Question: And my question goes along with the one before. I just, I would like to hear some ideas you might have on how to keep your patience, you know, with people a little longer. I feel like I'm building up a stack of enemies some times.

LaRouche: I look at that exactly.

Well, I think it's the same way. It does go along with that, the same way. If you practice this, by doing the Socratic method in dialogues. I mean, you've got all kinds of things to discuss, and I'm sure that among you, as you discuss, if you do it as I hear it's being done, you're actually getting a feel of that. That you find out that, compared to what you get in a typical university classroom, you find that you can, in a sense, learn faster, this way. Which is what should happen in a university classroom, but it doesn't, unfortunately. You learn faster when you go at it by this Socratic method, because you're actually looking at the thing as solving a paradox; you're looking at everything from a higher standpoint.

 If you get at the idea of communicating, of the Socratic method as a method of communication of ideas, then, when you face a frustrating situation, rather than responding with anger, and frustration, you say, “What's the paradox?” “Let me stand back and look at myself talking to this guy. What's wrong here? What's his assumption? And why am I pounding, perhaps, on the wrong door? Maybe I should hit this thing on a flank.”

The guy says, “Well, I don't think your man is going to make it. I don't think popular opinion will accept him.” Well, you say, “Well, what if popular opinion, unless it's changed, will send us all to Hell? Do you think that people would like to survive? If popular opinion is going to go to Hell, are they willing to give up some part of popular opinion, for the sake of surviving? Do you think that's possible? Or do you think people are hopelessly insane?”

And, that's a paradox for them. It's a real paradox. It could be expressed in various ways. If the guys is thinking, he's got to think. “Well, I believe in this.” “Yes, but how did we get to this mess? Look at the rules of accounting. Don't you believe now, that every accountant is crooked? Not because they intend to be, but because the rules by which they play are crooked? Don't you believe that what is accepted in the Congress, and the so-called free-trade system, is inherently crooked? Doesn't Enron teach you something?”

You've got all these examples. “Don't you think the splitting of the generation of power from distribution of power, by law--don't you think that was kind of nuts? Isn't the function of energy generation and distribution, to provide energy, for the economy and its people, at a fixed price, or a fairly determined price, which makes it usable for the people? Isn't it the function to have enough of that for the entire area, for all the needs of the population? Don't you think perhaps, then, there's something wrong with the opinion that keeps voting for free trade?”

These are just typical of the many kinds of paradoxes which are floating out there, ready to be tapped. And you have to judge, of course, get more and more insight, into the population, and what goes on in people's minds, to know which paradox is most likely, or is at least going to be effective, in getting them to see that what they're saying is paradoxical. That what they're saying they wish to defend, as an opinion, conflicts with what they think their fundamental interest ought to be. And that's the only way--that the only way you can solve this problem.

It's always this method, the Socratic method.

-30-