Question: Hi, I want to rewind to a less abstract part of this discussion, about people being delivered, what you would say, a more sensible way of looking at life, in order to expand this organization. And, I propose the thesis, that if people are somehow presented with a new way of thinking, they are so addicted to the insensitive, that they're currently thinking, that they'll start to suffer from withdrawal, and not really absorb what you're trying to tell them. I want you to comment on that dilemma.

LaRouche: Ah! There's not really a dilemma! It's only a dilemma, if you're talking to decadent people, not to young people.

See the way this youth movement works, is, there are very few people in society, who are developed sufficiently that they are rational. Most people, in society, up to the present, are irrational. They don't like to hear that, but that's the truth. I know it. I'm an old man, I've been around the world, a few times, and I know that people generally, including people in powerful positions, especially academic positions, are generally, highly irrational. They cling to arbitrary assumptions, and will climb the walls, screeching like banshees, if you attack one of their purely foolish, arbitrary assumptions, on which their reputation had been based, eh?

What happens, then, is: You come along to a great crisis, like now. It is apparent to every young person, especially in Europe and in the Americas, that the present system is a catastrophic failure. It is emotionally clear, to these young people, or at least a great number of them, that their parents are immoral! Because, their parents, who complacently say, "This is the system you have to learn within"--that their parents, themselves, have created a system, in which they can not live!

So, the way you'd get ideas, generally, in human experience, as Plato exemplifies this, is through paradoxes of that type: experimental paradoxes. You find something doesn't work! Take the case of Pasteur and his followers, on the question of the proof of the existence of a principle of life. Now, Pasteur implicitly did insist upon the independent existence of a principle of life. He said one famous lecture: that the future would say, that we would see non-biotic behavior from the standpoint of a higher set of living principles, rather than trying to discover living principles from study of abiotic processes. In that degree, we know that Pasteur actually had a conception  of life, as a separate principle, as we see this expressed by Vernadsky later in his definition of the Biosphere, (which, again, I think very few people today, would attempt to contest, unless they were some kind of religious nuts).

But, also, you see the same thing in other ways; you see in life generally, in every kind of physical experiment. Take the case of, simply, Fermat: Fermat--or the classic case of Kepler. Kepler demonstrated--the Aristotelians taught, and the empiricists copied them, that you must interpret the facts of sensation, of sense-perception, in such a way as to adduce a regularity of action, which is running the universe. And thus, they insisted, everything must be reduced to circular actions in astrophysics. And thus, you had, in the 16th Century, you had three leading influences: one long dead, Claudius Ptolemy, the Roman forger of a doctrine of astronomy; you had Copernicus, who apparently revived the pre-ancient Greek astronomy of Aristarchus, on the heliocentric model; and Tycho Brahe, who was a collaborator of younger Kepler.

And Kepler showed that all three of these latter, were absurd, by observing one thing: That the orbit of Mars, and other planets, first of all was not circular; and secondly, that the motion of the planet within the orbit, was not uniform--was constantly non-uniform. So therefore, Aristotle's concept of method went out of the window, because of a paradox.

Now, Kepler went further, by showing what was the underlying the principle, which must govern this elliptical, non-uniform motion of the planetary system: Which he called an intention, built into the universe, a universal physical principle. That is, Kepler's definition of a universal physical principle, which is the foundation of all competent, modern mathematical physics. That is, Kepler's definition of a universal physical principle, as in his 1609 New Astronomy, is the foundation of all knowledge, of modern, universal physical principle.

Then, you have, shortly after that, the work of Fermat, who demonstrates, by simple refraction/reflection contrast, that the universe has to be governed, not by a principle of shortest distance in action, but, again, by quickest time. Now, in both cases, clearly by Fermat: Fermat introduced the issue of physical principles, as opposed to a Euclidean/Cartesian geometry into the definition of mathematical physics. This was continued by Fermat, [inaud] by Huyghens, who continued the error of Galileo (Galileo is a fraud, but he was somewhat influential in that time), in his first attempt to define time, in respect to the clock business, isochronic behavior--isochronism.

But then, later, Leibniz, in collaboration with Jean Bernouilli, demonstrated that the cycloid, which had been the virtual argument of Huyghens was wrong: That the pathway of least action, or quickest time, in the universe, is the catenary form, not the cycloid form.  And the catenary's a very interesting form: Because this involves a fundamental paradox, and Leibniz showed that the natural logarithms--he was the first to define natural logarithms, defined them in terms of this catenoid definition of least action, which is something that Euler tried to fake with his construction of the natural logarithms, and so forth. And also, but this was a principle of universal least action, which became known as the geodesic principle of curvature, in the work of Gauss, such as in his (I think it's 1925-26) Copenhagen lectures, the prize lectures. And is the generalized basis for physical economy--or, physical science, in general, physical geometry in Riemann's system of geometry.

So, in all these cases, the discovery is made, by recognizing a paradox, in what sense-perception indicates to be consistency; and it's in the inconsistencies, demonstrated by the paradoxes of perception, that the human mind is capable of adducing the footprint of a principle--not the principle, but the footprint of a principle--and to follow those footprints to find out the creature that made it, called "a universal physical principle."

So, that's the difference here. And also, therefore in life, as faced by the youth today. The youth of today are looking at a system, which is disintegrating. They're looking at what their parents are babbling, their parents generation is babbling, and they're saying, "Our parents generation is babbling! They tell us they gave us everything, but they gave us a society with no future." Therefore: These youth, who perceive that, are the ones who recognize the truth, and their parents don't.

Therefore, it's not a question of how do you convince the parents? You don't have to worry about that: The youth will convince the parents.

So therefore, instead of wasting your time, arguing with silly parents, you say, "The youth will teach you." And you teach the youth. And, you have to help the youth, not to "learn" a doctrine, but you have to inspire them, to make the discovery for themselves. Then, the youth, as has been always the case, in every revolutionary period in history (at least, known history), will educate the adult generation, their parents, to save society.

That's the way success comes about. [applause]

-30-