Question: I am from the Baltimore office. My question is on the issue of the music work. Now, it's easy to say, okay modern music, like rap, or hip-hop, or all these other kind of things are bad, you know, because you have this Tavistock Institute, the Frankfurt School. But I want to actually take it back, like say, for example, during the time of Beethoven, Mozart, why was music political? And I ask, because when young people come around, and we have other organizers that say, [melodramatically] "Don't listen to rock music! It's bad! It'll destroy your mind!" But, there isn't enough actually presented to people, the relationship between the political side of Classical music, and actually how we, as young people, can actually look at things from a more political standpoint, than just saying, "We're living in a messed-up culture! You know, our culture is messed up!"

So, I wanted to ask you how we should approach the music work, in a more political way. You know, why was there a big fight, over whether or not Beethoven and other people could perform certain pieces?

LaRouche: Generally, the problem is the way people use the word "Classical." Now, people assume that "Classical" is a specialized, culturally specific, way that some things are done by some people. And assume that "Classical" is only one of many alternate forms of composition and performance. That is not true, and that's where the problem comes from.

Classical represents the only correct way of human communication, that actually qualifies as human, in a full sense of the term. Therefore, the question is not whether the music is Classical in form, the question is whether the music is composed in a way, which meets the underlying standard for all Classical composition, whether in science or art.

Now, the root of this lies in the difference between man and the beast. So generally, the difference between Classical and non-Classical composition, and non-Classical performance of Classical composition, such as today's typical stage performance of Shakespeare or Schiller, or so forth: It's an abomination; disgusting; immoral; makes you puke, huh? At least, if you have any good taste, it makes you puke. (Or, some people swallow anything; some of us won't.) But, the essential thing, is the difference between man and the beast. That's what the term Classical signifies.

In societies prior to the 15th-Century Renaissance, generally, most people were treated by some people as human cattle--human cattle, which were hunted down, like wild cattle; or cattle which were herded, used, and culled, as animal cattle are. So therefore, the argument has been--for example, let's take the case of the crisis of educational policy, in the post-Civil War United States, as it applied particularly to the question of the recently freed Americans of African origin. The general argument was, that you should not try to over-educate a person of African origin, because they would have no reason to know anything of this sort. Because they were going to have simple lives; their expectations for thinking and living would be limited. And if you over-educated them, they would not be content, with being cheap labor on somebody's post-Confederacy plantation. And therefore, you had these policies of education: Don't educate people above the status which you expect them to enjoy in late-adolescent and adult life.

In other words: "dumb 'em down, boys!" "Get 'em down to the level of cows, where you want to keep them!"

So therefore, you had cultures which developed, or forms of cultural expression, which developed, or tended to develop, on the basis of the relative bestialization, of those destined to be members of one of the stratum of the so-called "lower classes," generally considered the animal herd-type human cattle. So, we have a lot of culture of that form. We also have, in the so-called "upper classes," who are also morally degenerate, they are offended by any use of culture--Classical art, and so forth--which offends them, by pointing out that they're supposed to think cognitively, and they don't.

So, what you have, therefore, is forms of culture which are based on sexual and similar types of passions. Animal passions. As for example, the rock music today, or all the varieties of rock: These are based on the animal sexual passions--passions like, "rave" dancing, which reduces a person to a psychotic beast, at least for the time they're going through that particular kind of sexual experience, whatever it is. I don't know how many sexes there are out there, raving around, but that's what we get; that's what we're up against.

Okay. In a real human communication, we have the same criteria in art, that we do, in physical science. In physical science, as opposed to the empiricist varieties, which are commonly taught and believed, in centers of superstition called "universities," today, humanity is defined by the ability to discover and prove and use, a principle of the universe, which is not detectable directly by the senses. That is, something you can not see, hear, taste or smell--though you may get a scent of a smell indirectly, from something.

Okay. So, these are principles, like the principle of gravitation, which you can not taste, you can not see it, you can not hear it; it doesn't have any particular flavor--but it's there. And, human beings are capable of discovering these principles and using them to increase man's power in and over the universe. We can also communicate, in terms of these discovered principles, even though none of our physical senses can ever directly sense one of these principles. But, human existence, as distinct from animal existence, depends entirely upon these principles.

In Classical art, this takes this form: In Classical art, the Classical artist, the Classical composer, and the audience, share an experience with a composition on the level of the imagination, not the physical senses. If you see the actor, as the player, as a part; if you see the person on stage, literally as the part; if you think the physiological attributes of the actor, and so forth, are actually determining what you see, you're in the wrong place, in the wrong theater, or in the wrong seat. In an actual performance, of Classical drama, of music, of poetry, you do not actually hear or see what's going on, on stage. What you see, and think, in the imagination, is what that inspires in you, what inspires you to see, on the stage of the imagination.

For example, when you're trying to communicate a physical principle, you realize that what the evidence you're using, to define the physical principle, is a shadow of the impact, on the senses, of the principle, which is unseen. In other words, you never directly see the principle, but you see the shadow of the principle's action. You don't see the man who's walking, but you see his footsteps in the mud. And you would never, of course, assume that a footstep in a mud was the man. But, the presence of the footstep in the mud can, under certain circumstances, indicate to you the existence of the man you didn't see! Similarly, in physical science, we look for the principle, which we don't see, but which leaves the footprint. If we can cause those footprints to appear, by our act of will, by discovering a principle, still without seeing the man, but seeing the footprints being generated by something we don't see, while they're being generated, under our will, we say, "We have discovered a universal physical principle."

The same thing is true, with the great Classical art: you use a principle developed, for artistic composition, to transform the audience's perception, of a mere shadow of reality--the footprint of the actor on stage, for example--and transform the audience's attention to the unseen man, whose walking is generating those footprints. On the field of the imagination, the human mind is capable of seeing the walker--but not with the senses. Therefore, culture means developing the ability to see the walker, who is invisible to the senses, in terms of your ability to control the effects, i.e., the footsteps of the walker.

Any art, or science, which conforms to that standard of accomplishment, qualifies as Classical. Any form of art, which does not, does not conform to Classical. For example, let's take the case of Franz Liszt: Franz Liszt was a person who was trained by Carl Czerny. Carl Czerny had been associated with Beethoven, and Beethoven despised him, as a criminal, in art. Czerny brought young Franz Liszt to see Beethoven; Beethoven witnessed the boy's performance, and said, "The boy is talented, but that criminal Czerny will destroy him." And, Liszt was destroyed. Liszt became quite capable and quite facile at the keyboard, and otherwise, in producing works, which seemed to imitate Classical composition, but weren't. They were based on a principle of sex-like sensuality. Like Wagner, sex-like sensuality, like a sexual experience, which you see not in the mind, but in the pants, huh? And that sort of thing.

This is called Romanticism. And then, Romanticism no longer tried to imitate Classical composition. But then, you had Modernism, which tried to parody Romanticism. Then you had Post-Modernism, which tried to parody Modernism; and things like that.

So, what we have, in the popular entertainment today, in the United States, especially the changes that have occurred over the past 40 years, represent a moral and intellectual degeneration of the population. But, people say, "I like them." They say, "People I know like this!" But that's not natural! It's not natural: It's a sickness. But, it's a sickness induced, by some dirty people, who wish to reduce the population, to the level of human cattle, who, as long as they're getting mounted twice a day, think they're happy. And, that's the problem.

So, the word "Classical" should be defined properly, to mean the power to communicate ideas, in an efficient way, which corresponds to the distinction between man and the beast. The problem we have, is that, the systems in society which try to degrade most of the population to cattle status, in the way post-Civil War educational reforms tried to reduce the ex-slaves, to the mental condition of cattle. This is what's called "popular culture." This is Elvis Presley, wiggling his fanny for posterity. And I guess there are some people who feel they can see him.

But, that's the difference. That's what the issue is.

Question: Lyn, I'm from Philadelphia. I've been thinking about this concept for a while now, that physical space-time is a multiply-connected process. So, I was thinking about this concept of time, and how we have different concepts, like the simultaneity of eternity; but, then you can also think of time as a measure of change. So, then, I started thinking about, what are we measuring that change against?

LaRouche: Ah!

Question: And then, you get in areas of composition, where now you know you're talking about the Noösphere, and then, there's still this element of time, and the ambiguities that are presented with. So, I'd like you to comment on what this element is.

LaRouche: Okay. Well, it goes to the question of curvature, huh? I don't know how much discussion among all of you has been, about this question of Gaussian curvature, and its relationship to the idea of a Riemannian universe. Most of my work, of course, is based on that particular problem, that concept.

Now, as I've described it before, you may have heard this before--some of you, at least--but just to situate this for everyone: If you imagine ancient man, that is, ancient intelligent man, looking at the nighttime sky, on a clear night, and seeing a panoply of stars, and also planets, and some other objects floating around up there, and they would imagine the universe to be, in a sense, like a big spherical bowl, container which they're in. Now, they don't know how far distant is--that is, how far that surface is from where they're standing--but they imagine that someplace out there, there is a point at which you can--a surface, which you can see the inside of, and where all these different objects, stars and so forth, might be moving. And you try to measure the relationship among the movements among those bodies, the way ancient people constructed these astrological schemes; calendar schemes for the annual calendar, things of that sort.

Now, you call that the Sensorium. This imagining, you project a sphere, that you're inside a sphere; you're on some normalized point inside the sphere, and you're looking up toward the interior surface of the sphere, in which all these objects are moving about as light points: Is that real?

And, then, you find out, that it's not real. It is real, it's a real shadow of reality, but it's not the reality as such. This, of course, is the significance of, among other things, of Kepler's discovery. When Kepler discovered that the motion of the planets, starting with Mars, was not circular, but elliptical in form, and discovered two other things: This whole business about assuming that this is the actual surface, on which events are occurring--that goes out the window. Why? Well, he discovered, in the elliptical function, that the Sun was located at one of the two foci of the relevant ellipse. And also discovered that the rate of the planet's motion, along the elliptical pathway, was constantly non-uniform. And what the measurement was. That proved that there was an operating physical principle, invisible to the senses, but whose effect was, nonetheless, visible to the senses.  And therefore, you can not simply say, that, from Euclidean geometry, from looking  at the universe from the standpoint of Euclidean geometry, you can come up with a mathematical description of the laws of the universe. That's what he proved, among other things--as others had proved before him.

So. Now, what does that mean? That means, essentially, that you have a real universe, whose shadow is the universe you think you're seeing. In other words, if you're looking at this spherical Sensorium up there, which you imagine you're inside it; you're looking up at it, like the ceiling of the universe; and you think, that the mathematic relationship between  the events you're observing, as on that Sensorium, are reality. They're not. But, there's some reality to them, isn't there?

What is the reality, which they correspond to. Well, think of them as the shadows of something projected upon the Sensorium from outside that universe. Think of that universe, the one you think you're observing, as an imaginary universe: One created by the senses, as an artificial sense, of what you're actually experiencing, but an image which is determined by the way your sense organs are constructed. Now, what is the real process, which is causing this effect in your sense organs? Well, that's what Kepler law meant, Kepler's law of gravitation.

Now, how does this reflect itself? It reflects itself, that the planet is now moving, like Mars. It's moving along the elliptical orbit it follows. At every point you observe it, no matter how finely you divide the points, the rate of motion is changing, relative to sense perception. So, what is regular? What is constant? Huh? Well, at every point, on this pathway, you're dealing with a different curvature, which is intersecting the curvature of some elliptical pathway, as if it were touching it at that point: call it a "singularity." The intersection of the curvature of the real action, as against the imagined curvature, which is shadow of the effect.

Now, to understand the universe, you have to understand the relationship between the two curvatures. The curvature of the function, which is defined by the tangent action, or tangential interference at that point, and the motion within the orbital pathway, as a different surface. The two surfaces give you a sense of mapping of the universe. Now, obviously, the universe is much more complicated then, isn't it? It's more complicated, because you have to look at all the curvatures, to see what is really happening in the universe. And you come up with a different kind of universe.

Now, we also have a second thing going on: We have man in the universe. To the best of our knowledge the number of physical principles, in the universe, as a whole, is predetermined. That is, we don't determine the number of principles that exist in the universe. We discover them, but we don't predetermine their existence. But, we're not aware of their existence, until we make the discovery.

All right, therefore, you have a sense of two universes--or maybe three: one is the sense-perception universe, which is only a shadow, as for example Plato defines it; then, you have a universe as you know it, in terms of principles; but then, there's a larger universe, which includes what you know, and what you have yet to discover, which is the real universe. What happens, therefore, when man discovers a principle? Well, man's discovery of a principle, is not simply a matter of observation: It's a matter of intervention. Of willful intervention in the universe. When man, who is a creature of will, discovers a physical principle, and uses it, even though the principle discovered already existed, man changes the order of effects in the universe.

So therefore, we have three universes to consider: The totally imaginary, shadow universe of observation, sense perception. The universe, as we know it, in terms of physical principles, which is good. It's real, whereas the shadow universe is merely a shadow universe, but, it is not complete. We have not yet discovered the universe in full. So, there we are--we say, the process now is determined by man's discovery, and efficient use of, discovered universal physical principles. Ah!

How do we measure the effect of adding a new physical principle, as a discovery, to the repertoire we already had. In Gauss's measurements, or in Riemann's work in general, it's defining what's called a "Riemann surface." A Riemann surface is typical of the case, where you  have the intersection of one universe, with the tangential impact of another universe upon it -- [that's a] typical Riemannian surface. In this case, you say, you measure the change in effective action within the universe, as a result of adding the action of this additional physical principle that we discovered. What that means, of course, in practice is, that relative to man, man's power over the universe increases. This power is expressed in various ways, but it's also expressed very simply in quickness. When man discovers new physical principles, and applies them efficiently, the quickness with which man can effect changes in the universe, is increased.

Now, if the quickness of a standard event, is changed, if the measuring rod of time is changed, in terms of practice, then there is no such thing as universal fixed, permanent clock-time. The universe does not go "tick tock." The universe speeds up. It speeds up, because of the effects of the processes of principles. It speeds up, because man's intervention, with new physical principles, speed up the effective measurement of time. That is, time tends to speed up; time becomes quicker.

So, the idea that people can take a fixed clock-time measurement, and apply that to the universe, and tell me what the actual history of the universe was relative to man, they don't know what they're talking about. They may be very good astronomers. They may be good scientists in general, but they still don't know what they're talking about.

So, that's what the anomaly is: That time is not an absolute clock-time, functioning independent of the physical changes in the universe. Time is a reflection of a direction and of relative power of the processes we're deploying, relative to the universe and relative to man's actions. So, time is essentially, intrinsically, relative. It is not absolute, in the sense of "tick-tock."

Question: Hello, I'm from Philadelphia. We were just talking about discovery and intervention. And my question, sort of, is about moral decisions, as a discovery and an intervention in the universe. And, I've heard you speak a lot about the tragedy of Hamlet, and how his fear of the unknown paralyzed his ability to solve the problems of Denmark. But, even if his behavior was completely flight-forward and completely irrational, what about people with good intentions? And, by "good intentions" I mean, like the med student, who wants to save lives, but can't mobilize to stop a complete societal collapse; or the anti-war protester, who can't take one evening to be revolutionary. It seems like these people are gripped with both a fear of the unknown, and an ingrained need to be moral, while blocking on the question of efficiency of moral decisions. Can you discuss tragedy in this type of personality?

LaRouche: Yeah, sure! That's exactly what it is. That's exactly the problem. The Hamlet thing is typical of the problem: That's why it's such a brilliant operation. You have two things: Take the Julius Caesar, take the thing I quote from Julius Caesar--Cassius to Brutus: "The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlines." Hmm? So, the individual says, "I'm only an impotent little me: [whiny] "Don't expect me to change the universe! Don't expect me to select the next President of the United States! I'm just a little me! Let's be practical. Let's stick to little me! And let me figure what I can do."

And therefore, he gets in this point, that he has no sense of immortality; he has no sense of accountability to the future of mankind. And he's frightened by the very idea, that he's accountable for what happens after he dies: That is, in the sense of what he does with his life, while he's alive, he's accountable for the effect of what he does, or doesn't do, for humanity, after he's dead. He has no sense of immortality. He doesn't put this question of immortality in the proper place, in respect to what he's doing while he's still alive.

That's the essential form of impotence. You have man, who's capable of knowing the principles of the universe, who's capable of acting upon them, to change the universe. He's capable of changing the way society acts, in order to save it from self-destruction: And yet, he fails to do so, because he's afraid; or because he wants to find a solution, which fits his immediate concerns. He's frightened. He says, "Don't scare me! Yes, yes, it's true! If I had the courage to act, we might save society, but it would scare me to do it. Therefore, don't ask me to do it!." Impotence. That's your typical American.

Now, that's what my function is. I'm not scared, not that way. Most people are, including in our association--they're frightened. Their fears take some very weird forms, because the more conscious they are, the more they're aware of these kinds of problems, the more complicated the devices they use to try to conceal from themselves, the fact that they're being cowards. They won't say, "I'm a coward." They would say, "That's impractical." Or, "I don't think I can believe that." Or, "I don't see that." In other words, they go into very complicated stunts, to try to--you know, where  the simple guy says, "Look, I'm a coward. Look at me, I'm Sancho Panza. I'm a coward! I admit it!" He says, "What d'you eat all the time? I know there are these larger things, I just can't reach out--. I get too worried about my eating. My pleasures." The intellectual gets complicated. He's not honest like Sancho Panza. He lives in a fantasy world, like Don Quixote. And he gets these elaborate, insane kinds of confabulations, huh? To try to pretend he's not what he is: a poor, stinking, whimpering coward.

Now, it's like Hamlet, who is a swashbuckling mass murderer. He's not a coward in the sense of avoiding battle, but avoiding responsibility, for the universe, now, or what it would become as a result of his having lived in it, now: a sense of immortality.

So, very few people have a sense, a developed sense of personal immortality, in life. Very few people would recognize and accept the concept of Jeanne d'Arc's choosing to be burned alive rather than betray the mission which she had adopted. That kind of sense of immortality. And therefore, that leads to all kinds of funny problems, as I've said, especially among people who are educated, because people who become educated, they learn how to talk their way around what the most simple-minded fellow, simply will either admit, or punch you in the nose, for bringing it up. If you tell a simple-minded person he's acting like a coward, he'll punch you in the nose: "Who's a coward?! Who's a coward?! Stand up! Fight like a man! I'll show you who's a coward!" But, he's a coward--like Hamlet. Whereas the so-called intellectual is more devious: He invents elaborate explanations, for what is, in fact, simple moral cowardice.

Question: I'm from the Baltimore office. I want to look more at ancient Greek sculptures, and stuff, so I want to discover how they were created, and hopefully with what tools they used, and you know, so I can basically be able to re-create, and maybe use their message in my own sculpture. I want to know where to look, to find out more about the ancient Greek sculptors, to find out how they did it.

LaRouche: Well, look at this catenary function, what the catenary is. Now, last week, Bruce Director, in something he did--there were some editorial errors in the transcription of it, or something. He's put out a corrected version of it, so you should probably refer to that, on just precisely this question of the catenary. And I think it's a pedagogically excellent piece of work on his part--this one. That the catenary describes, as Leibniz understood: In the catenary, as we know it--as you can demonstrate it by the hanging chain as such--as we know it, is, with reference with what we think of as normal visual space, normal visual, sensual perceptual space, and we think of the catenary in those terms.

Now, of course, Leibniz and others looked at it in much higher terms, terms of higher orders of geometry, especially after the work of Gauss and Riemann. So, the catenary still exists, as a pedagogical concept, within simple classroom laboratory demonstrations. But, it is not, in itself, does not contain the principle; it reflects the principle, it does not contain.

Now, what the Classical Greek sculptors did was very simple, in terms of this principle: It was a matter of a slight distortion in the way in which a visible object was portrayed for purposes of sculpture. And, this distortion gave the viewer the sense, of the object sculpted, as being in mid-motion, rather than standing like a tombstone sculpture. So, this difference between the archaic, or tombstone-like sculpture, and this Classical kind of sculpture, was exactly that.

The same principle then comes up, in the 15th Century in new form. It comes up, first, in the case of Brunelleschi's solution, to the process of construction of the cupola of the Dome of, the cupola of Santa Maria de Fiore in Florence. That was a catenary principle in application. However, the same principle comes up, in a new conception of perspective, developed by Leonardo da Vinci, which shows up in such places as his Virgin of the Grotto, and other innovations. It shows up, also, in the impact of the work of Leonardo da Vinci, on Raphael Sanzio, and also on the best work of Rembrandt van Rijn.

So, this Classical business, is, you try giving a representation to the mind, which corresponds to the reality of the action being perceived, but is different than the simple sort of sense-perceptual projection, which you normally see. So, Leonardo da Vinci, instead of thinking of visual experience of seeing an object, is thinking about the relationship between the reality, of what is being portrayed, and the impression upon the mind. So, the mind now sees, not a simple photographic image; the mind sees something different than a photographic image. But, the effect of that difference, is to bring what is seen alive.

And, that's the little trick, right there. Just that simple.

So therefore, if you understand the principle of least action, you say, "What we're doing is not necessarily giving a literal description of something. But, we're thinking about the effect upon the mind, to which we're communicating, of what we're saying. Are we getting across to the mind, of that person, what we really intend, as opposed to a simple photographic image of what we said."

The same thing comes up in poetry, in the general function of irony and metaphor, in particular; and the use of musicality in utterance of language. The use of commas, in a literate form of language, unlike what you're taught in school today, by the New York Times Style-Book method, or so forth, on using commas. Because, when people don't use commas, they don't compose their thoughts in a way, which is capable of representing more serious, more profound ideas. Where as, if you want to use a statement to represent more profound ideas, than the simple "Johnny loves Jeannie" or something--if you want to say something much more complicated than that, you have to use structures of language, which are based on juxtapositions of different modes and intonations, and so forth, and different senses of subject/object relations, in the construction of the simple sentence. This requires marks of punctuation, in written material, to indicate to the reader, of the written material, what the speaker intended. And, without these marks, which distinguish this intention, and compel the mind of the reader, to shift into the different modalities implied by that kind of sentence structure, then the idea doesn't get across.

So, if somebody tries to simplify a statement, in such a way as to eliminate the ambiguities, caused by a lack of comma, where someone has said, "Let's not put a comma in there"--if they write the sentence, and then try to minimize the ambiguities of what they've said, then, they have a relatively meaningless utterance which has occurred. Hmm? But, this meaninglessness, is part of the dumbing-down process, dictated by the New York Times Style-Book; where people who believe in the New York Times Style-Book, who don't know when to use commas, who don't know how to use them, who don't know how to use marks of punctuation, who don't know how to compose a sentence according to that model, who don't know Classical music and Classical poetry--have the effect on them of being dumbed-down. And that's the same thing.

The same thing is true in art: When you try to simplify, when you try to be impressionistic in art; when you get away from the kind of problem posed by the Classical Greek sculpture, or the work of Leonardo da Vinci or Rembrandt, then, you are dumbing-down the artist, and you are artist's audience.

Question: Hey Lyn! I'm from New Jersey. I got a question about a specific aspect of your solution for solving the problems of our country; I've been thinking about this lately. How would you go about, like--given the inevitable outcome of you becoming President in 2004--how would you go about motivating a population that's just been beaten down, physically and psychologically. And I want to address certain aspects of this question, not only motivating them to become producers again, but we talked about how, like the culture question, and how it does dumb us down, that is, to an animal level. But, how would you, as a form of policy, go about attacking that? Like, how would you use television, or what would you do about television?

LaRouche: Okay, let me just give you a good Rabelaisian answer to this, because I think the Rabelaisian answer is the most efficient.

It's hard to look a guy in the eye, when you're trying to kiss his ass at the same time. That's the problem. That's the problem that most people have in politics and similar kinds of things. They're trying to find a way to woo somebody from behind. Whereas if they would simply state, straight-up, what they intend to say, or should intend to say, looking the guy in the eye, so to speak, the idea would probably get across.

Now, for example. What does the typical American need?

Say, "Are you one of these dumb Americans who think that the economy is not collapsing? Are you one of the Americans who thought that free trade is this and that?"  Now, you don't quite say it that way, but you don't kiss his butt. What you do is say, "The problem that we're having, in society, which many Americans have, is they refuse to face reality, partly because they're afraid of being overheard saying the kinds of things that might get them into trouble. And therefore, people convince themselves, they should be overheard saying something, and when they say it too much, they even begin to believe it. The fact is, this system is collapsing. There's no solution except a new monetary system. Now, do you want to survive? Do you care what happens to you, and your family, and so forth, 10 or 20 years from now? Do you care? Do you care enough to change the way you think and act now?"

And that's the only way to deal with it. And the biggest problem we have...

Now, the advantage is, with younger people, as opposed to Baby Boomers... Baby Boomers tend to say, you're trying to influence a guy by kissing his butt. That's Baby Boomer behavior. Whereas you young guys, who may tend to do the same thing, sometimes, but you really, instinctively, you have a sense that your generation has been betrayed, by the preceding generation, and therefore, you're less hesitant to recognize the fact, that the policies which have been adopted over the past 40 years, in a process, the policies which have been tolerated by the previous generation, or the older generation, the 50 to 60 generation, the policies which are running the country now, have been awful, have been a betrayal. And that getting rid of those policies, and looking at the policies which previously existed, as a point of reference, for what we ought to be doing instead, is the way to look at it.

The person of the younger generation, say, the 18 to 25 year group today, is less inclined, to do ass-kissing. And that's the difference.

So, the point is, the younger person, who is saying plainly, like the little boy -- You know, the little boy in Christian Anderson's story of the Emperor's New Suit of Clothes? The whole crowd is standing there like a bunch of Baby Boomers, or blubbering Baby Boomers, admiring the Emperor walking down the street, absolutely naked, all pretending that they see him with his wonderful suit of clothes, that this couple of swindlers have foisted upon him, and this little boy, standing by the street, says, " But, Daddy, he has nothing on!"

And when you look at the parade of Baby Boomers, and their Emperor walking down the street, and you see George Bush babbling his way down the street, and every fool in the world admiring, saying "But he's the President!" And some little boy says, "Hey, he's got nothing on. He's brainless."

That's the truth. So, sometimes, the way of getting across, and emphasizing the simple truth, and looking inside the mind of the person you're addressing, not kissing their rear end, but looking inside their mind, to see what is the contradiction that's bothering them, lurking inside their mind, that will bring them to a recognition of the reality of the issue you're raising, you're posing. That'll work. Because reality is working for you.

Day by day, if he said something yesterday, tomorrow, it's gone.

Look, the dollar is now running at $1.15 per euro, as last reported, yesterday. $1.15! It was supposed to be at parity of one to one. The dollar is collapsing. The U.S. economy is collapsing. The U.S. financial system is tumbling. The President of the United States is sinking in the quicksand of his own mind. So, if a person says to you, "No, everything is fine," they know what they're doing. "This is all fine -- you're wrong. It's all going to be all right." You've got the advantage. He may tell you "no" today, but two weeks from now, he's going to look at you, "Hey, I was wrong, you were right." And that's the way to win.

Question: Hi, Lyn, I'm from Philadelphia. I'm a student at Temple University, and I've interned at two major network stations... Anyway, you were elaborating earlier on how countries have their separate cultures, and sovereign nation states, ... just for clarification, are you trying to elaborate that there'll be no more integration of cultures, like, for example, imperialism, Americanizing their countries, like it is now, and the media and everything... Would you just elaborate on how to be truthful, and not kiss ass and whatnot?

LaRouche: The problem you've got now is this. Look at the world realistically. Is there American imperialism, and if so, in what form does it exist?

There is American imperialism, Aunt Mamie. It's there. It's called fear of the United States. Fear of the power of the United States, and a sense of impotence on the part of other nations which might otherwise consider themselves independent and rival. The lack of a sense of true independence among nations, is the problem.

There's more to it than that, but that's the first level of it.

So, therefore, you can't talk about independent states around the world today, because they don't think independently. Their behavior is not independent, because they don't think independently. That's our problem. That's the first problem I deal with all the time.

Therefore, what's the answer? The answer is, as I say, "I am the smartest guy in the most powerful nation on this planet, the United States." It's a piece of junk, I admit, but it's an empire of fear. And it's an empire of fear, which has a certain degree of self-confidence in itself, because everybody else is afraid of it. And therefore, if the people of the United States, express to the world, ‘Well look, we don't want you to be slaves. We want you to be independent nation-states. We don't want you to be our slaves, we want you to be our partners.' The other nations of the world will say, ‘Huh? Hey, that's a good idea. You really mean it?'

And that's the first way you have to think about with this problem of culture, and so forth, in general. People around the world will tell me, "Yes, but.. yes, but.. yes, but we can't do anything. We have to keep our heads low. We have to duck. Duck and weave. Because we can't do anything about it. We can sometimes make noises of protest, but we can't actually do anything about it."

No, we in the United States, we can do something. We can at least express the will to do something. And I'm great at that. I'm very confident about expressing the will to fix some of the problems of the world, at least insofar as the United States relationship to the world is concerned. I've got the guts to tell the world that we want you to be partners, not slaves. But that means you have to act as partners, not act and think like the slaves you have accustomed yourselves to becoming.

That's the problem we have. And that's the function I have. So we do have an empire, it's the world empire, it's the U.S. empire, it's based on fear of the United States. The United States is bankrupt! It's not the world's great economic power. Its economic power only exists to the degree that other nations will bend down and kiss butt, and fork over the money. It's that kind of power, the power of the gangster who doesn't produce anything, but he collects from the entire neighborhood, because he breaks windows, and ruins the laundry, and collect his vigorish. That's the kind of power the United States represents, gangster power. And we've got a bunch of gangsters running the government to prove it. Fascist gangsters, even.

So, the problem is, is that we in the United States, and I in particular, have a special moral responsibility toward the world in general, to say, "Hey, slaves! We're going to free you. You're going to become partners."

Under those conditions, you will get a change in cultural orientation. But you'll also get some funny reactions. Some people are so accustomed to wearing chains, they think of chains not as a thing that enslaves them, but as ornaments. You know, a guy wearing chains in prison for a long time -- he wants those chains, that's his ornament. That's his ego. That's his beauty object. Like some crazy tattoo that people put on their bodies. It's ugly, but they say, "It gives me a sense of identity." Huh? In other words, destroying their flesh, destroying their image, destroying their body, distorting it, making sort of a signboard that people scrawl messages on, as their body, they treat that as actually a sense of beauty, or sense of an ornament. An item of prestige.

It's like prisoners in prison, who sometimes get these kinds of fads. That their body ornaments, what they do to themselves, becomes then a mark of security. You say, "Let's free you." And they say, "We don't want to be freed." So, the gold fish, the legendary gold fish, at least, when freed into large pond, continues to swim in the small circles of a goldfish bowl. So, we also have that problem.

But the essential thing is, my job is to tell the nations of the world, "Hey, boy, you are no longer a slave. You're now a partner. And act up to it." Then we're going to have the problem of getting them to think like partners, but at least we're half way there.

Question: Hi, I'm from Washington, D.C. I have a lot of problems with the statements you're making. First of all, I agree that the interior continents must be developed, but if we tried to do the Eurasian Land-Bridge today, we'd have it administered by corrupt Western and Japanese businessmen, Middle Eastern Wahabis, Central Asian warlords, corrupt Chinese bureaucrats, and the Russian mafia. Each would take the resources entrusted to him, for the development of the Land-Bridge, and use it to line his own pockets.

Second, you equate budget cuts with genocide. That assumes that the increase in government spending during the '90s actually saved lives. Which of course is not true. Most government spending today is wasteful, and should be cut. Your fallacies, Mr. LaRouche, spring from your failure to apprehend the real problem, the sin enthroned in every human heart, and the only solution, personal faith in the blood of Jesus, shed to atone for our sins.

LaRouche: Well, actually, you can't complain about the morals of other countries, because the worst morals I know in the world are found in the United States, in the U.S. government. And it is not -- it was misspending, not excessive spending that was the problem. That's not the problem. The problem was that not enough spending in the right way, and raising prices without producing goods. And these other countries do not have as much corruption as we have. They don't have the luxury of being quite as corrupt. So, we're in a sense better off with them, than otherwise.

Besides, man is not naturally evil. That's a wrong conception. Man is not intrinsically evil. Man is intrinsically good. However, there's a little problem here, of getting a person from a newborn condition, into realization of their true human potential. And so far, in society, very few people really make it. But I know, from long experience, that if you do as I do, and accept the frustration that occurs sometimes, you appeal to that within people which is good, naturally good, the best thing in the universe.

And this idea that Christianity deals with man as being intrinsically evil, that is a false belief which has nothing to do with Christ. Has nothing to do with Christianity -- the conception of Christ. Just think about the ludicrousness of the argument, about this, Christ came to rescue the evil. This is a Jonathan Edwards type of crazy idea, which spread among some Protestant cults, and others. You're saying that God, the Creator of the universe, has bad taste, that He would send His Son to die, for a bunch of creatures which are the lousiest most evil things slithering across the planet. I would propose to you that God does not have bad taste. And that Christ's sacrifice for the redemption of mankind as a whole, expresses God's confidence in the essential goodness of the human individual. And as Christ and many of the apostles, and others, sacrificed their lives, willingly -- not that they desired to sacrifice their lives, but they did it when they had to -- did it on behalf of that intrinsic goodness, which lurks in all mankind.

Our job is to bring forth in man, to inspire them, to recognize that goodness. And to recognize it in themselves, and to cling to it, and not to slip into some kind of degenerate kind of behavior. Which is typical of people today, including many so-called fundamentalists.

A fundamentalist, for example, who supports a John McCain or a Lieberman, or some of these crazy cults that support George Bush, is actually doing evil. Now, how can they say that their kind of Christianity is what I should be listening to, when what I see them doing, is evil. Whereas I know that mankind, who often does commit evil, is intrinsically good, and that God, through Christ, in particular, has expressed His confidence in the essential goodness of mankind. And it's my job, as anyone else who follows that, to bring forth in people, to the degree possible, the essential goodness which lives within them; not to write them off, assuming that if they get down and crawl, and say what a dirty little boy they are before the altar, at an altar call -- I don't have any confidence in altar calls. I've seen many of them, and I don't believe them. An altar call is a habit which is expressed by an inveterate sinner, who has an altar call, and then goes out and commits a sin, and then has another altar call. And I haven't seen it doing much good lately.

Particularly in the case of the President of the United States, who has two defects. One defect is his former drug habit. The other is, he got off the drugs through one of these fundamentalist things, which turned him into a beast. And that's the problem.

We have to believe, if you want to defend Christianity, you have to believe in the essential goodness of man. You have to believe in the redemption of mankind. You have to believe in the cause of trying to get other people to participate in that process of redemption of mankind, not out of fear, not out of hate, not out of [the desire to] combat against evil as such. You want to fight evil? Fight Bush. But in the sense of the goodness -- that you have one life, and don't waste it. Spend it wisely. Spend it, to do good.

And most of humanity's like that. They're reachable. It's our job, especially those who become leaders, it's our job, constantly, to reach out, to bring forth the goodness which is innate to all people.

Question: Yes, Lyn, I'm from Baltimore. There was already a related question to this, but I thought it was an important point, so I want to ask a question related to arbitrary rule, versus provable principle. Why is it that so many members of the no-future generation, have such a powerful emotional commitment to following arbitrary rules? Like, for instance, completing some type of degree program, at a university, as following an arbitrary rule. They'll actually express an aversion to rejecting an arbitrary rule, in defense of a principle that can be proven as true. I was wondering if you could address that problem.

LaRouche: I address it constantly. I address it not only in that generation, but also the earlier generation, and the generation before that, my own generation. Now, the problem is: that's the Hamlet problem.

Just look at the two pieces from Hamlet, the soliloquy from the second act, the "rogue and peasant slave," and then the one from the third act, the "to be or not to be," and look at these things from the inside. See them from the inside. And you see exactly that. You see this tendency, he says, "Yes, but..." Hamlet's one of your basic "Yes, but" types. He's a slaughterer, he's out there ready to kill again, and he says he could do better, "Yes, but..." "When we shuffle off his mortal coil," what then? And his fear of immortality confines him to return to those things which he's been conditioned to do, the thick set of rules, the set of goals, the conditioned reflexes, rather than call into question what his larger purpose ought to be.

See, Hamlet's not a coward because he's afraid of immortality. He's a coward because he's afraid immortality will deprive him of a sense of pleasure in life, and his sense of pleasure is decadent. That's exactly what you're describing, the Hamlet problem. Another manifestation of it. The only cure for that, is what I'm trying to do, and it works, to some degree, as we've seen recently, in changing some of the politics of the United States, largely with the impact of the youth movement. We get across to people that they can change their ways, and must. And the cry "Let us change our ways," is coming largely from a no-future generation, which is saying to the older generation, "We must change out ways." And what they're getting from the "now" generation, is the reaction, a gut reaction, expressed in many different ways, which says, "Go away! You annoy us. Stop doing that! You're not behaving yourself, stop doing that. You're upsetting us!" Huh?

And all these young guys are doing is saying, "Look, you've given us no future, Daddy. Time to change your ways." And the other guy says, "But I have my habits, I have my habits! I have my right. I spent my whole life developing these habits! They work out. Look, I rely on these habits. They may not be perfect, but they're my habits, and you should listen to me! Because I have more experience than you do!" Things like that, huh?

That's what the problem is. And you're hearing Hamlet screaming, when you hear that kind of chatter from the poor old geezer.

Question: I'm an artist. My question is about language. I've found all my life, that there's something very profoundly missing from language, and that's women. I don't think that people are aware of the psychological effects that language has on experience, and I think that... Well, to give you an example, the word "mankind," even "humankind" is constructed in a male-centric way. The word "he" to describe everybody. I think that, if we're to bridge the social gap between art and science, wouldn't you say that it's important to socially reconstruct language?

LaRouche: No, I don't. Language is not the problem. I know this argument is often made. It's made often by the feminists, it has been essentially since, oh, actually earlier, but it became significant during the course of the 1960s. Before, it was there, you found it with leftwing groups and so forth, particularly experimental groups of feminists, who sometimes would come up with these elaborate schemes to try to explain that the problems of life, the problems of injustice toward women, were somehow rooted in mental states, which are problems of language.

Actually not. It's quite the other way around. The problem lies not in language, because the idea that language should be literal, itself, is a problem. Language -- a good language -- is never literal. It rather depends upon irony and metaphor, and also it depends upon a certain functions of musicality which are derived from, actually from bel canto, that is, physically derived from the principles of the body, which result in the bel canto norm, of the human singing voice. Therefore, it is what is conveyed which is the problem, not the language per se.

And that, in fact, all of us who write, or who study these matters, professionally, as we're forced to, as I've had to, particularly in dealing with philosophical and related question, realize exactly this distinction. The discussion of language being the problem, posed by the feminists, is wrong. That is not the problem. The problem is the connotations of the use of language, which contain the problem. And this is very clearly distinct. It becomes obvious in jokes. It becomes obvious in latrine-type jokes, barracks-type jokes, that sort of thing. Also, it becomes obvious in women. Now, feminists have played with this thing, about cosmetics and so forth, as being a kind of self-degradation. And then it goes to the other extreme, and that doesn't work either. A person tries to be clean, well-groomed in public, and the use of cosmetics to that degree, is something you can't contest with. That would be oppression, to make that an issue.

But then I see things -- I was just making jokes about this the other day, I was in Milan. Milan, which used to be an industrial center, has ceased to be merely an industrial center, in Italy, though there are medium-sized and smaller industries across the beltway of northern Italy, which are among the most successful parts of the European economy today, in part. But Milan has become a center of fashion. And you have poor girls, who are generally abused by lesbians -- that's the characteristic of the model market in Milan, is you have these girls who are super-skinny, you'd think they were recruited from the catacombs, they're so skinny, and they generally are abused, as the Naomi Campbell case illustrates, abused by lesbian women who prey upon them. And determine their careers. If they don't satisfy the desires of a lesbian woman, they can lose their career as a model, and so forth.

Then, these poor girls, who are out there trying to make a living -- and only a few of them are the superstars that make a real living -- these poor girls go out on stage, wearing strips of rags, which you thought were thrown away by the Paris fashion shops, walking in a peculiar walk, because they're so underfed, that they walk peculiarly, angrily but peculiarly, on stage. And it's horrible. It's a horrible degradation of women. And the things they wear are disgusting! It's rags. So, it's like skeleton walking on stage, wearing a few bits of rags, and it's called fashion. And this guy Versace, for example, his tradition, is typical of this problem.

That is what the oppression is, is the imposition of social roles upon, and attitudes toward, women, as merely creatures of this or that type, in acts of self-degradation. That in so far that these things become the connotations of the use of language, then language is a problem. The problem is not the need to reconstruct language, the problem is to shift the conception of man, from a creature who is used for the pleasure of others, into a person who is truly human, in a notion of humanity which is premised upon the distinction between a monkey, and a human being. And that's where the fault comes.

But most of these feminists, that I've known, when they've made the argument, they don't make the distinction between a human being, and an ape. And that's where the problem lies. They themselves, who are protesting most violently, against so-called male oppression, are themselves propagators of the infection whose results against which they are complaining.

Question: Hello, I'm from the Baltimore office. My question is relating to music. I write a lot of poetry, and a lot of lyrics, and some songs, and I want to ask you, just because, I like music, and it isn't Classical, does it not have meaning, is it not music?

LaRouche: Well, if it's not Classical, it's wrong. The question here is not a Classical form. It's a Classical principle, as I noted earlier. The form should be subordinate to the intent, to the principle, not the principle to the form.

Now, one of the best examples of this, is -- well, this, of course, is a more advanced subject, but it's being addressed by some of us. Take the case of one of the greatest revolutions in music -- since Bach, at least. Bach's revolution was so impressive that it overwhelms almost everything that follows. But after Bach's revolution, the most impressive change in music was that done by Beethoven, as expressed in such works as his Missas Solemnis, and his final series of string quartets.

In this, Beethoven breaks from the strictures of a formal compositional form, such as the formal quartet form, and as in the Op. 131, 132, moves into a straight developmental form, in which there's a progression of development of a single idea, to such effect that going through these compositions -- the 131 and 132 are fairly long -- but going through these compositions from beginning to end, with a good understanding of them, produces an effect which, in total effect, is absolutely magnificent.

Now, this is a result of a change in form. You have a similar change which occurs in Beethoven in the Piano Sonata 106, the so-called Hammerklavier. In the third movement, the Andante Sostenuto, there is a development section in which the development goes through a rapid change, a succession of keys, it's in a form of modalities, which is almost free. This element of that part of that movement, is then used by Brahms as the developmental principle of his Fourth Symphony, which indicates a progression. Beethoven in his Seventh Symphony is already moving in that direction, and Brahm's Fourth Symphony has many reflections of the approach to composition of Beethoven's Seventh.

So, in the process of musical development, there have been revolutionary changes in the forms, but never violating the principle. As a matter of fact, almost more strenuously emphasizing the extension of the principle, rather than the form as such.

The same thing is true in physical science. That in physical science, the progress, actual progress in physical science, involves revolutionary overtones in the sense of forms. So, there's not a Classical model, in the sense of a fixed model of form of composition. There is rather a principle of composition, in which you may use different forms, as long as the principle is the same. So I don't think there really should be a problem. I think what you get today, is, in a sense, is the idea of having effects, which are strictly sensual types of effects, used as the romantics did, as a substitute for Classical composition, for ideas. And that's where the problem lies. The term "Classical" should mean, exactly as I said earlier, should mean that; it should mean a specific principle. Even though you have to have respect for the fact, that certain forms were developed according to Classical principle.

Question: Hi Lyn, I'm an organizer in Philadelphia, and  I'm returning from a success in Detroit. The question I want to ask, well--I want to tell you that things are moving ahead. And you can see the takeover of Michigan, and the population is shifting, in taking in these ideas and beginning to look at them more seriously; even with what's going on in the campuses and what's not going on in the Democratic Party, we're making progress.

Now, the thing that I noticed was a waxing and a waning of attention span, or an understanding of the mission-orientation; or, not necessarily a lack of understanding of these principles, but of an inability to communicate these ideas. And, I was wondering, from the standpoint of a military professional, how were these ideas addressed, perhaps by the people around Grant, or General MacArthur; how they were able to inspire, in the officer corps, a constant--like when you get up in the morning, the thing in your mind, "All right, I know what I'm going to do. I'm sharp. I'm ready to go." How were they able to sort of, get the individual personality self-motivated, I guess is the word?

LaRouche: Ha-ha! In the military? Oh boy! It never worked that way! It worked--I did some training a little: You got 'em out in the morning, and the motivation developed as they moved! [laughing]  The idea that you have to sit around waiting for the motivation to descend upon you, like the spirit--it doesn't happen that way.  Sometimes you'll get up, full of vinegar and so forth, but, generally the way things are moved in the military, and among great commanders--they don't get up, because they want to get up. They get up, because they have to get up! They get out, because they have to get out! They move, because they move each other. There's no special, magical recipe.

Life is determined, not by what "I'm in the mood for"; it's not like sex, or something; you know, "I'm not in the mood for it, now." If you get that approach to organizing, you're not going to be very successful. Because you actually get out, and plunge into the situation. And, as you plunge into the challenge of the situation, then the challenge evokes motivation in you.

So, what you do is, you just go out and show it. And, the motivation will come to you, if you're open to it. But, as far as getting started, today--someone says, "we have trouble getting started," you say, "I got a boot! You want me to kick?" That's how it was done in the military.

Question: Hi, I'm working in the New Jersey office. I had a conversation earlier, about where we come from--

LaRouche:  Where who comes from?

Question: That's the thing, yeah! [general laughter] There's some debate on that kind of question among certain people! "Where does he come from?" But, then I was thinking, about thinking, you know. What is thought? Is it a creative form? Are there forms of thought, like, maybe, when I have a conception of something, it's not in the form of language. I'm not thinking in a thought--well, I don't know if the thought is the idea; or, if the thought is the communication through the language of the thought that is produced--so....

LaRouche: Well, that's not such a big problem. It's a big challenge, but it's not formally a big problem. The problem is, that society today is so full of all these assumptions, which people are taught to believe or induced to believe, that what they ought to recognize at first-hand is blocked by the secretion of all of these assumptions.

You're talking about speaking, as communicating. Talk about music, as a form of communication: What's the purpose of it? The purpose is communication. What do you mean by communication? Well, let's take human communication. You have two levels of communication: You have animal communication among human beings--you know, "pass the salt," for example; that's animal communication. Then you have human communication, which involves ideas: That is, ideas which exist--they're real; or they're conjecturably, possibly real, but their existence lies outside the domain of sense perception, and they can be known to sense perception, only as shadows, cast by reality upon sense perception.

So therefore, you're trying to express a relationship, between a sense-perceptual frame of reference, and an idea. And the function of language is to communicate the idea, by the way you refer to the sense-perceptual reference.

Now, what you do, is a sense of irony. For example, let's take the simple case of stage: You have the use by Shakespeare of the soliloquy. You have the actors on stage; they're acting. They're acting out a part. They're within a context, which is a play. Then you have the soliloquy, which is performed by the actor, who turns from his role inside the play, the context--he turns toward the audience, and he delivers a commentary upon what is going on in the play, or something relevant to it, to the audience.

So, you see the principle of communication is thus illustrated. It's the relationship between the physical referent and an idea, which is totally offstage, from a sensual standpoint. So therefore, the question of speech, the question of music, is how to deliver ideas, whose existence is, in a sense, offstage, by means of the way in which you use the stage. So, speech, and music in its literal form, are a stage. Painting, in its literal form, is a stage. The function of Classical composition, whether speech, or drama, or poetry, or painting, is to present ideas, which exist offstage, off the stage of sense perception, and the language which pertains to sense perception.

This involves irony. One of the aids in speaking, as in singing, for the use of irony, has to do with musicality. The bel canto trained singing voice, that is, a voice, which has been trained to sing, and to speak, in the Florentine bel canto mode, is expressing a natural, physiological potentiality of the human speaking-singing apparatus. And there is no difference, between the speaking and singing apparatus, in terms of this characteristic.

Now, this gives not only the simple--it gives you register shifts; it gives you difference in registration; it gives you differences in coloration, and all devices of color. And every device that exists in music, in song, exists in speech. Ancient Classical poetry is an example of this: Ancient Classical poetry is based essentially upon the use of what is other wise known, in modern times, as the "Florentine bel canto principle," principle of speech, to sing poetry. And the Classical poetry is used in that form. The remarkable thing about Classical poetry, as we've looked at some of these things, with the aid of some experts in India, on the question of the ancient Vedic Sanskrit poems, is that, some of these poems, for example, contain precise astronomical information. Some of this astronomical information, calendar information, is embedded in this poetry.

The people who have transmitted this poetry by oral tradition, in the lack of a written communication, are able to transmit this over many successive generations with great fidelity--that is, with a minimal amount of error. And the convergence of all the people who repeat these little hymns, is such that, the culture replicates the hymns. In many cases, the person who is reciting Sanskrit, or Vedic, chanters, do not know the language in which they're reciting. But, nonetheless, they're able to communicate these hymns, with relatively great fidelity. And thus, the poetic form, as a Classical poetic, as known to the Vedic or Sanskrit, is thus shown to be a medium of communication, in its own right, which is much more reliable than what we would call "prose speech utterance" today.

And thus, the use of musicality, in speech, as in singing, is an essential part of the process of communicating ideas. The significance of this shows in irony. Not only metaphor, as such, but irony more generally. You convey a meaning, by a matter of intonation, in such a way, that you convey different levels of irony. The idea, which is always a tension between the sense-perceptual reference, and the idea which exists beyond sense-perceptual reference, is like the actor speaking offstage; also, at another moment, speaking onstage. And therefore, the distinction between the two, enables the human being to communicate ideas offstage--that is, relevant to ideas which exist in the domain beyond sense perception, but are using a language, which on its obvious function, is designed essentially to communicate references to sense perception.

Sometimes, "pass the salt" can be a statement, which is a poetic idea. Sometimes, it's just saying, "pass the salt." [applause]

Question: I'm an organizer in Baltimore. And, as a brand-new organizer, I'm having some trouble managing my studies. [LaRouche laughs] Being so many areas to study: economics, mathematics, philosophy and etc., which are all interrelated, I find myself jumping around a lot, and basically wasting my spare hours or days to study, because I'm skimming over a lot of topics. And, those hours are pretty precious, as a full-time organizer. So, I guess I'm asking for your advice, which is: Where do you think the best place is to start? And why?

And, I also have a second part, because I'm obviously finding that most so-called "historical" accounts, are nothing more than propaganda and fallacy, so I'm looking to find a way to research the true history of my Irish and Celtic roots--

LaRouche: Your what? I can't--

Question: --for an historic account of the relationship between religion and the peoples who created them?

LaRouche: Oh! This is fun. Well, of course, there may be some cross there, because, you know Classical Greek was the language of Christianity; it was the language of St. Paul and John, for example--the Gospel of John--which, in a sense, touched the influence of people like Cicero, in ancient Rome. And, of course, affected strongly Augustinus and others. And, from thence, Christianity and that Classical Greek tradition in Christianity, was passed to Isidore of Seville and [adding an Irish lilt] it made its up to Ireland, of all places.  And the Irish were the only Christians in sight!

And, the Irish then Christianized the Saxons. And, as I've said, the Saxons, in turn, returned the favor by Christianizing the court of Charlemagne. But, then the Normans came in, and they slaughtered the Saxons, and there's not been a Christian seen in England since--at least that's the Irish version of the story.

This, I think, is the reality of it, is to look at this question of Irish and Classical Greek: It's ideas. Ideas. And, of course, in the Irish, you're looking at the poetry and things like that--the legends and so forth. Which obviously had--and, but of course, there was the Norman influence there, too, so you've got to take into account, the Normans did conquer Ireland, and ruled it for some period of time.

On the other thing, how to organize conflicting studies: My view is, from experience with this sort of thing, reflecting upon my life's experience with it, would be, that you have to have an independent standpoint--independent of any of the subjects as such, or as classroom subjects--and you have to sort of "look down" on them from this pinnacle, or observation point, which lies above them. Then, you are the master of the experience of the studies, rather than you being a person, buffetted from one island in the sea of this or that, to another. The problem is, when you're buffetted about.

And, most education today, in most universities and schools, is pretty bad. It's gotten much worse, as I've observed over the recent generations. I thought it was bad, when I went there--but, it's much worse today. So, really, you have a problem; you have a cultural problem in society, in which it's working.

So therefore, you have to have an independent standpoint, a sense of personal identity and knowledge, which stands above and outside the confines of any of the subjects as taught. Then, you look at each of the subjects as taught, clinically, as an observer of those subjects, from the standpoint where you find your own identity. It's the only way to deal with this. What I've done, and developed over the course of my life, I quickly developed my point of view, my sense of personal identity, as opposed to my exposure to this horrible thing, called the education to which I'm being subjected.

Question: Lyn, I'm from the Baltimore office. You've outlined a lot, in the sense of the nature of man, and this idea that the universe actually has this anti-entropic principle--I'm not sure you can call it self-perfection; so, in looking at things like the Bill of Rights, you have this statement, where these Founding Fathers (if we can call them that) said, "Experience has shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves of the evil." So I seem to find this paradox, where you have a universe that's self-perfecting, you have the nature of man, that is to strive toward that which is truly human with creative reason--yet, you have a situation, where even some of the most learned men in our history, recognized that the tendency, or the direction is that mankind is more willing to suffer.

In an anti-entropic system, it wouldn't seem that that is a universal, but that that is a progression that can be broken. So, if you can elaborate on that?

LaRouche: First of all, this is not the natural condition of man. The natural condition of man, is that which conforms to human nature, and human nature is distinct from the bestial. So, this is not the natural condition of man.

Again, just to respond to the previous question, on this question of how do you deal with various subjects, which seem to be conflicting for your attention during the course of the studying, working day: You have to have a standpoint, which is independent of trying to interpret what other people say. In other words, you have to know who you are. I've always perceived--at least now; I've progressed to that point more and more over the years--from who I am, and what I know and believe, rather than trying to find my identity in terms of what other people think they believe. So, I'm a very tough, independent cuss on that point; which makes me much happier, and gives me much more confidence in not worrying about other people's problems, in that sense. I can take other people's problems more easily in stride, because I've got my own mental, moral, intellectual house in order.

Now, to have your own house in order means, you have to have an understanding of man, as I understand man: I know that I'm dealing with a society, with people I've had experience with over five generations, and, actually, six generations of Americans, and some others. So, I know something about mankind, in my experience with them. Mankind has not been living up to his actuality, his potentialities, at any time in my experience. And yet, from what I know of mankind, I know what the potentiality of mankind is, my conscience, my sense of identity is located in what I know what mankind is, and should be--not what he always acts like, how he acts, but what he should be: which is mankind's true species-nature, mankind's true identity.

My concern is to bring into being, or make a contribution to that end, to a behavior of man, which is more in accord with his true nature, his true goodness as a species. And that takes some doing. Others have, before me, have sought to do something like that, more or less, and have experienced the frustrations of having to deal with man, as they encounter him, and the contrast between man as he is normally encountered, and man as his nature destines him to become. That's what the problem is.

Now, what are we trying to do then? We're trying to create a development within society, which takes into account the problems which cause people to be less than they are; and to try to induce, in society, a shift toward becoming what they are: which is what they should become.

Now, you realize that the major problem in society, is the legacy of a long history of mankind, in which most people were treated by a few people, as human cattle--either to be hunted or to be herded and culled. Thus, most of the cultural legacies, passed on from generation to generation are, you have to accept the fact that you are an animal; not because you should be an animal, but you're an animal. Why? Because the people who run society treat you as an animal, and you have to learn to survive in that society. Therefore, you have to accept the fact, that you are merely an animal! You may have spiritually something else, in your mind, but, day-to-day, work-to-home, home-to-work: You are an animal.

And, that is what most of these cultures are. And, as these cultures have trained the personality, and as this problem of mankind--of man treating man as less than man, which has induced cultural currents, which are the predominant heritage of mankind, in terms of bulk of heritage, most cultures stink, because they are loaded with this tradition, of accepting the fact that most people are treated as human cattle, herded by other people. That's where the problem lies.

I don't accept it. I don't accept anybody living that way. I don't accept their idea of their identity as that. It's not that. They have no right to be that way. They may be like that; they may be conditioned to be like that; it may not be the result of their own will: But they have become like that.

So, we're always struggling, in society, against that kind of problem. So therefore, the problem lies, as follows: If some of us know, that this is the case, then is it not an implicit obligation for us, to do those things in society, which result in a change in the needed direction, toward man as man is? Rather than trying to accept man, as what he manifestly seems to have become, under the conditions, the impact, of this long legacy, of man using man as cattle.

That's the problem. That's the essence of the matter.

So therefore, my definition of man is the only one I accept: That's the definition of cognitive man, a Platonic conception of man, as I've described him. I don't accept any other definition of man. But I do recognize forms of degeneracy and decadence, which have been imposed upon human behavior, which some people mistake, for the essential nature of man. And, for me, having that clearly in view solves the problem. It doesn't make man perfect, but it solves the problem, as far as my ability to cope with the situation in society. [applause]

Question: How are you doing, Lyn. I'm from the Baltimore-Washington region. This might be riding off what you addressed before, but I think most of us are here to change the conditions of this world; and, throughout history, you have dark ages and renaissances, and revolutions that are created by youth movements. And, as we say that empires always fall, however, even in periods of history where the course of civilization had a high potential of discovering truth, they've also fell backwards as well. At one of our East Coast Monday night meetings, we were discussing the potential of destroying the intentions of evil, in its entirety, and having a perpetual revolution. Which gets to the question of, what is evil? Can you address that?

And also, as a bonus, I would love to hear from you on the question of making spiritual exercises.

LaRouche: That's why I've treated Plato as spiritual exercises, and why I started from this Gauss example. Because the Gauss problem in 1799 goes directly to it. It goes to it in two ways: It goes to it, because it deals, identifies as the target of Gauss's attacks, a method expressed by, especially d'Alembert, Euler, and Lagrange, which is the essence of evil, as we experience evil in modern science, as empiricism; as the denial of the existence of the human, in knowledge, by insisting that everything is mechanistically more or less determined, as reductionists define it.

Now, the other reason I use that, is because it refers to a previous state of society, that is in pre-Euclidean Greece, in which the Pythagoreans and others, especially as indicated by Plato, demonstrate exactly the same principle, which Gauss addresses positively, in his attack on d'Alembert, Euler and Lagrange: That is, the principle of cognition. Or, what becomes in mathematics, the principle of the complex domain. This is already fully understood, in a different frame of reference, that of constructive geometry, by the Pythagoreans, Plato, and so forth. Contrary to Euclid, contrary to all the formalists.

So, what's happened in modern society, we have changed, under the influence of empiricism and related kinds of reductionist belief, into a degenerate culture, including mathematical-physical culture, which is degenerate, in the by and large. There are a few exceptions here and there, and they're very important to us. But, my concern, also, is to use that, is to say, "Look, there is no difference, in terms of knowledge, in terms of the nature of man, between physical science, properly defined, and Classical art, as properly defined. There is no duality, between science and culture, as it's commonly put--doesn't exist. If you say, "Culture exists independently of, and contrary to, science," that's not true! Absolutely false. Because the nature of human ideas is the same. Therefore, if you have an idea in culture, it is of the same essential nature, as in physical science.

The only difference is, is in what we call physical science, we're concerned with the treatment of the relationship between the individual mind and nature, outside of man--man's relationship to nature, as seen by the individual member of society. Whereas, in what we call culture, we're dealing with man's relationship to man, in society's dealing with what we might call the environment.

So therefore, the questions have a different form, but the notion of the idea is the same. And the notions of the ideas about man's relationship to nature, are, by their nature, transformable into expressions of society's relationship to nature, and of man's natural relationship to man.

So, that's where we stand. Once we have that conception of man, and my belief is that our youth movement can achieve that--that is, not instant knowledge of everything in the universe, but knowledge of that, as knowledge, rather than opinion or  "repeat after me" sort of opinion. Knowledge of that gives our members, especially our youth, a sense of an independent, personal identity, a social identity--what is denied most of these youth, and that's what they're clamoring about, is the fact that their parents' generation accepted a degeneration of the notion of man, as an identity, and imposed that condition upon their children, who are in the 18- to 25-year group now.

What do you have now? As I said, you have the American patchwork family, of the "now" and "no future" generations. How many marriages in the family, or quasi-marriages? How many changes of sex, from time to time? How many step-sisters and step-brothers, in that family relationship? What kind of relationships, wondering in and out of the whole family structure? What changes and conditions of community are occurring in that? What sense of abandonment, or adoption, are involved in that?

So, what you have is the generation of the no future generation has been subject to economic conditions, to a condition of meaninglessness, to a threatened state of existence, to an impaired sense of identity, in which  the young people of that generation require, a solid, hard sense of "this is my personal identity." And my intention, my principal intention, with the youth movement is that: Is to point to things, which will enable young people, working together and solving their joint problems, as opposed to just their individual problems, to bring their individual problems under control, by having a joint experience of the solution to the individual problems of each.

Question: Hello, LaRouche? I've been under impression by the LaRouche Youth Movement in New Jersey--they've been telling me this rumor of you being anti-Semitic has been spread by Henry Kissinger. But, isn't it mostly your fault, because you were supposed to be in the Million Man March, which was sponsored by Louis Farrakhan--who's an anti-Semitic man--and Malcolm X's wife (who, I believe, is a hero of the organization), claims that Louis Farrakhan is directly responsible for Malcolm X's murder?

LaRouche: [laughs] Well, the anti-Semitic thing, remember how it started: We defended, in 1968 especially, the New York teachers against an anti-Semitic program, which was orchestrated by the Ford Foundation, under McGeorge Bundy. And, at that time, we were subjected to all kinds of attacks, for being something or other, because we opposed the Communist Party and others, who were part of this McGeorge Bundy attack on the teachers at that point--their game was to break up the system of education, by trying to create a racial conflict over the money for the school system. And, the result was they succeeded, and they destroyed the educational system in New York City, largely, piece by piece, by just tearing down those elements of structure, which were essential to the successful functioning of the school system. And, some of the money, off the social welfare expenditures, for some honchos who tried to build political careers around it. It was just that sort of thing.

So, this hostility against us, because of our opposition to the plain and flagrant anti-Semitism expressed by most of the so-called "socialist" or quasi-socialist liberals of that time, became, as a result, about 1977-78, the motive, from certain fascist organizations, which happened to be Zionist organizations, for accusing us of anti-Semitism!

Once you've gone through that experience, and looked at that experience, you sit back, and say "Hey, what's going on here?" First of all, it's false: That's fact number one. Secondly, where's it coming from? It's coming from fascists! Fascists? Yeah, who's working with the fascists? The so-called socialists are working with the fascists! And you say, "Wait a minute! What's real?!" You have so-called anti-fascist socialists, who are supporting racism, and allying with fascists! What's real!?

It gives you a refreshing sense, that there is a reality out there, which none of these characters have any connection to. So, anyone who's intelligent, who's thoughtful, would never believe this anti-Semitic charge against me, or us--ever.

So, that's the way to understand these kinds of things: Don't assume, that there's any truth in gossip. The American is one of the dumbest animals in the world, the typical American. He'll believe in almost any gossip that's fed into his ear. You can barely get the gossip into his ear, before it begins to come out of his mouth--and he doesn't even know about anything in between. [applause]

Question: Good morning, Lyn. I have three questions, actually. The first question--I probably want you to answer the first question, before I give the remaining two. The first question is: For me, the idea of school for me, is to give a training ground to move one from one point of understanding, to one which is presumably a higher understanding. To get a person from a non-Classical to a Classical standpoint of education and understanding, how do we move them ahead without addressing that point directly. How do you move them from one point to the other, without going through that point that characterizes that mind--correcting it and aligning it, to conform to the overall Classical understanding? How do you move them ahead, but without addressing all the underlying problems that are there?

LaRouche: Well, the first thing you have to do is, redefine the problem. Don't accept the problem in that form--that's not the problem. There is a problem; what you described reflects a problem, but that is not the problem.

The problem is, that you're dealing with the same kind of problem we had to deal with this slave tradition, or post-slave tradition: You had the original freedom movement among Americans of African descent, was typified by Frederick Douglass, typified in the best way: Frederick Douglass's approach was to organize the freed slave, or the slave who was to become free, around the highest level of Classical culture in European civilization. That was the basis for the movement.

Now, what happened was, with the freedom of the slave, masses of people, including so-called "do-gooders," said, "Now, we're not going to educate the slaves the way Frederick Douglass demanded. We're going to give them education, which does not push them above the station in life which they must expect in adult life." So, you had a general tendency toward, what we used to call in the Kentucky hills, "blab schools"; or something converging upon blab schools--small classrooms in which the level of education was almost trivial. And they were turned loose to work as cheap labor for the former slave-masters, generally, under this kind of education.

Now, what happened is, that you had a reaction against this, in the sense of a defense of a depraved culture imposed on African-Americans, by this change in policy. Opposition, which you'll get to this day, in the struggle for freedom against the after-effects of slavery, of people who attack Frederick Douglass, as the enemy of the culture of the African-American. You will get the same thing, not only among African-Americans, but among many strata of American population. What you have to recognize, you're dealing with the fact that a person has been condemned, to be herded human cattle, is given a culture, a cultural conditioning, whose purpose is to condition them, not only to accept, but to defend the brainwashing they've got, as culture. This is the problem today.

Then, you have a second aspect to it: Not only do you have the educational problem, as such; but you have the popular culture problem, as typified by rock, etc., etc. These were forms of cultural behavior, which were intended to destroy the susceptibility of sections of the population to develop any cultural capability, any intellectual capability. You had, also, the counterculture--the rock-drug-sex counterculture, and related kinds of manifestations of the mid-1960s (which also had a precedent, but this was a mass form of culture), which actually told people to use LSD, to destroy their minds, in order to become college graduates, in effect--or college dropouts.

So, now you had this LSD-marijuana-etc. culture, the drug culture, the rock-sex-drug culture, which took over a large part of the U.S. population. And people to this day, defend that culture. You know, I had this question from Seattle, the first question [at the cadre school] from Seattle last week: What's my attitude about the freedom for drug use, drug policy? And, I said: You want our people to go through the program of drug use, which destroyed mind of the President? A President who is now destroying the United States, because he's got a destroyed mind? You want us to have that kind of policy?

But, that's what we have. We have a permissive attitude, about a rock-drug-sex counterculture, which has destroyed the minds of a large part of the population. And, as manifest by the rave dances, you have a large section of the population, which is absolutely destroyed, in its emotional and other ability to function, because of this subculture. These people, then, become conditioned to defend what was done to them.

For example, the case of early England, 18th-Century England: The British imported a cheap device called "gin." It was called "gin" because it was named for Geneva, as in Switzerland. It was originally called "gin" among the Dutch; so Dutch gin was then pushed into England, and used to stupefy the English population, to make it more controllable, by making it stupid.

The biggest problem we have today, is that form. And, at all levels. It's called "college stupidity": You have college-educated fools, who have been subjected to courses in existentialism and so forth. They come out of college--they're brain-damaged! I don't know whether it's biologically brain-damaged or not, but functionally brain-damaged. They defend that; they defend existentialism. They defend rock-drug-sex counterculture. They defend it. And they treat you, as if you're trying to change that, attacking that, as if you were somehow their oppressor! Their oppressor is the ones who conditioned them to be what they are. It's like the Dracula's flock are saying, "You're taking away our blood!" Or something like that. That's the kind of thing.

So, the key thing is, don't worry about it. Be aware of it, but don't worry about it. Don't be conditioned by it. The basic way to go at this, is, we have to go at it as a group--sometimes as individuals, it's tough to do. We have to say, "We want to free you from that. We want to free you from the habits of slavery."

Again, the girl was talking earlier about this question about feminism and language, which is very much a concern among many young women--has been for some time: What is the role of certain habits in society, in oppressing and depressing women? Well, it was true--it worked. The problem was not in the language, the problem was with something else--but it nonetheless, it worked, that's the problem. You have the same thing, the history of slavery, of post-slavery United States, of education. Of taking a large mass, of former slaves, and how to prevent them from developing intellectual capabilities of actually integrating into society; to keep them as virtual slaves, when they were rounded up, every time there was a harvest, the local sheriff would round up all the African-Americans--round them up, and put them out on chain-gang to do the work for the harvest period; that kind of thing.

So, this kind of thing. Then, what's been to the population generally, as  with the drug-rock-sex counterculture, to destroy the mental powers of that whole section of the population. And then, having these victims, of that abuse, turn upon society and say, "Don't try to take away our culture"; "our culture" being the habituated, self-degradation, which they had been subjected to, for that kind of intent.

So, we have to recognize that. And, having recognized that, then, we become the loving fellows: We're the ones who have to step in, and figure out, as pedagogues, how to structure educational and related programs, programs of educational effect (as opposed to strict education), and these programs which will give people an experience of the sense of the powers they have within them, and let it flow from there. But, I think, also, we have to be very, very plain, very plainspoken, about slavery. The way to free people from slavery, is to remind them, and convince them, that those things they're wearing are shackles. And, don't be afraid of saying, or attacking the shackles, for fear that they will react, and say, "Those shackles are part of our culture," because that's what's happening to a lot of our Americans, today. [applause]

Moderator: Thank you, Lyn. Thanks for giving us this time.

- 30 -