented it. People who have done our research, have documented this stuff: This is what they think! If you scratch, and attack these policies, see what they react to! Cultural relativism, as we discussed earlier, is only one of the weapons they use. This, they believe! This, they react to.

But, then, as they go into motion, with plans and everything else, what happens, is, on the spur of the moment, what they do, is like the Roman legions: They react like an animal, a predatory animal—not like a human being.

PAPERT: I was given a list which says that Cody Jones had a question for Helga....

Q: Actually, it was also for Lyn. My question for Lyn is: So we have all these people involved in the campaign, and supporters and whatnot, who obviously have made some sort of decision that they want to part of this revolutionary action. Now, at a certain point, that people are, at least, honest with themselves, they see: Okay, we have a certain situation in the world. We see where the world's going, as you talked about in forecasting. And, then, we can see, well, I'm not necessarily living up to what needs to be done, to deal with this situation. Now, so, have the paradox in your mind, in terms of what the problem is, and then you have all these blocks. You know, we all have whatever neuroses, blocks, habits, addictions, whatever.

So, my question is: At the point that you see what needs to be done, and you realize you, in fact, are not adequately stepping up to the challenge of what needs to be done, and then you also become self-conscious of your own blocks, and it seems as simple as "Well, I just need to stop doing this, or doing this." But, yet, there seems to be a lack, in general, of this emotional quality, or internal drive, to actually fight through those blocks, and overcome them, to actually physically change, to change your action to do what's necessary. So, I was wondering if you could address, how you actually muster the emotional strength, or whatever's required, to achieve this?

LAROUCHE: I addressed this, in one form, back in the early 1970s, or the middle 1970s, in a series of lectures, first in 1973, on the subject of "Beyond Psychoanalysis." And, then, on some papers, which addressed the same subject. Now, those papers and studies were done on a very specific basis. What I was dealing with, at that point, clinically, was a population which had been conditioned as Baby-Boomers, who were children of the 1920s-1930s generation. And, they had been largely people, who had been children of suburbanites, or quasi-suburbanites—that is, people who lived in urban areas, but thought like suburbanites. And, they were largely people who had gone to universities, who were Baby-Boomers. And, they had two problems: First of all, the culture they knew of, at that point, was Freudian, or quasi-Freudian. They also thought in terms, and were organized largely, in the 1960s into the 1970s, in terms of Marxian reference.

So, therefore, I had to address, specifically, this problem, as it manifest itself in the characteristic features, or the differentia specifica, of that particular generation, with those specific characteristics. However, the same thing exists today, in a new generation, but with different differentia specifica. The same problems. The basic problem is elementary: The problem today, has a more acute form, in some respects, than during the 1970s, because the world has become worse. The conditions of education have become worse. People who graduated from universities in the 1960s and early 1970s, were much better-educated, relatively speaking, than those of today! Today, this is like a kindergarten, relative to even the standard of then! In terms of universities and high schools, and so forth. Disgusting! Absolutely disgusting—it's almost back to "blab school." You used to have, in the mountain areas of the United States, where it was compulsory by law, it was established that you had to have public education, in the grammar school level. So, they would set up these mountain schools, or similar kinds of schools, at which nobody ever learned to read; but, what they learned to do, is, the teacher would talk at them, in one of these classes—you know, one of these hill-billy school class, kind of thing—the teacher would talk at them, and the children would talk back, to the teacher! And these were called, characteristically, "blab schools." Because the teacher "blabbed" at the kids, and the kids "blabbed" at the teacher! And they came out "blabbing" ever after, then!

So. But, education in university level, is almost gone back to "blab school" level. It's "computer-aided blab." [laughter]

We have a different problem. And also, the conception of a society, the distance, one of the characteristics of the 1970s generation, was this cultural paradigm shift, from a producer society, to a consumer-oriented society, and this took over significantly in the anti-war movement during the 1964-1967-68 period. The anti-technology, consumer society movement, took over. Cultural relativism took over. Existentialism took over, in a special form—really close to fascism, huh? But, today, you have a worse situation, in which the population has not been even weaned away from producer society: They never knew what it was! You have a consumer society, in the extreme today. And, the idea that production is relevant to consumption, is considered a dirty thing! It's like you pooped on the rug! With company present, huh?

So, the problem today, is, that the idea, that the task-oriented, cognitive function is essential, is not a generally accepted idea. And, therefore, what I taught people, in terms of Beyond Psychoanalysis, back in the '70s, doesn't work today, in the same degree, because you have a population that is so far removed from reality, that the factors of reality, I used to address, just, people don't respond to them. They're inert to them. So, you have to go to a much more fundamental level, but do the same thing. The more fundamental level, is still the same: It's cognition as against sensuality; against the idea of the self-evidence of sensual emotional perception, or sense-perception, in the short term. Today, moral degeneracy is, "I believe in family interests. I believe in a set of shibboleths, of do's and don't's."

"I'm opposed to abortion," which is a symptom of immorality—not that opposition to abortion is immorality; but the idea of making a fetish of anti-abortionism, as a political movement, is what the problem is: It's immoral. Intrinsically immoral, because you take away—. What is the moral question? What does a Christian say, as opposed to an anti-abortionist? A Christian says, "The individual human being, is made in the image of the Creator." The Christian says, that, what is called the fetus, is not a fetus: It's a personality. And, at some early stage, in the womb, this thing is capable of responding—because, when you take out of the womb, say at six months, or premies; you take them out, if you can keep them alive, and they survive, they will show they are human beings! So, what you're taking out as a premie, a viable premie, is actually a human being! So, at what point in the term, do you call this human? And, if it's human, it's sacred. And, you don't kill it. That's simple.

So, you start from that: You don't start from the question of the abortion issue, because the [anti-]abortionist did not object to euthanasia. That was settled in New Hampshire! We came to the abortion movement, we tried to see what we could talk to these guys. And, they freaked out! When we opposed, and I opposed euthanasia. They freaked! Don't bring it in! They freaked on the Earl Spring case, for example, in Massachusetts. A family wanted to save money, by killing a healthy member of the family, with an illness, but he was otherwise a viable person, who wanted to live! Fully conscious! And, they were starving that person to death, deliberately! To kill him! by starvation. And, they did, successfully. But, the anti-abortion movement supported the killing of Earl Spring. We said, "These guys are not Christians." And, we found that all the way through, because they did not go to the principal question, of the nature of the human being, as distinct from the animal. And, therefore, being anti-abortionists, but being for the death penalty—anyone who's for the death penalty, how can they be an anti-abortionist? What does that mean? It means, they're an immoral person!

So, when people went into these single issues, rather than sticking to matters of principle, and said, "For simple-minded people, you must have a list of do's and don't's, and control society on that basis," you see this abortionist movement—as you see it in Northern Virginia, among these people, who are part of the Carlist and similar kinds of fruitcake movements. Or, see it in the form of these "Thunder" people, out of Nashville Agrarian crowd. These anti-abortionists, and that things, they are mass-murderers and fascists!

And, so, that kind of degeneration has taken over the society, where we no longer act on the basis of belief in principle: You have Christians, who are not Christians, but are fanatically, whatever it is. And, that sort of thing.

So, today, the problem is, is to get people to locate their identity, in a cognitive self, rather than in a sensory do's-and-don't's self. And, the issue, is for them to recognize, secondly, that the power of cognition, the power of discovery of universal principles, the power of communicating and sharing those acts of discovery, as Shelley speaks in his famous In Defence of Poetry, of periods of the power of "imparting and receiving profound and impassioned conceptions, respecting man and nature." That is the secret. And whatever stands in the way, of being able to "impart and receive profound and impassioned conceptions"—and "passion" means "power"; "passion" means "changing things"; "passion" means a sense of the pleasure of the power of making changes that are needed, or change that is beneficial.

And, that's the issue. I would have to say it, from the sense of, rewrite an edition of "Beyond Psychoanalysis," for the current generation, which would be a large project, for a man of my occupation, and so forth. Maybe I'll get Phil Rubinstein to do it! [laughter, applause] But, that's the point! I think that's the answer to the question: Realize, as I said, in a response earlier to a question here; recognize the the power of cognition. Recognize that a discovery and use of a valid principle of physical science, is an expression of power! Power over the universe! Power to change things! Through discovery! And, that this power comes from cognition. This comes from doing your work, on Gauss's Disquisitiones, and having a sense of the fact that numbers really don't exist: They are products of physics. This kind of thing. A sense: "This is power!" So, you don't think of morality as something, as a collection or list of do's and don't's. You think of morality, as your responsibility to mobilize the power needed to bring about the changes, which effect the justice, which must be effected. So, you don't sit back and whimper: "We got good ideas, but we don't have any power to do it." We do have that power! And, if you don't have a sense of that power, obviously you're impotent. And, when faced with frustration, you tend to fall back, as the old parson used to say, "We got back-sliders!" And, what we referred to, is the problem of backsliding: You go out with a devotion to accomplish a good purpose. But, you lack a sense of the power, which lies within you, to spread ideas, which, implemented by people in society, will cause them to have the confidence, to make the kind of changes that society needs. And, that's the answer. [applause]

End Panel 4

* * * Email your questions to the panelists: * * *

Video Tapes of the Keynote Panels (and others as they become available)
May be ordered by calling 703-297-8368

or purchase directly from http://www.larouchepub.com


Meet Lyndon LaRouche
What is the Schiller Institutue
Highlights of Other Activities
Back to Program Page
Physical Economy
New Bretton Woods
Transcripts and AUDIO  of LaRouche's Dialogues Since SEPTEMBER 11,
Speeches in Moscow, Russia- Dec. 14
Speeches in New Delhi, India, Dec. 3, 2001
Dialogue in Leesburg, Va Nov. 11, 2001


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.