There is something I did not include in my address on Friday evening—because I had to shorten certain things in order to get it within the physical capacity and concentration span of the whole audience—and that is, that in this matter of axiomatics, I refer to some questions of axiomatics, but there is another side to it and that is, to have a deep understanding of how the human mind works. The human mind works on the basis, not of opinions. Pigs have opinions. The human mind is capable of rising above the level of mere opinions. When you quote opinion, you are down there fighting for a place in the trough. What is a human being capable of? The human being is distinguished from the animals by the ability to make discoveries of universal principle. That is the nature of the human mind. And it is only on the level of knowledge of principle and use of this knowledge, that you are behaving like a human being as opposed to a poor imitation of a monkey.

The problem is this: The principal of hypothesis, of course, is, we generate conceptions of what possibly are the principles beyond the scope of our senses, which control the world which is reflected on the mirror of our senses.

But that same process of hypothesis exists in a distorted form also, where people substitute beliefs in the existence of principles that don't exist. And they adopt these as axioms. For example, let's take the case I have mentioned, of free trade. There is no basis for free trade, but it is the hypothetical assumption made by Galileo, one of the founders of empiricism; made by Hobbes, made by John Locke, made by Bernard Mandeville, made by Hume, made by Adam Smith, made by Quesnay—a principle called free trade. The principle was copied from the Cathars and other earlier types, the belief that outside the universe, underneath the floorboards, there is something that controls the role of the dice, and that is God—or that is the Invisible Hand. So there is the belief in something outside the universe, which controls the sense of the universe, but it is not an hypothesis, it is not a proven principle, it is something like the belief in free trade, or the equivalent, the Invisible Hand. Society is dominated by all kinds of things like that.

Shibboleths, the assumption of a Cartesian geometry or a Euclidean geometry, are frauds. These are assumptions which are made—and asserting them as principles, as governing principles of the universe, which they are not.

So therefore, the human mind is composed of an array of things, of different kinds of hypotheses and quasi-hypotheses. One, is things that are true, principles that are proven. Others, are principles that are not true. Now, this is the nature of insanity. For example, a man who knows how to get home to have dinner, but then beats his wife, because he has to make her behave—a typical bipolar personality. There is a mind that is insane. On the one hand, he is capable of forming sane actions, but in the totality of life, he is insane. You have the same thing in society in general; in politicians, they say, you can't do that, this is inevitable, you can't control this, you can't change that, you must accept this. These are accepted as hypotheses. No, you can not attack Euler. Why not? Because you can't. Because you are thrown out of university if you do. You can not attack Lagrange; you will not be considered credible if you do. And therefore, that is the problem.

The human mind is made up largely, predominantly, of these two types of elements. Now, from a Riemannian standpoint, the only true reality, the only true physical geometry, is one which is based on no definitions, no axioms, no postulates, nothing Cartesian, it's based on only principles—or false principles. And therefore, the problem in life is twofold, generally, in trying to progress—first of all, we are struggling against ignorance. The principles we know are insufficient to enable us to master the problem before us. And we must make a new discovery. On the other side, there are the false principles, which we have adopted, which have never been proven, which are generally accepted or accepted by some group of people. This is insanity.

This is the way a society destroys itself. That is the nature of tragedy: A society is destroyed because of the circumstances in which it has developed. A society is ruled by many different kinds of principles, some true, some fraudulent. And to the extent the society clings to the fraudulent principles, sooner or later, those beliefs will cause that society as a whole to destroy itself. As we see today in what is unfolding in a never-ending war, which is now ongoing in Iraq. There is no "after the Iraq war." There is only a crushing and an ending of that war by our intervention.

It will never end. Don't ask what you are going to do after the war has ended. There is no end after the war. You have to stop it, before it ends. Otherwise, there is no solution. So the inability of people to recognize that they must act, according to principles to stop this, shows the insanity. And every part of society that refuses to take that action, is functionally insane, and is demonstrating the principle of tragedy. The whole society will be doomed by its failure to act. Because it has adopted a false principle, superimposed on what it does know, which leads it toward self-destruction. It is for that reason that two factors in history are crucial. One, fundamentally universal, is the principle of leadership. Mankind has not developed to the point that you can trust popular opinion, or democratic opinion. Because people will always tend to have an accumulation of resistance to knowledge of things they could learn, that they must learn, and on the other side, the persistence of adoption of the false principles by which they are destroying themselves. Therefore, it is always popular opinion that leads any culture to its self-destruction.

Thus, you need a leader who will induce the society, in a time of crisis, to act to purge itself of those beliefs which prevent it from acting appropriately. And to force them to discover the new principles they have not previously known, which are required as keys to solve the crisis. That is the first principle.

The second principle is that youth, particularly in our modern society, between the ages of 18 and 25, is the most sensitive to the task of changing society. There are two aspects to it. The group of between 18 and 25 have passed out of the state which we would call insanity, except we call it adolescence. When a person is 25 and behaves like a 15-year-old, you say, well, he's insane. When a person is 15 years old and behaves like a 25-year-old, you worry.

This is life. It is normal for human beings, in the process of maturation, in reaching what is called adulthood, which is a disease, or something which strikes you at about the age of 17 or 18, in a normal society. That is the time when you are most open. Those are the years of life which we assign, in modern society, to university education. The years of 18-25 are the period in which young people assume professional responsibility for society, or the foundations for assuming professional responsibility. Therefore, it is when that generation acts, that it bestirs the younger ones and the older ones. The older ones to come to life again, to recover some echo of their happier youth and to behave like they were 25 again. Maybe not in dancing all night, but at least mentally dancing a few hours of the day. And solving problems and being happy about it. And that is the point I want to make. We are dealing with an insane society with two problems. Generally, we have resistance to discovering the things which must be discovered to solve our problems; and the tenaciousness with which absurd principles are adopted, the kinds of principles by which we destroy ourselves and society.

We need leadership, qualified leadership, to force the people to come to their senses. As Solon argued, in the case of Athens, you have to understand, as Socrates said, that the chances of changing society will come from the mobilization of the youth, who will then lead the general process of transforming the society, so that society can recover its survival.

And I am very happy to be with you today. Thank you.

A Congolese man: I would like to ask our young people what they understand under the term, "youth." Is it, as Mr. LaRouche says, to be between 18 and 25 years of age? In Africa, we all live together, with parents, grandparents.... What should African or Latin American youth get from the Eurasian Land-Bridge?

From the panel: We plan to do it all together. We are making a revolution, and will not forget Africa or Latin America. We think of all of humanity, everywhere on Earth, and we will also go to the Moon. We want to do it all at the same time.

Congolese man: That is important, but we must first satisfy elementary needs in Africa and Latin America. The African youth first need something to eat, and an education, in order to go further.

Ludwig García: I just wanted to say something. I'm from South America, from Venezuela. Right now, as we are talking here, my country is disintegrating as a nation-state. I do not know if I will be able to go back to my country, as a nation. As we are gathered here, many people from Africa and Latin America do not know if, next year, they will still be alive, or if their nation will exist. So, why am I here? I could say, well I want to help my people, and then I would start up some kind of NGO in Caracas or something. So, why am I here?

I came here, to Europe, because if we want to save Africa, if we want to save the beautiful, indigenous children in Argentina who are dying every day, if we want to save the beautiful children in Africa who are dying every day, unnecessarily, we must understand that, as a flanking operation, we must start from Eurasia. Period. If we understand this, we will win. If we understand the importance of the U.S. Presidency as a flanking operation, we can win. But any flight forward, driven by desperation, will not work. We have to, calmly, understand what the situation is, why it is happening. And I tell you, I refuse to go back to my country, until I can get there by maglev, through the Eurasian Land-Bridge. Thank you.

Timothy Vance: We are going to have, after this seminar, a week of action in Berlin. I would like to invite our friend from Berlin, and everyone else in this room, to join us there, to go onto the streets. And in the United States, the primaries will be held in about eight months, so you should save up some money, and fly there, to help organize with us. That's the way to solve these problems. Everyone is invited.

Professor Aluko: I am Sam Aluko, from Nigeria. I would like to ask something of our youth, particularly in America. I am a good friend of LaRouche, I share many of his motivations, I was one of those who signed for his rehabilitation, because his imprisonment was not just. But, I want to ask, what effort you are making to mobilize the American voters to support him in the 2004 election? I am a student of American history, I know that gangsters control American politics. What effort are you making as youth? In my country, the young men do not vote, they lose interest in the system. So how are you educating American public opinion to put LaRouche in power in 2004?

From the panel: We are doing a whole lot. Not addressing issues, but teaching people on the street how to think. We show them how important it is, not only to vote, but to change the way they are thinking. They have a responsibility, which is what we have to get across to these people. Then, we don't just send off some literature, but we actually work with these people, we call them, and have evening sessions to read Gauss, and so on. And this is what will get people to break out of the pessimism, and public opinion, and force people to fight for the truth. We have to give them the confidence to do that, because most people are unpolitical, they have no confidence and think that nothing will change. But we are changing that.

Jean Gahururu: I am Jean Gahururu. I would like to intervene to respond to my friend from the Congo, so that you do not only have the idea of Africans who are only preoccupied with eating, and with basic needs. We should not forget that there are immaterial needs which are important: scientific, Socratic, spiritual, intellectual abilities are also needs, and we should not only talk about eating and so on; some needs are even more important than food. Please do not take Africans as only materially minded. We need, as LaRouche has said, for Africans to select certain areas of scientific research, in which we, Africans, will become world leaders. Why shouldn't Congo be a world leader in a specific scientific or intellectual area?

Among the many things LaRouche has said, he said we were never so desperate that, in spite of being so poor, we could not emerge as world leaders, be significant elements of the development of the world. This includes scientific contributions, and mobilizing the youth and the universities so that our countries become world leaders in some field. So please, don't take Africans as only eaters; we are also, of course, people of ideas. And the revolution we want, is a Socratic revolution, before a material revolution.

Timothy Vance: I would say on this, that the universe is helping us out. Because we have to go with ideas and we need more than our basic essentials. But first, this war has to be stopped. It is not only going to be stopped in the United States, it is not going to be stopped only in the United Nations, but it will come from uniting Eurasia and uniting the whole world around a higher idea of man. Right now, the way we are recruiting, the way we are organizing in the United States, is not to say, "Okay, let's build some water projects," and things like that. Sure, that is a huge part of it, but it is more about, "What is it to be a human being?" What is it they were fighting for right now? What are we reuniting? Why do we bother about this war? Who cares if human beings are dying? What are they? Why are we in the image of God? What does that mean? And that is where you get to this principle of discovery.

That's why you go with LaRouche, because he just is showing you that you didn't get it, on music, on science, on politics, and what your life means, on art, on everything. Any country in the world, any person in the world, has got the ability to be involved in the process of ideas, and that is what is going to reunite the world, but it has got to be offered, this Eurasian Land-Bridge has got to be put forward, to turn around this world.

Wilhelm Kaiser Lindemann: Hello, my name is Wilhelm Kaiser Lindemann, I am a German composer of Classical music. When I heard the first time about the ideas of LaRouche I said: absolutely impossible. The Silk Road bothers too many countries who have dictators, criminal governments. But now I have learned a lot of things—I am the first time here—that is the magic word: another axiom. That is the first time that I heard it, but I learned very much: thank you, Mr. LaRouche. And when I see what wonderful people, especially the young people, especially the young people in the United States, the soldiers on the front, what they do. Then—yesterday and today—I got my hope again. Thank you very much.

In the last years when I had studied many religions—I have been in India, I have been a Mormon, I was educated as a Catholic, as a son of an organ player—I had many views of life and religion. And I saw, what human beings are able to do. Then I got the opinion: The humans are really misconstructed designs. But it is indeed a question of the axioms and nothing else. The communistic propagandists in the '40s and the '60s, they always taught to their young people: you can change—everbody can change—the world with what you think. I always thought, it is a form of brainwashing. No, it is not. Everybody who came here and now thinks a little, can change the world.

And when I was young, full of revolutionary ideas, I was one day so desperate, I went to a priest, and asked him: What is that crazy life, always fighting, fighting, fighting? And then he said a very good sentence: "Only dead fish swim with the river." And we have a good captain, who can show us the other way. We have him here.

And for me the United States were and are such a wonderful nation, with so many possibilities, they have brought the form of democracy. When this country now is in the desolate situation, that—for example—80% of all adults in the United States have never read a book. And now all the newspapers in the United States are "gleichgeschaltet" and everybody who says any criticism against the war in Iraq, he is a traitor. And when I see, that the United States in the last 40 years were able to kill the best persons: Lincoln (this was long before), Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King. And Lyndon LaRouche was in prison: I hope the best for your health and a long, long, long life. And if you will not be the President of the United States, please be the Chancellor of Germany.

Andrei Kybykov: I also want to address this conference. My name is Andrei Kybykov and I come from Russia, where I teach students at two Moscow universities and also contribute to some journalistic work—I edit an economic analytical monthly, Russky Predprinimatel. When we published the first issue of our magazine about a year and a half ago, we had a special feature on Lyndon LaRouche, with an extensive interview with him and an article about him titled "The Man Who Is a Titan,"¹ in the Renaissance sense. And I am proud to have been the man who did this interview with LaRouche.

I didn't prepare a special presentation or speech for this occasion, but being an economist, certainly, I would like to discuss the financial and economic problems of the modern world. It would, of course, be good to do it with concrete figures; and I may, at some time, have an opportunity to do a presentation of the results of my analytical work and discuss it with you. But not today. You are all tired, and full of emotions, and of ideas that were overplenty during this conference.

What I want to share with you, are somewhat chaotic thoughts and emotions I had during the conference. First of all, we here come from very different countries, with very different styles of life, with very different levels, but during this conference, I have a very strong feeling that we have many common problems, and common aims. One of these problems is that of productive economy, as opposed to the so-called post-industrial economy, or the service economy. In reality, it is a kind of parasitical economy today. And, as Mr. LaRouche said, this is totally corrupt now. The crisis is only at the beginning, We had this stock market crash, but it is still in the process of further crashes.

We had the derivative problem. Some years ago, nobody wanted to know about it, even the professionals, who were over-ignorant. Now even the famous billionaire-investor Warren Buffett speaks about a "derivatives time-bomb." Then there is a real estate bubble, a mortgage-based securities bubble of huge proportions, in the United States and Britain especially. Now, even Alan Greenspan, and the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, William Poole, speak of a catastrophe ... as a result of this bubble. Some analysts speak of a so-called Japanese scenario taking place in the United States right now. But I think it will be even worse.

And the only adequate analogy that comes to my mind is the Great Depression. So, a new Great Depression is awaiting us, on a global scale. So we must do something to reconstruct this bankrupt world....

This is a real bright spot, to see talented people, very skilled in many different fields—politics, economics, arts—getting together in an effort to do what they can to preserve our beautiful world, to preserve the creative powers of mankind. Because without this creative component, we are not creatures in the image of God. This youth movement is a great hope for all of us, and I want to say how very important this is. The hope that good has its chances in the struggle against evil....

A reply from the panel: I would address that with Kepler. This is the fun thing about how to get beyond how we are currently looking at things, or how we get out of any crisis. If your crisis is like with the square root of two, and your idea of the infinite is based on generating things in one method, you are never going to get there. And that's why computers can't think. Because people get smart, and say that induction helps you make discoveries, or that by looking at a lot of data, you can learn something. But you don't.

You never learn anything from data. A good example is the case of Kepler. Copernicus gets credit for saying that the Sun revolves around the Earth, because, before him, Ptolemy said the Sun went around the Earth, which you could say by seeing see the Sun going around the Earth every day. And then Copernicus said, no, it's actually the Sun that is at the center, and the Earth revolves around it, and today we all know that. Except we don't—

I mean, why does the Earth go around the Sun? A principle is always outside the data. The way Kepler came up with gravity, was not by analyzing a bunch of data. It came from him always asking, "What is causing what I'm seeing?"

Now, how do we get out of this crisis? Some people think: How do I make money right now? Or, how do I help my country succeed within this bankrupt world? Or how can I live a life that gives me status in the society right now? And none of that works. That's why LaRouche works with the youth. This is a method for discovering truth, and that is what you absolutely need in times of crisis. Not just some principles that can fix the economy. It's: "I know how to create them."...

Olaf Sünneke: The problem is not the educational system which is so destructive, but the life that people live afterward. They are degraded into being machines, and they stop thinking. The point is to make a new beginning, and also to create an economic system that will have to function totally differently than the present one.

Helmut Böttiger: I was always wondering what the difference is, between an old man and a young one. Basically, at least there is no organic difference, there is no crazy change in the brain, or something. The difference is very simple, I think. If people grow up and work, they accumulate things and take them with them, which they think are important. Some have to care for their money, or their possessions, or duties which have to be done. Or they have a reputation to defend. And all these little businesses take away time. This is the difference, I think.

Every human being has 24 hours a day. What he does with his time, is what makes the difference. I think it's not based on the brain. We must not always look for scapegoats: The education system is to blame; the society is to blame; this one or that one is to blame; the reason why I am a bad person is always the others. That's not true.

It is how we spend our time, and what is important. I have a crazy example, which I use in these terms: Our society is running along, as on a street, and there is a traffic accident. The car is damaged, and a guy is lying on the street, bleeding, and along come some people with experience. One is a hairdresser and he sees that the hair of this poor victim is not tidy, so he corrects it. I think this is not appropriate! And what our friend from Congo says, of course: If I'm hungry, my senses are concerned with how to get food. It's important: Otherwise, nothing functions. But then I have to ask, what is the reason for this lack of food? If there is somebody who is stealing the food, then you have to take care of him. That's is what we are discussing here. We have to do the important things first, and it's not always so easy to know what is important, and what not.

Erin Regan: So you'll be dancing in your mind, all day tomorrow. Something that absolutely uplifted me, after every speaker, was the sense of really working together. Because, since most of us arrived here, we have gone through one crisis or another, worrying about how we would sound, what we would look like. And Jonathan Tennenbaum brought up something interesting; he said, "You have to think about the audience." And this is a struggle, because I'm sure we know, we come from a horrible society, which puts much pressure on your inner self, instead of what goes on around you....

The most joy you can possibly have, is not necessarily just making the discovery yourself. I was pushed by a collaborator in Rennes, to work on science and make a breakthrough. And the joy then comes from sitting down with somebody whom you hardly know, and re-creating that discovery in their mind. When you see the spark that is lit from the instant they make the discovery, it comes back to you, and you see what you have accomplished through them, and the joy that you gave them. That is priceless.

We should all work on that. I saw here a real collaboration, which takes really hard work.

[She then read the Declaration of Bad Schwalbach and urged everyone to use it the daily organizing.]

Frank Surek: On the presentation on Jeanne d'Arc, I found a paradox. In 1989, there was a revolution without violence, and we have here a representative of the Martin Luther King movement—Amelia—which was a nonviolent movement. My question is: Jeanne d'Arc changed the world, but she also used violence and killed people. How can you explain this?

Jean-Gabriel from Paris: I want to add something about nonviolence. The real term to use is "active nonviolence." We have a minister from India, who knew Gandhi. If you look at the symbol of independence for India, it is a kind of spinning wheel. Gandhi said, we will not kill people, but we will destroy the economic system of the British Empire. To bring independence to India, one major weapon of Gandhi was to teach people how to make fabric, instead of importing it. This was very "violent," for the British.

Q: My name is Robin. A question about the peace movement: A girl gave a very good presentation about Joan of Orleans. I want to ask the question: Does this mean that you can kill a person, and if so, when?

LaRouche: These are not absolutes. When you try to reduce cultural morality to so-called single issues of precepts, you enter into fallacy. As in physical science, you often have a condition which does not correspond to other conditions. And therefore, the way the universe functions in that phase space is different than it functions in another phase space.

The issue here is that it was posed in modern times in various ways. First of all, we had the Treaty of Westphalia, in which the great Mazarin played his part, and others. And you see, the outcome of Mazarin was expressed by Jean Baptiste Colbert, in terms of the development of the economic foundation of the modern state. It was in that context that Leibniz went to France to work under the sponsorship of Colbert, to develop himself as a scientist. And from that came the conception of modern society. The first conception of modern society, in the modern age, was in the 15th Century, in the Renaissance, with the conception of the modern nation-state, where, for the first time, the Christian principle of agape was actually incorporated as a functioning principle of the state. That is, the sacredness of the human individual, and that the only legitimate function of government is to ensure, efficiently, the general welfare of all the people, for the present and future generations. That was a first step.

It was the idea of Louis XI, of the state being responsible and accountable for the welfare of all the people, which freed mankind from a condition in which the majority of humanity has been treated as human cattle, even today. You have the privileged few who say, "We run the world and the others will live under our reign, as in the United States under the law of Locke, as property, as shareholder value, as cattle. You will do as you are told, you will work when you are told. You are told when you are allowed to live, when to die." We were freed from this evil by Louis XI, and the Renaissance.

Then we had this great period of religious war, where the Hapsburgs and the Venetians organized religious war from 1511 to 1648. And Europe was in religious war, during all of this period, worsening at various times. Only Henri IV prevented it at one point. He was assassinated, and, very soon, the religious war was unleashed. Into this intervened Mazarin, who was the agent of the Pope, who was sent to France as an agent of the Pope. He first tried to deal with the way the Spanish were attacking the French, which was the chief war of that period. He went to France to take over from Richelieu, who was not the best, in order to solve this problem. And it was Mazarin who introduced that concept at that time.

From that process, we developed the idea of strategic defense. And the famous Lazare Carnot, in the 1770s, wrote his "Homage to Vauban." I had the privilege of going once to the place Neuf-Brissac, and saw this fortification, which is still a functioning city to this day. From the standpoint of early 18th-Century artillery capability, it is a very impressive thing. The Austrians never dared to attack France on that quarter, because of these fortifications. Then Colbert came up with this idea of strategic defense. You don't go to war. You have the capability to defend your nation against war. This same idea—under the influence, in part, of Moses Mendelssohn, who played a part in the education of Scharnhorst—was the concept of Scharnhorst in military science, and also, generally, by the German Prussian reformers. The principle was applied in the case of the defense of Russia against Napoleon and for the destruction of Napoleon's horde by the principle of strategic defense, which was introduced by Germans who were under the influence of Schiller, in order to defend Russia. And because of the organization of strategic defense of Germany, in these conditions, this led to the freeing of Europe from the bestiality of the first modern fascist, Napoleon Bonaparte.

But then you had the Council at the Congress of Vienna. All was betrayed, and we went back into the pit again. The French Revolution had already sent us back.

So, we still have this concept of strategic defense. Our objective is to eliminate war altogether. Our objective is not unleash any unnecessary violence, nor to provoke any avoidable violence, but to suffer much for the sake of avoiding war. As many people, like Martin Luther King, or Gandhi did. Martin Luther King was influenced by the precedent of Gandhi's work in India.

So our objective is to avoid war. Our objective is not to capitulate to the destruction of society, willfully, but to develop strategic defense, to know how to defend our society, when we have to. But never to undertake arms unless we absolutely have to, first; and, secondly, unless by undertaking arms, we have reason to believe that we can accomplish the necessary great good.

Otherwise, we have no right to kill. So it is not an absolute. The point is, we have to say, we want a certain order of mankind. We will fight only to defend that order; we will never do it foolishly, we will never do it as a demonstration of protest; we will do it only when it's necessary, and also, likely successful to secure humanity thereafter. Otherwise, never do it.

Amelia Boynton Robinson: The one thing that we cannot give is life. That is one thing we cannot compensate, in the way that we bring a person back. Consequently, as Lyn has said, we do want to go into war, or anything else that will take the life of anybody.

For the young people who will be out there demonstrating. I would like to give them at least a point or two of the ways we demonstrated.

First of all, we learned to contain our rage. We never get angry and fight back verbally, when we are marching or demonstrating. It is important that we do that, because you would be surprised to know how, when we contain ourselves, our rage, and do not fight back verbally, we can tame the other fellow, who seemed to be in a rage when he began to curse us, and to be evil. We can tame them, like the lion tamer can tame a lion. And that is very important.

Another thing: Use wisdom when you go out to contact people, or when you have the opposite [side] who will march and demonstrate also. And if we stick together, not one person will go out when you know there is a vicious crowd: Go out in a group, or at least more than one. And when they begin to feud, and fuss, and curse you, you'll do more when you try to tell them the importance of your fighting for them, and for their children, and their children's children. Because you are trying to save them. Let them know that you are not out there on the battlefield for yourself, but you are out there for them. Finally, you'll find some of those same people will come in and ask, "Well, what can I do."

Jonathan Tennenbaum: We have a declaration here, which was read by Erin. The formulations may change a bit, but everybody understands the essence, the sense of the declaration. So I think we should have an approbation of the document, without discussing formulations. We can agree on the essence of that matter.

[The participants voted to support the declaration.]

I would say, from my experience, that we are in a situation right now, where this youth movement, and our movement internationally, can grow extremely fast. We see the potential growing faster than you can count. In California, at the point it was growing slowly, it was doubling every year. Now, it can double every month. It is an unlimited, an explosive social transformation that is occurring and must occur. And everyone here has a responsibility to take that potential that was demonstrated here, at the panel, and do it.

I once was very impressed with something Lyn said, or something that happened, and I said to Lyn, "Boy, Lyn, your method works!" And his answer was, "You have to make it work." And that is a conclusion now, after this conference, when we are going back into the world, an awful world, the most turbulent and dangerous situation, perhaps, that mankind has faced. So I think we should bring our thoughts together on that point. We are going out into that world now.

We have to transform the world. Each one of you. And we have to particularly throw off the baggage. You know we tend to carry, to various degrees, different kinds of baggage, like "I would like to, but" or "I have this and that doubt, but, ... but, ... but." You have to throw that away joyfully, realizing what the universe requires that you do right now.

Now, I would like to have Lyn and Helga address the conference.

Helga has put me into position first. Jonathan has had a very important role in this youth organizing, also especially in threatening people that they will have to master a billion functions. He went on elliptical functions years go, back in the late 1970s, when he was trying to educate a certain gentleman on elliptical functions, and he continued that process. He's now assisting people on the significance of Riemann's work. This is the next order of magnitude for the mathematics and science work.

Anyway, so this is a turning point in history. It's a turning point, because the conference occurred under very special conditions. We are going to find that whatever seemed to be happening two or three days ago, very soon it'll be apparent, as Muriel indicated in her intervention on the subject, that it won't be the same over the coming days. This is what you call, crudely, a non-linear process. There is no war in Iraq, let me just emphasize that. This is a thematic point that is appropriate, as an impromptu point, to make at this point in the events.

What has happened, as I indicated, is that a certain force, deployed by, actually, the slime mold of financier interests which stand behind governments, and which intervene to destroy governments and create dictatorships, whenever the world becomes intolerable to the sensibilities of the slime mold-and the slime mold, using various instruments like the followers of Leo Strauss whom they created out of mud, out of Marburg mud, this force has now embarked the world on what it intends to be not only an imperialist campaign; not only the intent—as was the case with Lord Shelburne in the late 18th Century—to re-create an English-speaking version of the Roman Empire, which would never fall; but a new kind of Roman Empire. Not the British liberal kind of empire, of playing one nation against another to manipulate continents, peoples, but actually a permanent fascistic world empire, a world government according to the design and specifications of two of the most evil men of the last century, Herbert George Wells and Bertrand Russell. This is their design.

These two, Wells in 1913, in an introduction to a book, first laid out the proposal of using, then, what he considered radium weapons, as understood on the basis of the works of Rutherford, to use them as weapons to make war so horrible that nations would give up their sovereignty to avoid such a war, and would accept world government. At a later point, a collaborator of H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, organized people from Hungary and elsewhere, who were scientists cast on the waters of the world by the events of that period, such as Leo Szilard, Eugene Wigner, and so forth, and deployed them as the instruments for creating nuclear weapons.

The nuclear weapons program in the United States at that time, was instigated by Bertrand Russell. Now, the reaction to what Russell and others were doing, had reactions in Germany, among some people who thought they should develop nuclear weapons. They didn't, and it didn't happen, because Hitler was stupid, among other things (sometimes to have a dictator, you have to have a stupid man, like Hitler). Russia was also developing nuclear weapons. Vernadsky, who was the father of the nuclear policy of the Soviet Union—that started in 1925, approximately, when he first proposed the development of nuclear energy, as the principal power source of civilization, and of the Soviet Union in particular. His genius continued to the point that he created the institute which actually, later, developed Soviet nuclear weapons.

So Russell, in this process, was the man who directed the Anglo-American creation of nuclear weapons as weapons terrible enough to create a world empire, a permanent Roman Empire of the most hideous dimensions ever imagined. It was Russell and his crowd who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with no military pretext for so doing. The military pretext was a future world empire. Not World War II; the Japanese were completely defeated, no invasion was ever required, or intended, of Japan. It was Russell who proposed preventive nuclear warfare in 1945, and proposed it publicly in 1946. It was Russell who was behind the orchestration of the Missiles Crisis of 1962. There are people in the United States and Great Britain, who have constantly had this obscene idea, centered around what is called the RAND Corporation. Centered around the friends of Russell, such as the Chicago University crowd, who spawned this fascist Leo Strauss, who is the spiritual father, or grandfather, of most of these clowns in the Bush Administration who are orchestrating the present war.

The policy behind these people is permanent war. A new kind of Roman Empire with nuclear weapons. They intend to use nuclear weapons. They will take the first occasion, if allowed, to use nuclear weapons. Not because the situation provokes them to do so, but because they intend to set a precedent for the use of nuclear weapons, which they will apply anywhere. They are out for the neck.

There is no war in Iraq. There is no "after the war" in Iraq. Anybody who talks about after the war in Iraq—there is no after the war in Iraq. You stop the war that is now ongoing, or you get permanent world war. It's obvious. Therefore, we have come to a point where it is put on our plate at this conference, to focus on this question. There is no way to sit back and tolerate this. It must be stopped. Otherwise, there is no civilization on any part of this planet.

During this period, I went again through some of the details of the Korean problem. The complexities of the North Korean administration, the problems that China and Russia and others have in dealing with the North Korean government. This is deadly, considering the intention of the idiots in Washington. This is deadly, considering the cowardice of the Democratic Party leadership. This is monstrous. There is no one, yet, on the scene, who has actually put into motion a process which would prevent a preventive nuclear attack on North Korea. We're looking at that possibility, and since these clowns want to have an attack on North Korea, they probably will do it. Now, the North Korean generals may think that they need the bomb, as a threat to negotiate terms with the United States. Then you have two sets of fools. The North Korean fools are the stubbornest. They won't listen. And because they have a special social character, which tends to make them impervious and nervous. I still think that if I could get in there, and we could find out what they want, we might be able to change their mind. But they are on a collision course with a monster. And the danger is, you can have nuclear war in Asia, within the weeks ahead. I don't say it will happen, but I say it can happen. All the ingredients are there for it, right now.

So there is no "after" Iraq. The Iraq war is already spreading. The Turkish incursion in Northern Iraq goes into the Kurdish conflict. The whole area, the entire Caucasus region, can go up into smoke. The Jordanian government can disappear. Other governments of the Middle East can disappear. The Israeli nuclear arsenal can be released under various conditions. That is possible right now. The issues will spread. We are in a world depression. There is no after the Iraq war. You stop it now, or you're worthless.

Anyone who says, we are going to deal with this after the war, is worse than a coward, he's a criminal, if he's in power. It must be stopped now, with whatever it takes to stop it. That was put on our plate here, implicitly, at this conference, because it's the one place in the world where these things were deliberated, in the form I have just described.

So we have a special responsibility and a special mission. But also, because of the role of the youth movement in this, as an accompanying theme, a counterpoint to the crisis. We also are the most optimistic force in the world. We know how to change the world for the better. We just have to simply accelerate that effort considerably, under the present circumstances.

I think it is no accident, or coincidence, that the theme of Jeanne d'Arc has been such a dominant one among the young people. I had the fortune at one point, to talk to Indira Gandhi about Jeanne d'Arc. As she and her father say in their memoirs: When she was studying in France, dealing with Jeanne d'Arc was a determining idea in her life, and she drew a lot of her greatness, in her later life, from this earlier occupation with the example of Jeanne d'Arc. I want to encourage other people to do what Elodie, and Megan, Tina, Erin have done. And I want to encourage the men to do the same thing, because the image of Jeanne d'Arc is not a female occupation.

I think that if you read this drama, and you have certainly been motivated by the beautiful presentations to go home and read Jeanne d'Arc, and study it, and make it your own property. But you will find that the mission which Jeanne d'Arc adopts, that Tina and Megan read in the first monologue, it was like an innocent, "Yes, okay, I take the job." That was what the newer people among you have to do. I take the job and I save the world at a point when it is as dangerous, as Lyn was just saying. If you study the drama further, you will see there is a middle monologue by Jeanne d'Arc, when she has gone through an incredible fight, she has won France, she gave the King the crown, she saved the whole situation, but then she has self-doubts. And because of those self-doubts, she doesn't do what she should do, when she is accused, namely, to defend herself. Then, she is in chains, and when she sees that France is threatened again, she, with supernatural powers, she rips the chains apart, goes back to the battlefield and saves France once more. And then, in her final monologue, she resumes the idea of this original mission, but with a much deeper understanding of what it means, that you have to have the level of the sublime to do this job.

I think this is something you should think about. We, as an organization—small in number still, although that is changing rapidly, and with no fortunes—we are powerful because people respect especially Lyn, for what he stands for. He has taken a sublime life and that has inspired so many people all over the world. Therefore, I am absolutely, totally, convinced and optimistic that if anybody can intervene in this moment of severe crisis, and save the world, it is this organization.

I want to thank all of you for being here, I want to thank you for what you are doing, and ask you to take the next step, in case you haven't done it yet. Some of you are probably thinking about it. Take the next step, and make the level of the sublime, the beautiful soul of Friedrich Schiller, your daily experience. It is quite okay if, like Jeanne d'Arc, you have a little relapse in between. That happens, it's human, you are not a machine. But then go back and elevate yourself to the level where you do not locate your identity in your physical mortal existence. You make a holy, solemn commitment, like Jeanne d'Arc, to save this world at this point. This is a conscious decision and I can assure you, if you make it, you will be free.

[1] See EIR, Nov. 9, 2001.