|
To send a link to this document to a friend |
||||||
|
This is Lyndon LaRouche's statement on the Jan. 4 “LaRouche Show”; in answer to host Michele Steinberg's opening question to “the next President of the United States,” on how to get out of the crisis of the weeks of January ahead. The discussion period follows. It's not a question of exactly what direction we take; it's a question of how we choose our directions from moment to moment. We're in a period which is, has many of the characteristics of a heart patient in fibrillation. You've just got to stop the fibrillation at that point. And that's what we're in now. We're in a point where the political systems in the United States, and most of the world, are not functioning. That is, they are not capable of accepting the reality to which they have to respond. Therefore, if you don't face the reality to which you have to respond, you are likely to make inappropriate reactions--such as our current President's, my predecessor's, statement in Texas on “a darn good economy.” It's not a darn good economy! Unless you're ducking reality, or drinking something, which I wouldn't want to drink, myself. During this month, essentially between about now--next week sometime--and the 27-29 of January, the world is going to go through one of the most dangerous periods of crisis in recent memory. Already, the international financial system is disintegrating. There are many courses it may follow in this disintegration. But you're now at a point where the recent 18-plus percent drop in the value of the dollar, relative to the euro, European currencies, signifies, not a trade problem--that is, not a factor of trade balances--but this means that the international financial system, which is predominantly denominated in dollars, is disintegrating. That is, the assets of the United States dollar are not just U.S. domestic assets. They are U.S. obligations, or obligations to the United States, from other countries in other parts of the world--such as Argentina, which is now in the process of disintegrating as a nation. Brazil, which is on the verge. Other countries of South and Central America are in various conditions of disintegration. Sub-Saharan Africa is disintegrating. And Europe can not survive under the present trends in its economy. That is, Europe--like 46 of the 50 states of the United States, and municipalities like New York City--can not raise enough money to pay the current expenses of government. If they were to increase the tax rates, they will collapse the economy more rapidly--that is, the municipal or state economy--more rapidly than they nominally increase the tax revenues. So you get to that point where increasing the tax revenues, or cutting expenditures, doesn't work, because it makes the problem worse. It's not a cure. So, you're at the point where there's only one kind of cure. Put the system as a whole through bankruptcy reorganization. That is, have a group a governments: Each government puts its own central or national banking system, such as the Federal Reserve system, into bankruptcy reorganization; because there's no way the Federal Reserve system can balance its books, under the present trends. The only thing that keeps it alive is the backing of the United States government. Similarly, the central banking systems of Europe, of other parts of the world--they are hopelessly bankrupt. They can not continue to operate successfully under current conditions. They do not have additional sources of current revenues coming in to solve their problems. They are bankrupt in a very special sense, as only nations and central banking systems can become bankrupt. But the bankruptcy of these institutions, and the craziness into which they plunge when they are bankrupt, becomes a threat to the security of the world. And therefore, to stop the fibrillation in the monetary and financial system, governments must intervene--to shut down the fibrillation; that is, to put these institutions, private institutions, or nominally government-controlled institutions, into bankruptcy reorganization, under the supervision, in one case for example, the Federal Reserve system, of the United States government. Or, in the case of the IMF system, which is also bankrupt, a group of nations, which are the primary backers and owners of the IMF, will have to put the IMF, also, into bankruptcy reorganization. If these things aren't done, there's no way to stop the fibrillation, and what might happen is incalculable, but terrible. You don't know how the patient is going to die; but you know the patient is in the condition where death is imminent. How To Recover Now, the same thing applies to the question of recovery. We can put the system into bankruptcy reorganization; but how can we recover? Where's your recovery program? Well, President Bush has got the idea that he does need a stimulus program. And I understand he's got Karl Rove and a couple of other people trying to cook up something that might be an economic stimulus program. But actually, relative to the problem, it's a joke. So we've got to have a very serious reorganization of the U.S. economy. A recovery program in the style of Franklin Roosevelt's measures back during the 1930s. What we need is large-scale infrastructure projects. The maglev, for example; the magnetic levitation rail system is an example. We don't have a functioning national rail system any more. We need one. Well, the maglev is a good way to start rejuvenating it. Our air traffic system is collapsing. All kinds of things are collapsing. So we have plenty of work to do. We have a water crisis, for example; another problem, especially in the West and Southwest; we've got to do something about it. So, much to do; much work to be done. And the government is going to have to take the view of raising some credit through the Federal government, which is the only agency which can really do this; and in cooperation with the states, take a number of projects of the type I've indicated--including energy systems and so forth--and say, “For the next 25 years, we have these following programs.” Or like the TVA under Roosevelt, these will be going ahead as the stimulant for the real economy, to get employment back in shape; to produce markets for private entrepreneurs who otherwise are going to collapse for lack of markets, and so forth. We have to do these kinds of things. To do this, we have to do something else, which is even tougher. ‘Roman' Crisis, Not a Cyclical Crisis The reason we're in this crisis, is because beginning about 1964, the United States and England, followed in due course by continental Europe, went into a change in the economic system. These nations, which had been predominantly producer nations, traditionally. That is, the orientation of the national economy was production of wealth, especially physical wealth, with a large emphasis on high-technology, capital-intensive investment, basic economic infrastructure, modern infrastructure, and so forth--that was the characteristic. So Americans, or Europeans, looked at themselves as producers. If they weren't producing something themselves, they were part of a society which was productive. And they estimated their value--their future, the future of their children and grandchildren--in terms of “I am productive; I am producing real wealth. I am valuable. I have not to apologize for my existence, to anyone.” What happened is, beginning about 1964, with the cultural paradigm shift in the United States and the Wilson government in England in the same period, which was a similar disaster; we began to shift--as with the rock-drug-sex youth counterculture and other things--we shifted away from being a society oriented to high-technology production, scientific progress, infrastructure, long-term investments, and so forth. We went into a consumer society. We said, “We are going to get what we need to eat and wear, from other parts of the world, from poor people who will work for us at slave-labor prices. Our people will not work any more--or, fewer and fewer of them will work. They will live as part of a consumer society, on bread and circuses, as Rome did from about the Second Century B.C. on, until it collapsed as a result of that policy. We're in that kind of a process of degeneration. This is not, therefore, a cyclical crisis. This is not a boom-bust cycle crisis. This is a collapse of the entire system. This is the kind of crisis from which no one recovers. There is no automatic “bounce-back.” There is no upturn. It's all the way down; and the only way you go from down, is worse. Unless you change the system. Changing the system means, essentially: Repealing all of those measures, especially in law, especially by the Federal government, which involve deregulation; which involve deindustrialization; which involve consumer society as opposed to producer society. All of those kinds of laws on the books must be eliminated in one sweep. In other words, you can take, essentially, what was done from 1971--when Nixon blew the system out with his decision of Aug. 15, 1971--until Carter left office (or better said, Brzezinski left office at that point); and the deregulation and other measures taken during that 10-year period, set into motion a destruction of the U.S. economy, such that the U.S. economy, under law--even with a stimulus package--can not recover today, unless you have one sweeping set of decisions, made at the government level--the Executive Branch and the Congress--which says: Those laws are now suspended for the duration, until the recovery; and then we'll consider the whole thing again. But that means that all deregulation, and things similar to that, have to be cancelled. The 1971 decision on a floating-exchange-rate system, above all, must be cancelled. We've got to go into a long-term recovery process, 25-50 year perspective, of building up the economy of the United States and other countries. The Eurasia Maglev Breakthrough We have have one big asset on the horizon--not in the United States, but it affects us very much. As most people may have picked up by now, at the end of the year, and beginning of this year, the Chancellor of Germany, Gerhard Schroeder, was paying this visit to Shanghai in China, where he received an honorary degree at the university and so forth. But essentially what he did: He got on the most modern, most efficient railway system existing anywhere in the world today. He got on with the Chinese Prime Minister. They sat in comfortable chairs. And he had a pot full of flowers floating on water, on a small table in front of him, where he was sitting. This thing went from Shanghai to the newly-built Shanghai International Airport, at speeds of up to 431 km/hour. And none of the flowers spilled out of that bowl of water, in which the flowers were floating, on the small table in front of the Chancellor. This system was built as a technology-transfer--or technology-sharing, better said--operation between Germany and China. I know a good deal about the thing. I was one of the people pushing for this for a long time; one of the boosters of the project. So I'm very happy about it on that account. But what this means, is that China will now move into a series of more rails of this type, rails of this speed. This probably includes, finally, a line from Shanghai to Beijing and Beijing airport--probably; that's not settled yet. But there are others--like to the old city we used to know as Nanking, and so forth. These areas are now being included for the same kind of treatment. More significant, is: This project was done in a relatively short period of time. There's no country in Europe, or in the United States, which could do what was done, in putting this high-tech system of magnetic-levitation transportation into place, for that distance, in that time. Only China could do it. That says something. That tells you that China is a growing economy. It's poor. It is not a great military power by our standards; not today; won't be, for a long time to come. But it shows a capacity for responding to the challenge before it, which is actually gratifying. It's astonishing. All spectators who know anything about this business were pleasantly astonished, as I was. Now, this means that Germany and other countries of Europe, which are not going to survive under the present trends--there's no way they can balance their books; there's no austerity program that's going to work; it will only make things worse--they are going to depend, Europe is going to depend on a process which I've been pushing. That is, back in 1998 in particular, I pushed for the formation of a Strategic Triangle of cooperation among Russia, China, and India. Not them alone. My argument is the following. We need large-scale projects in Asia, and Eurasia, to get the world economy moving. These projects can not go forward without arrangements on cooperation and security among most of the nations of that entire region of the world. Now you have three major nations in that part of the world: Russia, China, and India. Other nations which are important, such as Japan, Korea, Kazakstan, and so forth. But these are the key nations. If these three nations--of dissimilar characteristics, of dissimilar cultural characteristics--can agree on a joint large-scale economic-cooperation program, and a joint security program for the entire region of Asia/Eurasia; then, all of these nations can come together. And they're coming together. The nations of Southeast Asia: Korea, Japan, China, Russia, Kazakstan. These nations are coming together around this project. The maglev project, the Transrapid, which was demonstrated as an operating system between Shanghai and Shanghai Airport over this year-end; this is one of the steps toward that development. This means, that if we can get the jam-up about this railroad connection in Korea, between North and South Korea, fixed--no more fooling with these crazy ideas about diplomacy; just do it--that Japan will be able to ship goods by rail from Pusan, at the southern tip of Korea, to Rotterdam, by two routes: one, the Trans-Siberian route; second, the middle route, so-called Silk Road route. This means that with the development of high-speed freight, as well as passenger transit, by land, we have changed the character of the planet. By doing so, we will open up Central and North Asia for development of its raw-materials potential. We will improve the water system: the great Ob River, and the Irkutsk River, will move water down towards Central Asia, to develop [the region] around the Aral Sea and other areas that are now dying; reverse that process; increase areas of human habitation and development. But at the same time, this system means that Western Europe and Central Europe--including countries such as Poland, Rumania, Slovakia, and so forth--that these countries will now have a future, as now they have none. And led by Germany, France, and Italy--which are the chief export-oriented countries of Western Europe--Western Europe can become a fountain of technology, exported in cooperation with countries of the Strategic Triangle now coming into existence. That means that there is the possibility of a recovery in Asia, if we have a new international monetary system to make it work. What We Have To Do in January What I propose as a monetary reform, has been endorsed by a majority of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, and by many parts of the Senate. It is my proposal; it has been adopted and voted up as my proposal. So there are people in the world moving to do what I've proposed be done. The United States must have a new orientation. The orientation must be to cooperate with this kind of development in Eurasia; a new kind of diplomacy; peace in the Middle East; ending the genocide which is now policy of practice in sub-Saharan Africa. Stop destroying our neighbors to the south, in South and Central America. Begin a long-term process of development and investment. Turn the United States back into an engine of technology. Start with infrastructure. Save the industries we have. Save our air transport system. Save our rail system. Improve our transport system with an idea that we're going to transport across the Pacific too, into China, Korea, and so forth. We have options. But what we have to do, is do as I say. At this point of crisis, beginning the month of January, we have to begin to make these fundamental changes in U.S. policy, and policies of other countries. We have to resolve to put the IMF through bankruptcy reorganization, to go back to something like we had between 1946-58; not exactly, but something like it; the same principles. We have to cooperate with Eurasian countries, including our allies in Western Europe, for cooperation in this great Eurasian development project, one of the great projects, and the greatest market, of all humanity today. We have to turn to our neighbors to the south, and go back again to a nation-building, high-technology orientation; to save Argentina; to prevent Brazil from collapsing; to restore Colombia to itself; to restore, fully, the sovereignty of Peru; to build up the nations of Central America; to strengthen Mexico on a stable basis, not a cheap-labor-market basis; to save Bolivia from a drug mob; to prevent that kind of corruption from going on in Paraguay and Uruguay. We have a great challenge and a great opportunity. It means we have now to say, the system is a failure, going from a producer society to a consumer society was a stupid, evil mistake; going to a floating-exchange-rate system was a stupid, evil mistake; deregulation was a stupid, evil mistake. We're going to fix that; we're going to learn our lesson, correct our errors, and act to stop the fibrillation. And it has to start this month. It has to start in the month of January. So now, here we are. Congress is preparing to re-assemble. They'll be much fussing in Congress; they'll be various people in the Congress who'll make some measures which are interesting measures, with which I have sympathy. But the question is, are they going to push for the measures which we need? Not just band-aid measures, but measures that will actually begin to fix the problem. Are they prepared to change the system? Then we come along to the question of the President, who, sometime later this month, is going to have to make a State of the Union Address; or it will be a State of the Dis-Union Address, otherwise. I'll be there all along. I'll be doing various things in other parts of the world; but I'll be there in spirit, and active, and watching, and intervening. Then on the 28th, I'm going to make an address, at 1:00 in the afternoon, Washington, D.C. time. Later the same day--probably; it's not yet certain--the President may make a State of the Union Address. Let's see if he does as well as I do, that same day. On the day preceding--on Jan. 27--a number of very important decisions are going to be put on the table, including the UN discussion on Iraq, and things of that sort. On the 29th, there are other decisions that have to be faced. So sometime between now and the 29th of January, we're going to see if the United States looks as if it's going to survive. In the meantime, my job is to be there. I know what works. I know how to fix the problem. These guys don't. I'm not laughing at them. I'm standing by and preparing to help them; to give them the direction of leadership they need--including the President; to give him the direction and leadership he needs, to show him what he does not know how to deal with now: how to fix this economy. So that's what I'm up to. And now to see what you have to say about these things. Michele Steinberg: Well, Lyn, I'd like to start with a comment that says, "What you have just laid out, should remind people, as it reminds me, of Dr. Martin Luther King's great statement, ‘I have a dream,' because what you have just laid out to all of us, is a ‘challenge to the imagination' (I think you used that term). We have a couple of minutes before the break. I'd like to ask you to make a statement, just briefly, in terms of: What is your campaign going to do in this next month, in terms of directing the activities of the campaign volunteers, leading up to the webcast? Then, we'll take a break, and have more questions. LaRouche: What I'm going to do, in particular, I'm going to act as if I were the President. Because the country needs the kind of leadership, that this President does not yet have the knowledge and advice from his own, immediate circle, to know what to do. I know what to do. I may not know all the answers, but I know more answers than anybody else in the United States. And, my ability to lead is needed in the United States, as elsewhere, at this time. Therefore, what I'm going to do with this month, as I indicated is, I'm going to be there, effectively behind the shoulder of the President, the Congress, and so forth. I'm going to be there, telling people what they need to know and what they need to do, that is most essential. When they make a mistake, they're going to have to worry, because I will have said what they should do; if they don't do, and they make a mistake, people are going to remember: "They made a mistake. They were told, ‘Don't make the mistake, again.'" So, by this kind of method, my purpose right now, for this month, is to get the United States, and much of the world besides, safely through a dangerous month. Without my intervention, I don't think we'd get through it. But, I think, if I am sitting there, nagging these guys, the way I nag, that I think that will keep them on the ball. Steinberg: You are listening to "The LaRouche Show" for Jan. 4, 2023, the first edition of the program in the new year.... [station id] To sum up some of the points that Mr. Lyndon LaRouche has made, over this first half-hour of our broadcast: He has talked about the "Weeks of Crisis Before Us." The United States and the world are in a profound economic depression. We have to take emergency solutions--big projects, projects of dreams and imagination. Projects like those, that were enacted by U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt; that this isn't just something of the past. Just this past week, the Chancellor of Germany Gerhard Schroeder went to China, and took the inaugural train ride on the Shanghai maglev high-speed rail. This was an idea, that Mr. LaRouche has boosted. This is the beginning of an idea that Helga Zepp-LaRouche presented to a Chinese conference in 1996. She is internationally known as the "Silk Road Lady." Lyn, as the first question, I'd like to go back to that fundamental idea, and ask you to just say a few words about Helga's work as the "Silk Road Lady." Because America definitely needs a First Lady like Helga LaRouche. In a moment, we're going to be going to the conference panel, where, listeners, you'll be introduced to two of our leaders of the LaRouche Youth Movement. I asked you to comment on Helga's activities as the "Silk Road Lady," but I'd like to come back to that, but first go to our conference call panel. Timothy from Los Angeles has a question. He's a leader of the LaRouche Youth Movement. Timothy joined our movement just before Sept. 11, so this has been one heck of an eventful year and a few months, since then. Timothy, are you there? Timothy: Yes, hello. All right, Mr. LaRouche, I have a question for you. I think this is pretty crucial to organizing the American population, right now. It regards something you brought up in your "Next Generations" paper, in the section entitled "Educating Young Americans Today," where you discuss hypothesis, and the decadent trends in matters of science; where you discuss the typically Aristotelian error common to the Roman, Ptolemy and modern Copernicus and Brahe, which is the Romantic reductionist's radical presumption, that physical lawfulness in the universe, actually, has to be limited to a form of uniform, statistical regularity and sense-perceptual observations. Now, I don't think it's just Ptolemy we're talking about, but I think a few Americans around here might be stuck on "uniform statistical regularity." And so, my question is, could you, maybe discuss, how hypotheses are generated? Because it seems to me, that in today's world, "uniform statistical regularity" is conspicuously lacking. LaRouche: Well, the problem is this: The question comes up, simply, to many people. And, it comes up partly as a religious question, because, the question is, what is the difference between man and an animal? Are human beings special, in the sense, that you can't do to them, what you do, say, with cows--slaughter them? What's the difference? Can you prove the difference? Now, from the standpoint of so-called "received religious belief," Christian, Islamic, and Jewish, there are laws in those beliefs, against violating the difference between man and an animal. But, we're now in a period, where, led by people in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, they're moving toward the idea of a world religion, of a kind of heathen religion, which number one, tries to eliminate Christianity. The argument is made, that the Roman Empire fell because of Christianity, and if the Romans had not been influenced by Christianity, the Roman Empire would have gone on forever. And, there are those who admire the British Empire, who say, "We could have an English-speaking world empire, if we could only get rid of Christianity." Well, I think, that everybody knows and has seen that process going on, and I think some religious beliefs, in the name of Christianity are helping that process!--of destroying Christianity. But, the question still comes back to the basic question: European civilization, in particular, has depended entirely upon a concept, which we associate with Plato, and before him with Solon and so forth, the Classical Greek conception, which became an integral part of Christianity. And, all of the positive features of European civilization, have hung upon this conception of Christianity, done in ecumenical relationship, particularly to Islam and to Judaism. For example: From Moses to Moses to Moses. From Biblical Moses, to Moses Maimonides, to Moses Mendelssohn: This is Judaism, as an ecumenical part of the process. So, these beliefs are now being destroyed, among people. And, people are now, in this time of distress, are turning around and saying, "What's the difference between man and a beast? Is there is a difference? Can you prove it? Except by quoting from the Bible?" Well, you can. And, one of the ways you can prove it, is, you can take what Gauss did, in a Latin paper, in 1799, where he announced what became known as "the fundamental theorem of algebra." This paper was an attack on the reductionist/empiricist ideas of, specifically, most importantly, Leonhard Euler, who was a fanatical reductionist, and his protégé, who later became quite influential in France, Lagrange. And, much of the corruption in science, has come from the idea, which denies the difference between a man and an animal, as implicitly, Euler Lagrange, Cauchy, and others did. So, we have then, a moral crisis, as well as a practical crisis, in science. Science should be able to tell us, as it can, "Yes, the idea of Christianity is right. There is a provable difference, between man and an animal." No animal, for example, can discover a fundamental law of the universe. And, you can't discover it at a computer. You can't discover it with mathematics. You have to conduct the process, which includes physical experiment, which enables you to discuss universal principles of this universe. Now, these principles are not only important for science, as such. They're important, because we need progress. And, all the progress of humanity, in terms of productivity, better conditions of life, depend upon our making these discoveries, and utilizing them, in the form of improved technologies, to change and improve the way of life. So, in this aspect, this belief, which is essentially for most of us, Christian, or Islamic, or Jewish, this belief is very important; not because it's a belief, an arbitrary belief, as a religious belief: It happens to be true! And, it's very nice to find that people have a belief, which is religious, which happens to be true! That gives us some confidence in those religions, when they practice it that way. All right. So, it gives you a social basis for a moral understanding, of man, and the relationship of man and man, or man to woman. Secondly, this principle, of discovery, is precious to us, for other practical reasons. Now, the issue here, of hypothesis, is the following: The empiricists said, and following people like Sarpi, Galileo Galilei, Descartes, and others, have said, that there are no ideas in the universe. All we have is sensation, sense-perception. But, every principle we discover, is a principle, which is not available to us through direct senses. You can not discover gravity; you can't "see gravity"; you can't smell gravity. You can't taste it. It doesn't talk to you; you don't hear it crying. So, how do you know it exists? Well, Kepler ran a great experiment, a great investigation. And, he demonstrated that the Solar System is not run, as a regular system. It's run in irregular orbits, elliptical orbits. The rate of motion of the Solar System, is not uniform; it's constantly non-uniform. So, how do you get a simple mathematical formula? Then, you have someone like Fermat. Fermat discovered, that, no, the way in which light travels is not always shortest distance; but, it does travel always by the quickest distance, which is not always the shortest. And, most of modern science, including the principle of least action, of Leibniz, was discovered on the basis of this. Can you smell least action? Can you taste it? Can you see it? Does it speak to you? You know, you get in trouble if it does! Therefore, these principles, which are called "universal physical principles," are things which you can not see, taste, and so forth. But, by experiment, we can discover them. And, we can prove that they're efficient. Therefore, we know, that the mind of man knows this kind of process, of discovery, knows things "out there," so to speak--universal physical principles, by which we can change the universe, to our advantage. We don't invent new laws for the universe. But, we discover new laws, by which we operate, in the universe. And, this is what's important. Therefore, this act of discovery, the act of so-called "hypothesizing," which is described in detail by Plato, in his collection of dialogues, this is the most important thing, in all scientific knowledge. Because, by this method, we are able to prove, that we, as human beings, can each, individually, we can each know things, and with certainty, things we can not see, things we can not taste, things we can not smell. We can know these things. They're called universal principles. We can know how to control the use of these principles, to change the universe from what we perceive it to be, into something more agreeable to us. We know, that, because we're human, and can do this, that we, as human beings, are not animals. And then, we look, with a certain loving attitude toward our fellow human being, because behind the eyes of that other human being, there is a mind, which, like ours, can discover, can use universal physical principles, for the advantage, not only of the present generation, but transmit them to future generations. And therefore, you have an idea of solidarity with humanity, in nations and among nations. So, there's much more to say on this, Timothy, because it's a bigger subject, as you know. But, I think these are the important things. First of all, this is a moral question, and one of the problems we have in society is, our morality is breaking down, because we do not understand, we do not really believe, that the other guy, as a human being, is not an animal. We do not treat them as human beings. Even parents will look at their children that way. Or, people will look at their parents, adult people: "Well, you know, grandma, you've lived long enough, you know what I mean? And, your bills are piling up, and we can't afford to carry your bills. Grandma, why don't you give it up? You've had your run! Don't be a burden on us!" That's the expression in the United States, today. Before it had been considered criminal and disgusting. But, this is part of the moral degradation. So, this idea of discovering the importance of universal physical principles, is essential to us, to get out of this mess. It's also morally essential, for us to correct the moral degeneration, which has taken over much of our population, especially over the past 30 years. That, I think, is the short of it. Steinberg: Welcome, once again, to our listeners [station id].... Lyn, we have loads of e-mails coming in, and also more questions from our conference line. I'd like to go to Adam, from our Philadelphia office. Adam is also a leader in the youth movement, who's been involved in organizing for the "Super-TVA"; been at town meetings; and, visiting representatives in Washington, giving the Congress a perspective--shall we say--when the "LaRouche Cavalry" enters the scene. Adam, are you there? Adam: Yes, I am. Hi Lyn. Great to be able to ask a question. As you know, of course, in this campaign, we talk a lot about technological development. And, it's one of the things, that actually recruited me, was your outlook on technology. But, beyond our current technological horizon, like particle beams, fusion, maglev, bio-photons, and things like this, what would you say could possibly be the next level of technological discovery? Especially in relation to the space program, like a Mars colony? And also, I'd like your insight: Once we really get a grip on Gauss and Riemann, to a really profound level of understanding, could you give us an insight into what we would have to make breakthroughs in next? LaRouche: Well, a couple of things, that are projects that interest me very much. On space project, you know, we discovered a long time ago (well, decades ago, actually), we discovered that most of the cosmic-ray radiation impinging on the Earth, is coming from the Crab Nebula. That's really fun. This was discovered in Germany, near Denmark, by a system there, which is a larger-scale system. And, the evidence which was picked up there, was then confirmed by an older, smaller system, in England. So, we pretty much established that: That this cosmic ray phenomenon, comes largely to Earth, from the Crab Nebula. That is, when we're in the right position, we get a bigger dose of it. This is fun, because the Crab Nebula is something which is known in historic times. It broke up--it was observed in China, I believe--and it's very anomalous. It is relativistic in the extreme. And therefore, this is one of those things, which you want to look at, because it's obvious. We also had on our list of investigations, back in the old days, back in the 1980s in the Fusion Energy Foundation, of looking at fast-spinning star systems. These are also quite anomalous, and fun. There are a lot of things out there, which tell us things about the universe. And, we need to know, because only by looking at anomalies, or paradoxes of that type, can we really understand how the universe functions. Then, you go to the other extreme: We have a phenomenon in very micro-microphysics, which is called "matter/anti-matter reactions." Now, these things are not well defined. The evidence is well defined, but it's obvious that this is a source of generation of power, which is orders of magnitude greater than the possibility of fusion combustion power. It's very interesting! It has what is called a higher "energy flux-density," by two or three orders of magnitude, than is possible with fusion energy. We'll look at that. So, there are three directions, that I've proposed for mankind--back then, and I still do today:
Now, this is where this Vernadsky problem becomes interesting. Vernadsky, I think, to the satisfaction of many of us, at least, demonstrated, that we have three what are called "phase-spaces," that we know of in the domain of physical science: One, is the abiotic domain, in which we see no evidence of life, or cognition. This is often assumed to be an entropic area--I don't it's necessarily so--but, anyway. Then, you have a second area: You have physical phenomena, which are generated only by life, not by abiotic phenomena. This is, for example, Pasteur's famous experiments, and the subsequent work by Curie and Vernadsky demonstrated, that what we call "life" has the form of a universal physical principle, which causes changes in systems, which come only as a result of living processes, and can not be synthesized from processes which are not living. Thirdly, we have, as Vernadsky emphasized, which he called the "Noösphere." We have physical changes, in the universe--especially on Earth, of course, where we are--where the universe is changed in ways that even living processes couldn't change it. But, man's mind, through applied discoveries of principle, does change the universe. Vernadsky called this "the noëtic principle." I refer to it as "cognition," or "Platonic hypothesizing"--the same thing. So, when looking at the world, these are the most interesting areas. For example, if we're going into Central and North Asia, this is an area of tundra and desert. It's an area of great extremes, and problems. Many of the mineral resources of the planet, one of the biggest concentrations, in fact, occurs in that area. Well, how are we going to deal with it? We have the Sahara Desert: It's a mess. Can we control deserts? Can we make that change? What about our own Southwest of the United States? We have a water crisis, a dangerous water crisis, in the Western and Southwestern states of the United States. Can we cure it? Yes, we can. But, in order to change the environment, in ways where you transform the desert into an habitable area, of production and dense population, you've got to know what you're doing. And therefore, the science of a higher biology, or a higher sense of Biosphere science, must be developed, so that we do the job, and do it competently. So, these are the areas, I think, which people will tend to focus on, as they become optimistic about the future. Look to the far distance, in astrophysics. Look at the things, which are the wildest things we know of, out there, that we could possibly investigate. Go into the deepest depths of microphysics. Take the most interesting problems there. Break through the barriers. Then, look at man on the macrophysical scale. Look at, in terms of general, not only abiotic processes, which are the traditional area of physical chemistry; but, look also at life itself. Life is a principle. It is not something you get, from crystals. It's a principle. We don't understand the principle of life. We know it. People deal with it. But, what is it? What is the principle of life? If it's a universal principle, as Vernadsky points out. Then, the question of cognition, the power of the human mind, which enables us to make discoveries of principle, as no other species can do. This has an effect, a physical effect on the universe: to change the Earth, and prospectively to change the Solar System, and more besides! What is this thing? Well, we can describe it from the standpoint of hypothesizing. We can conduct experiments, and demonstrate it. But, we know there's a deeper principle there, we don't yet understand. My view is, let's inspire young people, who want to do scientific work, and give them the possibility of looking at this array of these areas of development; and look, at the same time, at some of the problems, which threaten the condition of life--well, today, for example, this AIDS crisis. We've done, really, nothing on this. What else is out there, that we don't know about, that's going to hit us tomorrow, that threatens humanity? Let's go to the frontiers. Let's take on the challenge of the frontiers, of the unknown. Let's conquer the unknown. That's the way human beings ought to be. And, you do it for that reason, if for no other. Steinberg: Thank you, Lyn. Thank you, Adam, for that question. [station id] Lyn, I want to shift gears a little bit. We've received a number of questions, all related to a similar topic. One comes from Willem Dunkbar [ph] of the Netherlands, who is a supporter of the movement from there; others come from here in the United States. It's about Sept. 11, 2023. First of all, a question from Richard, in Trenton, N.J., "Besides yourself, which would be, to me, the most obvious, and too good to be true, who would you suggest to lead the official investigation?" The other questions are about, "What do you see as the clearest evidence, that the Presidency is implicated in the attacks on 9/11?" As usual, there's a lot of confusion about this, and disinformation. You nailed it the day it was happening, on a radio program. How can you answer these inquiries? LaRouche: Well, first of all, you look at the operation on Sept. 11, as I did. Now, I didn't come into this naïve; I had no idea, that that was going to happen on that day. I don't think many honest people did, however knowledgeable they were. They took us by surprise. We expected, during August in particular, we expected major destabilizations to target Washington, D.C. We were very concerned about that, at that time. We were concerned about something like the Genoa riots [in late July 2023] but on a larger scale, hitting Washington, D.C. Now, we had a large security problem in the Northern Virginia area, which is related to that. There were other things we were worried about. But, we had no intimation--I didn't--of what happened on Sept. 11. But, because I knew what was going on in the world--I was sitting on radio, by telephone, and we were listening to these reports, as they came in in the morning. And, very quickly, by the time the second tower was hit, I knew pretty much what was up. And, I made the remark, that "I hope that nobody's stupid enough to blame Osama bin Laden, for this." Because Osama bin Laden's career was built up as an American agent, an Anglo-American agent. That's how he got into business, in connection with the Afghanistan wars, back in the 1980s. But, the reason I said "Osama bin Laden," is, remember that you had this fertilizer bomb was stuck in the basement of one the towers in the New York World Trade Center. And therefore--we know the famous trial that happened then--and therefore, why would somebody hit these towers? Then, I really had a clearer picture, when Washington was hit--when the Pentagon was hit. And, then we had this report of a fourth plane. Now, I looked later, and got a confirmation of what I said, and suspected to be the case, as I had said on the radio at that time: That, with one exception, the four planes in question were of the same type, and they were going into the air at the same time. Technically, they could have all hit Washington first. Why would they hit, an admittedly spectacular target, the World Trade Center, and wait to hit Washington later? The normal routine would be to hit Washington first, to get the maximum effect and element of surprise. And immediately, as you did that, hit something else? So why, did they do it that sequence? It made no sense, in one sense: This was not a simple terrorist operation. It was an operation with a strategic purpose, and the strategic purpose was to focus the blame for the operation, on the Islamic world. That was obvious. That was obvious to me in the first hour of these events of that date. Who did it? I don't know, to this day. But, I know a lot about who did--a lot about who did it--but, I don't know who they were. What do I mean? First, of all, an operation of this sophistication could not be run by some dog-and-pony show terrorist. This is a very sophisticated operation, which probably would have required a year to two years' planning. It's a long-term project, very sensitive. This means, that you had to have people who understood fully, the U.S. security system--and I knew a few things about the U.S. security system, from the work I'd done, in connection with the government on the SDI, back in 1982-83. So, I knew something about this stuff. And, it just couldn't happen, unless there was a breakdown, in the security system, which I would have presumed, was functioning; and probably a combination of people who would know, what was not functioning. And therefore, they could get by with this. Because, under a full, alert system, these four planes could not have happened; under a fully functioning security system, as I understood it, was supposed to be in place. So, somebody knew from the inside, exactly how to do this. What's the purpose? Well, the purpose is obvious. There's only one purpose. If the purpose is not to destroy the United States government, but to commit an act so atrocious, that it forces the United States to go to war against somebody, what's the purpose of the operation? It's to get them, to aim them at some target of war! What was the target? The Arab world. That was the target. And, that target coincided, of course, with the Sharon operation, in Israel. Obvious. I didn't think, that even the Israelis would be allowed into an operation with the U.S., in that time--I don't think that any U.S. person who was complicit, would allow the Israelis to function. I may be wrong on that. But, that was my first guess. But, there are other things--I'll get to what these other things are. So, at that point, I simply knew, unknown persons, very high rank, and who agree with the objectives laid out by Bernard Lewis, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Samuel P. Huntington, and others. These people, who are known to us, as "utopians"--that is, the followers of H. G. Wells and Bertrand Russell. These utopian factions, who are inside our defense establishment--sometimes in the military, but they do not represent the typical U.S. military flag officer and so forth; they are a very special group-- Steinberg: Lyn, we are out of time, today. We're going to have to come back, at another time for the answer. And, people here, send in your questions to Mr. LaRouche. Thank you very much, and see you again, soon, I hope. - 30 -
|
||||||