Youth Movement Dialogue With LaRouche
November 2, 2023

To read the opening remarks by LaRouche to this gathering, click here.
 

Question: My name is Ed. I'm from the Philadelphia office, part-time organizer, Philadelphia University. Okay.

I want to know--you were talking a lot about Christianity, and I've been studying that for a while. I consider myself a Christian, and I was wondering--I've been reading a lot about fundamentalism and all that kind of stuff. I was wondering if the Bible is not as true as it should be, what might one want to study?

LaRouche: Well, I went through all of this stuff as a young man and child. I got real exposure to all this stuff, and I'll tell you, I knew the Bible backwards and forwards, knew what various people, various religious groups taught, and as I got through the process, by adolescence I said, "Most of this is bunk, you know." And I settled on a couple of things: the first chapter of Genesis, and, especially, the writings of the Apostles Paul and John. Because those express the essence of Christianity. And you think of Christ personally, himself, as depicted in such things as, I think rather excellently, in Bach's--several versions of the Passion of St. John and St. Matthew. But you realize that the conception of Christ as a person who is dedicated to all of humanity, to save humanity; and you look at the image of Christ in the times he lived. A terrible affliction had descended on civilization and the entire region. The Emperor Augustus had established his empire, in concert with a bunch of Satanic characters at about the time--during the time that Christ, Christ's birth occurred during that period. Christ was murdered by order of the Emperor Tiberius, who was the next emperor. And it was done through Pontius Pilate, who was the son-in-law, under Roman law, of Pontius Pilate, who was sent to Judea, among other things, to do that job.

So, Christ died for all of humanity in the sense of realizing that humanity was at the point of being destroyed.

Now, Christianity had a certain special quality: Contrary to all the nuts, Hebrew was not spoken in the Middle East, in the time of Christ. It was a dead language. The key thing was, it was--the written alphabet survived in part, but, at ... [tape change] ... existed only as a written language, which was highly subject to various interpretations. Secondly, the Hebrew texts of that period came from two reforms, so-called, the first done by the Babylonian priesthood, which revised the Hebrew texts. For example, the Adam and Eve story, is a Babylonian myth, and you observe that the Adam and Eve story in Genesis, and the story of Creation in Chapter One of Genesis, are different. Adam and Eve did not exist for Moses. Adam and Eve was a myth of the Babylonians, which was stuck in, synchretically, into the Hebrew writings, by orders of the conquering--like Adolf Hitler--began to write the Hebrew Gospels or something, eh? Then you had a second one, that was done by the Archemaenids; again, they got the Jewish priests, the rabbis, so-called, they get them into Babylon again, and they put them through another brainwashing. So that much of the Old Testament is brainwashing. And it was understood by most scholars, but people said, "I don't want to touch it. I won't touch it. Let's say the Bible is this. Let's not try to sort out what's real, and what's not real."

So, I stick with [myself?]. I have nothing to do with any quaint or quirky religious beliefs. I stick to what I know, that is, what I actually know. Not what somebody tells me I should believe. What I know is, that I know as a matter of science, that Genesis I is correct. Okay. I know that what Christ represents, as in the Gospel of John, which is not contradicted by the accounts of Matthew and so forth, and what Paul represents--it's what I understand. I understand Christ. I understand what that means. So, that's it. So I just simply avoid these other issues, because they're not relevant to me. That Christ died to save humanity is clear. That Martin Luther King saw himself as walking in the imitation of Christ, in the role his chose toward the end of his life, when he had to go through his own Gethsemane. That's true. And therefore, I just avoid these other things as superfluous; I ignore a good deal about theology and things of this type as a scientist. It's my area. But, I just stay away from anything that's dubious, quirky, or quaint, and stick to what I know to be true. Which is what I advise everybody to do.

Question: I'm Ryan from Philadelphia, and an organizer there. Now, I don't exactly know how to formulate this question to you, but it comes out of a discussion that I was having with [name], who is a student also, temporarily, in Philadelphia.  But we were contrasting Beethoven's Grosse Fugue to some piece of Mahler, which I actually don't know what that was. And, I was thinking about how, many times, you've discussed art as conveying these profound ideas. And I also think about the time that we're living in and how you said to the students in--. Well, first of all, maybe something on these two pieces, the composition, the way the mind works in one, and the way the other, you know, people have been saying, actually some have attributed to you that some parts of Mahler are okay. So I don't know anything about that. I'd never listened to him, except for this one piece.

But, the other question I have is, in terms of organizing this Baby Boomer generation, too, what you've said, which is the youth need to inspire, I look at this Grosse Fugue as difficult an idea to understand as it is to try to inspire this generation too. So maybe you could say something about that.

LaRouche: Okay. Well, first of all, you have to think about, not music in general, you have to think about the two principle currents in European civilization. The so-called Romantic and the Classical. The Classical means, significantly, essentially, it means two exemplary things--.

Well, a good example of the Classical. My experience--I've reported on this before, but maybe it's relevant as a point of reference here. In 1987-88, I was confronted with the fact that the Communist government of Florence was destroying the cupola of the Cathedral of Florence, largely through stupidity and arrogance, not because they understood what they were doing. And, what was crucial was--they were engaged in so-called repairing or fixifying, or whatever, Florence to make it a tourist attraction, and they thought they would make these improvements in the maintenance in the leading artifacts in the area. So I was very upset by this. They were trying to fill up certain holes that the architect, Brunelleschi, had put into the structure of the cupola. And I came into a kind of collaboration with a professor, who was a science-engineering professor in that area, who specialized in this work. So, I was concerned to save this cupola, because of its historic and scientific importance. But I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what exactly what had happened.

The situation was that the Cathedral of Florence had been built up to a certain point, without a cupola. And the city fathers of Florence, particularly in the time of Cosimo de' Medici, were determined to try to improve the joint, and to get this cupola stuck on top of this cathedral. Well, the problem was, that if they used conventional methods, the amount of wood available, existing or attainable, required to put up a cupola by conventional methods, didn't exist. So, it was impossible to construct this cupola by existing methods, with existing resources. So Brunelleschi took the job.

So my question was not all these other questions. My question: What was the principle by which Brunelleschi succeeded in doing the impossible, hmmm? Well, I clambered inside this cupola, which is like St. Peter's in Rome, which is copied from that [Brunellschi's dome]. It had an inner stairway that went up to the top, which is called the lantern, on top, and I went up and down that stairway, and I went inside it, looked at it, looked at the bricks, looked at the pictures, looked at everything, trying to find out, what was the principle which had enabled Brunelleschi to construct this cupola, without the necessary wood, which had been deemed necessary to that under normal circumstances.

And I said, "Ah! The catenary!" The problem was, the catenary was not defined as a principle of least action until the work of Leibniz at the beginning of the 18th Century--the work of Leibniz and Bernouilli which defined the fundamental principle of physical least action. And here, a couple of centuries earlier, Brunelleschi had used the principle to solve the problem! He had used Leibniz's principle of universal least action, physical least action, to construct something which was, otherwise, unconstructable!

So I went to my dear friend the Professor and said, wait a minute; this is what I think. And he went through his records, and showed that I was right. That the hanging-chain principle had been used as the actual method of putting that cupola together.

Now, this is a very important Classical principle, which is key to understanding everything about Classical composition, which is where the difference between a late Romantic like Mahler and Beethoven arises. And Bach, same thing. Is is the difference between Archaic Greek art, which is sometimes called tombstone art, tripod art, because everything is balanced, neatly on a tripod. Like the tomb symbols of some of the ancient Egyptians, from the more decadent period of Egypt. But Greek art, Classical Greek art, sculpture, doesn't look that way. It's a very important trick. The trick is, that Classical Greek sculpture was successful, like the painting, the principles of painting by Leonardo da Vinci, or the paintings of Raphael Sanzio. Or a great painting like Rembrandt's "The Bust of Homer Contemplating the Stupidity of Aristotle." These great paintings, this great art, had one characteristic: frozen motion.

Now, look at a catenary. A catenary chain--what is it? It's frozen motion! It has a singularity which is, it has force. It is not a geometric form. It is a physical geometric form which has an inherent force in it, an efficient force, which is the principle of least action! So, all art, all science, is based on these kinds of conceptions.

Now, in music, it's the same thing. In musical composition, the problem is, that Bach is not understood. Two things are not understood, particularly by instrumentalists. Instrumentalists are the most corrupted--I mean, among Classically trained musicians--instrumentalists are the worst. There are very few exceptions to it. I have--some of my friends are the best exceptions in the world, like my dear old friend Norbert Brainin. But the secret is what Furtwaengler called "performing between the notes." Now, performing between the notes is based, first of all, on a physical principle: Do not try and look back at Pythagoras on the comma, in the way that Pythagoras defined the comma, not as an abstract, at-the-blackboard mathematical principle, no. It's done on the point of his comparing a monochord string, a tuned string, with the way that the voice, the human singing voice, in a certain so-called "beautiful manner" would actually do ascending and descending intervals in various combinations and modalities. And he found this discrepancy between these directions, which came out as an amount called the "comma." Which is not an arithmetic quantity, it's a principle determination of a difference.

All music is based on that, but it's based, in particular, in modern times, since especially the Florentine bel canto method of voice training, of singing voice training. All music is based on the singing voice. Human music. There is no music which is "instrumental." Not good music. No Classical music is instrumental. The instrumental music, as anyone who is a musician knows, that the way you perform instrumental music is you sing it in your head. You have to have a singing voice, and you place, you make the instrument sing, as a voice. For example, take an instrument like the clarinet. You have to make it sing. The oboe: You have to make it sing. If the oboist does not sing, the oboe won't sing. The oboist sings in the mind, and the way the oboist performs the oboe is based on a singing conception in the mind, which he, if experienced, is able to project and impose upon the instrument.

The stringed instruments are particularly ...[tape break]... all that. The string instrument is the mind. Now, Bach's system of well-tempered counterpoint is based on that: It's in the mind. The singing voice relationships determine all music, and determine a tuning system, which Bach defines, actually solving the comma question posed by Pythagoras, at least in part. Bach combined what are essentially six different modes, principle modes, used in Europe, and combined them into one, in a single minor/major well-tempered system, which by the principle of adjoining key, adjacent key, you can get from one part of the process to any other. And, through a system of counterpoint, in which this principle was used, to create paradoxes. The fugue is a paradox. And all the principles of the fugue are exemplified by saying, like the first example, the C-minor Fugue of the First Book of the Preludes and Fugues of Bach, which contains the germ of this principle, already. And the whole system of the Preludes and Fugues contains that.

But then you look at things like the Musical Offering. The Musical Offering is an expansion of the same thing, and all the exercises point to the same business. The Musical Offering is the most quoted work in all music after Bach, especially after Mozart's work on it, Mozart's work in this area: the Lydian principle. The European development of the Lydian principle of all Classical composers is based on that. And the idea of the other modalities being introduced as complements to the Lydian mode, was added. So that actually, even though you have a major/minor system, you actually have a modal system, which, on the basis of adjacent key, adjoining key, or nearest key, you can modify these things, and you can migrate through the thing everywhere. And what you do, is you create paradoxes which are apparently atonal paradoxes, and you find that in the gap of these paradoxes, if you resolve them, you find very interesting things occur.

Now, what happens is, in the case of--which I first understood in 1945, or '46 actually, coming back from Burma. I was stuck in a military replacement depot outside of Calcutta. And some friends of mine, who were musicians, and I, were there, and we were scrounging around to get some music. And coming out of the jungle, you really want music.

So, we dug up, among other things, some recordings of Furtwaengler, conducting, above all things, Tchaikovsky, who is not my favorite composer. And I was nearly knocked off my chair. And other people were also similarly knocked off their chairs, by hearing this performance by Furtwaengler. What Furtwaengler did, he was the cleanest conductor you could ever find. What Furtwaengler did, is he actually performed, as he sometimes called it, "between the notes": That the secret of music, is not to perform the score, but to perform the music. And the music lies in the contrapuntal relationship of all the elements, from beginning to end.

Now, a good composer will not compose a piece by part. A good composer will compose the thing as a single idea, which they then evolve, into a completed composition. Going back and forth to correct it, correct it, correct it; trying to give it perfect coherences. So that, in the performance of that music, the first note, as with the "lunge," as with Furtwaengler: The first note must command the audience--must command it. You must transport the audience from the stage they're looking at, from the musicians they're looking at--transport them into the imagination. That's the trick of great artistic performance: Never try to be literal. Never be Romantic. You must reach the cognitive powers of the imagination, because the great music is that, which is heard in the imagination, not heard with the ear. The ear is a way of getting at the mind, not the mind at the ear.

So, his attacks, and his sense of coherence of the development of the contrapuntal development of an idea, from beginning to end, would create the effect of something which tends to be as messy as Tchaikovsky is, and make it a perfectly coherent piece of composition, which grabs you, at the first stroke--and didn't let you go until the last. And it was all, in the end, one idea. One impression. One impact.

So, the great art develops that.

Now, what gives Mahler and many of the Romantics, what they did--this was the Napoleonic influence, and it became very terrible in Vienna. Mahler was a very skilled musician, a very skilled conductor, but he was a very immoral one; and his wife was worse: Mahler. She practiced it, in extenso, hmm? But, these Romantics parodied, for example: Berlioz, Czerny, Liszt, Wagner, they parodied Classical composition. They were producing things like, for example: Clara Schumann would insist, in defending her husband's work, she said, "My husband never wrote passage-work!" The Romantics write passage-work. Liszt is an example: passage- work. Czerny: passage-work. For sensual effects per se.

Example: Laurence Olivier--probably the worst actor of the British stage, of all. Laurence Olivier, was, apart from being an asshole, a very bad actor. But, the Queen knighted him; or be- knighted him, as the case may be. When asked about why does somebody become an actor, Sir Laurence Olivier said, "Look at me." Now, the actor, who wishes to be seen, for himself, and admired as a person on stage, is no actor! The ancient Greek, Classical actors, operated from behind the mask. Two or three speakers, wearing masks, usually from different positions, would perform the entire Classical drama. You couldn't see the actor: He was masked! So, you were forced the see the actor, in the part that he was playing, in the imagination. You're forced to see the relationship among the parts that are being played in the imagination. Therefore, you're acting on the stage of the imagination of the audience. You are establishing a cognitive real relationship with the audience, rather than, "I admire his style!"

And, Sir Laurence Olivier was a bum actor. His Shakespeare was intolerable--disgusting! One worse than the other. Because he was a fraud! It was like a prostitute, trying to be seduced. "Seduce me! Please, seduce me! I'm so beautiful! Please!" He didn't give a damn about the play! He cared about the popularity of Sir Laurence Olivier.

As opposed to other British actors, who are Classical actors- -who are not so good, but at least they were actors. They forced you into the realm of the imagination. For example, as Shakespeare says, in the Chorus, in Henry V, the opening: "Don't see. You won't see any horses on this stage. You won't see any great clash of arms! Great showers of arrows! You won't hear the thunder of hoofs. But, in your imagination, you'll see it all and know it all." Because, essence was to get the idea across, in the drama. Not a sensual effect.

And the same thing is in music. Mahler's problem was--and all these guys would do it! All the Romantics would do it. Let's take, for example, the case of the so-called "Royal Theme": The Royal Theme was codified, in a sense, by Mozart in his first use of Lydian mode, following a problem defined by Haydn. After that point, every leading Classical composer, through Brahms, always used the Lydian mode and its Mozart treatment of Bach's Royal Theme, as a reference point of composition. Most of Beethoven references it, directly or indirectly. The perfect example of that, are things like the Opus 132 String Quartet--perfect example, Lydian mode. Which is no longer a composition in movements--just like the 131; no longer a composition in movements, but it's a drama, a unified drama from beginning to end, in which the parts are played on stage, like parts, like actors: They're all coherent; all to a single effect. When it's done properly, it's beautiful! It's magnificent! It captures you, from the first stroke of the attack.

We had 131 was done for me, for my birthday celebration, in Germany, performed by one of  Norbert Brainin's groups of people and--absolutely magnificent attack. You'll probably hear it, because it's being recorded on CD, at least for me and for others; so you'll hear it. But, the attack: It captures, from the beginning; if you know the composition, it captures you, from the beginning: and doesn't let you go until the end.

So, it's a unity of effect. It's the same kind of unity of effect, which you get in a great Classical Greek sculpture, of motion; a statue, but the statue is a body in motion, even though it seems to be still. Because, to comprehend what this is, you have to see: Just imagine, a frozen moment of motion; a still photograph of somebody in mid-motion, and you get the sense of their being in mid-motion. And you can convey ideas in that. Because the relationship is what's the idea is there.

And, the problem with Mahler, is that Mahler, like many others, would parody things from great composers--even Brahms, which was his so-called "rival" in a sense, in the Vienna environment. So, that's the difference. It's not similarities. I mean, the Art of the Fugue is parodied--many people tried to parody it. But they don't understand it, because they miss the germ-principle, and that's what the fun is. [applause]

Question: [very faint, off mic] How're you doing Mr. LaRouche. I was wondering, why when you were bringing down the [inaud] ... going on, in Latin America, why didn't you mention the CIA, and like how they treated the national security, as far as, [inaud]... Agent Orange; I mean, just all types of other atrocities. And like, this new national security, is this like a modified SS. What're are we to expect?

LaRouche: What I've said, in my remarks today, on what happened in the post-war period, in 1944: That the Bertrand Russell crowd created this Utopian movement, which aimed to set up a fascistic, world empire, which was actually given the technical name of "international fascism." It's the movement that Henry Kissinger's associated with, among others.

So, this movement, in the post-war period, is part of the fight within the U.S. intelligence services, the military, and so forth; this group set up, under Allen Dulles, a unit of the Department of Defense--not the CIA--the Department of Defense, which was called the "special warfare section"; special warfare organization. It was intended to be a fourth branch of military service--the secret branch. This is the spook stuff.

So, out of the quartermaster section of the special warfare division, virtually out of a desk drawer, you would have every hobgoblin, and ghost, and monster in Creation, was operating for the U.S. government, in a special warfare capacity. And this had various names, but it was all the same. This was not the CIA. It was a different organization. So, when people talk about the CIA, they say, "The CIA did this"; "the CIA did this," like Maxine Waters--she doesn't know what she's talking about. It's not the CIA, but it is this unit, which is a section of the U.S. military--not the regular services, but the special warfare divison.

For example: Today, under Bush, you have this operation with Rumsfeld; in the State Department, you have kooks--absolutely, wild-eyed kooks!--who are running divisions of government, coming up with propaganda on the Middle East and other things--all lies; no truth to it--manufacturing it, and trying to run the government, with something like Heinrich Himmler's SS, as a parallel government, inside the real government.

This is the thing I fought against, in 1982-83, in particular, and afterward: on drug wars and other things. This is what they call Oliver North. The Mo-o-o-n-i-e-s! again, funded CAUSA. The Moonies are the bankroller of Iran-Contra, or the most important ones. The Moonies control the extreme right wing in the United States. So, if you want to get rid of this problem, you have to get rid of the Moonies!

How do you get rid of the Moonies? You expose them for what they are, as a lunatic sex-and-money cult. And that's the problem. We've exposed this many times. I've exposed this stuff, in Central America--I got into big trouble over this thing. I've exposed it, all over the world. It has not been unexposed. Other people have done exposures. They're exposed: The press doesn't expose it! Why? Because, the leading press in the United States, is controlled by the same faction. The Washington Post, the Washington Times. The Los Angeles Times. They have some differences among them. The Moonie Times: They're all controlled. The television media--it's controlled!

So, people say, "But the media says..."; "but popular opinion says...." So, when we go out, and tell the truth, and reveal everything that needs to be revealed, people say, "Well, I don't know about that. I have to go by what the media tells me"! And, the problem in this country is not the CIA: It's the blasted media! Because the media controls the mind of our people, because they establish what the fools out there call, "Well, I have to go along with popular opinion."

And, that's what the problem is. This has never lacked exposure. There could be more exposure: I could expose it all day long; I've got more of this all the time, I just don't get a chance, or the occasion to put it out. But we're putting it out all the time. So, there's not a lack of that: It's people say, "Maybe what you say is true, but maybe it isn't, because the media doesn't agree with you." And, what happened, what kills you, is, every time you expose something like this, people say, "Well, the media doesn't agree with you. Therefore I don't agree with you." Therefore, people don't mobilize to wipe it out. We could wipe this out quick. It's not a problem. And, with my friends in Central and South America, and a few other places, we could really wipe it out--I'm prepared to do so. I just need the opportunity.

Question: Good afternoon, Lyn. This is  Neil from the D.C. crew, I organize part-time. I have a question about Sun Yat-sen, the first President of the Republic of China. He noticed some profound difficulties in the United States' Constitution; he called it the "three powers of the Constitution." So, he added two more: the examination and supervisory part of it. Do you know anything about that?

My other question is about this Cultural Revolution in China. And, you can probably actually compare that to the French Revolution; what Pol Pot did; and the Hitler Youth. And nowadays, the term "revolution" is more romanticized now. That's all.

LaRouche: Sun Yat-sen was actually a revolutionary. Remember that China had been largely destroyed by the British, with the opium trade, and similar operations. And then, was destroyed again, by the Japanese, in 1894, launching the first Sino-Japanese War. Then, the second Sino-Japanese War, was the one that led into the World War II in the Pacific.

But, Sun Yat-sen was an offshore Chinese, and much of the struggle for freedom in China came through the stimulus of the offshore Chinese--or, Chinese abroad, as they're sometimes called. And Sun Yat-sen was living in Hawaii. And, he was in the protected orbit of a group of the American missionary societies' orientation, which was John Quincy Adams' relic toward the Far East.

Remember, the policy of the United States, in this area, is a policy of Manifest Destiny. The concept of Manifest Destiny was articulated by John Quincy Adams first, but the idea was already there. The intent of the United States, was not to create a federal union of the states. That is commonly taught, and it's false. The intention of the United States, was to create a nation. A nation from the Atlantic to the Pacific Coast, which would be capable of defending itself against the horrors that were coming out of Europe. Not to conquer something, but that.

The major fight of the United States was, in the first instance, to prevent the Spanish, the French, and the British, from their interventions and causing Indian wars, and things of that sort, in the interior of the United States. And to protect the security of the nation against these forces.

So, this was extended, by Quincy Adams, and people following, including James Blaine, who was one of the greatest diplomats of our national history, into what became known as the Manifest Destiny with respect to the Pacific. Our conception was, that we must intervene, in the Pacific, to enable the people of Asia to free themselves from the kind of affliction, which they had suffered from Europe. And our purpose was to promote the development of movements of independence of sovereign nations nation, in these areas.

For example: The Japanese industrial revolution was created by the United States. It was set fully into motion, in 1876, by the leading economist of the world, at that time, Henry C. Carey, who sent E. Peshine Smith, one of his students, to Japan, to show the Japanese how to make an industrial economy.

The same thing was in China. The United States policy was to have China emerge as a sovereign nation-state, on the other side of the Pacific. And, that by alliance, with Asian nations in the Pacific--as sovereign nations; their development, as sovereign nations--that we would have friends across the Pacific, to ensure peace and order against the kind of evils, with the British, Dutch, Portuguese, and French imperialism, represented in that part of the world.

Sun Yat-sen was the conscious leader of that movement, and was especially a target of the British, who tried to kill him, and about everything else you could imagine. And he was actually the father of the founding of China. Because of complications, which developed after World War I, and in particular, complications arising from--. See, the Japanese, in 1894-95, started the first Sino-Japanese War. This was followed by the Japanese conquest of Korea. This was followed by the Japanese launching of the Russo- Japanese War, under British direction: That is, Japan broke from the United States, and went to war against China, contrary to its relationship to the United States, and this started the whole mess out there.

So, Sun Yat-sen was operating in that environment. After the first effort to establish a modern China, under Sun Yat-sen, this was broken apart by the intervention of this continued Japanese role, especially with the army, which the Japanese developed in Manchuria. And this army became, then, the force in Japan, the imperial force, which then led in the 1920s, to the essential overthrow of Hirohito, the Emperor--even though he was still Emperor--and took control of the policy of Japan. And, Japan then went into the second Sino-Japanese War, as a result of that policy.

So, the history of the period, plus the fact that Truman took over, instead of Roosevelt, at the end of the war, created problems, which would, otherwise, have been solved, in respect to China.

So, essentially Sun Yat-sen -- and I believe, among most Chinese, Sun Yat-sen, today, is revered as a great leader and founder of the China nation.

Now, China is a complicated nation. It's not a simple nation: There're many different cultural currents in China. To maintain modern China, which has many differentiations within it--the coastal area, interior area, so forth; different Taoist, Legalist, Confucian-Mencian tradition, and so forth. These traditions, they try to maintain a balance, a consent, among the leading forces of China on a national policy.

China does not take an aggressive policy, in its outlook. It takes a policy of development. It takes a long-range policy; a multi-generational way of thinking, about getting through the present; accommodating various conflicting forces to one another, to maintain the unity of China, for the sake of its future.

And, Sun Yat-sen is integrated, I think, in China--what I know. For example, we published, we got a copy of Sun Yat-sen's plan for development of China. We got this through my wife. We got it into Beijing, in--I think it was 1996, or something like that. So, we got this document, had it republished in Chinese, and distributed it among leading Chinese. And, the reception among leading Chinese, of our digging this thing out and circulating it inside China, was that this was a contribution to their effort, to understand and reconcile a long history.

So, the ideas of Sun Yat-sen involve two things: It involves a general acceptance and belief in the principles of the American System of political economy. A thorough believer of that. A believer in the system of the Preamble of the Constitution.

It also represented a response, at a later time than the Constitution, to the [question]: "How do we deal with the world situation?" Because the Manifest Destiny concept, of Quincy Adams, which is also the concept, actually, of George Washington, of Benjamin Franklin, and of Blaine, Abraham Lincoln. Now, the world had become mature. The United States had become a major power. We had the fight between the British and the Americans, during the period of World War II: Churchill against Roosevelt; the post-war period. So, this is the history of the period.

And, in this context, between the 1890s and the beginning of the 1920s, with Sun Yat-sen, Sun Yat-sen was a part of this process, of trying to define a system of international relations, in accord with their concept of a notion of Manifest Destiny. I mean, our concept, and my concept, today, is always that of Manifest Destiny: We have a nation. We have to think in terms of several generations ahead. We have to think of how we're going to build the nation. We have to think about how we're going to deal with other nations, which also should be developing their nations, in the same way. We have to define, how nations, which have different cultural tendencies, can work with one another around common principles. In other words: You don't have to agree on everything, but you have to find common principles of cooperation, on which you can agree.

So, these are reflected--as in respect to your question--in Sun Yat-sen's attempts to define alternatives to supplement the American Dream, for the reality of China, and the Pacific region, in the period that he emerged as a leader of China.

Question: My name is Hunter.  I'm a sophomore at Brown University, in Providence, Rhode Island.

My question is, why was there such a huge concentration of intellectuals and heroes, and true Americans centered in time around the founding of our nation? What happened to that?

A couple of things about that: If you could touch on, how the populist mentality affected Jefferson, and things of that nature? And how that sort of brought the degree of heroism down, I would appreciate it? And, further, when I mention "true Americans," I mean to say, "true United States of Americans"?

LaRouche: Well, the florescence of the United States, during the 18th Century, begins with the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, which was an enterprise, largely, of the Winthrop family in the 17th Century, and became a joint effort of the Winthrop and Mather families, into the 18th Century; typified by the case of Cotton Mather. For example, Winthrop was one of the teachers, or the great Classical humanist education teachers of that period. His work in geometry, in scientific education, for that period, is quite notable. The Mathers were extremely important, in terms of educational policy, in that period.

You had a similar development, that occurred in Pennsylvania, around Jonathan Logan, who was Penn's man in Pennsylvania. And the University of Pennsylvania is actually an off-shoot of the work of Logan.

Benjamin Franklin's development initially was associated with Cotton Mather, in Boston. And then he fled, and went to Pennsylvania, because what became the Essex Junto crowd in Boston made things hot for him, in Boston. And, he went to Philadelphia. And he came under the influence of people such as Jonathan Logan; but it continued his Mather background. Franklin emerged as a leading intellectual scientist of the United States, or America at that time. And became closely involved, especially from the 1760s on, with Europe.

Now, the interesting thing about Benjamin Franklin: Franklin was the one who started the Industrial Revolution in England. Franklin, personally, supervised, around the idea of coal, and, in the Midlands of England, the use of canals and coal, to develop to develop the industry: the industrial development of England. And, continued that role, together with chemists like Joseph Priestly and others, he was the one who sent Watt to Paris, to study under Lavoisier, to develop the Watt steam engine. So, Franklin, at this period, was the organizer of the Industrial Revolution of England--as an American. But he was a member of the British Royal Society, as well.

Franklin was also caught up in something else: In the early part of the 18th Century, there was a great fight in the Americas, between two tendencies. One was with the pig tendency, which was the followers of John Locke. John Locke represented, what we call today, "shareholder value." Pro-slavery shareholder value. It was typical of Anglo-Dutch imperial maritime philosophy, of the Dutch and the British oligarchy.

So, what happened at that point, was a great debate occurred, after the death of Leibniz, in North America, between the factions of supporters of Leibniz, and Locke. And, in the process, in 1776, under the influence of Franklin, the Declaration of Independence denotes Leibniz' "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," rather than the pro-slavery policy, which was later adopted by the Confederacy, as "life, liberty, and property"; or, what is called "shareholder value" in the Supreme Court today.

So, the conflict was over the nature of man: Romanticism versus Classical tradition. The Classical tradition, in the United States, was fostered from Europe, by a very interesting fellow-- Abraham Kaestner, one of the great scientific thinkers, and one of the great Classical thinkers, in art, of Germany. Kaestner was born in Germany, in 1719. He came from the same group of families, that Leibniz came from, from Leipzig, in that period. He was related to the famous banking family of Itzig, which was a relative of the Mendelssohn family--also of Leipzig. He was also the doctor-father of Lessing, the great dramatist. Kaestner, who was dedicated to defending and promoting the ideas of Johann Sebastian Bach and Leibniz, against the Wolfian and other influences in Europe; who organized the German Classical revolution, of the late 18th Century.

This German Classical revolution spread into England, through rather a diluted form of lake poet such as Wordsworth, but more specifically, Keats and Shelley, who epitomized the Classical tradition, which is spread, from Germany, back into England. For example, Shakespeare (as studied and interpreted, ed.) was a piece of garbage, at that point, in England. It was Lessing, who, together with his teacher, Kaestner, organized the study of Shakespeare and other writers, which created the German Classical dramatic tradition, based in part, on both the Greek Classic and the work of Shakespeare. So, we have Shakespeare, in the English language today, as a result of a German, Kaestner, and his student, Lessing, in Germany in that period.

So, this period, from about 1763, is when Europe began to unite in defense of the American colonies' freedom, against the attack on the American colonies by the British monarchy, at the end of the war between Britain and France. At that point, the British, no longer needing the Americans to deal with France, turned on the Americas, and began to loot us, and destroy our liberties. So, a great struggle over the question of liberties, arose in 1763, on the basis of the British Empire's attack, on the rights of the colonists in the Americas. Franklin became the leader of this; in that period and later, made large, direct connections into Germany. And people from Germany and elsewhere came into the United States--a whole array of them. And the American System was based on Leibniz, the influence of Leibniz and related things, on German Classics, on European Classics, from that period between 1763 and 1789, when the catastrophe struck.

So, we had Jefferson going to pieces, in 1789-90, over the issue of--as all of these leaders, went crazy--over the issue of, what had happened with the French Revolution? Here, they thought France, with all its weaknesses (and they were not indifferent) [audio loss]... friend of ours turns against us, in 1790-1791. They went crazy; Jefferson, in particular, pro-French, went crazy. Later, Abigail Adams went a little bit crazy, became pro-British, though her husband, John Adams, the President, did not quite go that far.

What happened then, you had this division among populists-- for example: The French organized, with some knowledge of Jefferson--Jefferson was never a traitor; Jefferson was a confused man, who made a lot of mistakes; but he was never a traitor, as we saw in the case of the Louisiana Purchase, and things like that. But he was a confused man. Without Benjamin Franklin as his mentor, he was not controllable. He went wild. John Adams became largely disoriented. John Adams was weak, because John Adams had Physiocratic tendencies, which had not enabled him to understand economic issues; though some other issues, he understood very well. John Quincy Adams developed.

It was not until 1812, approximately, when Mathew Carey wrote The Olive Branch, summarizing key features--remember, Mathew Carey was designated by Benjamin Franklin as his heir, to the publishing empire of Benjamin Franklin. So, Carey wrote this paper, which became an expanding book, called The Olive Branch, in which he said, the Republican Party, that is, the party of Jefferson, and the Federalist Party, had both decayed: hopelessly, irrecoverably, destroyed, internally, by self-destroyed, largely by the Essex Junto, and the reaction of the populace. The Essex Junto, the so-called "high Federalists," or the drug-runners at that point. It became a hopeless problem. The Federalist Party did not really exist any more. It had been fragmented, because of this "high Federalist," this Junto drug-running crowd, as opposed to the others. The Republican Party was a mess. Jefferson, Madison, were absolute messes. Both were controlled, in large degree, by a British agent: Albert Gallatin. A real pig.

So, in 1812, as this was coming on, you had the emergence of Henry Clay, who was actually a Virginian, but who had settled otherwise, and suddenly, on his election to the Congress, became the Speaker of the House. And this alliance of Clay and Mathew Carey set into motion, what became known as the Whig Party. So the Whig Party's development, of which John Quincy Adams became a part, the Whig Party's development became the attempt to have an intellectual renaissance in the United States. But then, under the conditions of 1815, the Vienna Congress, the British were our enemies, and continental Europe were our enemies. Again, the same problem: The British reacted, with the Spanish and others, to build up slavery, in the United States, in an attempt to bust up the United States, into a bunch of quarrelling, feudal baronies.

Lincoln defeated that. Lincoln was actually one of the greatest geniuses in our history. A real, genuine genius. Lincoln was shot, because he was a genius. And that was done, to disorient us some more. But, then we had this Whig tradition, which was maintained, which was cut off--again--by the successful assassination of McKinley, who was not the greatest man in our history, but he was a solid man in his own way, with weakness and whatnot, and difficulties.

So, we have a period of the destruction, the real destruction, under Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Coolidge: The first 30 years of the last century, were largely a catastrophe, a cultural catastrophe, a moral catastrophe, for the United States. Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, in a sense, saved the United States, and created the impetus, which, if continued, could have restored the intellectual tradition.

If I look at some of the best writers of the 1930s and 1940s, historians and others, like Samuel Flaggbemis,  who is not perfect in my view, but is another, highly respectable historian, who influenced Franklin Roosevelt. These fellows were intellectually serious. They represented an approximation, at least, of the kind of intellectual integrity and genius that was shown. But, what Roosevelt did, in using people like Harold Ickes and others, with these great projects, was an example of the great mobilization, remoralization of the American people. If that process had continued in the post-war period, we would, again, had a great intellectual tradition.

We just haven't had it. My view is, we need it. So, let's create it. [applause]

Question: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. This is Dave from Washington, D.C.

This is really a response to your analysis of Harry Truman. I tend to think it's a little big one-dimensional, in terms of what he did in the Marshall Plan, providing the [inaud] of aid to rebuild Europe, and later on, Japan.

I think what Harry Truman also did, was that he did a good deal of efforts toward civil rights. He was the first President to meet with the NAACP, after the infamous lynching in Georgia in 1946. He was the first President to desegregate the U.S. Army, the military, and the first President to put forth the Civil Rights Act. I think what he did, was that he paved the way for future Presidents, especially Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, to go further in the areas of civil rights.

LaRouche: Yeah, good. Well, actually, don't give Truman any credit at all. Give him credit for a feral instinct, like a fox who's been caught in the hen-house, by the farmer.

The civil rights struggle, was actually a key figure: This was Eleanor Roosevelt, not Harry Truman. Eleanor Roosevelt was deployed, even though she did not always agree with her husband on many things, but she was deployed on many causes, together with Henry Wallace. And, in the Democratic Party, they had two things: They had, first of all, they had a lot of pressure; secondly, you have to think of the times: Truman was adapting to the times.

Let me give you the picture. You know the story about Birmingham [Alabama], at the end of the war? The steel workers? The fight for civil rights? You had a bunch of guys, who were GIs with me, in the war. Black GIs: They came back; they said, "Hey! We're not slaves. We have rights." And they were a very serious movement. They were returning veterans. And, as the Eisenhower Presidency attests, the good side of World War II: People rallied around the Eisenhower image, precisely, because of that--they saw, this was a President, who should be responsive to the concerns of the veterans returning from the war.

So, Eleanor Roosevelt and others were working. Franklin Roosevelt agreed. But conditions of the time were such... so this was postponed business, and the impetus was there. But the impetus came in large part from the people. It came largely from so-called African-Americans. They were actually in there, and they had a sense of confidence.

You know what it's like. I don't know exactly what your experience is, but you must know what it's like. That, if you have a bunch of people who won't fight--they're flaccid, they give up, they're easily bought off, around you, and you try to lead something, you know what it feels like? But, if you have, on the other hand, a bunch of feisty people, who sense they have their rights; they feel young, they feel they have rights, and, if you're dealing with that as your support, you're collaborators--you're powerful! And, that was the point. We had a powerful movement.

Now, this led to things later, which became the fight around civil rights, in the 1950s: the school fight, for example, which was crucial. This became the basis, which led to what Martin Luther King represented later.

Now, in the case of Johnson, unlike Truman, as Amelia would often say about Johnson--because she dealt with him directly; she and JL Chestnut dealt directly with Johnson, on this question of the two civil rights bills. And this was from Selma. And this is Martin Luther King, and Amelia almost being killed by this crazy sheriff, going across that bridge. And, they went to Johnson, and Bobby Kennedy, I believe, was in support of this thing, at that time. But, Johnson, in their opinion, actually went through a Damascus Road reaction, on the issue of civil rights: the most courageous thing he ever did in his life, were those two bills--especially the second one; especially the Voting Rights Act. That was an act of genuine courage. And, in that case, I would give him credit, with all his defects in the past, and other defects, I would give him credit for that decision.

But I would not, Truman. Truman was operating under difficulties. He was in danger of losing the election. He needed every vote he could get. He needed to get the vote out. And the sentiment among my generation, at that time, the sentiment was: civil rights. That was the sentiment in the military service. It was the sentiment coming out. There was a strong movement for it, which disappeared afterward. It disappeared under the influence of the McCarthyite movement, which Truman had set into motion. Joe McCarthy, or the "Pepsi-Cola Kid," who was created by the Communist Party of Wisconsin, which got him elected Senator, directly, and he lived on a subsidy from Pepsi-Cola with the sugar trust. And, suddenly, he decided, for his re-election to become an anti-Communist, and he went in the direction of Roy Cohn and Company, and ran this role. But this role was set up by Truman!

And what happened to the civil rights movement of the late 1940s and early '50s: It was demoralized. Because, if you were for civil rights, you were a Communist! And, it was this anti-Communism thing, the Soviet conflict, which was used to destroy these kinds of measures.

And concessions were made by Truman, yes. They were made under tremendous pressure. I don't give him credit for it. He's a political animal. And sometimes, however, in politics, you sometimes win something, if you know how make a political animal run down the right route. And that's what happened to him. He got the pressure. But, at that time, 1946-47-48, a lot of us--a lot of us!--had had our belly full, of putting up with this kind of stuff. And Truman needed the support of everyone he could get, for the Democratic Party. I think it was Eleanor Roosevelt, who was probably more responsible than anyone else, because he hated and feared her. [applause]

Question: Hello Mr. LaRouche. My name's Eric], I'm from Montgomery County, Maryland. I don't know if you believe that people should do what they will, under a law of love, or not, but in politics, there are a lot of controversial issues, and I know you yourself have faced many a conflict, and had to make hard decision. And, being a leader, I guess that's part of it. But, how do you feel about such things, or where do you stand on--in favor of, or opposed to, say: gun control, abortion, the death penalty, conservation/preservation of the environment; and how lots and lots of money seems to go to sports figures and entertainers? That's my question.

LaRouche: Well, I would say, for example, what was intended by the Second Amendment, was intended, and with wisdom. Because the American people had been through a period of knowing, that if they were disarmed, and subject to a repressive force without means to exert moral suasion, that the country was subject to being taken over again. The move toward gun control, while many people participate in it, has been orchestrated by those who wish to disarm the American people.

Now, for example, let's take the case of this sniper business. We're going to do something about this: What the U.S. government did, and law enforcement did, in this sniper case, was a crime against the nation--a crime, partly, of incompetence. Because, what happened is, the police are stopping all these guys, these traffic jams, then not taking down the license plate numbers! They're looking at people, interrogating them, staring at them, intimidating them, trying to coax something out of them ... they're not taking down license plate numbers. If they had taken down license plate numbers, they would have caught these guys a long time ago.

Then, they get two guys; we don't know what the judgment is on this case--you can't believe a thing you hear, really. But, now, what does the Justice Department do? It intervenes, to take the case out of investigation, comes to a summary decision, and starts to move to try get the death penalties quickly, in various jurisdictions, to get these guys out of the way, and say, "Closed Case," to [inaud], and "all over; that was the problem."

Now, we have a problem in the United States. We have a problem, which is not guns, because people who get guns, who shouldn't have them! Why take guns away from people, who are not a problem, and let them flow into the hands of those, who are a problem? And leave the innocent, defenseless, and so forth?

So, in that sense, I agree with the Second Amendment, though the Bill of Rights, itself, is a product of the Jeffersonian reaction to the French Revolution. So, that was a mistake. But, there are elements of it, which obviously are valid; and those elements can be honored, safely; the Federal Preamble to the Constitution, allows us to interpret these things according to the general welfare, sovereignty, and posterity: We can do that. So, the fact that the Bill of Rights is a dubious document, is not, in itself, a problem--under our Constitution. An honest Presidency, and honest courts, can sort the thing out, so that the reading of the Bill of Rights can be construed so it's consistent with the intent of the Constitution as whole; not as a collection of this and that.

The death penalty? No! It's a piece of barbarism, which inherently violates rights! The death penalty violates rights, and it degrades humanity. So, you want to put a guy away for the rest of his life, because he's an incurable killer? So what! It costs money? So what? Better than kill 'em. I know, you're supposed to be in a Christian nation, therefore you believe in redemption. So you don't act as the final judge, against Redemption. And, maybe the guy in prison can redeem himself, even within prison, and do something useful. And at least preserve some sense of immortality, despite what horrible crime he may have committed.

The whole system of justice stinks, right now. There is no justice in the United States: It is politically determined justice. Just as there's politically determined, politically opportunistic treatment of law-enforcement cases, such as the sniper case. They blasted it all over the newspapers. They terrify everybody in sight. They cause a panic. And they don't do a competent job of investigating the law enforcement: Because, they'd have caught this guy; they'd have caught these guys! All they had to have done, is take down the license plate numbers, which they could have taken down. And, all these locations--about two or three locations, surveyed; put the thing through the computer; compare the license plate number: BINGO! They had it! But, they went through this song-and-dance of trying to find this psychological profile of the imaginary killer, the phantom killer--what going on in his mind?--go out and look for this guy: Totally incompetent. And, a lot of people in law enforcement are extremely upset about this, especially at the higher level.

On single issues? I don't believe in single issues. I don't believe in single-issue politics. The point is, if something is right, it's right. And it should be judged by law. It should be judged by the courts, according to natural law, and according to our Constitution. And the thing should be argued, on reason, not on the basis of pressure groups. What happens is, I find the single-issue movements, in the United States, are the worst source of corruption, in the political process. And, the worst elements of this, is this alliance with right-wing Catholics and Protestant fascists.

For example, as I've reported many times: 1979-1980, I'm running for President, against Carter, in New Hampshire. There's a guy in Massachusetts (and I'm running, also, in Massachusetts), there's a guy in Massachusetts, who is being killed by his own family. A guy who is mentally sound; who is not in a terminal state; he's in seriously impaired health--but he's conscious, he's functional, he's rational. The family wants to kill 'im, because they want to save the expenses of keeping him alive. I intervene against this, as a Presidential candidate, saying, "This is morally intolerable to me, that anyone could support and condone this. This is a violation of the right to life. He has a right to life. You don't kill him, for the sake of saving money!" I said, "That's what the Nazis did--kill the ‘useless eaters.' We don't have that, in this country." Hah! Guess who intervened, to stop me on this thing? The national right to life movement: They only believe in saving fetuses, not born human beings. So much for the single-issue movement.

So, I don't believe in single issues. I believe, that if an issue, on its merits, is presented, as a matter of law, we should deal with it accordingly, as a political process. But, the idea of saying, "Where do you stand on this issue? This issue? This issue?" is lunacy! Where do you stand on the collapse of the U.S. financial system? Where do you stand on the collapse of the U.S. economy? Where do you stand on the question of going into needless wars? Where go to stand on the fact, that the President is clinically insane?! And, he's got a bunch of lunatics in there--draft-dodgers--who want to go to infinite World War III?

So, I don't think we need that kind of thing. I think we can discuss anything, and decided how we should approach it. When you go out in the street, where do you stand, on this issue, the way this guy defines that guy? That is insanity!

As I say, on gun control? Yeah: I have a position. But, that's based on my view of the historic significance of our Constitution.

On the death penalty? Again: The world has now come to the point, that rational people accept the idea that the death penalty is a mistake. We're no longer a barbaric society, with no resources. We can control crime. Therefore, we have no excuse for killing people, because they happen to be, say, a perpetual menace. We don't kill 'em. We don't kill 'em, not for the sake of them, but for the sake of others. And we don't have a case, like you use the death penalty, to shut up an investigation--as was done in the case of the Oklahoma bombing. They fried the guy, in order to shut 'im up. And, we never found out who did it. He may have been involved, but he didn't do it. Couldn't have done it.  So, where's the guys who did it? Well, the Justice Department closed off the investigation, so that nobody would find out! Why would the Justice Department cover up for a crime like that? And decorate the stage with a corpse, to cover up an investigation that should have been made?

That's where I stand. That's my difference. By reason? Make a reasonable argument? Yes! But, go with the reasonable argument, as a question of law and policy. But the idea of dividing politics, on where you stand on an assortment of single issues, that is what is destroying our country politically. [applause]

Question: Hello, Mr. LaRouche. My name is Yong. I go to Morgan State University. And I've been trying to think through this, for a while now. It's about the whole Founding Fathers, and the principle of the general welfare. And I really like it! But, the problem that I have is, which really gets to me, is that, I've always thought, that looking at reality, of what's actually happened: That people from England actually came here, to actually found the Constitution, the Preamble for everybody; but, it just seems to me, that, I have this haunting suspicion, that maybe it wasn't. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe that it was actually for--it wasn't including everybody, including myself, and whatnot. So, I just wanted to [know] if you could, maybe, prove it to me, in some way. Because I really like it, but I'm just a little unsure about it: That their actual intentions, the Founding Fathers, was this "general welfare" for everybody, not for themselves--in that way?

LaRouche: Well, you have to look at it from the standpoint of immortality. The American Revolution was an attempt, by Europeans, including American-Europeans, to establish a form of society, on this planet, which would replace the existing forms of government in Europe: That is, a true republic, in the Classical sense. This was the only place in the world, it could be done.

The culture we had here, was a mixture, of what became known later as the division between patriots and American Tories. We had two groups (actually, three, but they broke down into two) factions which are the American Tories. One, was the New England Essex Junto, which later became the drug-pushers. They originally were engaged in the slave trade. They got out of the slave trade, only for one reason: Because the British--these were the Abolitionists. They got out of the slave trade, because the British told them to. Because the British said, it was not economical to transport slaves from Africa to the Americas. They didn't make enough money on it. Therefore, they should go to a different commerce, called "the opium trade."

So, in 1797, the New England slave traders, the Essex Junto, went from the slave trade, to the opium trade, based largely on the Turkey division of the British international opium trade.

Now, in the United States, we had a problem. We had to hold the United States together, against the British and against these European enemies. The issue of slavery came up, and there was threat of some of the Southern states, to split, in favor of England, over the question of slavery.

So, you had the original draft of the 1787 Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, which had not tried to resolve that issue, except by saying, that it was assumed that slavery would disappear in a short period of time.

That was later revoked. It was revoked after 1815, when the British, who controlled the slave trade--see, the myth is, that people say, "The Americans created the slave trade." The Americans did not create the slave trade. It was the Spanish, the Portuguese, the British, and the Dutch, who created the Africa slave trade. Just as it's the Americans, the British, and the Israelis, who run the Africa genocide, today: Including George Bush Sr.--Barrick Gold. Barrick Gold is a mercenary operation, in Congo, which loots, like "Diamond Pat" Robertson, who steals diamonds the same way; which hires mercenary armies, to kill people in Africa. They're running genocide in Africa through the U.S. State Department, today--today.

I'll give you just one example: We had a friend of ours, who I know as a priest. He's a Catholic priest, in a missionary. He recently went into Uganda, on a mission to deliver some medicines and so forth, with two other priests. They went to a military barracks, and went on to the place they were going to. They got there, and there was a shooting. And, the people they were working with, were killed, and they were held hostage. Now, the military commander of this bunch of kids--these are 14-, 15-, 16-year-old kids, who are part of Museveni's army, who are killers--looked to the guy; knew the priest, knew him, and said, "Father! What are you doing here? But, we're supposed to kill you!" So, one thing led to another, and he didn't kill him. They were marched back to the garrison, and the commander of the garrison was shocked, astonished, and frightened, by the fact that these priests had not been killed! But, at that point, the thing had reached the heat, that these three guys, got out. The priest in question, my friend, got back to Rome; communicated to a mutual friend of mine, the details of the story, and we dealt with it appropriately.

Now, what has happened, a woman, who has left our organization, developed an affair with a guy in the U.S. State Department. This person is known to Dennis Speed. And, this guy, who's a military specialist, who's on the Great Lakes area desk, including Uganda, is running an operation, in Uganda, to assassinate Museveni--who's a British agent--in order to put an American killer of similar qualities into power. That's how this happened.

That is the reality, we're dealing with. We are not dealing with a categorical issue, of this or that. We're dealing with a war, to deal with an evil.

Question: I'm sorry to interrupt you. Actually, my question came out totally wrong. What I really wanted to address (sorry about that), was basically that, it seems to me, that a whole race got wiped out: the American Indians. From the surface area, in between what actually happened, is, you know: A bunch of people came down to form a new republic in this area, and actually, through time or reality, shows that they got wiped out. What I want to know, is actually, what happened in-between the notes?

LaRouche: There are many people, who are of, shall we say, "mixed ancestry," who are Cherokee, including, and also of African descent. Some of my friends have that ancestry. I mean, this is all over the Southern states.

The Cherokee Nation was developed by people in the United States, by people in the colonies and the United States, as a highly cultured, literate nation, inside the United States, with treaty guarantees and so forth, as a tribe with autonomy. Andy Jackson and Company, who was a pig; he was the first Democratic President, created by a piece of filth called Martin van Buren. And, Jackson was flirting with treason, most of his life, against the United States. He was a real opportunist swine. He was caught with Aaron Burr in a conspiracy; he just got out of it. He could have been hung, shot.

So, he went down there, and he cleaned out the Cherokees. Decimated them, destroyed their entire culture and civilization. Some of them fled into Florida, where they became known as Seminoles. Others went to other parts of the Americas, and became known as Cherokees, in the area of Oklahoma, and so forth.

So, what happened was, that the British, and their friends in the United States, set out to destroy the Native American population. The French did it; the British did it; and so forth. And, the American Tories did it--like the Democratic Party!

You want to know what evil was, in the 19th Century? Evil was the Democratic Party, founded by Martin van Buren, whose first successful President, was Andrew Jackson; whose successor was Martin van Buren, himself, who was the bastard son of Aaron Burr--in two senses, "bastard." He was succeeded by people, such as Polk, who was an outright traitor; who was succeeded by Pierce, who was outright traitor; and Buchanan, an outright traitor. Virtually every Democratic President, including Grover Cleveland, of the 19th Century, was a traitor. Woodrow Wilson was a Ku Klux Klan enthusiast. The Democratic Party did not give up its racist policies, until Franklin Roosevelt! The Democratic Party was the party of racism and treason, throughout the century, from President Andrew Jackson, on.

The way to look at this, is to look at an ongoing fight. Don't look at it simply in terms of a mortal life. We are engaged in an ongoing fight for justice on this planet. This is not confined to one locality, or another locality.

I'm concerned as much about Africa, as anything else! There is genocide going on! My friends are being killed, in Africa! Leading Africans are being killed! Murdered! With the help of the U.S. State Department. Genocide in general, is going on. There is deliberate genocide, against the whole population of Sub-Saharan Africa, from the Sahel down to Cape Town. Genocide: deliberate policy of genocide, by forces of the United States, British, and the Israelis.

So, my question is: What do we do? When you're dealing with an injustice, you don't sit back, and say, "yes or no." Is it going to be this way, or that way? No. What you do, is, you, in one sense or another, create an army to conduct the fight, to bring justice, and you have to fight it like a war. That doesn't mean you kill, but it means that you fight it like a war. And, the problem with these questions is, we do not take up the question of justice. And, you can not deal with the question of justice for those who have died, unless you deal, first, with the question justice for those who are now living.

And, that's the way to deal with it. If we have a just society, then the criminalities and inequities of the past, will be cured. Our Constitutions provides us the instrument to do, just that. The question is: Who's running the country? If the other guy's running the country, that's the result you get. If you vote for them, and the guy says, "We gotta get a vote for the lesser evil. I gotta vote for this guy, because you guys haven't got a chance. I'm not going to vote for you. You haven't got a chance. I gotta vote for somebody, who's gonna win." And, because you vote for somebody, you think is going to win, you vote yourself out of life.

That's what the problem is. We have to have the courage, to say, "We are going to bring this kind of crap to an end! You and I, we have to agree: We're going to bring this crap to an end. And we're going to organize the war, or the type of war, which is necessary, to bring this to an end." In doing that, we will find the answer, to give justice to those who've been ruined in the past.

Larry Freeman: [off mike] I know you've brought this up several times. Is that satisfactory, or?

Question: Um, I'm still a little...

Larry Freeman: Because I know you've had this question, all along, about the Founding Fathers...

Question: Yeah, I don't know, whether, if their intentions weren't actually that for everybody, and just kind of stand off afterward, and we're using it now. Or, was it truly the purpose of this general welfare, for everybody?

LaRouche: It was. It was. But, the problem is, how do you win the war? If you declare a war, you've got to win it. We haven't won it.

See, people say, they want to vote, and they want to have it simple; they get this thing--they want it, like an object, bought in the store. It's not the way you get it.

Think of the life of humanity, which had been on this planet for more than 2 million years: human beings. What has happened to humanity, in the past 2 million years? How many civilizations have been wiped out? How many nations have been wiped out? What suffering has happened, without remedy, for whole sections of humanity? Think about it! Live in immortality. Adopt immortality, as your goal of your self-image. Not immortality as something that happens after you die, to get nice prizes and beauties, and so forth. But, think of immortality as: You arrive; you have a limited time, in which to live. You don't know the minute, or how long. But, it's limited. What are you going to do with your life, so that you're content, to be yourself? You're going to have to adopt some kind of a mission in life, of what you're going to do, with that life, which you need not be ashamed of, a thousand years from now. Have you done what you should, in your time, to advance the cause of humanity? If you have, you've got nothing to be ashamed of. And you have nothing to be ashamed of, in the eyes of those who came before you. If they suffered, you are doing something about it!

That's the way we have to do it. There are no simple formulas. There are principles. We have to adopt principles, but then, we have to make them work. You can't sit back, and let the principle work by itself. We have to make it work. Therefore, we need political forces, that can enforce these principles, and make them work.

Wherever there's injustice, wherever a human being is suffering needlessly, we've got to do something about it. Sometimes we don't have the power to. What do you do then? You don't have the power to do something about it. Well, I don't have the power, to deal with what's going on in Africa. My friends are being killed, personal friends! Leaders in Africa, being killed. What can I do about it? With this kind of thing in the Justice Department, or the State Department? What can I do about? You've got a racist as Attorney General. That's our problem. You've got a President of the United States, who's a flaming idiot; who's about to plunge the whole planet into war, if he can get by with it. What do you do about it?

This is a question of personal commitment. It's not academic answers. I know what your struggle is: It's trying to make the transition from saying, "What do I support?" as opposed to: "What do I do?"

Larry Freeman: [off mike, inaud., ?people at Morgan use this as a way of avoiding joining the fight?]

LaRouche: You have to inspire them. Look, they have to get inspired, to realize that there are objectives, which seem impossible. See, like Morgan typifies people, who have not the greatest advantages in life, who get into it. They feel frightened. They feel weak, inadequate. So, the first thing you have to do, when you want to fight a war, is you have to feel strong. When you feel strength in yourself, and strength in what you're doing, then you have the courage to think about things differently, then when you are protesting against what you feel unable to deal with.

I hope I can give you some of that. Find the strength in yourself, to think about these things, in that way: "How would we win the war?" Not, "How do we just what happened?" "How do we win the war? For the sake of the babies, that are coming down the pike? For the sake of justice for those"--think of someone who died, in cruel circumstances. Think of somebody who was killed, murdered; some years ago, in some fight you know about. What do you say to that dead person? Who died with this kind of terrible death, of themselves, in their face? What do you say to them? What would you say to them, today?

Question: If I believed in what they're doing, I would carry it out.

LaRouche: Exactly!

Question: Make sure it happens.

LaRouche: Exactly! You do the thing, that says, you are not leaving this person, who died, and walking away from it, and saying, "This is another corpse by the road. I'll try to forget it." Why don't you do something that makes that person having lived, meaningful? And, you don't always know what it is, but you do something which, in general, is giving meaning to the lives of the people who died unjustly, or in great suffering.

For example: I've seen people in Alabama, for example; some of them died. I met some years ago, looking around Alabama, to try to find out what the place looked like. Unbelievable, in some sense. I'd seen things around the world--but, you see these areas that have not been developed at all. You see a woman, who's 100 years old--she's kind of frisky; she's living in an area, in a trailer, which is stuck on the ground. The temperature was also about 100-plus degrees. It's hot and humid in that area. And, a couple of years later, she died. And she was a friend of a friend of ours, and that's how I met her. What do you say to those people? What do I say to these who're dead? I say, "I'm doing what I should do. And, you are not forgotten. Your condition, your hopes, are not forgotten."

That's the sense of immortality. You have to find it in yourself, and then you have the strength to project to others. The trick of this business, is to inspire people. To find in themselves, that which is inspiring. You can have tremendous power. If you feel impotent, you feel helpless, you don't know how to deal with these questions. They're dismaying. You say, "How could this country do this terrible thing?" Well, tell me a country, that didn't. Where do you go on the planet? Show me a country, that didn't.

You and I and others, have to decide, this is not going to go on! Then, we go back, and fix up the past, because our ancestors need not be ashamed of us. [warm applause]

               - ‘I DO THIS, BECAUSE I'M HUMAN, -                   - AND I HAVE TO BE HUMAN' -

Question: Hi, my name's Birhan  from Boston. I first want to say that that response to Yong's concern was excellent, just because the basis for anyone, who's going to do anything involving you, is that, it's a continuation of the American Revolution, and if you're going to declare war, you have to win it, and it's not over, yet. And Yong knew that--so, that was just interesting, but--.

Schiller writes about freedom, and one thing he says, you know, the true freedom for mankind being political freedom, and this is something I noticed taken by philosophers, from Plato up through Beethoven. I know that, for my entire life, I can watch this last speech of Dr. King's, saying, "I've been to the mountaintop. I may not get there with you, but keep on." And so, last week, in Manhattan, we were ready Schiller's essay on "Universal History," and we came to this part, where he talks about freedom. It's very much personified, in fact. It's easy to understand in that way. He says, that whatever the enemy may be, whatever the contest is, freedom patient, calmly surveying the distance ahead. But, I know that Plato was free; Schiller expressed freedom; Dr. King was, and, I what we called "the Sublime."

But, if that's true, doesn't this also make the issue of freedom, or freedom itself, being true, also eternal and infinite. And if that's true, then, it shares a similar quality with the universe, and therefore, freedom is eternal, also simultaneous, and infinite. And it's attainable by anyone. So, freedom is not differe4nt from the universe, in that sense.

And I was just hoping, that you could comment on that.

LaRouche: Okay, sure. Well, it's good. It's good.

Look, what's the different between man and an animal? Does anybody know? [laughing] It's kind of important, when you're staring at a monkey, in a zoo, you know; in a cage. You think, "What's the difference between us?" [laughter] You get the same thing, when you look at a college professor. "Hey, Professor! What's the difference between you and a monkey?"

What is to be human?

Human beings--I do this, on this Vernadsky question, not that I discovered this with Vernadsky, but because Vernadsky is a very relevant person, very relevant to many questions, such as, "What do you do about the environment, and so forth, today?" That sort of thing: Because it poses the question.

Now: universal. What is "universal"? Well, again, this is why I emphasize the question of Gauss's fundamental theorem of algebra. Because: What is the complex domain? That's how you define "universal": What is the complex domain? What does it mean, these funny numbers--complex domain? We know what they mean, in terms of geometry. We know the concept of powers. I know what they mean, in terms of Riemannian geometry.

It means, that you have two realities. One is not really reality, but a reflection of it, the shadow: It's sense-perception. Our senses, or our organs inside our bodies. They're part of the biological apparatus of the body. Do these organs actually know what is going on outside? No. Do they reflect what's going on outside? Yes. Is what you think you see, what's there? No.

Well, how do you know the difference? A monkey couldn't tell the difference. How do you know the difference? [tape break]... This is a thought-object, which has no sense-object. Like gravitation: How do you touch universal gravitation? Can you chew it? What does it taste like? You can't. But, it's there! What is it? It's a relationship--in the case of Kepler, it's a relationship among motions, within the Solar System. It's a relationship; it's not an object--until you compare that relationship with another relationship. And then, each relationship is an object, which now is in relationship to each other.

So therefore, these objects, which we may call "thought-objects," which we otherwise know as "experimentally proven, universal physical principles," are reality. How do we know they are reality? Because, we can change the universe, by using these principles. We can control the universe. We can change the shadows. We can make them behave differently. And our power to exist, is increased as a result of our doing it. So, the fact that humanity's power to exist, is increased by these means, means that this is efficient. We really know what we're talking about. Unlike a typical college professor, who's just thinking about the computer score on the examination he's rehearsing you to take.

So, you know. So, you have, on the one hand, you have sense-perception, which is not reality. But it reflects reality, as shadows reflect reality, if in a distorted way. Now, what you have to do is, find out, what is causing these shadows? So, to discover that, is a principle. Now, this is, then, universal. If it works, your test, an experimental test of a principle, is always universal. So, what do you mean by "universe"? Universe is the scope of universal principles. What exists outside the universe? Nothing. What bounds the universe? Nothing. What existed before the universe? Nothing. What will exist after the universe? Nothing.

Universal principles.

Now, you are a person inside, this. You're not an object there, any more. You are, now, controlling the universe! How do you control the universe? You either reenact a discovery somebody else made--now it's yours. If you learned it from a textbook, it's not yours. It's only gossip. It's only rumor. But, if you actually reenacted the discovery, and proved it yourself, it's yours!

It's like a person, who composes a work: How do you understand anything? In good education, what do you know? You make it your own! For example, if you want to be a good actor, what do you do? You become--you read and study the part. Pace up and down; think about it; think about it. Talk with others, until the character you want to represent, to the imagination of the audience is your own. Then, you can go behind the mask; not be seen physically in the face, by anybody. Speak the part, and convey to the audience, an image of the character you're portraying--who no longer see you. They no longer see the mask. Because, in their imagination, you have enabled them to relive and make their own, the idea that you've projected. Just as when you take someone, and get them involved in the study of a universal principle; they go through the paradox; they relive the paradox; they rework the idea of the solution; they discuss the paradox with others. They come to fully understand what they're talking about, to be able to explain it to others; to share this knowledge with others: They have made this knowledge their own!

So, in that case, what d'you got? You've got human beings, who are not confined to a fixed cage, like animals. We don't have a fixed population-density: We have the power to increase our species-power, in and over the universe. We are universal creatures, to the extent, that we rely upon those powers of paradox, and discovery, and hypothesis, to discover, more and more, universal principles, and how to interrelate them in practice. The test is: Does this increase man's condition, improve his condition in life?

So therefore, we are universal. We never die, because anything we contribute to mankind, which we share, an enable future generations to make their own, lives forever, in society! We are immortal. Not in the sense of living in a certain time, that's past, but in a space-time continuum, where all time and space are interlinked, as one field of action. We have a place, albeit a limited one, in that space-time continuum. And from that place, as human beings, as universal minds, we are continuing to act on the universe as a whole: We are immortal.

And, if you get that conception, and can act on that conception, and really understand it, you can't be stopped, really. There are no limits to what you might be able to achieve. And you have the capacity to do whatever is necessary. The problem is, people flinch, from responsibility, because they're afraid. They're afraid of putting their life on the line, for something in which they believe. They flinch, and they compromise.

No, you're right. Universality. But, universality can be understood, when you say, "What is the meaning of Gauss, with the complex domain?" The complex domain, is simply a way of representing, the real world, in respect to the world of sense-perception. The so-called "Cartesian schema," the Euclidean schema, tries to approximate sense-perception. The contradictions in the Cartesian domain, in the sense-perception domain, enable you to find paradoxes, which open up to you, the idea that there's something beyond there, that's actually moving these shadows.

You want to find the principle that's moving the shadows. Once you have that thing, you have crossed over, from being an animal, to a human being. Then, mathematically, you'll think in terms of the complex domain, as being the real domain--the complex domain, as a way of stating, within the domain of sense-perception, what you're talking about in terms, beyond sense-perception, in terms of reality.

So, that's why I've emphasized, in this whole idea of youth movement organizing, this Gauss theorem: Because, it poses implicitly, not as a beginning of science, but it poses implicitly, a summation of the crucial issue, between empiricism and related things, and actual Classical knowledge. Once you understand that, then it's easy for you to understand history. Because, what is history? History is the development and transmission of ideas, to shape the future.

When you have relived and made your own, a discovery by Eratosthenes, or Archytas, or Archimedes, you have reached across more than 2,000 years, to another mind--2,000 years ago; 2,200 years ago--or longer. You have a direct relationship, in ideas, with that person. The transmission of the idea, from that person to you, where you have made it your own, means that the present is being shaped by you, according to your receipt of that knowledge of that person, who biologically died 2,200 or more years ago.

That is the beautiful thing about being human! And, doing that, is what is beautiful about being human! And, the motivation of the great artist and the great scientist, is not to achieve success, in the sense of how much money they get, or what praise they get: It's to be human! Why will somebody spend 20 or 30 years, trying to solve a problem, without reward, with great devotion? Because it's human. By doing that, they are affirming their humanity in a way that is suitable to their talent.

That's universality. I think it's wonderful.

Question: Would you describe man, though, as a sort of aiding the universe? Guiding the universe?

LaRouche: Absolutely!

What is creativity? Creativity: We know creativity! Discovery of universal principles: That's creativity. These principles are universal! There's no place in the universe they don't go! Past or present. There is no place outside the universe! Above, below, outside, after, before.

You, with the universal principle, are in the universe, entirely. You're a human being, living in space-time, physical space-time. You may die, but your place in the universe doesn't die...unless you're a dead-head. But, if your mind is active, and you are part of the process of conveying ideas, by which man increases his power as a species in the universe, you can never die: Because, your role, your connection, that you're making, with other parts of the universe, is permanent, as long as humanity goes on. If humanity and its culture die out, then that's a tragedy for us all. But, as long as culture is progressing, as humanity's progressing, we--no matter where we live, when we live, if we're people of ideas, we live forever. Because, what we do, in contributing ideas to humanity, is transmitted, always, from the place we occupy in space-time, to every part of the universe: past, present, future.

When you have that sense, then you say, "That's what's important to me! I don't want to be a bug! I don't want to be a monkey, like that professor over there! I want to be human!

"I don't do this, because I get money. I don't do this, because I get praise. I do this, because I'm human, and I have to be human."

And, that's the point. And that's the great weakness of people, is, that they've not learned to enjoy being human! It's a wonderful thing to be human. Much better than bugs. [applause.]

Question: Good evening, Mr. LaRouche. I've heard so much about you. Alex has told me so much about you. Oh! My name is Calvin;  I'm from New York, but I attend Morgan State University. I'm a sophomore.

My question is based on CBOs, community-based organizations. With your vast knowledge and experience in government, is there a plan or a system that can assure the survival of community-based organizations, who are dedicated to not only the enlightenment of our (quote-unquote) "endangered youth," but the transformation of our youth; not only in our local communities, but amongst our society?

LaRouche: We used to have something that approximated that--on in approximation, in the form of good, local school systems. This idea of community organizations as a self-interest group doesn't function. But, there are certain functions, in which people have interests, which do lie within the province of community activities. For example, education. If you were in a society, not unlike we have now, where people don't care about children--they really don't. They may care about it, as objects, or care about it, in reacting to them as objects, or whatnot; or as pets, eh? I think of marriage as a relationship among two pets, both of whom have a leash on each other for a certain time, until one breaks loose!

So, the key thing is ideas. Take a child: The importance of community, is children. And, you have, particularly, we have fatalities, and we have losses of parents, and so forth, in the community. How is a child cared for? In a healthy community, a child is safe in that community, because everybody's cares about every child in that community. Therefore, everyone takes a kind of parental responsibility of the safety and wellbeing of that child. Because it is a child. And, because they know the child; they know who the parents are, where it comes from, and so forth. So, there's a sense of accountability, in that sense of community. That's healthy.

And, the way you have to do that, in my view, is, you think about the educational system, as the basic element on which to organize community. Because an educational system, essentially, takes the form, immediately, of parental groups, which are raising children, which have--.

For example: Take one of the big crises in the United States, today, is the breakup of the grandparents, parents, and children, in relations to one another. The housing, suburbanism, all of the things; think what's happened to grandparents. You have grandparents who retired, which is a big mistake: Never retire; absolutely, never retire. You should retire your cars, but never yourself. In a normal society, the grandparents have a different attitude toward the children, than the parents do. This is not normal biologically. The grandparents often feel much closer to the grandchildren, in some respect, than the parents do. The parents are less detached. The grandparents tend to be more looking at it, personally. The parents have to take care of the child--all the worries and things that go along with it immediately. This kind of thing.

So, we have a community, in which the older generation in the community, is efficiently tied to the parental-age generation, and the children. That kind of community, is healthy. Take, for example, old people die. People get sick. Families get sick. Remember the family is crucial. How to you take care of it? You say, call in health-care? Call in this kind of thing, to have all these people come in, and take care of this sick member of the family? In a healthy community, the community would share, in a sense, the responsibility of trying to maintain all the members of the community, by a kind of division of labor of responsibility. That is good.

The center of that, I think, is education and ideas. Education around ideas; and social activities, around ideas. And therefore, for me, education is the fundamental function of government, in respect to communities. Health care is also a part of that. But, essentially, the unit, the conscious unit of a relationship, in a community, is essentially the educational function.

And, school must perform that function. They must be in the instrument to bring together the entire community, in cultural activities in terms of educational activities, and in terms of general caring. The teacher of the old days, was that type. A good teacher. A good teacher was a servant of the community, in the sense that all kinds of roles would be played by a good teacher.

Question: [same speaker] One more question. Now, as far as education is concerned: It's been a while since I was in high school. And, when I went to high school, I went to Walter High School in the Bronx, and I had to go through a metal detector, a wand and an X-ray machine, to get into the school: That's just to get upstairs. Now, I haven't been there for 8-9 years, so I don't know what they're doing now [LaRouche laughs]. My next question is, based on knowing the facts that our education system is failing the youth, how can we, as community, using a community effort, help educate our youth, without trying to steer them into having a kind of individualistic type of ideology, or idea of how things should be done?

LaRouche: Exactly. Existentialism is the problem. The point is this: We're not educating our youth in the first place. The schools are a fraud. That's the problem. You see, for a child, in a healthy school, I think most of us had some exposure to a classroom situation, which we would consider relatively healthy. A good teacher, a good class: something better than the rest of it. Eh? Something you enjoyed, because there was a real interplay of ideas, in a productive and meaningful way.

Now, this is always true with young children, as much as it is, with other children. Of course, we have problems today, because of what's happened to family relations and culture; because of video games and other things, we have systemically destroyed young people--even at a very early age. For example, the damned television set, the video games. These things have knowable effects upon the mind of the child, that you can permanently destroy the child.

See a child, a human goes through a certain period of maturation, which, I talk about youth movement, but I bring this in, always, as you may have noticed: You have various levels. As you know about adolescence--you've all seen an adolescent; once you were one--and you know, that we classify anybody who's over 18-25, if they behave like an adolescent, we diagnose them as clinically insane. But, if they're adolescent, we say, "that's normal adolescence." Because they're in the process of biological and other maturation of the developing individual. There are phases of development, which are variable from individual to individual, but there're types of development, which are rather consistent.

Absolute infancy: purblindness in an infant. We have not explored the effect of violence in a family, on a fetus. Remember, a six-month premie--a fetus born after six months' term, of nine--if it survives the lung hazard and other hazards of that premature birth (which we can generally deal with in hospitals, today; I mean, premies can be dealt with, so that the danger, deaths because of lung problems, immature lungs, can be avoided); these premies when successfully treated, will grow up to be normal children, and normal adolescents and adults. Normal in other ways. Well, if that's the case, then what's going on with the six to nine months part of the term, of the one who comes out at nine months? That little thing in there, is hearing everything that's going on! Maybe not in terms of understanding, with a dictionary, but emotionally, in terms of emotional reactions and emotional stereotypes, this little thing in there, is getting a sense of what's happening outside the womb.

In the same sense that a human being, with sense-perception, is capable of looking beyond sense-perception to the reality beyond, so the little creature inside the womb, has a certain implicit human potential, for access to insight into outside the womb. So, if there's beating in the family, if there's fear, screaming, anxiety, this poor little critter in there, is suffering that. And maybe, when their delivered, when they come out, after a nine-month term, maybe they've gone through all this stuff. If they're fully human in characteristics, at the age of six months in term, you mean they can't respond to what's going on outside the womb, during three months later?

So, therefore the kind of environment you create in households, in society, around children, in pregnancy, which are not totally incognita, but they are terra incognita in large degree, something which is not taken into account.

So, you have the age of the fetal child--that's a human being in there. The age of six months, it's a fully qualified human being. Why, because if they're born at six months, they're fully qualified human beings. They have a little health problem, but otherwise they're human. We don't recommend six months' delivery, but, it happens, and if it happens, we can make a success of it, in any cases.

All right, now what do you look at, in terms of the infant who has been born? There are developmental problems: purblindness, other kinds of developmental problems. There are syndromes of young children at various age intervals. Educational systems were developed, on the basis of the average capability--good educational systems--of the average ability of children to adapt to certain challenges of knowledge and social relations, at these age intervals.

Adolescence, between being a child and becoming an adult, is a crisis for most people, in which some will go insane. Sometimes insanity is called adolescence; it's continued it's called insanity!

Then you have your age, 18-25 interval, primarily. Which is the difference of youth. This is a process of transition, into becoming full-fledged adults, in terms of assuming responsibility. Your major concern is, emotionally, to go through a development, including education, which qualifies you to function as a fully-fledged adult, at the age of 25 and beyond; with some professional potential, as well. So, you'll feel like you're a full-status human being, adult human being. Maybe you do not know everything, but at least you're qualified. And, that gives you a sense of emotional maturity and satisfaction, which is a change of state of the way you can think about society. You're not anxious about things, that you would be anxious about, as an adolescent. You feel differently.

So, in organizing society, we have to take these kinds of things into consideration.

Now, the basic thing we require, fundamentally, in response to the focal point of your question, is, we require an educational system, which is actually an educational system: which educates people in ideas. That can be done. If we stop trying to rehearse people, to pass pre-programmed, multi-choice questionnaires, which are computer-scored, and then downgrade the quality of the questionnaires to fit the capacity of the students--the sliding scale--and come up by trying to adjust the sliding scale down, faster than the people are becoming stupid--and that's when we say, there's an improvement in education, by virtue of test scores. Eh?

So, the point is, what you're doing with children, particularly with this Ritalin spread in school, what you are doing with children is, you are boring them to death! You're torturing them! To have some poor kid sit there, and have to go through this garbage, this rehearsal, this boring game, with no emotional excitement in education: it's torture! And you put 'em in a society, where you tell 'em there's no future, you tell them a lot of lies, like the popular lies today; you give them a total pessimism about society. You tell 'em: "Eh! Eh!" "Eh! Whaddya think you are, eh? You're nothing! You're like the rest of us! You're nothing! Where d'ya think you're going? You're going nowhere!" "Take this stuff. Fix yer head, feel better. You may feel worse in the morning, but then, take another one."

We're doing that to them! If we have an educational system, which is based on love of human beings, and, say: To love a human being, is to love that in a person, which is a human being: the capacity to know; t communicate knowledge; to be part of society; to have a sense of being part of history; a sense of influencing the future of history. Then, they're happy! I've seen this: They're happy! Young children, who are properly educated, unless they have severe problems which are exogenous to the educational system, will tend to be happy with a good education. I was. I had a lot of bad teachers, bad courses, I wasn't too happy with them. I was happy to torment them. But, whenever you had a good teacher, a good course, where actual ideas were presented, where you came out knowing more about yourself, your own mind, and your own powers, you didn't want to go away from it. You always would try, if you could pick your courses, you would want to pick a course with these kinds of things, not because it was your specialty, but because you enjoyed it! Because it was stimulating you with ideas. For example: We had one of the greatest mathematicians of the 19th Century, was chosen because he was qualified in Classical Greek. And an insightful professor said, since you're qualified in philology, in Classical Greek, you're qualified to teach calculus next year. And he was. One of the best.

And therefore, a good education, based on any such consideration, which makes people happy, with the experience of developing their own minds, is what is generally required. If you have that, if you have that kind of school setting, with some protective elements added, against violence--and you can't tolerate violence against kids. Children must not be exposed to violence. You must intervene, actively, to protect children from violence. It has terrible effects on the child, at all age groups. Don't allow it! You must enforce that. And no kidding. No kidding, you must protect the children. You're not going to "tough them up" by subjecting them to violence. You're going to enrage them and destroy them, by subjecting them to violence. We have to protect children. And we have to have an educational approach, which thinks in these kinds of terms. In that case, we can manage the problems.

But, remember, you have a society, which is going nowhere. You have a society, which tells you it's going nowhere. All of you know what we means by a "no future" generation. The future that was dumped on you, by the past generation, which were neglected. These children are subjected to a worse degree of the same problem. They're in a no-future generation--worse off than most of you. Most of you here, have some sense, some claim on sense of intellectual identity and security. So therefore, you, in a sense, are better off, by far, than these poor kids. Often, these poor kids are sitting there, living in a literal Hell, wondering whether they're going to be killed; having no place to go, where they feel secure, important, or have identity. And society says, "We don't care." And that message gets across. [applause]

Question: Usually, I get someone else to ask my question, but I guess I'll stand up today and do it. I'm Erin from the Baltimore office. One of the thing that me and my fellow-cadres from the Baltimore office have been thinking about and discussing, is: How do we, collectively, give women an intellectual identity in this society, where women are objectified? I mean, this is even a difficult thing for me, actually think about, even though I am a woman. So, I wanted to know, what kind of insight you have. I know you always talk about looking at things from the higher principle, and not focusing on single issues. But, I mean, however, when you're talking about re-creating a culture, or actually fixing a degenerate culture, when it seems like half of culture or the population is--I don't want to say "left out," but, kind of, in a sense left out. So, what can we do about that? How do you inspire women, to give them an intellectual identity? Inspire them toward ideas?

LaRouche: Well, what happens is, is that, in this society, if you're a woman, and you feel like nothing, the name of the game is "sex." Right? Huh? That's what the problem is. Because the idea of an intellectual identity, as a person--.

See, the problem that women have, is when they make this dichotomy of thinking of women, rather than persons. You have to think of yourself as a person, primarily. And, the needs of a person. Human relations, if they're not based on this, then become a kind of game, a kind of pleasure-pain game. In which, instead of the relations being emotionally based on ideas, on personal development, are based on: "You give me pleasure; do I give you pleasure?" You do services for me, I do services for you. Do I need you, because I don't have anybody else? Or, I'd be afraid, or I'd feel abandoned.

So, the problem is, is the sense of existential insecurity about one's position in society. Remember, this society, the corruption of this society, is essentially existentialist in its philosophical character. Look, the teaching of Sartre, the teaching of Heidegger, the teaching of Arendt, the teaching of Adorno--all these kinds of things, which are the standard lectures in the university today, and the high school today. Sociology course; philosophy course; what is it? It's this existentialist garbage. What's the characteristic of entertainment? Existentialist garbage. What is violence on the screen? The violence is not the problem. The violence is a problem, but that's not the problem. The problem is the violence occurs, in an existentialist way.

See, for example, let's take an historical drama. A drama involving, say, war, murder, things like that. If it's a Classical form of drama, does the violence in itself, cause a problem, as violence in entertainment? No! Only if the idea of the violence is used as an exploitative factor, in entertainment. [laughing]

Go to plot: You have various kinds of plots, in drama. And this culture is largely based on dramatic entertainment, and similar kinds of things. That's where people's identities tend to get a little bit messed up, huh? In Classical drama, the purpose of Classical drama, is not to write fiction, to give sensual entertainment. Classical drama's purpose, is to educate people in history, by putting real-life history, in a condensed form, on stage, in a way, in which people will have insight into tragedy and the sublime. That is, to see that a society is destroying itself, and to see the process by which the society is destroying itself, and the relationship of that process of self-destruction to key individuals in that society; or to an individual, in that society. And then, to pose, implicitly, the question of a solution to that crisis.

Now, violence, other things, may be a part such dramas, if they're real. And therefore, to present as much violence as is necessary to convey the idea of the drama, will not hurt. The question is, are you involved in the sensual experiencing of violence, per se, as opposed to engaging in the sublime effort to find a solution to the problem which the drama poses. In order to have insight into society. If you come out that, with a Classical drama, you come out with a sense of greater power to deal with problems. Therefore, you have a sense of the sublime.

In a society, in which this idea of pleasure and sense experience, especially intense sense experience, for its own sake, is the dominant characteristic of social relations, as attested by the conditioning by video, by what you see on the television screen, and so forth. This is a violent society, of the worst type. It's an existentialist society, of meaningless violence, meaningless killings, eh? The random killing. "You're going to be struck down by meaningless killers! Like the sniper!" This is what destroys people.

And thus, the problem that we have is, we are not protecting one another, adequately, by dealing with these problems. See, if you're conscious of these kinds of problems, and other people you're working with are conscious of these kinds of problems, you can deal with them. They don't affect you. Your relationship with other people will be based on this, on people who are useful to you--not in the sense of being "usable"; but, useful to you, because their relationship to you, helps to make you a stronger person, in dealing with these kinds of problems.

And therefore, people who help each other, actually tend to go together, or collaborate in various ways, more frequently. Because, they have an active interchange of development, which is beneficial to them. They feel better about themselves, because of this kind of collaboration. And, I would hope that, in a youth movement, we would be attempting to create that kind of environment, within the youth movement, where things are not "man," "woman," etc., etc., but things are on this basis. And the man-woman questions just sort themselves out, not easily, because it's a very sick society, and there's a lot of garbage hung over, which keep popping into places, as a result of family and other relations in the past.

But the sense that you're conquering it, resisting it, overcoming it, gives you a good feeling about yourself. I've gone through a lot in life, and I can tell you: Life is really enjoyable. As you may perceive, I enjoy living. I enjoy doing what I'm doing. I have no complaints about that. I'm perfectly satisfied. I know what I'm supposed to do. I'm only dissatisfied when I don't have the energy or resources to do more, that's all. And you should feel the same way. [applause]

Question: Hello, Mr. LaRouche, I'm Jason from the Baltimore area. My question is about the group you aptly described as those "draft-dodgers" trying to bring on World War III. Because, it seems to me, in order to carry forth this projected Clash of Civilizations, and to consolidate their world government, as they see it, they're going to have to nip Russia and China in the bud. Now typically, they've tried to play one against the other, prevent a sort of collaboration, like between Stalin or von Schleicher that could happen; so you put in Hitler. Or, try to play one off against the other, like Kissinger did, in the early '70s. But, now, with Putin and Jiang, they don't seem to be playing our game any more.

So, Sam Huntington, with the phrase "the West versus the rest," and all those people of that mind-set, are clearly gearing themselves up for that sort of confrontation. But it would just seem suicidal. And, you're not dealing with Arab countries, say, like Iraq--you know, they have a certain military strength, but not to hurt us, in a way that, say China or Russia could, if we came into a confrontation with them.

So, the question I want to pose to you is: How do you think the Utopians, based on their patterns of thought and what they've done already; how are they going to deal with, specifically, Russia and China, since they able to--? And, again, how does the financial collapse play into this? Because Russia and China are also taking steps to insulate themselves, financially, and their economies in general, from that, so how do you think--?

LaRouche: They're not going to be able to do that, and besides, you have to understand one thing: The Utopians are insane. Which means that, don't look for rational solutions, or capability of rational solutions, for their problem, emanating from them: They're utterly insane.

What are the Utopians? Utopians were a creation of Bertrand Russell and H.G. Wells, and other people, but that's the core. And Aleister Crowley, the official Satanist of the 20th Century, who created Aldous Huxley; who create Julian Huxley; who created George Orwell,and so forth. The entire apparatus--we've gone through this; you have access to it, so I won't have to repeat it here--but, the entire apparatus, from the top down, of Utopian world empire, today, was created, from the top down, by Bertrand Russell, who was the biggest war-monger of the 20th Century, and the biggest pacifist!

Now, most of these guys, today, are typified, by being ex-Trotskyists! Your biggest war-mongers, are draft-dodging ex-Trotskyists. Who were avid pacifists, who avoided Selective Service, who avoided war--or, like George Bush, the President--did useless duty in the National Guard, to avoid being sent to Vietnam. I don't think he ever learned to fly a plane. They tried to get a plane to fly him, and that wouldn't work!

So, this is the reality. These guys are Utopians. Now, what does that mean? That means, that they're like typical Trotskyists, of the worst type. They draw up a list, like a typical professor of sociology. They draw up a list of dos and don'ts--as Wells did, in his Open Conspiracy. If we do this, then this mechanic, this policy will play against this (in a Hobbesian way); this policy will play against another; and this will force people to come into this perfect society, this perfect perpetual society, based on conflict-relations.

So therefore, what you have do: You have to have two movements, which are the same movement. One is a war movement, a perpetual war movement, like the Roman Empire, run on the basis of studies of the Roman Empire! One the side, you're out to kill everybody all the time; on the other side, you have people begging for peace. So, what you have is a game, where you have your peace on this side--like the Reverend Moon; that is, the pro-Satanic, sex-crime theorist of the world; then, you have, on the other side, you have "We are the killers." And you find out, the Killers and the Pacifists are the same people.

Take Noam Chomsky, perfect example. Here is the case with Noam Chomsky, which explains this problem: Noam Chomsky was the son of two Communists, who were persecuted by McCarthyism, at the end of the 1940s and the beginning of the 1950s. Noam Chomsky was a pig. I don't know if he got a curly tail or not, but he's a pig. Chomsky studied at the University of Pennsylvania, under Professor Harris, a professor of linquistics. Linguistics was invented by Russell, through two guys, Karl Korsch, a former head of the Communist Party of Germany, Rudolf Carnap, a real idiot, a real blackboard nut. So, they invented this theory of linguistics.

Russell brought these guys--not Chomsky, but these two guys--to Philadelphia, to the University of Pennsylvania, in 1938, in an operation, run in conjunction with Robert Hutchins, who was then president of the University of Chicago. Hutchins and Russell built up, in the United States, an organization, called the "Unification of the Sciences," which had two components: A right-wing fascist element, and a left-wing socialist element, called the Vienna Circle. Both were the same thing: One was socialist; one was fascist--they're both fascist. They brought them into the United States, as nesting pairs, from Vienna--two nestlings, to each philosophy department of universities throughout the United States.

And that's what you have as philosophy--philosophy of science, philosophy of history, and so forth, in these universities today. It all came from the breeding of the eggs laid by these nesting pairs, who were brought in from the Vienna Circle and similar types, like Leo Strauss. Leo Strauss, one of the leading fascists of the world, professor of Platonic studies at the Chicago university, one of the two leading schools of Platonic studies, in the United States, today. The other is Jowett. The other is the barber school, which Leo Strauss certainly represents. Leo Strauss is a fascist. Leo Strauss is one of the educators of most of the leading fascists, inside this operation in the Bush Administration today. The American Enterprise Institute, all these kinds of people, come from that.

So, these guys were assembled. Also, the nuclear warriors, Szilard, Wigner, the other people who were nuclear warriors, in science, were Russell appointees, based at Princeton Advanced Institute, in the New Jersey--these guys. They made the bomb, they planned the nuclear policy for Russell; they worked for Russell. The peace movement under Russell worked at the same time. Both the same people. Russell demanded nuclear war, as preventive nuclear war--and got it, in Hiroshima! Launched the Cold War, himself, and ran it from the top down, by his circle.

So therefore, they start this Unification of the Sciences project in Philadelphia. That is, that part of. Harris, linguistics teacher. Chomsky comes in, as a young victim of McCarthyite persecution of his parents, full of hate. Goes into Harris's program in linguistics. Becomes a vegetable. Goes to MIT to play a key part in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Research Laboratory Electronics program. Karl Korsch is sent up there as his monitor, who was his political monitor at MIT. Chomsky endorses everything that Russell said about preventive nuclear war. He is considered, in the United States today, by fools, as the leader of the peace movement.

He was confronted by one of our people, at Rice University in Houston, Texas, and he admitted both of these things. He said, "What's the difference? Russell's a great man."

The man's a fascist. He typifies those who represent both sides of the issue.

That's what our problem is. We're blind to the reality, which threatens us. These guys are insane. If you look from the standpoint of epistemology, at the way these guys thinks--just take Chomsky: Chomsky says, yes, he admits, "Russell pushed for preventive nuclear war, in 1946 and thereafter. But Russell is a great pacifist. Russell [audio loss]... which the Roman Empire is a typification of fascism, in this respect. They have a policy, a will, to act. A Nietzschean, destructive will to act. They are determined to act for that will, for that stated purposes, whatever it results in! All right?

They're the ones, who started out in Germany, in the 1930s, under Hitler's "terminate the lives of useless eaters," which became, under U.S. sponsorship, from people like the Harriman family in the United States, became the death camp policy at Auschwitz. This is the policy you're dealing with: You're dealing with a true fascist mentality. Insane. Their ideas are insane, by any scientific standpoint--no consistency. They have an attitude. I guess that's what we call it these days, "an attitude." They're determined to act upon that attitude, and no consideration of consequence will deter them from acting on that attitude.

The only way you can deal with these cruds, is, take the power away from them. You have to take the power from Adolf Hitler; take the power from Chomsky; take the power from Russell; take the power from these chowder-heads. Hmm? And that's our problem.

Now, how do we do that? How do you do that? I'm a vulnerable old geezer. How do you do it? Maybe it's just sufficient for me to transmit a bit of knowledge to you, so, in case I expire, or something, that you can carry on. Well, what you do is: You have a lot a power, if you function as a movement. As I said, earlier, you have the power to shift. When you guys go into the Congress, or similar places, and make a good--shall we say--series of lightning raids, intellectual raids, huh? You shake up the whole area! You frighten them, not because you're threat: You frighten them, because you shake them up, that the youth are moving! And, anybody who's in politics, who is not an idiot, knows, that when a youth movement goes into motion, they are the only force that can move a whole population.

So, how do you deal with the problem? [dropping to a near-whisper] Organize! Organize. And, that's how you deal with it. Understand the problem, have no illusions; don't try to deal with them on their own terms; understand that you're dealing with a clinical psychotic, who's determined to act upon his will, or his thing--whatever it is, that he acts on! He will not be deterred, unless the power to do it, is taken away from him.

Now, what we're doing now, in Russia, China--and I'm peculiarly in the middle of this stuff--and in South and Central America, as well: We're moving to take the power away from 'em. We, in a very funny way--. Of course, what I do, it's all over the world, is all over the international Arab press, and other places, more and more all the time. That's not a problem. But, what happens is, ideas are funny things. It's not somebody going to somebody, and shoving a policy down their throat, that changes history. Certainly not for the better. What changes history, is spreading ideas, which have an infectious quality, which take hold, under the appropriate circumstances.

The world is in a situation, in which, here I am; I've been forecasting this collapse of the system, publicly, in written areas, for 35 year. For 35 years, I've been publishing exactly, blow by blow, what was going to happen in the long term about this world economy: It has all happened. Except the final act, the very final act, closing scene. [laughter] It's happened according to script! [growling] People say, "Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, not true! This system's gonna last forever! Rrryyyaaa, rrryyyaaa, rrryyyaaa! The system is impervious! Yer wrong! Free trade is everything! This system'll work! Yer wrong! Public opinion will never accept it!" Say: "Public opinion will have nothing to do with it. The system will collapse of its own weight, and public opinion will have to explain why." [laughter] Right?

So therefore, we've come to the point, that the influence of ideas, function in the way that science would suggest they work: When you have a paradoxical situation, which, what the other guys teach doesn't work, and you've been saying, it isn't going to work, and that there's a solution to that. Now saying, it isn't going to work, is not going to solve your problem. Because they say, "Okay, we'll go out and shoot ourselves. The system is going down, we have to die. We have to accept it. It's inevitable." I say, "No, it's not inevitable. If you make a decision of this type, we have a perfectly workable alternative, to the collapse of the system."

Now, that's a kind of an infectious statement: That's called the sublime--the highest art-form: the sublime. It's to take a tragic situation, and to propose a solution to that. Let the tragedy come on stage, and then, show that what you showed on stage of ideas, is what is happening!

"You mean, it's not a stage-play? It's what's happening?" "Absolutely!"

"They're all gonna die."

"Noooo! That's not necessary! You don't have to die. I've provided for that. Here's what you have to do."

And, in that way, I've had a delightful amount of success, in spreading ideas around this planet, and we have a lot of governments and others, who are operating on the basis of those ideas. And, you have the advantage of those ideas, understanding them, and using them to change things. We are now in a situation, where the planet has to change, if it's going to survive. Now, the human race has been on this planet for about 2 million years or so, at least. And over this period of time, the population of the planet has increased from several million potential--which is what the apes have a potential of; don't monkey around with humanity, you'll end up with an ecological disaster. We now have 6.2 billion people on this planet, according to the latest reports. We've increased the potential population-density of this planet, tremendously, by the human will, by science, and by the application of science. And we have not not begun to realize what we could do, in terms of the power to improve things on this planet.

So therefore, we have reason to be optimistic about humanity, despite all disasters. In net effect, humanity has succeeded. Humanity is not a failure. The greatest success in the universe, is humanity. It has the capacity, despite all its shortcomings, to succeed. And, under conditions of crisis, people tend to survive. Cultures tend to survive, if they have any viability. And therefore, I think humanity's going to survive.

But, it has to have a little help, and our job is to provide it. [applause]

-30-