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

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

How We Can Win the WarAgainstSynarchism:
Start With theTruth

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.


Here is Mr. LaRouche's keynote speech to the Schiller Institute Summer Academy in Frankfurt, Germany, on Aug. 16, 2003.

I shall speak on the world situation, from the vantage point of the Presidency of the United States. But, as in drama or anything else, we never start with fiction. We don't take abstract, unfixed locations as reference points. The reference point has to be in reality: real history, actual events, which people can recognize, which put the thing into focus. And, then, you can go into an abstract subject, as long as you have a real focus for your discussion.

We had recently, in the United States, still ongoing, a collapse of the electrical supply, suddenly, for about 50 million people—which is fairly impressive, particularly when you see the congestion in New York City, and the complications that involves there.

Now, the other point of reference, with the New York-centered collapse of the electrical supply, is a case of a young fellow—not so young: Arnold Schwarzenegger. These are two points of reference—New York and Arnold Schwarzenegger. He was in New York, by the way, trying to raise money. He'd have better luck raising children. But, in any case, here's a case: You can visualize it. Here's a man who was once called “Mr. Universe.” Muscle Man. But, muscled men sometimes turn into 40-kilo weaklings, when they're faced with reality.

And, the two things are connected. Why? Because, as things would stand now, the outcome of the Presidential election next November—that is, a year from this coming November—would be largely determined in the state of California, which is the most important state in terms of votes cast. California is now in a crisis, and the crisis has to do with energy supplies. It has to do with the looting of California, by swindles, such as Enron. It has to do with the effect of deregulation. So, the two things are connected, because the question that's asked: Here we have, 50 million people are plunged into darkness by a lack of electricity supply, which is caused by deregulation. Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing to capitalize, with his peculiar ambitions—since his muscles are turning to flab, from overdoses—you know what happens with steroids; you keep taking steroids too long, your muscle turns into flab, and starts flapping around embarrassingly. Not a very good impression for a Hollywood star, huh?

So, he's planning to run, from his career as an actor—which he was never very good at; I mean, having to imitate machines, or having machines imitate you—into the position of governor of the state of California. So therefore, the issue now, that's going to hit Arnold Schwarzenegger, and others, with this California recall campaign, is going to be: What caused the 50 million-person blackout, in the northeastern United States and Canada? It was caused by deregulation. What caused the crisis in California, which was used, and exploited, to take this dumb Mr. Universe, this 40-kilo intellectual weakling, to run for governor of the state? Deregulation.

The Paradigm-Shift to Consumerism

Now, this is typical of the problem of the world today. For over 40 years, now, approximately 40 years, the world or various parts of it—the United States, the United Kingdom, and then spreading into Europe—has gone into a transformation of culture, from the post-war culture, which was based on reconstruction of productive society: the building of regulated public infrastructure; the rebuilding of rail systems, transportation systems, power systems, municipal water systems; or in Germany, the rebuilding of the Stadtwerke, as a process. And, about 40 years, the beginning of the process, of going from a productive society, to a consumerist society, in which, first the United States and United Kingdom led the way, in saying, “Well, maybe we should be parasitizing on the rest of the world. Maybe we should stop building nuclear plants. Maybe we should stop regulating our trade and industry. Maybe we should go into becoming a consumerist society. Without factory workers; without farmers, without infrastructure. Don't use the railway any more! Drive! Drive! Enjoy the parking lots, called the 'superhighways,' when you commute twice or three times a day!”

So, what happened is, then, this got worse and worse. We had deregulation, on a global scale—1971-1972. A new monetary system. “Now! Consumer society came into its glory! Because, now people in the United States, in the United Kingdom, in Europe, could parasitize on the poorest people in the world, by making them work, as cheap labor, to provide us with a product we didn't really pay for!” We swindled them, by devaluing their currency, in order to make them work for us cheaper. Their labor became so cheap for us, we couldn't afford to employ people in Europe, the United Kingdom, or the United States: They were too expensive! And, everyone said, “This is good. This is the trend. We can not go back to the old ways, the old ways of the dirty factories, and the dirty farmers, and the infrastructure, and the energy production, and the railroads, and so forth. We can't afford that any more! We're now going to a more 'gentle society,' of the Dosenpfand ['return for deposit' bottles].” We switched bottles. We don't produce; we exchange bottles.

That's my problem! That's your problem. What you've had is typified by Arnold Schwarzenegger—who would have simply been a bum. You know, a bum, he goes out, gets some muscles, wins a beauty contest or something; and then he slips into obscurity. Now this idiot wants to become governor of the state of California, capitalizing on a catastrophe called “deregulation”; which created a crisis in California, which he's blaming the present governor for! Who's to blame? Who did it? We all did it! Not me—I was never part of that. But, the rest of you, or most of you, in a sense, did it—or the people you know—because you went through a change in culture over the past 40 years. You went away from the culture of a producer society, to a consumer society.

And now, you're running out of things to consume: You're running out of the power to buy the things to consume. And even if you could buy them, they aren't made any more. And if you can get one, it probably won't work. If it will work, temporarily, it will break down, and there's no way to repair it.

So, this is the society. What happens now, is, you have a situation, which around the world—notably in Europe, the United States, and so forth; and most of the world is affected by this, in one degree or another: The world has adopted habits of thinking, of a civilization which has lost the moral fitness to survive. And, what's killing us now, is not the things that are being done to us, but the things we're doing to ourselves; which we're doing to ourselves, by accepting, as habits, the way of thinking, which has taken over the generation which came to maturity in the middle of the 1960s. That's the problem. That's the problem the youth face, young people face, because their parents were saturated with this culture.

Origins of Synarchism

Now, the culture has several ingredients, apart from this shift as such. How did this happen? How did the civilization—the culture and morals of Europe and the United States, and Japan—degenerate, over the past 40 years? What did it? Where did it start? And has it come around to us, now, from where it started?

It started in 1944. As some of you know, in June of 1944, the U.S. forces and others cracked through in Normandy. And once the U.S. and other Allied forces had cracked through into France, through Normandy, the entire Wehrmacht capability was outflanked. It was a hopeless situation. At that point, German generals and others decided it was the time to go for peace; the war was definitely lost, irreparably lost. And that was prevented, because some people in the United Kingdom and elsewhere wished to prolong the war, so they could kill more Germans, and kill more Americans and others by prolonging the war, to make things worse.

How'd that happen? Well, the people who, in part, had been behind Hitler originally, were divided, in 1940, between those who stayed with Hitler, or stayed with the people behind Hitler—in Italy, in Germany, in France, in Belgium, in Spain, and in the United Kingdom—and some in the United Kingdom, who said they were not going become part of the greater synarchist or Nazi empire. And those people were unfortunately led by a Winston Churchill, a minister at that time, a defense minister of the United Kingdom. And the defense minister of the United Kingdom contacted his acquaintance Franklin Roosevelt—most of them were actually enemies, politically—and said: If we continue this, at Dunkirk, then the United Kingdom will be occupied. If it's occupied, this alliance of Synarchists, in Japan, in Germany, in Italy, in Spain, in France, and now, in the United Kingdom—their navies will be at the disposal of Hitler and Company. And the next thing that will happen, is Hitler and Company will take over the Soviet Union. And, once they've taken over the Soviet Union, they'll destroy the United States. Because, they will have the greatest mass of military power, including naval power of the world, at their disposal.

So, Roosevelt and Churchill, and others, came to an agreement, to stop this. Canaris helped. He scared Franco, the Spanish dictator, the Spanish Nazi, into not taking Gibraltar, and that was a turning point in the process.

So then, the United States and Britain went on to win the war.

Then what happened? Those, who had been sympathetic to Hitler, in the United States, and in the United Kingdom, in 1944, once the war was implicitly won, moved to defeat everything Roosevelt had represented. They couldn't do it all at once. But, the first thing they did is, they put in a swine, Harry Truman—oink-type swine, from the Midwest—as Vice President. Knowing that Roosevelt was ill, and was about to die. When Truman was coming in, at that point, then began the terror bombing of Europe, the terror bombing of Japan, the fire-bombing of Tokyo, the process of destruction; the Lindemann policy of bombing Germany into extinction. Innocent civilians were killed. The war was prolonged.

Then, the end of the war came. And the patriots of the United States said, “Let's go into this, and find out who actually was behind all this, in the continent of Europe. Who was behind Laval? Who was behind Vichy France? Who was behind Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, and so forth? Degrelle? The Iron Guard? Who were the people behind these terrible fascists? And they began to investigate. And they found documents. The documents identified the cartel, which had backed and financed Hitler—some of them Americans.

So, an American, General Draper, came to Europe, and, with others, suppressed the investigation. Suppressed the circulation of documents which I now possess. We know who put Hitler into power. And the same people are at it again, today.

These are a financier group, of Venetian-style bankers, in the tradition of Venice: The same people that brought Napoleon Bonaparte to power, and also created the Jacobin Terror, out of which Napoleon came. The purpose of putting Napoleon into power, was to prevent the spread of the American-model republic into Europe: That is, a true constitutional republic, not controlled by bankers. And, to this day, in Europe, no true republic has ever come into being. Because the present European system of government, is not a true republican form of government: It's an Anglo-Dutch, liberal model of parliamentary democracy. Which is a defective form of government, inherently; a form of government, that can be easily turned, in any crisis. Parliamentary governments are easily overthrown! They're not elected for a fixed term. They can be overthrown, easily—and are, often, especially at times of crises.

Who runs the government, under such conditions? Well, repeatedly, it has been the bankers. The bankers, who control what are called “independent central banking systems.” So, in Europe, as to some degree in the United States today, there is no true sovereign government! There is an entity, which can act as if it were sovereign, from time to time, until the bankers, moving through the central banking systems, which they control, move in and crush the governments. When does this happen? Whenever there's a major, systemic financial crisis—as in the late 1920s.

When the world system is bankrupt, the financial system is bankrupt; when the monetary system is bankrupt, what's the issue? The issue is: Who is going to be paid? Is it going to be the people? Or, is it going to be the bankers? At that point, the bankers say, “Uh-uh! No more representative government! Now, we want a dictator, whom we create; whom we own; who will do as we please. (And we can get rid of him later, if we want to.)”

And that's what happened. That's what happened with Napoleon.

The American Revolution, which was created in Europe: It was created from the middle of the 18th Century on, created by people, like the fellow we know as Kästner, Abraham Kästner; by others, in France and so forth—who, under the conditions of that time, knowing that no republic could be created, in Europe, under those conditions, said, “We're going to help create a model republic, in North America—the English-speaking colonies of North America. And, that republic, once established, will contain our principles, and will become a model for our bringing into Europe, the republican model we've established in the United States.”

That succeeded up to a point: In 1789, after great difficulties, the Constitution of the United States was about to be adopted. The first—the only Constitution I know of, in the world—anywhere—which is based on a clear republican principle, as expressed in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution. Not always obeyed; often violated. But it's there!

Now, all over Europe, were these masses of people, who had been mobilized around the American Revolution, as sympathizers of the American Revolution—hoping that what had been accomplished in the United States, would be realized in Europe. As Lafayette said, the emergence of the United States, as an independent republic, was a “beacon of hope ... a temple of liberty,” for the nations and peoples of the world.

So now, going into the late-1780s, this was the state in Europe. All of the good people in Europe, those who were for justice, for a fair form of society, were inspired by the American example, the success of the American Revolution, and said, “We can do it here.” The countries which were most ripe for that were, on the one side, France, in which a large section of even the nobility, centered around Paris, had been key supporters of the American cause. And France was the most powerful country in Europe, with the most advanced economy, the greatest capability; it was about ready and ripe, to transform its monarchy into a republican form, as Bailly and Lafayette proposed, in the [June 20, 1789] Tennis Court event. And, Germany was the second country ready for the republic. Because the aspiration for the reunification of Germany was—as typified by the influence of Schiller, and others—was, again, the second great potential for creating a republic in Europe.

So, what happened? July 14th, 1789: Under the direction of the actual dictator of the United Kingdom, Lord Shelburne and his agents, a cult—an evil cult, freemasonic organization, called the Martinists, typified by the better-known name of Joseph de Maistre—created the French Revolution, beginning the 14th of July, 1789, under the direction of the agents of Lord Shelburne, the leader and controller of the British East India Company, Barings Bank, and the actual ruler, from behind the scenes, of Britain. Philippe Egalité and Necker were both Shelburne agents. Danton and Marat were Shelburne agents. The entire mess was run by British agents, in collaboration with their Martinist agents—terrorists—which was the beginning of what we call “fascism” today. The Martinists were fascists.

So, from that point on, we had a “left-right” process, in which the “leftist,” Napoleon Bonaparte, became the first modern fascist ruler. This bandit, this thief, this degenerate, this thug, this despicable creature, became the Emperor of Europe; and destroyed European civilization.

And, since that time, the bankers, the same type of bankers—some of the same banking houses, which were behind Napoleon—were behind Hitler; were behind Mussolini; were behind the Vichy government; were behind the Laval government; and created the Franco government.

That's the problem: This same group of bankers, this same ideology, the same institutions, left over from that part of history, are still around today. And they're ready to strike again, strike for power, again. And in the United States, we have a group around the Vice President, Dick Cheney—who is a dumb jock; probably dumber than Arnie Schwarzenegger. Arnie can sort of act, or at least he can mouth his lines. Cheney: “Arh, arh, rrrh, rrhh, arhh.” He thinks he's this character out of Dickens, sitting knitting before the guillotine, watching the heads fall. This guy, with the neo-conservatives, and their allies in the Israeli government today, are out to pull it off, and they've reorganized the fascist movement, and they're deploying it for terrorist acts, on the way to power, now.

They're also trying to plunge the world into a world war. A world nuclear war, of pre-emptive nuclear warfare. Which, if it continues, will result in a reaction, from within Asia and elsewhere, and the whole world will find itself gripped, in the years ahead, by a globally asymmetric form of nuclear warfare. And, we don't know how much of the human race would survive that.

So, that is essentially the report from the United States, in essence. That's the problem we're up against. And, that's the problem with my candidacy, I'm addressing the synarchist problem, as it's called, in the 20th Century and presently. It's acting. We've been fighting this thing for over 30 years, and by name for over 20 years. We began to fight the synarchist problem, by name, in the early 1980s. We identified it, essentially, by name, then. I've been fighting it, by name, ever since. It is now the visible enemy. It now sits in the Vice President's chair in the United States and controls a dummy, who might be described as running one of these navigator programs you get in automobiles, these days. You know, this talking navigator business you get in a modern automobile, here? You can imagine a dummy, operated by a navigator program: He's not really human, but he talks. And he comes out of the speaker in your car, or whatever; tells you when to make a right and left turn—so forth?

We've got a dummy like that sitting in the White House. It's called a President. And, we have to keep the President from being smashed, because he's such a dummy. We're trying to get rid of Cheney.

Our Counterattack

There's a reaction against this, as there was, back in the time that Roosevelt and Churchill were talking in 1940. The reaction is my building a government—my government—to take over in January of 2005. That future government, in the process of becoming, is already acting. It is not something waiting to be elected. There are people, lots of people, in the U.S. military, retired and serving; the U.S. intelligence community, retired and serving; diplomatic strata of the United States, whether in service or out of service; other professional layers recognize, and are slowly moving—and these things do move slowly—slowly moving, from the Executive aspects of the U.S. government, and moving in the direction of trying to stop this. They mean it. What I put out, as my campaign pamphlet on the Children of Satan, produced within two weeks a process of copying of the argument, in the New York Times and other publications around the world: the case of Leo Strauss, and his connection to, essentially, the Cheney government, is now well known.

What has to be done—and we're doing now, we'll be doing in a new issue of EIR, a special issue—is making clear to the world what this synarchist phenomenon is, the synarchist phenomenon which is behind the Leo Strauss phenomenon; the synarchist phenomenon which is a threat to global civilization today.

Now, we also have some friends in other parts of government: We have friends in state government, that is, elected officials; and people who are also part of that. We have friends in the Federal government, in the Congress, who are working to expose, and destroy this Cheney phenomenon. We have a Democratic Party which is against what I'm doing! The Democratic Party is for Cheney. The Democratic Party is the chief instrument which is keeping Cheney in place now! Cheney would have been impeached, or out by resignation, but for the Democratic Party leadership, the “Filthy Nine,” hmm?

So, we have problems, but we're fighting. And, if you want to become the President of the United States—and I do understand what the Presidency is, it's not like any head of government, in any European experience: It's completely different. The nearest approximation in Western European experience, was de Gaulle's period, when he had the maximum influence in France, in which the Fifth Republic did tend to approximate a true republic under the special conditions of his leadership, when he reached out to Adenauer, to form a bloc, a Franco-German bloc, which was capable of providing independent leadership for Europe. But then, he lost that power, with the assassination of Kennedy.

So, the Presidency of the United States is different, different than any other institution of government in the world—whether in respect to the European model, the Anglo-Dutch liberal parliamentary model, or other models in different ways. The Presidency of the United States, as crafted, was intended to be the total Executive agency for every aspect of Federal government. The President of the United States does not sit, and issue proclamations. The President of the United States, should be—if he's qualified—he has to be a thinking person who defines the policy of the United States in the world. Not the policy of the United States, just in the United States; but the policy of the United States in the world, in its relationship to all parts of the world; in consideration of what the future of humanity as a whole must be. The President is not just a person, who sits and babbles, as some of them are, like the present one. The President is the person who commands resources, persons, and institutions, which act; which have the capability of acting, and of designing courses of action; which make the U.S. government, essentially, when functioning, the most powerful government in the world—not merely by physical means, but by its ability to act, in the world as well as in its little realm.

So, to do that, to be a President, you must have recruited a very large apparatus, in the political system, in society generally, but especially, in the ranks of those who are associated with the Executive branch of government.

And, that's what I'm doing. It's in progress. Nothing big about it, nothing extraordinary. That's just the way things have to be, in the United States, and that's what we're doing.

So, our problem, therefore—coming back to the problem—our problem is, in society, that society, those who are governing today, most of the adult generation, which reacted with great fear to the succession of the missile crisis, the assassination of Kennedy, and the impact of the Indochina War—this so terrified the population of Europe, the Americas, and elsewhere, that people said, “We don't like reality any more. We don't like industrial society. We're afraid of technology, because of nuclear weapons. So, let's go to a technology-free, gentle, suburban society, without these gadgets; without this dangerous science; without these factories, which produce instruments which frighten us. We want to become stupid; we want to find pleasure; we want to distract ourselves from fear of the world around us, by fleeing into pleasure, into entertainment—maybe we can invent a new sex!” Many have tried. Many have practiced non-existent sexes. It's their life-style: They keep looking for new ones. New forms of entertainment. “Don't have music: Have noise! Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang!” The whole younger generation is tending to become one mass rave concert—wiggle, wiggle, wiggle! (Don't think!) Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle! (Don't think!)

This is what we're faced with! And, this is why some of the youth movement have been so successful in doing what they're doing. See, they're doing what's forbidden: They're thinking! Actually thinking! And I expect Jonathan [Tennenbaum] to perform well in that regard this weekend. I understand he's going to do some more on the Crab Nebula. And, we have something in the briefing today, done by Bruce Director, which is in the same direction, which I've discussed with him—it's a complement to the same thing. It all has to do with clarifying this question of visualizing the complex domain.

Visualizing the Complex Domain

Let me just conclude with that: Because that's the pivot. How are we going to win? Not, what am I going to do? I've told you, what I'm going to do and what I'm doing. I'm telling you what the situation is, how desperate it is: Now, what are you going to do about it?

Well, you're going to visualize the complex domain. And what does that mean politically? Remember, this youth movement is like no other youth movement in the past hundred years—none. There has never been a youth movement like this, not in the past century. (Almost 200 years, actually.)

What's the difference? What's the basis of human society? What is the basis, which is lost in all contemporary culture? Despite the fact that the churches are still populated—somewhat—very few people could answer the question, “What is the difference between Frederick Engels and a human being?” Remember, Frederick Engels insisted he was a monkey, an ape, with an opposable thumb. He didn't know that apes have opposable thumbs. He thought the apes' developing an opposable thumb caused man. And this is typical of Engels' philosophy: He's stupid, hmm? And dangerous.

People do not know the difference between man and a beast! They may have an opinion. They may say, “Yeah, of course, people are not like beasts; why, they talk.” Well, some people don't talk much. Are they beasts? Some people babble like monkeys. What's the difference?

The difference is that, which you can define from the standpoint of Vernadsky: that, from the standpoint of experimental physical chemistry, you have three categories, which you might call phase-spaces, of known existence in the physical domain. One, are principles, which we know, which are universal physical principles—and provably so, in the sense of Kepler's conception of a physical principle—which apply to the so-called “abiotic domain,” where life is not a factor in causing the effects which we attribute to those principles. The second, are physical effects which can be defined experimentally, in physical chemistry—or physical geobiochemistry, as Vernadsky would insist—define these as effects, universal principles, which express living principles; the principle of life, as opposed to abiotic principles.

You have a third category, as emphasized by Vernadsky, which is called the “noëtic.” There are classes of principles, which exist only in the mind of the human being, by which the human being is able to make willful changes in the physical universe, which no other living process can do. Hmm? This quality can be called “the spiritual quality of man.” It's a quality, which is manifest in the one case, by the discovery of universal physical principles. It is also manifest, in what we call “Classical culture,” and only in Classical forms of culture, as opposed to Romanticism or Modernism. These are principles which pertain, in the second case, to ideas, principles which pertain to the efficiency of human social relations in enabling man to develop and use physical principles. In other words, you can not just educate an individual and assume that individual, by knowing physical principles, would be able to change society for the better. It is only when human beings are united by principles of action, which are typified by Classical artistic principles of composition and performance, that man is able to coordinate the intellects of human beings, through culture, into accomplishing great physical acts, for human benefit.

What has been lost is, therefore—in past times, through empiricism, through existentialism, and other things—what has been lost is the conception of the difference between man and a beast. That difference is this creative power, of the sovereign creative power of the individual human mind, which is able, as a great scientific discoverer does, to discover, as Kepler did, for example, the existence of a universal, efficient principle in the universe, a principle which can not be detected directly with the human senses. That defines what we call “the complex domain”: that what you can see, feel, touch, smell with the senses, is not reality. It is only the shadow, cast by reality, upon our sense-perception. But, beyond that, the mind of man is able “read” the paradoxes in sense-perception, and to test them experimentally, to define the existence of efficient principles beyond the range of sense-perception. Not fantasy, not dreams, not pipe-dreams, but real. Mankind is able to demonstrate, that these principles can be willfully controlled, and will enable man to change the physical universe, in which he exists.

Now, the complex domain is nothing but that, as developed by Gauss. The understanding that we have a realm of sense-perception, which has a geometry, which is a pre-Euclidean geometry—not a Euclidean geometry—but pre-Euclid. Imagine the universe as a kind of a large spheroid, in which you're living; and you try to measure the effects that you see in the universe, from the standpoint of the interior surface of that large spheroid. But, then you find that ironical effects, in the movements in that spheroid, do not correspond to spherical principles or Cartesian principles. And therefore, now, you must find the principle, which is intervening from outside perception, which is causing these anomalous developments within the realm of perception.

When you can go further, and use that discovery, to change the way the universe acts—then, you are man. And that's what society is.

We Start With the Young Generation

So, the question of the complex domain is: You've got a bunch of young people. The previous generation was crushed by a change in the general culture—not just in the culture of a few privileged people—but a change in the culture as a whole, typified by this phenomenon of deregulation. A society which would tolerate and encourage deregulation is a society which is committing suicide! It's a society which is morally and intellectually insane. Phenomena such as deregulation, the turn away from productive society to consumer society, reflects mass insanity. And it is mass insanity, that is destroying us, with various kinds of effects it either produces or fosters.

Therefore, we have to free ourselves of the culture of insanity, which is the prevalent popular culture of the world today. The reason institutions don't function, is not that they're corrupt, in the ordinary use of “corruption.” They're corrupted by popular culture. They're corrupted by popular opinion. They're corrupted by accepting popular opinion. And, as long as they continue to accept what is presently popular opinion, this culture, this civilization, is doomed! Only by changing the culture to reverse the process of cultural degeneracy, which is producing the effects we face today, will the human race survive, outlive, a new dark age, which otherwise faces us.

Therefore, where do we start? We start with the young generation, of university age, those who are willing to become something serious; to become a serious proposition, and having a meaningful life, as opposed to “going through the motions” of trying to get through one end of the day to the other, by finding some new pleasure to replace the one which you're tired of. What do we do? They want to know the truth. They must have a mooring place, outside the domain of fantasy and decadence. What is that mooring place? Tradition? Well, there used to be traditions; there used to be Classical traditions, which have been largely destroyed. The tradition of productive society, of modern European productive society, which has been largely destroyed: Look at the Greenie phenomenon. The existence of the Green Party, as part of the government of Germany today, expresses a moral degeneracy permeating the society! Otherwise, it could never come into government. It's insane! I mean, do you want to live in the world of the Dosenpfand, or one that produces wealth? Run around trying to return bottles, return plastic bottles! Is that your sense of a human life, a meaningful purpose in life?

Therefore, you start, where? You start with truth. You start with a historically determined truth. That is, what history has shown us up to now, is the truth; by looking at the past of man's greatest achievements, picking out a point of reference of man's greatest achievements, and saying, “Let's take something, which is fairly fundamental, it's immediate, it's general: Let us get a new mooring place. Let us get an anchor on knowledge. An anchor on certainty, an anchor on what we mean by truth. Now, if we know that what we're doing is governed by our experience and practice of a method of truth-seeking, then we can go out in society, as missionaries, and try to organize this society to save itself, while it's still possible.”

The reason that I've been able to achieve the degree of influence, the skyrocketing influence I have in the United States today, is because of the awed reaction of leading layers in the United States, to what the youth movement represents in respect to my candidacy as a Presidential candidate. That is what has made the difference. What I've demonstrated with that, and what the youth have demonstrated: It is still possible to save humanity from a horrible holocaust, even at this late stage of the game. And what you're trying to do in that direction here, is part of it. We must realize, that only if we can inspire the older generation—the old goats—you know, 50 years of age and so forth (baaa!—old goats, you know)—if we can inspire them, to come back to what the culture, the tradition, had for them before—before this decadence—then we can save society. The only way you're going to move the old goats, is to impress them with the fact that a younger generation, particularly university age, is coming up, with ideas, and providing moral leadership, a moral principle of leadership, to get the old goats out of old goatishness, and get back to humanity.

On that basis we can win! No guarantee, but we have a chance to win. And, all I demand in war, is a chance to win. And we have it now.

Thank you.

Related Articles

What is the Schiller Institute?

Lyndon LaRouche in Dialogue, 2002

Lyndon and Helga LaRouche Dialogues, 2003

Meet Lyndon H. LaRouche

Revolution in Music

Education, Science and Poetry

Fidelio Table of Contents from 1992-1996

Fidelio Table of Contents from 1997-2001

Fidelio Table of Contents from 2002-present

Beautiful Front Covers of Fidelio Magazine

Dialogue of Cultures

Strategic Method and Studies

Writings of Other Great Thinkers Leibniz, Mendelssohn, Pushkin, Heine, Plato and Others

Biography of Fridrich Schiller

Poetry and Agape — Reflections on Schiller and Goethe

Schiller in America

Books and Video on Schiller


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. 2004. All Rights Reserved.