Youth Movement Dialogue With LaRouche
November 16, 2023

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

Question: Hi, Mr. LaRouche. I was curious about the history of the migration of people into North America, where the first humans were--that sort of thing? Could you shed any light on that subject?

Lyndon LaRouche: Well, this is an area of a lot of terra incognita, in terms of subject-area. We really don't know. For example, you know how I define the difference between a man and an ape, which is kind of--shall we say--that's rather crucial for following me in anything. And, you probably have some comprehensive, if not a full comprehension, at least, of what I mean by my view of Vernadsky's definition of the Nöosphere; and the distinction among the abiotic phase-space; living, anti-entropic phase-space; and the cognitive, or specifically human Nöospheric phase-space.

But, taking that into account, we can not assume, that mankind as a species did not live on this planet for about the past 2 million years. Now, this is 2 million years, which are defined, approximately, by the way in which the planetary shift of the plates, created the conditions under which we would have this glaciation of Antarctica and glaciation periodically, across much of the Northern Hemisphere.

Under these periods of glaciations, the seas would fall to levels about 400 feet below the present. And then, when the glaciers melted, the seas would come back to approximately their present world levels.

I also know, from studies I've done on this, that the development of civilization did not occur on land, in the sense of, interior of land-areas. Anyone who studied the nature of these things, would appreciate that: That, actually, civilization was developed around maritime cultures. Because the place you could get the greatest amount of food, to feed any concentration of population, was in the mouths of great rivers, near oceans, and so forth. That's where you get the fish. And this supply of fish from the sea, has been very crucial for mankind to get through some rather difficult periods.

Now, also, we know that, looking at the studies of vegetables, as I've looked at some of the work done in India, where they've collected wild seeds from all parts of the world, with the idea of being able to go back to the original, wild seed, because most of the seeds we use for plants are cultivated seeds, and these tend to have problems, after a period of time. So, the tendency is obviously to go back, and let's look at the primary source seed-form, and try to re-trace, re-enact the development of derivatives of that in the form of usable forms of plant life.

So, the way this occurred, is that the seeds came from all parts of the world, into various parts of the world. For example, you have--much of the edible plant life of the Mediterranean region, came from an area at the mouth of the Mediterranean Sea, in an area which is now northern Morocco, the so-called Atlas region. So, it was the Atlas culture, which provided, over the past 12,000 years or so, most of the food culture of the Mediterranean/European region and Egypt.

On this basis, and on the basis of certain digging deeper and deeper into the past, we don't know how long man has been on this planet. But we do know, the idea of talking about the American Indian as aboriginal, is nonsense. There have been populations moving around in the Americas, over long periods of time. There have been colonizations, like that of Central America, which came from China. There were large-scale maritime cultures, which trans-navigated the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean, over thousands of years.

If you look at some of the calendars that survive from ancient times, you find remarkable evidence of the existence of maritime cultures. For example: Why would you find, in some ancient Central Asian calendars, evidence of the magnetic pole shift, which occurs as a long-cycle shift, in the Earth, where the magnetic pole migrates? Now, how would a land-based people ever get the idea of checking the magnetic pole shift? They did--well, obviously. So, the cultures are very ancient, and therefore, we can assume that humanity, as humanity--they may have looked somewhat different; they may have had larger jaws, or different shaped heads, or so forth--but, they're human beings, essentially, with all the capacities of any human being today. Different shapes and sizes, and skin colors, and whatnot. But, they're wandering all over the planet, back and forth, with these migrations. So, that, what we should do, is rejoice to find, that in North America and elsewhere, we can find traces of all kinds of cultural histories of mankind.

For example, take about 1000 A.D., you have a place in part of Newfoundland, which was a village, settled by the Norman-Irish, that is, by the Scandinavian-Irish. You know, the Scandinavians moved into the Ireland, and had a dominant influence in Ireland for a while. And from there, they moved into places like Iceland. In a warmer part of the world's climate, they settled in Greenland; they moved to Labrador; and they had permanent settlements on Newfoundland, among other places.

Many of the Indian tribes, so-called, were actually descended from the Irish, down along the Mississippi Valley. They were wiped out by disease later on, but they were obviously descended from the Irish.

So, the cultures are all over the world. And, for us, it is a fascinating subject, and it is a beautiful subject, to look at the prehistory of mankind, and to see it, and to trace and study and try to understand what some of this pre-history represents, in terms of the relics available to us today. I think it's a fascinating subject; it enriches the mind. And, even if doesn't have much use otherwise, it enriches the mind, and that is very useful.

The Socratic Dialogues

Question: Hi, Mr. LaRouche. I've been an organizer for about four months now, and the more and more I study, the more I realize how serious this fight is. And, in organizing, I'd like to increase my energy throughput, in getting people a sense of this, that I've already kind of begun. And I think it goes through the simultaneity of eternity, and I'd like you to--I don't know--elaborate for the group, and myself, this idea.

LaRouche: First of all, the main thing is the group. The youth organizing, as I've defined it, does not work effectively--and in very rare individuals it may--but, you won't get a youth movement in a simple individual-by-individual case. You have to look at, and read, and study Plato's Socratic dialogues--not one at a time, but get the feel of all of them, and the topics they cover. One aspect you must watch closely, in studying these: I've told people, “Don't just read them.” I've recommended that people try to play the parts of the participants of the dialogue, as a Classical dramatic actor would; or as a cast of Classical dramatic actors. Try to re-create, in a way which is credible to you, and credible to onlookers watching this performance, that they are seeing a living performance of the type that existed in the mind of Plato, in writing these dialogues.

Because, then you see a principle involved: the principle of the so-called Socratic dialogue, the Socratic principle. It's when you have a social interaction, among a group of people, that you get the highest rate of fertility of development, of two things: first of all, of the knowledge, because you will always learn more, or in healthy situations, more by interchanging with other people. Yes, you have to have long periods of concentration by yourself. But, this has to be accompanied by an enriching exchange of the principled nature of ideas, among others. And so, you have a group of young people committed to this kind of dialogue. That's number one.

This gives you a sense, also, of how to communicate. See, you go out to a guy on the street, and you want to organize him. He's full of all kinds of nonsense. But, how do you get his attention? Sometimes, it takes a whole bunch of you--five or six--standing on a corner, to get one guy going through the hurdle that you set up there; and finally, they'll get an idea. You challenge them: You challenge their assumptions. You show there's a paradox, in what they think is a simple matter of belief, on their part. And they'll stop. They'll turn. They'll look at you--if you succeed. “You got my attention, buddy. What do you mean?”

So therefore, that demonstrates the power of communication. You get the same thing with a great playwright, and the great actors, in a Classical drama. You won't see much of that on a Hollywood screen, or the video screen, these days. But in Classical drama, you'll see it. And you have a sense, that what's being demonstrated to you there--once you see the idea behind the drama--what's demonstrated to you, is a method of communication.

Now, this is not simply a way of “getting your point across.” This is actually a way of transmitting knowledge to other people. And that is being effective, eh? Instead of yelling at them, or beating them up, or something, and saying, “Do as I tell you,” you're trying to get something in them, to understand what you're saying, to accept its veracity, to feed it back to you, and to practice it, and to improve their practice in society, because of that experience.

So, your two things are: Experience this role of cognition, the Socratic dialogue, as a method of digesting ideas, proposing ideas, solving paradoxes. That's number one. And you have to have people who get big into that. Number two: See through the eyes of the great dramatists and the great actors, actor-companies. See how this applies to a method of communication, of actual ideas, of ideas of principle. That's where the power comes from. That's how you accelerate your capability.

Dealing With Popular Opinion

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

LaRouche: I look at that exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's always this method, the Socratic method.

India, 1945

Question: Hi, Mr. LaRouche. You have said that one of the things that shaped your understanding of inside politics, or real politics, was the Calcutta riots. And I was reading your biography, and you said that at that time, an independent government of India could have been established in Calcutta. And that the nationalists had the situation in their hand, and did nothing. I'm looking for an answer, if you have an explanation, from [?] Communist Party headquarters, that Stalin and Churchill had agreed on Indian independence in 1947. Could you elaborate on that?

LaRouche: Oh, sure. I became, because of what I am, just naturally, I was in a sense a typical, atypical American. That is, most of the GIs, whom I knew, who passed through the China-Burma-India theater, had a sense, which coincided pretty much with the direction that Roosevelt's actions were leading: the idea of the independence of former colonial nations.

If you saw what I saw then, you'd see the extreme poverty, the deprivation, the cruelty, toward people, shown by the colonial powers, in those parts of the world. And the extreme poverty. You had a sense that this is wrong. And what we had to do, if we were going to have security in the postwar world--because by that time, it's pretty obvious the war was over--that we had to make sure that these nations emerged as sovereign republics, which were able to focus on their own fundamental interests, and their interest in good relations with other countries.

So, it was obvious to me that the British Raj, had to go, absolutely. This was the most fundamental interest.

Now, I'm an American, I'm not an Indian, and I'm not a British subject. But here I am, under the command of this crazy Lord Louis Mountbatten--he was actually my commander in that area; he was both Governor-General, and the head of the military CBI organization, so I was actually under his command. So, here I am. I go into Calcutta, and in Calcutta, naturally I mingled with the population. I want to know the Indians. I had only seen the Indians, in India as such, in passing, on my way into Burma, and coming back out of Burma, coming down from the upper Ledo area, coming into Calcutta--wonderful. And the Bengalis are wonderful people. They're a very excitable people in a sense. They're quick, very quick, very witty, very curious, and very social. They're less withdrawn, and much more raucous, in a way, than Indians from other parts of India.

So, I had a grand time. I made a lot of friends among Indians. I would just meet them on the streets, and meeting one would lead to another, would lead to another--I met all kinds of people, in a very quick, very rapid succession. So, very quickly, I got a feel of the inside of the society.

Now, it happened that, this one case, in Calcutta there is a cross, in the center of Calcutta City is a park called the Maidan. It's a very large park. And over on the other side of the park, was the Governor-General's palace. Then there's the main street, which runs down there, by the park side, which is Chowringee, sort of a boulevard, the fashionable street. And then a cross street, called Daramtala, which runs on the top side of the park, runs in the direction of the Governor-General's palace, and in other directions. Comes from the direction of the railroads, for example.

A Great Lesson

So, I met some of my friends there, who were leading a routine procession, a protest, an Indian Independence protest. And they were going with a bunch of people from some trade unions, to make this routine political demonstration at the Governor-General's palace. Now, this happened all the time, and usually without any particular bloodshed. At least since the earlier food riots there. So, this time they went there, and some of my friends were killed, because the guards suddenly made a charge with these lathis which is a brass tip on a bamboo stake. And they killed some of these kids, and others.

So, this set forth an explosion in Calcutta, an overripe explosion. And they had a mass marching down Daramtala, toward the intersection of Daramtala and Chowringee, which is the direction of the Governor-General's palace. At that point, the British police, with heavy machine guns, set themselves in front of the crowd, and machine-gunned the crowd, coming down the street--a closely packed crowd filling the street. This set forth another chain reaction, which eventually resulted in millions of Indians from Bengal, all over Bengal, pouring into the city, and marching, for successive days. And you had a mixture of “Jai Hind!” (“Long live India!”) from the Hindus, and Pakistan “Pakistan Zindabad!” (“Long live Pakistan!”), from the Muslims, and they were both marching together, as one solid group, against the British Raj.

If, at that moment, somebody had simply gone--because they controlled the city--if somebody had gone to the Governor-General's office, and said, “We're now declaring, here, the independence of India,” India would have become independent. It's that simple. Because you had a total vacuum. It was a total, classical revolutionary situation. The authorities on the scene had been totally discredited. No government on the scene had any credibility, and you had a mass of the population, which had a very simple objective: now is enough. Now is the time for our independence. They could have had it right then and there.

That was quite a lesson for me.

Importance of the Nation

Question: Hello, Lyn, I'm in the Los Angeles field. You had, in answer to an earlier question, you said that we as a species, had been running around the planet for a long time now. How does the concept of national sovereignty develop? When does a certain group, when is a certain group able to say, “this is our sovereign land?” And then, in that context, because the process of developing colonies, colonization, how was that--I've known it in terms of colonialism, as a negative experience, but how would you fit in the colonization of the Americas, and the development of the United States?

LaRouche: First of all, there were no nations, in general. The condition of mankind on this planet, as far as we know, was essentially, some people treating other people as human cattle. Either wild cattle, to be slaughtered, or tamed cattle, to be herded, bred, and culled. The majority of the population lived as human cattle. These were not nations, they had none of the attributes of nations. There were certain cultural currents, but the cultural currents were divided by the fact of a man-eat-man culture. So, a man-eat-man culture is an evil culture, intrinsically.

So, all we know of the cultures, is that most of them were evil, in this respect. They're based, as many parts of the world still are today, on some people eat other people. Some people enslave other people. Either in formal slavery, as chattel slavery, or in informal forms of slavery, such as the condition of many Mexican-Americans, for example, Mexicans working in the United States. They're implicitly slaves. They get paid a little bit, but they do not have rights. The U.S. government does not recognize the rights of these people, even though the Mexican government has given many of them identity cards, which identify them as Mexican citizens.

So, the idea that all these fine people, with these nice cultures, and these terrible fellows came in, and imposed these bad cultures, colonial cultures, on them, is bunk. That is not human history. Everything I know of human history, is mostly ugly, in this respect.

The first time that we had a conception of a nation-state, in a functional sense, was, as an idea, in Greece. The clearest expression of that idea was, first of all, Solon of Athens, whose idea was expressed not only by what he did to overthrow the debt-holders of Athens, but in a poem he wrote, to the Athenians, in his older years, where he scolded them, for the way they had betrayed their revolution, which had given them their freedom.

The second one was, of course, Plato's conception of the republic, which had no real precedent, except this thing from Solon. And it was never realized, except as an idea.

The first time this was realized, was in the 15th Century in Europe, where, as a result of several things, the Europeans created the first two sovereign nation-states: France under Louis XI and England under Henry VII. The distinction of these, is that the idea was, that prior to that, in Europe, especially under the Babylonian Empire, the ideas of Sparta, the ideas of the Roman Empire--the idea was that a ruling group herded the rest as human cattle. There was no notion of a right of a human being. There was the notion of a right of a power, over human beings, who'll be treated as cattle.

This was the condition of mankind, throughout the planet, to the extent we know. There were no good cultures, in that sense. There were no colonial oppressors who came in and crushed good people. It didn't happen that way. All people are born good, but all societies have been, so far, pretty much bad.

So, when you talk about oppression, you have to look at it from the standpoint of the Sublime. What should we be giving people, as justice? What should we be doing? Now that we know we should do it, aren't we obliged to do it? The difference in the 15t-Century Renaissance was, that the king had no authority, except as he efficiently promoted, and served, the general welfare of existing and future generations. That's the difference.

The Imperial Enemy

Prior to that time, in Europe--that is, from the time that we know in, says, ancient Mesopotamia, through the 15th Century, the idea of law was imperial law. Imperial law meant, what is meant in the mouths of the Romans, when they called it Pontifex Maximus.

The way the thing worked, is you had, as in the case of the Pantheon, the Roman Pantheon--and you had various pantheons in history, which you can find. The Mesopotamian pantheons, and so forth. You have different religions and different cultural groups, which were organized as religions, official religions. So the Romans, for example, in the Pantheon, would set up, in these niches, they would set up these images. Each image corresponded to a specific religion.

Now, the religions were all subjects of a Pontifex Maximus, who we call “Emperor” in later usage. This continued. This was the characteristic of European civilization, from the Roman Empire--before that, actually, but from the Roman Empire, in particular--until the 15th Century. And this is what we find in every part of the world. India, Africa, and so forth. You find predominantly, to the extent we have any evidence, this is the way it worked. You have an imperator, who made the law, above religions. In other words, the imperator represented a world religion, like the Moonies, or like the Moral Rearmament, which placed itself above all other religions, as Prince Philip demands a “world religion,” above all other religions. They attempt to codify every religion, to be supervised by a state, or imperial authority. So, the Catholic religion, the various Protestant sects, Islam, and so forth, would all be subject to directives by the emperor, who would tell them what it was lawful to believe. And if they didn't believe it, you could be hunted down by the Roman legionnaires, or others, to kill them off. Which, as you see, is an idea that's emerging among certain circles, utopian circles, in the United States right now. That's the situation.

What happened in the 16th Century, is, the Venetians, who represented the old system--they were an imperial maritime power, based on financier oligarchical power--they dominated the Mediterranean from about 800 A.D. up until the 17th Century. They launched, with their Hapsburg puppets, they launched a religious warfare, beginning in Spain, from 1511 to 1648. It was an attempt to destroy civilization.

Despite the work of Cardinal Mazarin, and of his protégé, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, in establishing the first steps of modern civilization, and getting through the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the religious wars, in 1648--despite that, the world was corrupted. By the fact that the Renaissance, which had actually established a precedent for the modern nation-state, had been ruined by this religious warfare, organized by a corrupt Papacy, and with the Hapsburg influence leading, but also many others, on a world scale: It ruined European civilization.

So, it came down to the point, that only in North America, in English-speaking North America, could you establish a republic. We established it, but we couldn't hold it, because we found ourselves isolated in the world, and subject to internal, as well as external, problems, mostly imposed from outside, from Europe. The Spanish monarchy was always the enemy of humanity. There was no case in which it wasn't, from the time of Charles I on. The Spanish culture was corrupted, therefore, you could not get a true republic. The way we got republics in the Americas, was on the basis of the American model, which resulted eventually, in the evolution of the Mexican model, in South America, in Argentina, and so forth. Other countries adopted this model, based on the American model, and largely under the direct influence of the United States. And also, the United States, in itself, was never intrinsically a colonial power. The Confederates were. The American Tories were. But the United States was never a colonial power.

The policy of the United States was, you had to keep European systems out of the Americas. You could not let Europeans establish colonies in North America. Because European systems, of continental Europe, or the British, would destroy us, and destroy the possibility of a republic on this planet. Therefore, we had this doctrine of Manifest Destiny, which took shape--was actually the idea in the mind of people like Franklin, and President George Washington, and others--but it took shape essentially in our diplomacy, through the functioning of John Quincy Adams as Secretary of State, later, and in the articulation of this idea by James Blaine, another great diplomat of the United States. The idea of Manifest Destiny is: We must unite the nation from coast to coast, to exclude the possibility of any European intervention to colonize North America, and the Americas in general. Our policy was, to defend the independence of emerging republics in South and Central America: that is, to keep all European powers out of the Americas. Because otherwise, we couldn't have republics, and we wanted a community of republics, in the Americas.

Our policy toward China, was similar. This continued to become, as Blaine indicates, our Pacific policy. Our policy was: China must develop as an independent nation. The nations of the Pacific must develop a community of nations, as we desired for the Americas. And we must fight for that. Sun Yat-sen, who was educated by U.S., by the tradition, actually, of John Quincy Adams, through the American Missionary Society, was educated, became the leader of the creation of modern China, is an expression of that.

The British used the Japanese Emperor, from 1894 on to--well, actually, Hirohito wasn't to blame, but through 1945, the British used the Japanese emperor, as a way of trying to disrupt a stable China, and to prevent the United States from having a Manifest Destiny relationship to the nations of South and East Asia.

So, that's real history. So the idea of colonialism, case by case, and so forth, makes no sense. All cultures generally stink. All were unjust to their subjects. And that injustice persists today.

The problem is not to remove injustice, because the injustice lies in the systems. It lies in the system of the existing nations and peoples. Our job is to get the people to uplift themselves, to a higher level, so they don't do that to themselves any more. And don't allow others to do it to others anymore.

This is broadly what the policy of Franklin Roosevelt was. The end of the war, he told Churchill plainly, at the end of the war, your British system, your 18th-Century methods in economics. That is, the methods of Adam Smith, and your colonial system, is doomed. We're going to shut you down as soon as the war is over. And we're going to free these nations, and we're going to help them to develop, as independent nations. That's smart policy. The policy is to help the nations of the world develop as independent, sovereign nations, so we can live in a safe world, free of what we fought against, especially in the cases of the degeneration of the cultures and systems of Europe.

Knowledge and Discovery vs. Gnosticism

Question: Good day, Mr. LaRouche. I am from Los Angeles, and my question is: In the process of discovery, how can you distinguish between truth and myth, in reference to religion?

LaRouche: Ah, that's what I do all the time!

I've laid it out in this paper recently, exactly that. You stick to what you know. Don't assert anything you don't know. Don't assert something because you were taught it. Assert only what you know. And if you're asked about something else, say, “Well, I don't know.” Or if you do know it's wrong, you say, “ Well, in my belief, it's wrong.” But generally you emphasize, what I know is the following.

Now you start from very elementary principles, as I do: What is the difference between man and a monkey? I'll bet you a lot of Republicans couldn't tell you. They wouldn't know the difference. And you can tell by their marriage habits, they probably don't know the difference. So, that's the difference between man and a monkey: this cognitive power.

Because this is a power, an efficient physical power, in the universe, unique; not found in any beast, not found in so-called abiotic nature. This power is a universal physical power in the universe: the power of cognition. This tells you that the universe is organized. The fact that we can discover a principle, and control the universe to that degree, like the principle of gravitation, for example. Or the principles of least action, or quickest path. Or the principles of the fundamental theorem of algebra, of Gauss. We control universal processes, as a willful act of mankind, through these discoveries. Thus we know that these discoveries are true, because we discovered them, we are able to validate them experimentally, in a way which shows they have a universal character--therefore, we know it.

Therefore, we know the universe is organized that way.

Well, what's the organization of the universe? It's God. The will of God. As Kepler says, the intention, God's intention, determines gravitation. That you know.

There are other things you know. You know, for example--the case of Christ. And it becomes clear when you look at this crazy Moonie--this actually Satanic cult--it's an anti-Christ cult, the Moonies. His doctrine is, that sex is God. He is the god of sex, and his job is to breed women, and men, by sex. And to control sexual behavior, and to create a religion of sex--and also money. Wealth and sex.

We've seen this before. This is the classical gnostic cult form, from the First Century A.D. this kind of stuff. One gnostic would say: Christ did not die, he went off and married Mary Magdalene; they went off to Tibet and made a race of people. That's one gnostic cult. Another gnostic cult says, no, Christ failed. That's Moon. And Moon says, “I'm God.” And he publishes statements saying, “I'm quoting God,” and God is saying, according to Moon, “Moon is my man.” And Jesus is saying, “I failed. Moon is the guy who's going to do what I failed to do.” That is religion? Well, it's the anti-Christ doctrine.

What the Moon-Cult Represents

And it's pretty filthy stuff on top of it. I mean, the biggest dope peddlers we know of, the biggest single group of dope-peddlers we know of, are the Moonies. They are also a rightwing fascist organization, which were created--

During the Korean war, you had two groups in Korea. One group had fought against the Japanese occupation of Korea. The other group had been agents of the Japanese in Korea. The group in Japan, for whom the latter group had been agents, were revived by the United States and Britain, at the outbreak of the Korean War. And the Koreans, with the backing of these Japanese, who had been part of the former policy, set up an organization with the intent to control Korea. This organization was reflected in what became known as the KCIA, now nominally headed by Bo Hi Pak, Colonel Bo Hi Pak. And they picked up this bum, a brainwashed bum, out of the prisoner, political prisoner camps, of North and South Korea, a bum who had actually been indicted and convicted of child-molesting on a large scale. Sexual child-molesting. And they made him a religious figure. on the model of the Bertrand Russell-H.G. Wells Moral Rearmament movement.

This became the integral part, from Korea, of an international organization, which is international fascism today. It's racist, it's fascist, it's drug-pushers, it's corruption, it's everything of that type. And it's the anti-Christ.

So, therefore, when you're faced with something like that, you say, “Well, I know. This is not a question of a difference of opinion. I know. I know what kind of a beast this is, what it represents.” It's a denial of the difference between man and the beast. When you say that the sex act defines man, as opposed to reason, you're degrading man to a beast. If you say God is based on this principle, then you're degrading God to a beast. And that's pretty nasty stuff. It's dangerous stuff. I don't think God would like it very much, actually. I'd do something about it.

But that's the nature of the situation. So, therefore, my point on this: Stick to what you know, in a scientific sense, to be true. And it's also possible to apply that method to know certain religious things.

For example, did Christ die uselessly? Did Christ die for mankind? Of course, he did. Did he die to rescue mankind from evil? Yeah, from the Roman Empire. Did he sacrifice himself for that? Yes. How? He sacrificed himself exactly as described by Socrates.

Socrates had the ability to leave Athens, after this frame-up trial, and not die. He said, “I will not abandon Athens. I will accept the death penalty, rather abandoning my country.” He died for his people. Witness the Apology and so forth, and the question of the immortality of the soul, as presented by Plato, and also as discussed by Moses Mendelssohn, deal with exactly that. Now, did this happen? Is this the effect? Of course it is.

Did the image of Christ's sacrifice inspire humanity to overcome the degradation, the satanic degradation, which was the Roman Empire? Absolutely. It was under the inspiration of Christianity, and its reverberations on Islam, and its reverberations in Judaism, which enabled European civilization to develop, as a civilized form. Otherwise, it would not have done. So, therefore, we know, as a matter of fact, that what Christ said his mission was, is what he accomplished. To save mankind.

This is what Jeanne d'Arc, in saving the people of France. Again, the sublime act. You know that your talent, your model talent, is finite; that you're going to die sooner or later. Therefore the question is, your interest in life, is how you should spend it. Not when you should spend it, but how you should spend it. As Martin Luther King did. Martin Luther King walked in the footsteps of Christ. And the reason that the civil rights movement failed, all the leaders around him, the top leaders around him, all failed--every one of them--after he died, is that none of them were willing to walk in the footsteps of Christ, as he was.

So, there are some things we know. And many things we don't know. I'm not worried about what I don't know, not in this matter. I take what I do know, and that's enough for me. And if I claimed any more, I'd be a faker. And I don't intend to become a faker.

The Democratic Party and FDR

Question: I'm from the Los Angeles office. In the period between the '40s and the '60s, when FDR catapulted the nation out of depression and war, African-Americans, in particular, that I associate with, give the argument that the revolution in policy-making, and infrastructure-building, that FDR headed, was ineffective and unchanging to our plight.

My question is, what will the renewing of these policies, and others, do to really elevate those who are at the bottom of the barrel, so to speak?

LaRouche: There's a fraud in that argument, by those sources, because they choose to interpret what they choose to interpret, and they ignore the facts.

The characteristic feature of the Roosevelt Administration, is that, except for a few people called Uncle Toms, African-Americans deserted the Republican Party, and joined the Democratic Party. Why did they do that? Because they understood the process in which they were engaged.

The African-Americans, so-called, or Americans of African descent, which is a more accurate term--I don't think there are, I don't believe in hyphenated Americans, I believe there are Americans of African descent, and mostly of partial African descent; it's also Cherokee descent, and so forth. This African-American thing is too much of a stereotype. But, persons of African descent, or designated as having African descent, or self-designated as having African descent--what difference does it make? They're all Americans. They all have rights. And discrimination against any of them, is the issue.

Now, the problem is this: The Democratic Party, with a few exceptions here and there, was the party of slavery and treason, from its inception with President Andrew Jackson, the guy who destroyed the Cherokee nation, until Roosevelt. And that was the basic issue. The party of slavery and treason, with a few exceptions here and there, and some. Roosevelt changed that. It was the American Whigs, typified by Lincoln, who freed the slaves--in the only way in which that could be done. It was the assassination of Lincoln, and some other problems, in New York, the New York Republicans, who allowed, in 1877, and so forth, allowed the reversal and, with the aid of Democrats such as the Woodrow Wilson, to bring in the Jim Crow. Grover Cleveland was a key part of Jim Crow, the Democrat from New York.

Teddy Roosevelt was a key part of the same process. Woodrow Wilson was the guy who reorganized, revived the Klan, from the White House. Coolidge was part of the same process. Roosevelt changed it.

Now, what you're dealing with is a process of revolutionary change. Revolutionary change back to the intent of the Constitution.

The development of the nation was the precondition for freeing people from the legacy of Jim Crow and slavery before that. And the problem is, that the people who make these criticisms, are people who will generally condemn Frederick Douglass. Frederick Douglass typifies the freed slave. The freed slave wanted the best of European culture; he demanded it as a right, and got it as a right. Frederick Douglass and his sons epitomized that, of the freed-slave movement.

The problem was that after Lincoln's assassination, people came in with this idea that: Don't educate freed slaves above their future station in life. Keep them poor and simple, and down on the farm. Don't give them funny ideas about actual equality. So the education of the so-called African-American, after freedom, in the United States, was more and more patronizing degeneracy. We had to change the policy.

The policy is not some reform. The policy is a commitment to the principle of humanity, and the principle of humanity means the development of the human quality of the individual, the mind, above all. The freedom to express that. The ability to live a longer time. And the changes that were made, and the conditions that led to the Civil Rights movement, the Brown v. Board [of Education], and similar kinds of things, the basis for this was laid in the Roosevelt Administration, during the 1930s and 1940s.

Roosevelt and Civil Rights

The impetus for this came out of the war. The returning soldier, of African descent, returned to the United States, after the end of the Second World War, as too significantly after the First World War, where he had a similar phenomenon on a smaller scale--this person of African descent was not going to take the crap that the earlier generation had taken. So, you had this movement, which was betrayed. And the betrayal of Martin Luther King, happened early. It happened in the early '60s, before his assassination. It happened with people like Stokely Carmichael, with a lot of so-called black nationalist movements, which were used to divide the struggle, which was led by Martin Luther King by that time. And to say, “No, we don't want to mix with ‘whitey.' We want our own separate nation.” And that is what destroyed, or contributed greatly, to destroying all the achievements of civil rights.

You have--even the leaders of the so-called African-descent movements today, who made no protest against the Democratic Party's overthrow, with the consent of the Supreme Court, overthrow of the Voting Rights Act of 1964.

So, these are the problems, with dealing with these guys. They're faking it. Somebody tells them something. They go out and they say a lie. They probably got it from Moonies. Like this reparations language the Moonies brought. When Satan brings you something, boy, be careful, be careful about accepting it. The Moonie says, “Well, Moon may be Satan, but his money's good.” That is when “Old Scratch” comes in and takes over.

So, that's the problem. The point is the people who make the argument themselves, are corrupt. Because they don't tell the truth. They don't even try to find out what the truth is, which is sometimes worse than telling a lie.

The truth is, that the process that began with Roosevelt, is what led to the possibility of what was achieved in the civil rights movement in the postwar period. And that effort was already in progress, during the 1930s, under Roosevelt. And, the public works project was one of the major steps in liberating people of African descent, from the kinds of problems which had existed under Wilson, Coolidge, and so forth.

Jobs! Eating! Agriculture! All these improvements benefitted everybody, and the idea of getting these improvements, and the war experience, gave courage to those who supported the Civil Rights cause in the postwar period.

How Is Christ Unique?

Question: Hi. Is there a difference between Christ and Socrates, or Joan of Arc?

LaRouche: Oh sure! Absolutely! More interesting, of course, are the relationship of similarities. For example, the beatification of Jeanne d'Arc by the Papacy, which has been recently reaffirmed, in a certain, special way, by the present Pope, shows precisely that: That there's a similarity. She represented the sublime, as Schiller defines it. Socrates absolutely defines the sublime, in the broadest way, as Plato presents us Socrates.

Christ is very unique in this respect: Because Christ is what? What does Christ say? The thing that is most celebrated about Christianity in music, for example the Bach St. John Passion and St. Matthew Passion, typifies this: That the audience--just imagine what it's like. You have a great performance (unfortunately, they keep spoiling them these days), but a great performance of the St. John or St. Matthew Passion. In this, you have the entire church, is filled with this--the orchestra, the soloists, the chorus, the congregation, the conductor--they're all participating in one, organic event: Re-living of the experience of the Gethsemane and the Crucifixion of Christ--re-living that. This interrelationship is the essence of Christianity, and thus, Bach's Passions--and you have the same kind of thing, done by Mozart, in his Requiem; or Beethoven, and his Missa Solemnis--you get this quality. It's a total experience. And it's fixed on the role of Christ, willfully confronting death, confronting the challenge of the Sublime, even if it means death, to free man from the evil, which was the Roman Empire, and the things that had led into it, of ancient Babylon and so forth. And it's this very specific dedication, to the whole of humanity, which impresses itself upon the audience, as making Christ unique--even though the resemblances are there. That's the essence of Christianity, everything else is bunk. That is Christianity, as John and Paul portray it.

Be Old, While You're Young Enough To Enjoy It

Question: Lyn, after reading Plato's Republic, I'm looking at Plato's Socrates as individual: He was famous and beloved by the non-oligarchical Greeks, for this bold, unique method--creativity--not to mention his love, and his passion for truthfulness. And Plato limits the practice of philosophy to those, in a republic, at a certain point, with (as he says, in this translation) “a ready understanding and a good memory, sagacity, quickness, high-spirited, generous temperament, and willingness to live a quiet life of sober constancy.”

LaRouche: He associates that, of course, with the old man.

Question: Huh--that makes sense.

LaRouche: The “old man”: That's me! [laughter] No, it's true.  The idea of the philosopher-king.

Question: Yeah, actually I want to get to another question?

LaRouche: Okay, good.

Question: Thanks. I understand that there's not a simple philosopher-training movement, that is, rather, to help people recognize the importance of accepting the leadership of the old man. And, to create a republic of truth-seeking in general, which will acknowledge the authority of the philosopher-king. But, why this is such a unique time, in this stage of decadence, that a youth movement, working, trying to engage people in dialogue?

LaRouche: From the evil, which was the Roman Empire, and the things which had led into it, of ancient Babylon and so forth.  Because the problem is, is that's the problem with humanity:  Humanity should function like this all the time. This is normal  humanity. What we experience, is abnormal humanity, or sub- normal humanity.

The normal thing is--I know this from childhood on--what makes for happiness in being alive in this society! What are the things that are beautiful, that you can recall, in terms of experience, as a human being? You know, looking back at what a human being is, looking back at your own childhood--your first recollections and so forth: What was good? What would you want to preserve? What would you want other people to have? What would you wish you had more of? Huh? And that's the point.

See, to think that being cognitive beings, not pleasure- seeking beings, who rely upon the occasional use of cognition to solve a few problems. That's the problem of inadequacy. That's the  problem of the true Sublime.

You have to enjoy life so much, that, figure this aspect of life: You have to have a sense of immortality. And that is a functional immortality, that you're making contributions to humanity. Those contributions that are of ideas, or perpetuation  of ideas that are essential, live forever. And therefore, your  thought lives forever, in that respect. See, you have a sense of  immortality, and mortality in immortality. Then you say, “I want  to do nothing, which I'd be ashamed of, in thousands of years to  come, or in the eyes of my ancestors. They may not agree with me,  but they can't be ashamed of me.” And you will live that kind of  life.

It's not a matter of trying to live in a way, which gets you a certain benefit, a certain feeling, or so forth. It's to live like that: If you feel that you're really a human being, in the sense I've described it, then you're a happy person. You're not only a happy person, you're a useful person, because the way you respond to problem, will be what society needs of you. What is needs of all its people. So, that's the essence of this matter, eh?

Just, when you get older, as I am, and have the experience I've had, you're able to look back at this in a certain way, which  is richer, than if you're younger. And, when you have to span the  difference between you and me, in age, and experience, you are  forced to look at a multi-generational process, as being the  natural unit of historical process. And you see this process.  You see what I went through, what I came out of. That covers about three generations. You see: You, you're three generations  ahead now. You see what faces you. You've got a span of six  generations; and, a little study of history, you get some more in  there, too. You'll get a sense of yourself as being an historical  being. And, you have a different sense of morality. And you feel  like an old man, when you're young--in the good sense.

And, the trick of being happy, is to learn how to achieve the  beauties of old age, while you're still young enough to really  enjoy them. [laughter]

Mexico-U.S. Development, A Model for Cooperation

Schlanger: Lyn, we have a question from someone who was just recently with you in Saltillo [Mexico].

LaRouche: Oh yes, yes, yes!

Question: Hi, Lyn.

LaRouche: Hi, what'd you do? What've you done recently?

Question: Well, I've tried to communicate the idea, that Americans really don't understand the painful poverty ...

LaRouche: I know.

Question: ... that exists around the world. And I just first want to say, this historic return that you had to Mexico, was incredible: To actually have the privilege to witness the respect that you have, Lyn. There are a lot of good Senators, some good professors, a lot of good students, who know your ideas, and thanked us for  our presence in Mexico. And actually, the persistence and the dedication that you have had throughout the years, you were not  absent from Mexico for 20 years.

LaRouche: [laughing] I know! They just tried to keep me out of there physically, then.

Question: Only physically.

The one thing I wanted to talk about, was, after you left, I actually went into an economics class, there at the Autonomous University of Coahuila, and the whole class had been at your presentation. This was a postgraduate class, and two of the girls there were writing dissertations on the maquiladoras. And they were defending the debt, the idea of the maquiladora, because this area is very poverty-stricken. What I want you to talk about is, the idea that the war, the battle--that this fight needs to be won from within the United States.

At one point, one of the students brought in a 20 kilo sack of rice, and a 10 kilo sack of beans, and threw it on the floor, and said, “This is what maquiladoras get for us, in a week. You take the maquiladoras out of Mexico, we won't even have this.”

After this much time, of being treated like cattle, these people are responding viciously to any kind of change. And, if you could just talk about how necessary this fight, that we are leading--here, in this room--is, to these people; and how this is going to be the only way to outflank this, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks, Lyn.

LaRouche: Okay. This is a fun thing, to conclude my part in this, today. I think it's fun: You know, when I was there, and actually I discussed with various people, in Mexico, this question of what's happening on both sides of the border. And, my conception, of course, on the two sides of the border, is a little  bit unique; because, most people would agree--intelligent people,  who know things--would agree that, what we need in Mexico right now, in northern Mexico, particularly, is: From the [Rio] Bravo, south to [Turquoia?], to Mexico City, we need a high-speed, efficient trunk line, for freight and passenger rail. This would be a revolution, in terms of the actual efficiency of the economy of Mexico, down to Mexico City. Because our objective is to begin  to move some of the population out of Mexico City, into development areas in other parts of Mexico; because Mexico City is overcrowded, and there are no facilities there to make it habitable to the people, at present.

So, what we also need, from the Gulf to the Pacific Ocean, at  least to the Bay of Southern California--as to Sonora; we need  another cross-Mexico, efficient, passenger/freight line.

We need a similar thing on the northern side of the Rio Bravo, in California, for example. The states of the Great American Desert, because you have this thing about the two Sierra Madre, which fork out at that point, and north is the Great American Desert, which begins, actually, where we were in Mexico.

So, then we have a big water problem. In the whole area, we also have a big energy problem: Integrated energy production and distribution, to deliver electric power, at the price needed, to every part of the population, in different tensions needed.

So, you have water management, which goes from the Arctic all the way down; you have water that comes up, along the coastal lines, on the Pacific Coast; freshwater coming from the water-rich area of the Southern Mexico, into water-poor areas in the North, like Sonora; and along the Gulf Coast, the same thing, into places like Monterrey, and then across. So, if you get water going in there, it's so precious, that a little bit of pumping, if you have the power, it's not going to be a great impediment to development.

Congruent Policies for U.S., Mexico

So there, you could take the whole area of Mexico, which is neglected, undeveloped, and you can actually begin to increase the productivity of the country, very quickly, once you get these things in motion.

On the northern side of the border, we have the same thing: We have a crisis, an energy crisis, in California and elsewhere. Which means you need very rapid installation of a powerful, integrated, and strictly regulated, generation and distribution systems. You have a water crisis, which is hitting California and elsewhere. This has to be addressed. Again: infrastructure. Transportation: We have to save the transportation system of the United States, which is falling apart. Again. We also have needs, like health care and educational needs--both sides.

So therefore, we have complementary needs, on both sides of the border. We have 5 million, approximately, Mexicans, inside the United States, many of whom are losing their jobs. We have a savage cut in the export capabilities, export markets, for the maquiladoras, in high-concentration areas like electronics and automobile parts.

So therefore, it's necessary to get very rapidly developed, the internal economy of Northern Mexico, as well as the United States. The needs are somewhat complementary, because it's a border area. And, at the same time, you have to preserve the integrity of Mexico, because people would like to take the northern part of Mexico, and dump it together with the United States, and throw away the southern part of Mexico. No good. So therefore, the infrastructure system must go to Mexico City, so the capital of Mexico maintains its integrity, in respect to all the regions of Mexico.

So that's what needs to be done. This is our need on our side of the border, and it's complemented by what is needed on the Mexico side of the border--particularly because of the role of the Mexican labor in producing so much of what comes into the United States; and the role of Mexican labor inside the United States, who are Mexican nations. They're not U.S. citizens; they're Mexican nationals. And this is a very important part of our labor force.

So therefore, these problems are common area problems, between two different nations--respectively sovereign nation- states--with a longer route for cooperation, in which much of the primary cooperation will come from the border states, on both sides; because that's the shortest route, that's where the immediate cooperation comes.

But, this has to be backed by Federal protection, on the side of the United States, and in Mexico. So, you need Federal assistance, under which the states can do their part of the job in Mexico, and in the United States.

So, we have a complementary problem--different, but complementary: That the policies we require, in California, and the policies we require in Coahuila, are congruent. It's the same attitude, is required, to a different situation, with a different specific solution. But the form, the principle, approach to the solution, is the same. And therefore, there is the best way to develop the cross-border social relationship--is by people with different language, but with a common type of problem, and the need for common types of solutions. And, on that basis, obviously, this can be enhanced by cross-border cooperation, politically and otherwise--particularly, water management projects and things of that sort.

You have, for example, you have, now, this crazy business about the agreement on the Rio Bravo water (which is the Rio Grande, to you in the United States). Texas is claiming that it has the right to get water from the Mexico, to pay for the part of the sharing of the water, which is used by Mexican farms--so, this is obviously impossible. So, obviously, we have to deal with problems of this type, and with the right mentality, we'll come up with the right solution.

Schlanger: All right, Lyn. I'd like to thank you on behalf of everyone here, and, you've given us a lot to work on, for the rest of today and tomorrow.

LaRouche: Have fun! That's my prescription!

-30-