Dialogue with LaRouche at Berlin EIR Seminar
December 18, 2023

Q: Bernard Vanaraux [ph] of France, from the Robert Schuman Center for Europe. [starts in mid-sentence] ... to buy gold, and to make it massively, the price of gold would dramatically rise. Gold reserves as a standard [?], would be revalued, and a big balancing benefit would appear, which may open the possibility of great loads of credit, as well as to [inaud].

LaRouche: Well, no. I've indicated that, under a gold-reserve system, I don't know what the price of gold would be, because I don't know what the price of a dollar's going to be! You know, the dollar has lost almost 20% of its value in the recent period. And this, is a highly defended value. The dollar may be--oh, worth 25% less on euro parity. Who knows?

But, no matter. I've indicated, as a pedagogical illustration: Suppose tomorrow, I had my druthers, and someone in the United States says, "Go ahead and do it." I get these Europeans over, and we will tell 'em really what's wrong over here, in terms of the system, in which they have to have an emergency agreement: We're going to put the IMF in bankruptcy reorganization--as governments. We're going to create a system of national banking, under governments, which are engaged in the financial reorganization of bankrupt major banks and central banking systems. We are going to create an emergency New Bretton Woods.

We are going have some special features in it, which fit the present reality--that's going to be too hard to get. You know, good legislation generally runs to six pages. If it goes over ten, it's bad legislation. Because otherwise, you're going to have [inaud].

But, we would need a gold-reserve system, which would not be like the U.S. dollar system, earlier: It would be a group of countries, which are signators to an agreement, which will base the parity of the currency--of a fixed exchange rate system--on the basis of leading nations' to fix it at those prices. Therefore, we will have to adopt a gold-reserve system, a balance of payments system. I would say, the minimum is $1,000 a troy ounce; right now, but a minimum is $1,000 a troy ounce. I don't think you can successfully fix a monetary system, at a lower price.

It may sound shocking, but you don't realize how much depreciation of currencies has occurred in the past 35 years. The inflation has been tremendous! It's been managed inflation, and therefore, people didn't see it coming all at once. But, I would say, what happened back with Nixon, they exploited the fact that the dollar was greatly overvalued! Relative to a gold-reserve system. They probably should have set it at $100 an ounce, then! And, they wouldn't have had the destruction of the Bretton Woods system, that occurred in '71-'72.

So now, you're talking about $1,000. It will not come by the price of gold, as a negotiable currency, forcing a system into being. It'll come the other way: It'll come, when governments--or major governments say, "We've got a crisis! We've got to have a fixed exchange rate system. We've got to have a ‘recovery' program." They're going to call it a "stimulus package," eh? "to get the economy moving again"--what they're talking about in Germany and elsewhere, a "stimulus package." And, they're going to say in Germany: "Lautenbach Plan." The words "Wilhelm Lautenbach" is going to be said again, and again, more and more. Because that is the model of discussion, from the 1928-1933 period, which presented the alternative to Adolf Hitler, and we're in a similar situation today. So, it'll become that way.

So, the states, governments, just like, look at the German government now: typical. Every government: The U.S. government, the same! They have no solutions! They have no program! And they're not capable of coming up with one on their own. And, they won't! They will not come up with anything that works, on their own--I guarantee that, whatever Bush and his crowd put forward, no matter how well-meaning they might be, what they will propose could not work. So, we're going to have to come in, and show them what will work. And, induce them, that we kindly will let them take some credit for it.

And, we'll do it.

But, the way it will come about, is: We will say, as Roosevelt did, in his first pegging of the gold the price after the fall of the British gold standard, we will say, "This is the price of gold." And this will be denominated in terms of reference to a number of leading currencies, which agree to discipline themselves, to maintain and defend that value of a gold-reserve system. And, it will be backed up by a system of agreements, on long-term construction projects, like the Eurasia projects: big ones. Look at all the things we have to rebuild in Europe, all the things that have been destroyed, that have to be rebuilt. So, that will do the job.

And, I think we'll get it that way, not by trying to get a floating gold up to--to force a gold-forcing of a new system.

Q: [in German, "I have three questions"]

LaRouche: Well, there's an intention to have the Iraq war stopped. But, you have to recognize that the forces behind the Iraq war, as I indicated, did not come yesterday, nor are they specifically Jewish. This is something else.

You have to look back, at a certain faction in Britain, in the United Kingdom--and also, in the United States--which shares the ideas of world-government, as typified by The Open Conspiracy of Herbert George Wells, and Bertrand Russell's nuclear policy. Their policy has been, since the 1940s, before the end of World War II: Their policy has been to establish, what is called today "a triad of nuclear weapons," land, sea, and air, which will be so terrifying that people will give up their sovereignty to accept world-government. In other words, a new Roman Empire.

What we have lived through, in the artificial conflict which was created between the Soviet Union and the United States, was part of that process. So, we lived through a period, up to the time of the Missile Crisis of 1961-62. This was a phase. We had another phase, which is the so-called "détente policy," which carried through, into becoming increasingly stable, until 1989. Once the Soviet system had collapsed, these fanatics, who had always had this policy of world- government through nuclear terror, went ape!

They started with a geopolitical operation: The first one, was "Desert Storm," which was set up by the United States government and the British government. Saddam Hussein was fooled and manipulated into that one. Immediately after Desert Storm was ended, so it wouldn't run totally out of control: It wasn't because of the goodness of their heart, they stopped the war; it was, they decided that this was a foolish thing to continue at this point--and they went to the next war! The Balkan Wars! A new Balkan Wars! A new geopolitical Balkan Wars, against Europe! And, Europeans fought Balkan Wars for the self- destruction of Europe!

Then, they go on. The next phase, is to go with a Middle East war, and, as I did, in this little speech I gave in Abu Dhabi on this question of the crossroads thing: Is that, the Middle East, the connection from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean, is a crucial, strategic crossroads, and always has been! In all history! Before oil was recognized. The Middle East has been a strategic crossroads, between the Mediterranean region and the Indian Ocean region. Today, it is a key point of weakness, for all Eurasia. If you can spread a war, out of the Middle East, out into Eurasia, you can prevent Eurasia from developing. Hmm?

So, that's that side of the thing. The danger comes from this specific faction, which sometimes calls itself "pacifist"! Like Moral Re-Armament, which supported Goering! Because, they didn't want people resisting the terror. So you have pacifist movements, like Bertrand Russell: Bertrand Russell was the man, who invented the concept of "preventive" or "pre-emptive" nuclear terror, nuclear war! He's considered a great pacifist--well, I guess the dead are peaceful, especially the radioactively dead.

So, people are fooled by this stuff. Now, this is where it comes from. Now, what happens is, as a result of what Hitler did, especially in Poland--and also because of a spinoff of the Czarist secret police, called Jabotinsky--you had factors loose in Europe, which were able to exploit this question of Jewry, as a weapon. Now, this problem--to the degree it's a problem, because--the problem that offends me on the Jewish question, is: What was Judaism, if you didn't have Jabotinsky? Judaism was "Moses to Moses to Moses": From Biblical Moses, to Moses Maimonides, to Moses Mendelssohn. Typfied, also, by the Yiddish Renaissance; typified by the Bund, in Eastern Europe. This was Judaism. This was Judaism, as known to Europe. This was an integral part of European culture, just as the Arab Renaissance, in Spain, or the Arab influence through the Abassid dynasty on Charlemagne; or the Arab influence, the Fatimid and other influences, in Sicily and Southern Italy, as the case of Frederick II [Hohenstauffen], or later through Alfonso Sabio.

So, Jewry represented what? It represented normal people, that, from a standpoint of German culture, German language culture, was associated, in modern times, with the legacy of Moses Mendelssohn. The contribution of the German Jew to Germany's culture was immense. And, it was a product of the liberation of the Jew, which was led inside Germany, by Moses Mendelssohn. You take the number of Jewish scientists, doctors, others, artists, and so forth, and the contribution they made to the culture of Germany--not as something added to, but an integral part of the culture of Germany. So, how can you have this problem?

Well, what is called the "Jewish factor" today, is a bunch of gangsters--the guys who call themselves, in Canada and the United States, they went from "rackets, to riches, to respectability." And, they're thugs; they're murderers. That is what you have as the "Jewish element" in the so-called "Chickenhawks": the draft-dodgers who want world war, like Richard Perle and his friends in the United States. This is that problem.

So, there is a factor of Jewish-name involvement, in this Middle East war, but it is not a specifically Jewish problem. It is specifically, if you look at Israel's internal history, you have different tendencies among Jews. For example: You take the case of Moses Mendelssohn's tradition, which is reflected in a sense, in the World Jewish Congress, under Nahum Goldmann. You had another another tendency, which was the David Ben-Gurion, which is the labor-Zionist tendency. Then you had an outrightly fascist tendency, explicitly fascist, of the Jabotinsky, who tried to strike an alliance, twice, with Adolf Hitler! And, that's the hard core of the Likud!

So, you have different cultural tendencies. And, when you use the name Jewish, or when Arabs, for example, have gotten into this "Jewish thing," and say, "this is a Jewish conspiracy"--it is not a Jewish conspiracy! You have fascists, who happen to be Jews. And, they behave like fascists, as Sharon showed in what he did in the Middle East, in the recent period. And, what they did before. They're gangsters! You should look at the reports of the election nominations for the slate of the Likud party, in Israel today. It's one of the most disgusting pieces of corruption in modern history. So, it is not a "Jewish" problem, but the Jewish name is used, and Jewish gangsters--who have more money than God--are actually behind a good deal of this stuff.

So, naturally, people are justified. But, from the standpoint of those of us, who are responsible in statecraft and leadership, we don't use such terms, even though we recognize why other people may use them. But, it's not specifically a Jewish problem.

Then, on the question of this--it's that the system doesn't work; on the change in the officials--the system doesn't work. The United States' financial system is collapsing. The monetary-financial system is disintegrating. Nothing can save it, in its present form.

For months before the change occurred, for months before Nov. 5, it was already understood that both would be out, especially O'Neill. O'Neill was going to be out, resign from the office, retire from the office, after the Nov. 5 election. That was already decided. The thing went wild--they dumped Lindsey and O'Neill. They looked around to try to get some replacements for Lindsey and O'Neill--and they couldn't get 'em! So, they took these two throwaways, that they scraped out of a barrel, and made one the Economics Adviser, and made the other one, the new nominee for Treasury Secretary. So, this does not mean too much.

What it does mean, however, the fact that nobody of weight wanted the job, and when top-ranking people don't want to take a job of that importance, you've got to say, "There's something wrong with the job. There's a liability. They don't want to crawl into that barrel." The reason is, the system doesn't work. The system is going to collapse. And, what is being done by Greenspan, as an inflationary program, can not possibly work.

My point is clear. I've said it, but is the point clear? This present world monetary-financial system, will collapse, probably within weeks. It may have collapsed by early January or late January. We're that close. There is no possibility, that, in its present form, it would ever recover. The European Union in its present form, can not live much longer; not in its present form. It can live in a new form, but not in the present form. The whole world financial system is going under. What you see in Argentina; what you see in Brazil; what you see threatened in Mexico. You've got a lunatic in Venezuela, who complicates the situation. You look at the situation, with the German budget: It can't work! You look at the problems in France: It can't work.

So, the system is finished, and anybody who gets the job, is the next guy to go to the guillotine, politically in effect. So, apart from that, I wouldn't put any importance on the O'Neill/Lindsey ouster, beyond what I said. The importance is what is not raised: The importance is, what are they going to do? As of now, I can tell you, every indication I have from inside Washington, at the top level: They haven't got a clue, as to what to do! They haven't got a single idea, what to do. They've got a lot of prejudices, of what they don't want to be "caught" doing. They've got a lot of prejudices of things, they want to "appear" to be supporting. But, they know, that none of them will work. The most common expression I'm getting, from reports from circles I know in the United States, is: You ask them, "What's the President's new economic policy?" "He has no new economic policy." And, I'm trying to get the United States to adopt one, and we're working hard at it. We may succeed.

Q: This is Elodie, from France. I'd like to know the basis, of basically, everything that represents a solution to get out of this mess, especially the idea that every single human being is in the image of God. And, the question is God: If we're in the image of God, okay, we've got to talk about God. So, what do you have to say on the existence of God? On the question: If we're in the image of God--it's sort of a personality show. Do you want to comment on that?

LaRouche: Actually, if you think it's not relevant--you find out, it is! [laughs] One of those questions, that sounds like it comes from somewhere else, but it's actually quite relevant. Because it goes to this question of how do you get people to love one another. They won't get it from reading the Bible. They won't get it from religious services, as such. Those are forms. Those are routines, or rituals.

They get it in another way. And I've done--Elodie knows about this, and others know about it, here: What I've insisted is, that a remedial approach, to university-level education for people between 18 and 25 should begin from the focal point of Gauss's crucial fundamental attack on the fallacies of the work of Euler and Lagrange, in Gauss's 1799 paper defining the complex domain--the paper on the fundamental theorem of algebra. That anybody, who does not yet know that--and I mean know it, not learn it; know it--does not know the basis of modern science, and can not, probably, answer effectively, the question that Elodie just asked. And, this, of course, pertains to a lot of things.

But, what's the difference between man and a beast? Monkeys, apes, have a potential at most, on this planet--or ape-like creatures--of several million individuals, under any known conditions of this planet, over the past 2 million years; what we know about it. We have, today, at last report, 6.2 billion people on this planet. That may not be an accurate report, but it's the last one we've seen, and it's a fairly quasi-official one. No ape could do that. How did man do it? Because man is not an ape. You may think Henry Kissinger looks like an ape, but he's not really an ape! He just behaves like one. (Or, maybe the apes will be embarrassed by my statement. But, anyway.)

The difference is, that man is capable of discovering what we call "a universal physical principle." No ape can discover that. Man not only discovers these principles, but can communicate them to other people. They are passed down from generation to generation. They can be learned from people thousands of years ago, long dead, by you, today. By reenacting the act of discovery they made, and validating it.

By this power, the discovery of such principles, of two types--both physical principles: that is, man's action as an individual upon the universe; or man's social action, in communicating such ideas from one person to another--man is able to change our species power, in and over nature. That's the only reason we have billions of human beings, rather than many millions, today.

Now, the simplest way to look at this is, sort of a friend of mine, Vladimir Vernadsky, the famous Russian biogeochemist, who defined what he called the "Noösphere." He demonstrated, on the basis of physical evidence, that we have three kinds of universal principles operating in the universe: One, from the standpoint of physical chemistry, we call "abiotic." A second, are physical effects which do not occur, except as a result of the actions of living processes. We call this, "life." The third, are changes in the physical universe, which can be effected by no means, except the human mind, the act of discovery and application of discovery by the human mind. Just as we call the action of living processes "life," the action of the mind to increase man's power over the universe, is called "spiritual."

That is the meaning, in Plato, of "spiritual exercises." Now, therefore, that means that we know, not because of a Bible, not because of some doctrine: We know that every person has this quality of spirituality. Which differentiates them from all animal species. This results from the fact, that we are not a species, which is born in the same form as a monkey ancestor, is born from a monkey. We're different: Because we transmit, from generation to generation, elements of principle which we know as "culture." These cultures have the same effect on the development of the human species, that biological evolution would be assumed to have on an animal species. I've sometimes referred to this as a quality of "super-genes," the transmission of discoveries, from one person to another, from one culture to another, from one generation to another, to form what is called a "culture." A cultural development process of mankind, is a manifestion of the fundamental difference between man and the beasts. It shows that our relationship to one another, as human beings, must be human and spiritual, not biological.

Some of our young people have a problem with that.

So therefore, we understand that we are: Thus, we know other things, from a scientific standpoint. A universal principle is one which is universally efficient. It's efficient even where you may not detect its presence; because if it's universal, it's universal. And, if it's experimentally demonstrated to be universal, then it is universal.

So therefore, even before man existed, an efficient principle of spirituality existed in, and ruled the universe. And He's watching you.

Q: My name is Mr. Schilling. I am past ambassador of Bolivia. Mr. LaRouche, I want to ask you about Latin America's future: As we know, there is a big change in the politicians. They had elected populists in government. We have a future with the Alca [ph] to support Latin American stability, and many other ideas, but what is your thinking on Latin America's future? And if you agree with the concept of the Alca--the integration of Latin American economies? Thank you.

LaRouche: I've been involved in this for about, oh, I guess, 26-27 years, specifically--since about 1974. But especially since the events of 1982, when I became involved with a man who was a friend, and became a closer friend of mind, the President of Mexico, Lopez Portillo.

And, we had this war on our hands, this Argentina war, launched by the British, with United States' participation, in violation of the Rio Treaty--flagrant violation. So, in this context, of this ferment, which I was involved in, in raising a fuss about this attack on Argentina, that I became involved in Lopez Portillo, and in discussions that Spring. He asked me, "What're they going to do to us?" I said, "Well, they're going to take your country apart by next September" (they did it in August, not September, but I'm fairly good on these forecasts, hmm?).

But anyway, I wrote this Operation Juarez paper, at that point. It was published on Aug. 2, just a few days before the crisis broke out, as a guideline. And the President of Mexico, the President of Argentina, and the President of Brazil, and the chief of the junta of Argentina agreed to support, and to support Lopez Portillo in particular on this policy. Then, Henry Kissinger went to work, first on Brazil and then Argentina, the junta, and then on Mexico itself. And out of this came this great speech at the United Nations, by Lopez Portillo, as President, which was sort of a swan song: He was about to exit the position of President, and he'd already been defeated by the U.S. and other forces on his policy.

But, this policy has always been mine: That there has to be a federation of the states of the Americas, in the form of a monetary-financial-economic body, to deal with certain common economic and security interests. That the United States should support this. At that point, my recommendation was, that we reorganize the debt of the United States--that is, the so-called Latin American debt--and use the debt itself as a weapon of investment for creating new investments in the hemisphere; but run it through a separate institution, where you would turn the debt--write it off, in one sense, but then denominate it, without making it negotiable, and use it in a central facility as a credit-basis for creating expanded investments in the hemisphere.

I think that's the only way, because the nature of hemisphere, especially when you look at South America, is such, that the infrastructure and related needs--the interrelated ones--are so Vast--. Let's take the question of power: The organization of power throughout South America, that is a question which you can not deal with very satisfactorily within borders. Brazil can somewhat, in some aspects of it. Other countries can't function, and therefore, you need a bloc of nations. The Mercosur [Common Market of the South] idea was a valid one, but then, what happens is, the President of Peru gives a speech, referring to Mercosur, and the United States coups him! He's now sitting in Japan, couped, because he made a speech threatening George Soros's personal thieving interests.

And then, of course, in Bolivia, you have the effort, again, to get the "narcos" back in power, to bring back the narco-generals, and that's exactly what's going on. And, the United States is doing nothing about it! Even though the Bush Administration's against the narcotics traffic, the influence of George Soros and the Inter-American Dialogue and so forth, is such, that they actually prevent any effective operations against drug-trafficking in South and Central America! And European countries are also involved.

The head of the New York Stock Exchange is a pusher for drugs, because they need the drug money for the New York Stock Exchange. Many of the security problems, inside the United States, are a result of this drug problem! So, the hemispheric drug-trafficking, is also a major question, which no one can deal with. The United States must cooperate, otherwise, the anti-drug policy doesn't work. And the drug policies in the Americas, has to be dealt with, otherwise you have no security inside the Americas.

So therefore, you have these kinds of bases: Straight economic cooperation; monetary-financial reform. But, it must be done on a state basis. Why? Very simply: To be emphasized (as I'm sure you know).

But, the point is: capital. Not just financial capital, but real capital, which has to be financed. Because capital improvements--we're talking about 25- to 50-year projects. The Amazon, for example, is almost a bottomless opportunity! The mineral wealth, underneath the rain forest, is tremendous! The rain forest is an engine of power, beyond belief! People don't realize how powerful that Amazon system is, in terms of a power. So, these things require long-term--or, Patagonia: Tremendous potential!

But, this requires multi-state, international cooperation, in long-term agreements, on infrastructure development, across states. So, you need this kind of structure. Then, you also need, as was recognized in the Strategic Triangle in Asia. Also, economic security, and security in general, are two sides of the same coin. So, the nations that are going to cooperate economically, for economic security, often is the right vehicle to cooperate for other kinds of national security.

Yes, we do need that. I think that, what you're going to find, that, with the United States no longer qualified to play the role it played in the 1940s-1950s, that we're going to have to have groups of blocs of nations in various parts of the world, which, as a group, like the Strategic Triangle, work together as a cooperating group; and then, you have a cooperation among the groups of cooperating groups, will be the form of the organization of the planet, in my best estimation.

Q: My name is [name inaud] from Copehagen. I was wondering: You talk about the Anglo-American empire, and how the Schiller Institute wants to prevent a lot of their actions, like the war against Iraq, and [changing] the financial system. And, what you think, that we are aware of a fall of civilization; does that mean that they are not aware of it? That's one thing.

And, if they are aware of it, why don't they do anything? And if they are not aware of it, why don't they infiltrate the Schiller Institute? Do you understand, what I...? And, if they are all aware of the fall of this civilization, why are they not trying to prevent any existence of the Schiller Institute?

What it seems to me, like, I can not see, whether there is any infiltration here or not. This is one thing. The other thing--I'm sort of--in history, we see, for instance, that it is clear that there is Plato versus Aristotle. It is clear there is Gauss versus Lagrange. And it is clear that it is God versus Satan. But, what we are witnessing today, it is not clear, what is the good side and the bad side. Is it just a paradox, that humans see it in the present, or is it just the history, and it comes clear when history gets past the present?

It's very complicated; I'm not sure I can explain it very well. But, what it seems like, in the past, we can see the differences between good and evil. And, it does not seem to be [in the present]. Only in history books, it seems. How can we?...you know.

LaRouche: You have to look at this thing in ways. As politically, we have to look at this not from a religious standpoint. Because we don't want religious conflict. So, therefore, we have to find, what are called "terms of natural law," for dealing with all questions that touch upon these kinds of confused issues. But, they are, as Elodie asked this question earlier about God and so forth. We can answer that question. We can answer that question, with reference to Gauss. We don't have to say, somebody taught us; or we read it in a book; or a lot of people believe this. That's not my authority. I've no right to go around imposing somebody else's book on somebody else. But, if I know something, I can tell them what I know.

So, in dealing with these kinds of conflicts, we have to start from knowledge, that we know, and not try to teach somebody second-hand knowledge--which is not really knowledge, because, if you don't know yourself, you don't know it. So, if you want to believe in spirituality, discover what it is! Know it! If you want to believe in God, discover what God is! Know it! Know Him personally! You can know it: Then you can teach it.

And you can do that in politics. We have to do it in politics, because, we have to conduct politics morally: "Morally" does not mean, following a set of precepts we read from a book. "Morally" means, that we must look ahead at the future of mankind. We must honor the past of mankind, too. Imagine: Look how much suffering, there is the world. Look at somebody, whose grandfather was tortured to death. Who was trying to do something good. What can you do, for your dead grandfather? One thing: You can change the outcome of his having lived. So, you're morally accountable for that, as you are for the future of generations. What do you do, for the future generations? That's your personal accountability.

That is the accountability of the state, the moral responsibility of the state. The state is a quasi-immortal agency, which must assume immortal responsibilities: of justification, for those who suffered in the past, if possible. A man made a discovery; he was denounced If the discovery was right, you honor for that discovery. And use it! Therefore, his life is not wasted: He has been justified, even after he's dead, in a practical way. And the same thing for the future.

That's the way I think we have to approach these things. We have to establish the idea, there is a natural law, which is a moral law, which does not depend upon anyone's teaching, but it does depend upon our agreeing with it. Which means, that, in my approach to ecumenical questions, which is one of the things I have to deal with; I'm dealing with a world, which, in addition to the various currents of Islam, of Christianity, Judaism, I have to deal with the cultures in China; the cultures in India, which are highly complicated structures; and therefore, I must find a common basis, for deal with all human beings, no matter what their denominations are. And thus, I must find a basis in truth, of knowledge.

That's why I refer to the Gauss [proof]. That's why I told the youth movements, "Use this Gauss example as a starting point, a reference point." Because you need to have a sense of truth, which is independent of any prejudice. And we must, as nations, bind ourselves to justice, governed by the idea of truth. So we injure no one; we benefit everyone. But we don't assume a religious authority. And that's the way, I think, to approach these questions.

There is a moral law. We can know it. Our universities and secondary schools should be primarily emphasizing, giving young people the knowledge they need to know--not to learn--but to know.

Look, for example: You, obviously, are a younger person; you passed through adolescence, you know it's a terrible time, when people commit suicide and so all kinds of silly things like that, waste their lives. Because they have a question of identity, of between child identity, and adult identity. So that, if a person at the age of 27 acts like a 15-year-old, you say, they're insane. Whereas if a person who's 15 years old, acts like a 27-year-old, you may say, he's insane--because youths are different. But, we, in a sense, have to supply, from the time of youth on, a sense to young people (and to others), a sense of what the truth is--not a truth taught to them, but a truth they're guided to discover, for themselves. And we find that that truth can be pretty much universal, and it's pretty much sufficient for us to act together on. So, we can bring all kinds of people together, from different backgrounds, and we ought to be able to agree, to love one another, and to act on a common sense of what natural law is. And, if somebody says, "Fine, my religion teaches it," say, "That's fine."

-30-