Question: My name's Nick; I'm from Philadelphia. I have a question that's somewhat specific to organizing, but it's also more general. I find that, in organizing out in the field, we're on campuses all day, talking to people in our generation. And I find in myself, it seems almost like a type of bipolarity, where I go back and forth, between being able to be very honest to people, and really tell them the truth; and when I'm speaking truthfully, there's a different effect. And then, there's times when I'm very overcome by fears, and kind of pander--really. I mean, I'll say some things that are interesting, single out some political issues, but for the most part, I will not challenge them. I won't say something that is going to create any tension. And, it almost seems, for the most part--until recently, it had seemed very beyond my control. Recently, I have found that, in asking for help from other people, specifically in the organization, but actually asking for help from other people, I'm able to overcome this at a quicker rate.

And, one of the things I'm curious about, is 1) what causes that bipolarity? And 2) why is it that help from other people seems to be the only way I can get out of it, not just pure willpower?

LaRouche: Well, first of all, they're not unfriendly! That's the first thing; that's a big help, isn't it? When you can actually talk to people in a friendly way, and the prejudice is not there. But, there are two other aspects to this things, which are extremely important: First of all, think of reference to Plato's dialogues. A good discussion will resemble, very much, a Platonic dialogue. And the more it approaches that, in terms of rigor, the more effective it is.

Now, you're getting two things out of that kind of dialogue. One thing, you're actually focusing on your creative powers, to develop new insight into things that you did not have clarity on, beforehand. Secondly, you are getting a sense of what the mind of society is. You get a sense of what certain strata of the population is. See, you go up to a stranger-- what frightens people, you're talking to a stranger. They react. You don't know how to deal with the reaction you get from them.

Now, most of the time, of course, you realize--and this is the simpler aspect--that most people who answer your challenge, are faking, most of the time. Because the American population is a great nation of fakers.

They learn that from television, especially from hearing ads, and reading ads, they become fakers. Look at almost any ad; just take any advertising, in modern advertising. What is the advertiser doing? He's faking! He's not really telling you anything of value. He's trying to motivate you by so-called "subliminal methods," by suggestion, by symbolism. That sort of thing. Now, the typical American is going to respond, he thinks he's advertising: He's selling himself on the street. The great American idea is, sell yourself. How do you get a job? You sell yourself. How do you sell yourself? You lie. Your basic job application is based on the art of lying. And people who make a lot of job applications, become experienced liars. They learn what works and what doesn't work.

Now, the employer knows the applicant is lying. But, the employer says, "I'm smarter than the applicant. He thinks he's fooling me. He's not fooling me; I can fool him!" That's how it works. You get the job, and you find out how you're being manipulated. You're being used. And, your lying is being held against you psychologically, because that puts you always at a disadvantage with respect to that employer: Because you knew you lied. And, you suspect he knows it, too.

So, this is typical American behavior. So, when you're dealing with this, you have to cut through this garbage, to get at reality. When you talk with people and discuss with people, in a dialogue mode, you are actually cutting through it, because you're actually discussing the issues.

And you realize, that what you're discussing, in this discussion, does pertain to what's going on in the mind of a lot of people in the population. Now, you meet it on the street, and you recognize behind the mask, behind the fakery, what's really going on in the guy's mind. And, you're effective, when you say, "Look, what you're saying to me is..." "What you're telling me, is..." "What you're trying to sell me on, is..." Hmmm? And, when you say that, he stops--"Okay, now you understand me."

And your best response in the general population is when a guy says, "Okay, okay, okay, okay. You're right. You're right. Okay, now you understand me, right? Now we can talk, can't we?" And you get a different level of conversation.

What happens, generally, in working the streets and working with population, you get into precisely that kind of situation. You get people who respond to you honestly, the way you put it. And you learn, in the process of doing it, how to present: What would more likely get an honest response, than something else? It's not trying to put something over on the guy. Not trying to sell the guy on something, in the sense of putting something over on him, which is what the typical salesman does on television, huh? or in the ad. You're not trying to put something over, that's the first thing you've got to overcome: the desire to "put something over" on somebody.

The key thing, is to have an insight into the population. And before you speak, think about what it is you could say, which is going to get the guy's attention--the attention of the guy inside the guy you're addressing, not superficially. And you will find, that when you are alert in that way, that you will generally get a response. Because people are very lonely, in this society--extremely lonely. Their wife doesn't understand them. Their husband doesn't understand them. Neither their wife nor their husband understands them, in some cases. [laughter]

So, in this society, it's a lonely society, in which people are wearing a persona, a psychological costume, to protect themselves against what they think they're hiding. And, the key is to get through that persona. They're just out there, waiting, for someone to say something, that they think is useful to them, about the conditions in this society. Health care is important to them, other things. But, at the moment, the most important thing they're concerned about, which comes up with my candidacy, why is my candidacy the most effective selling-point we have? It's not because I'm some kind of a special product. I may be, in one sense, but not in that sense. It's because, people are saying, "Well yes, what you say is fine, but, who is going to do it?" "What you say is fine, but how can you get the politicians to accept it?" "What you say is fine, but how can you get Washington to go along with it? Who's going to deal with the Congress? Who's going to deal with Democratic Party leadership? Who's going to deal with Republican Party leadership?" The question of "who is going to do it?"!

"Look, I'm a me! I'm a little me! I'm a small guy! Hey, look! I'm not going do this! Sure, I'd like to do it. But, I'm not going to be able to get these guys to do that!" "Who's going to get these guys, to do, what I need to have done?"

So, if you're not talking about, "who is going to change things, at the top," or somewhere near the top, you're not talking about reality. So, when you're going out with slogans, like advertising slogans to sell "the sizzle," it doesn't work. And especially, you know, "sell them the sizzle, not the steak," was the slogan back in the '50s and '60s. But it doesn't work any more. You can't sell sizzle, when there's no steak. And so, that's the problem. These are the things we have to deal with, we have to think about. And, to think about the whole society, and the guy you're talking to is a part of the society, and is aware of the fact that he's part of the society, he situates what he's concerned about as a problem in this society. He has a sense, if he has any brains about it, and has thought about it, that the problem is not just an individual error. It's not a single issue: It's systemic. His sense is, "Look, we're all being screwed." If he's in the lower 80% of family-income brackets, his thought is, "We're all being screwed." He's thinking about health care. He's thinking about education. He's thinking about job opportunities. He's thinking about the community life. He's thinking about everything else involved. So, he's thinking about the systemic problem. That he's a victim of a society, which is not responsive to the real needs of the people in it. And therefore, he says, "Who is going to change the system?" Not, "who is going to get this legislation through," "this single issue bill?" But, who's going to change the system?

So, it comes down to "who"? And, you say, "I'm working because we have to change the system, and it can be done. We can't guarantee it's going to happen, but it can be done, and it's the only thing worth trying." In that direction, you can be most effective.

If you get trapped into the small issues, the petty issues, the detail issues, the problem of credibility comes up. Because, "who is going to get them to do it?" That's one of the key problems to focus on.

Question: Hi Lyn, I'm from Philadelphia. I wanted to ask a question, because in Philadelphia, you have a lot of engineering school students, and one of the things that comes up is, that they have some extensive knowledge. They read books about how the human figure has elements of the Golden Section in it. But you can't seem to communicate Leibniz's idea of the "best of all possible world." You can get them to concede to a certain amount of order, and that the rest of the universe is chaotic, and that just doesn't seem to make sense to me. So, if you could explain it to me and the audience, you have a better proof, than what I could probably muster.

LaRouche: What's the problem of the typical engineer? There's two problems. One is generic, and the other is today's problem. The generic problem is that the society is not working. His problem is that he thinks he's out to make a career, that's why he's going to engineering school. He's looking for a job. And he's thinking about things that will get him that job, and that career. He's not really concerned about society as a primary goal. He may be interested in that, but he considers that the entertainment aspect of education, as opposed to the primary purpose. Pass the examination, get a good grade, get recommendations, get a good job. Right?

So, therefore, he is primarily engaged in manufacturing bullshit, as his engineering qualification. He's not concerned with truth.

Now, on the other hand, if he's serious, he can be challenged to be concerned about truth. Now, that's why we did this thing with Gauss. The Gauss 1799 paper has certain features to it, of historic implications, which raise precisely this question, as nothing else does. That is, you have, on the one hand, Gauss attacks Euler and Lagrange, who are fakers, conscious fakers. And, who represent the most hegemonic, most influential current in teaching of science and engineering in the world today. But, they're fakers. Now therefore, if you want to get an engineering student to think, you've got to cross that bridge, the fact that what he thinks are the best in the world are fakers.

How's it work? Well, first of all, this is not a human society, at least the way its culture functions. We don't think about mastering principles of the universe, in the way that the great discoverers did. We think about learning a formula, learning a gimmick, looking up a table of constants, looking up this kind of values. Hmm? Or, even worse, today, is engineers are now studying "benchmarking." It's the lowest form of life: benchmarking.

Benchmarking is taking a group of formulas, design formulas, reduced to computational form, sticking them in a computer, and trying to paste different ones together. It's called this "suburban utility vehicle," which tips over when you try to make a j-turn with it. The thing that killed some people in Ford's SUV vehicles. Almost killed some people with the A-Klasse car in Mercedes-Benz. A fake.

So, they're not learning design engineering any more. What's the difference? Say, Gauss and design engineering, as against Euler and Lagrange: What's the difference? The thinking of engineering school. As Gauss emphasizes, in his attack on Euler and Lagrange-- as Leibniz did, as Kepler did, before, and so forth; as Plato did, as Archytas did, earlier--emphasizes that what we discover, in principle is the discovery of an anomaly in the so-called "sense- perceptual view of the universe," a simple, mathematical-extension view: for example, doubling a line, doubling a square, doubling a cube, are typical problems which actually go beyond ordinary mathematics; they're geometric problems. And the geometric problem is that, when you make these operations, you actually are going outside the definition of the line, outside the definition of the square, outside the definition of the cube, in order to solve the problem. So, these are what Plato calls, in English translation, "powers," as distinct from "energy."

Now, what we think of as a universal physical principle, is what Plato called a "power." You discover a principle of the universe, which can not be detected by the senses as such, but which is a solution to a problem, you do recognize by the senses. For example, try to double a cube, without an insight into what's involved. You don't know how to do it. So, you can't do it mathematically. You have to do it geometrically. And, you can discover a solution, as Archytas did. And, the same solution that Gauss throws in the face of Euler and Lagrange, on this question of the complex domain: That all physical principles, of any importance, lie mathematically in the complex domain. The domain from which Euler and Lagrange excluded what they called the "imaginary numbers." It's in the complex domain, only, that physical principles exist.

The same thing is the problem with the doubling of the line, the square, and the cube. You can not solve these by mathematical extension. You can come up with a mathematical table, to show the calculation. But you can't discover the principle that way. The principles belong to the complex domain. They lie outside the realm of simple mathematical extension, or arithmetic extension.

The problem of the benchmarking is typical of this problem. You can not simply take mathematical tables and paste them together, to make a design. Because whenever you combine two designs, you're combining something which may involve a principle, as distinct from a simple mathematical extension. So, no digital computer is going to solve that problem for you. You actually have to design an experiment to test, experimentally, what the effect is of combining two technologies, which had not been combined before. And, that's the work of a design engineer, which is not some guy sitting at a computer, and trying to do benchmarking.

What has happened is, by training people in benchmarking in engineering, instead of design engineering--actually working out designs, what it means to work out a machine-tool design, for a test of principle of technology, we have created a bunch of idiots as engineering graduates: Because they're trained to rely upon the computer and benchmarking to make designs that probably won't work! And, they don't have the ability, which the engineer used to have-- or the good engineer--would have, to make a test principle design, would actually test--and now give you the calculations, and now give you the structure and the principles to solve the design problem.

So, that's the kind of problem. So, this is typical from the engineering standpoint.

The point is, is to get people to recognize, that we have to operate on the basis of discovery of universal principles. Not only the principles of modern mathematical physics, as developed from Kepler and Leibniz on, but also to understand that there are other principles in life: Like the principles of Classical musical composition; of Classical poetry; of Classical drama; also of history; and some things in politics; of economics. These are things, which apparently are not simply physical problems, in the sense of engineering problems. These involve social relations. But, the same thing comes up in this area.

So, therefore, it's to develop the mind to be able to address this kind of challenge--the kind of challenge, which is merely typified by Gauss's attack on Euler and Lagrange, which is crucial.

Therefore, the deeper problem, is to get people to be willing, to go through the process, starting with something like the Gauss problem, to understand what is meant by a "physical principle," a "universal physical principle." Or, for example, looking at Kepler: What did Kepler discover? How did he discover it? How did Gauss prove that Kepler's conception of the universe is correct, with his discovery of the orbit of Ceres?

These are the kinds of things that people must be fascinated with. Not because they're going to engineering school, but because they're human beings, who rejoice at being human. They say, "I'm going to university, what? To get the opportunity, to study something I want to study, for my own sake. Something which I know will be useful, if I master it. So, my purpose is not to pass the examination (even if I don't want to fail it). But, my purpose is, to actually get something which is useful to me, inside me. Which makes me a better person. With which I can understand the greatest discoverers of the past. I share the way they thought. I'm part of the continuity of what they did. And I'm a connection to the future."

The thing is, to think about facing a problem for which nobody has discovered a solution before. And discovering a solution. That's what you should aim to master: The ability to solve the problem that has never been solved before. By mastering the methods of discovery, which have been used successfully, by the greatest discoverers of the past. And, the key thing, in this area, is physical. To get away from the computer. Get away from the computer screen, for a while. And concentrate on constructing the experimental design. Pick a challenge of experimental design: Find one that is anomalous--and there are many of them, that are known, that are famous. Work on those, and find inside yourself, how your mind works, in solving one of these kinds of problems.

And we have people who are ingenious on this; sometimes they're not always well-educated. But, they're geniuses in the sense, that if they understand the principle involved, they will work out the solution. The most important thing to convey, in educating young scientists, for example, is simply the understanding of principles, and how principles are discovered and generated. And, the way you approach people, is not by challenging them on their career, as such; that's not their soft spot, that's not where they're vulnerable. They're vulnerable, when it comes to "Well, what kind of a human being does this make you?" Hmm? Are you a useful human being? If we dumped you on Mars, you know, with a life-support system, what are you going to be able to do there? With no computer.

So therefore, in this kind of matter, you have to motivate people on their human quality, not on what some teacher, who's creating on a multiple choice questionnaire, with a few plug-in calculations, is trying to indoctrinate you on. The person, who's fooled, is being sucked into the game. The game of the multiple- choice questionnaire, with a few calculations thrown in, in between the cracks. Whereas, what you really want to develop, is the ability to make an original discovery, when one is needed; or to give an original solution to a problem, where a solution is needed. And that is a human thing. It is not an academic problem. [applause]

Question: Hi, I'm a student at City College in New York City. I'm a music student, but actually I was playing music long before that, because we had a piano at home, so I just had time to learn myself. So, I entered college already having my own ideas about what music was. And I became very sort of jaded in college, because not many professors really ever talked about what music was, and I thought that was never answered. So, I was always at the bottom of my class, and I had to keep repeating Music Theory. [Lyn: Hmm!]

At some point I began hearing about perfect pitch, and people recognizing notes just by hearing them, and naming them. And I realized, that when I listened, there really are different notes feel different, and you can tell, and it's so simple. So, anyway, I began to practice this, and study and work on my perfect pitch. I was getting better at it, and started reading about other people that did it, and I started to realize that I could actually show and teach other people, and that it's not so hard. But, when I mentioned this to professors, they were actually really threatened by it, and I was really attacked for claiming that I could teach anybody a perfect pitch.

Anyway, I've always been interested in teaching music completely differently, because it never worked for me, how it was done. And, again, one of my big things is, I'm convinced that I can teach anyone how to recognize pitches. Insofar as I can teach anyone to play an instrument, it all takes work.

My point is, whenever I mentioned perfect pitch to professors, how quickly they just dismissed it, and said, "well, some people are just born with it" or "maybe, if you learned it as a child, it wouldn't be so hard to learn it." I just kept thinking, "What a wonderful way to not have to ever actually bother to learn it, or change the way that person actually thought about music," and these were, like, really talented people in the theater, and Classical pianists. And, I was treated very badly and attacked [Lyn chuckles].

Anyway, my question is, how do you suggest going about the teaching of music? How often should it be taught in schools? Should it be taught sort of yearly, as with any science? And what is music's place in education?

LaRouche: Well, this is a very common problem. Obviously, you were doing sight-reading as a child. Instrumental sight-reading often creates problems, and the more facile you become at instrumental sight-reading, the more acute the problem may tend to become.

First of all music is not instrumental. Music is based on the human singing voice. And the human singing voice--perfect pitch, so-called, that's questionable, because sometimes you have induced a sense of perfect pitch, which you remember, but that may not be the right one. So, what's the right pitch? That means that you have to have a sense of, how would you derive the proper pitch?

Now, we have book, a manual, and you have a young lady here, who was exposed that manual and similar things, who studied voice. And she can also do other things, because she studied voice. And you have a young gentleman over here, who also had a similar exposure, and can also do the same thing.

Now, what is music? Well, first of all, music is human, it's not instrumental. You wouldn't try to impregnate a woman with a musical instrument, would you? [laughter] I'm not recommending that you conduct these experiments! I'm just pointing out to you a hypothetical experiment.

Now, Jenny did this with some others, at a recent conference: A demonstration of a very famous description of an experiment--not the actual description by the author of the experiment, Pythagoras, but the description we have passed down, of where Pythagoras's students reported, that what Pythagoras did, to define a magnitude, which is not a simple arithmetic magnitude, called a "comma." And, what he did, is, he compared a monochord, a simple string, which you can tune by dividing the string, by putting your fingers on at various points, with a human singing voice; and compared how certain intervals, by the singing voice, would produce a different result than on the monochord, the simple string. This difference is called a "comma."

This is not a quantity, a fixed quantity. It's a relative quantity, which is defined by the human singing voice. Which is not exactly precise. But, the human singing voice also has other characteristics, different than the so-called "instrumental music." It also has register shifts. And this defines six basic types of voices, and other coloration characteristics of voices, which is what you have in the Classical singing repertoire.

The problem is, today, we don't have a Classical singing repertoire--No. 1; No. 2, the accepted concert pitch, or standard pitch, which is rising, is false. Thirdly, as in the case of every attempt I've heard to perform the Missa Solemnis of Beethoven, no competent performance have I ever heard. Sometimes, the chorus is fine, but the instrumental part makes a mess of it. Because the chorus and the instruments are produced separately. And, Beethoven, in that period of life, had gone through, in a sense, a revolutionary advancement in his ability to compose, as typified by the late String Quartets. And therefore, he's using techniques, such that, if you don't do the right thing, the performance can not work.

Why? What you have to do, with a musical instrument, is, you have to with a musical instrument, is you have to start with the human singing voice, and make the instrument sing. One of the most famous cases of this, first of all, is the violin: Very simple. The violinist causes the instrument to produce the required singing tone value: human voice singing tone value. In the case of the oboe, the oboist essentially sings the characteristic tone into the oboe. And oboists who can not perform adequately, don't sing!

The basic problem of musical education, today, is, the instrumentalist doesn't know what music is. They learn to play with their instrument, not with their voice. Whereas the function of Classical music, essentially, is to produce a chorus of human singing, and human-singing-directed instrumental parts, to produce true counterpoint; which forces a certain kind of idea, a social relationship, which does not exist, shall we say, in mathematical physics. The relationship among the performers, is a social relationship. The relationship among the performers, as defined by voice part, by essentially counterpoint--the instruments as such, are supposed to play voice parts--human singing voice parts.

Now, how, therefore, do you develop a pitch? Well, the range of pitch, of the human singing voice, as you can adduce from Bach's composition for the cases of the combined chorus and instruments, that, in order for these things to be sung, by actual human voices of that range--like children and so forth--to have this done it has to fit within a certain range, which defines, together with the register shifts, defines a natural way of division of the scale. And that would be a perfect pitch.

Now, how is it arrived at? It's not arrived at, by memorizing a pitch. It's arrived at, by generating a sense of the right pitch. So, that would be a perfect pitch. What you're trying to do, what you described, is interesting, because obviously, the problem you were addressing was the problem of how to get past a sight-reading interpretation of the score, where the keyboard is doing the work for you, and all you're doing is reading the keyboard.

But the problem is, with that kind of performance, is, you are playing notes, not the music! And the notes are not the music. The notes are only notes. They are shadows of music. What you have to do, as a performer, is you have to re-create the idea, which the notes correspond to, in the mind of the composer, or what you think is in the mind of the composer. And you have to produce what the composer intended, not what the notes dictate you play.  This was called by Furtwaengler, who was the most famous and most effective conductor of the 20th Century, "playing between the notes." There's a slight shading of difference, which involved the concept of the comma, in which the contrapuntal structure determines how you should re-create the experience. And, the objective is, with a Classical work, is to be able to produce that work, in your mind to a single thought. In other words, the performer must have the whole composition implicitly in mind, as a single thought. It's like the identity of a face, the identity of a person: a single thought. You have to know that composition so well, that by thinking that single thought, you will generate the composition. And you do that, by going backwards, by reading the notes, not as notes, but as the shadow of the idea of a compositional process. You have that experience in your mind, and now you can reproduce it.

And, that is the way music has to be taught. That's why the original idea of children's choruses, like you have the famous Thomanerchor--this Thomasschule in Leipzig, which has been going, for hundreds of years; of teaching boys to sing, essentially, bel canto. Bach was once a director of that Thomasschule, hmm? And, this technique, was the technique that Bach used, in the early 18th Century. He developed and perfected it. And, it was done by boys' singing, in this kind of school. And learning the ABCs.

What would they sing? The boys, for example, at the Thomasschule, every week, on Friday evening, the boys deliver a Bach performance. They rehearse that, during the week, starting with Monday through Wednesday. And they perform it on Friday evening vespers. Hmm? I sat through one of these sessions, with the training sessions, and then heard the performance of Jesu meine Freude, on the following Friday evening. This is the way they worked.

So, what came out of there: You had boys, who would go through the voice training, before the voice change. Then they would take a break, for a year or two, when the male voice-change occurs, and then they would go back as the "young men"--they'd call them the "young men," right after the voice-change, when the tenors and baritones and basses would begin to show. And, they would perform these works together. It was very intense.

But, this is the real school. And, what's happened today, we don’t have something like a Thomasschule, any more, as a kind of institution, which is producing young singers of the type--for example: Where does Schubert, who was one of the greatest composers of all time; he died, unfortunately, young, but he was a brilliant composer of string quartets as a boy. He was trained in this way, in Vienna. All of the greatest musicians were trained in a similar way. In boyhood, they developed these qualities, developed these insights. And some of them went on to become better at it, than others. But the basic school, in modern development, from the 18th Century on, was Bach. All great music and all great performance, is rooted in the conception of the well-tempered system, defined by Bach.

Unfortunately today, the music which is given as repertoire, in conservatories and so forth, is garbage. Popular music is garbage. There's some folk song which has validity, but that's highly perfected, like the Negro Spiritual, which is a highly developed form of folk song, and was developed, actually, by great singers, as this, in the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th Century.

But in general, what is performed as music today, is garbage. It fills your ears. The Romantics, the Modernists: It's garbage. Keep away from it; it's deadly, it's immoral; it's Satanic, even. Keep away from it.

So, the problem is, we don't have an institutionalized quality of music, of the type that Europe once developed, which is typically true in Italian, and in German. The best training in music, comes from the bel canto singing programs in Italian and German--the models for singing. And, this is lacking. But, you can get an approximation of that, by studying this history, and studying the content of the history. And, then, by simply thinking about it, as I have summarily described it.

And another pitch beyond what you just described, is to go to the human singing voice, look at instrumental work from the standpoint of the human singing voice; how the human singing voice defines what instrumental music should be; how it should be approached. And then, you will get a sense of perfect pitch, not because you memorized perfect pitch, as someone has assigned it to you on a table, but because you have generated, in your own mind, what a proper pitch is. And you have to really stick to it. And this means that people will do warm-ups virtually every day. And the way it is perfected is, the singers do warm-ups, which are vocal training, every day. And it keeps their voice in shape, they speak more clearly; you can actually understand them--as opposed to many people today, who you hear on the streets, and so forth; it's good for organizing on the streets, because people can understand you! Which greatly improves the power of communication.

So, that's what I would make on the general question, which may be important to you, as well as to other people: Is, this is the way. We wrote this manual--which is not complete; it's only the first volume of what we had intended--but, this manual laid this thing out, or laid out some of the essentials of it. And, it is knowledgeable. But, there's no formal knowledge which will work, without actually going through the experience, of transforming the shadow of the printed text and score, into the actual idea of the performance.

Question: I don't know if you're familiar with the Verichip. It's some kind of help p this thing going through the Food and Drug Administration. It keeps medical records. It's an implant, I guess, into the human body. I don't know what you think about that.

[audience comment: It's a way of keeping your medical records on a computer chip, that they actually inject into your body and then scan it to pull up your medical records].

LaRouche: I mean, there may be cases where something like that is needed, but certainly not for brain function. You see what it did for George Bush. I mean, he got all that cocaine and alcohol and so forth, and grew his own chip. And then he got beaten to death by some religious fundamentalist, and that didn't help one bit.

Well, there are cases where we have such things as pacemakers and other kinds of instrumentalities which are inserted to help regulate problems of physiological functions of the body. Sometimes these are necessary, especially in the short term, if you don't know what to do about the problem and that's all you've got. But whatever has to do with the human mind, is a matter of social relations and not electromechanical ones. Now heart pacemakers and other kinds of things which may be necessary on medical prescription, but we have a society which for example, compulsory drugging of students. The so-called Attention Deficit Disorder problem. This is a crime against humanity! The very diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder is a crime. If you have a student with Attention Deficit Disorder, the solution should be to fire the teacher. What do you expect? You're boring the kid to death. You're rehearsing him, training him according to program. You're not fascinating him. You're not interesting him. You're not giving the young fellow some chance to get connected.

Now, you also have problems, which may be called Attention Deficit Disorder, which have to do with community and family problems, and not sleeping. If the father is beating the mother every night, this may cause an attention deficit disorder in school the following day. A tough neighborhood can cause the shakes and difficulty in concentration, but this is not cured by drugs. This is cured by finding out what the condition is and addressing the condition. There may be cases where someone is so disturbed that they may actually need some pharmacological therapy to simply control something that's bothering them, but it's not going to help them in terms of their education. And sticking chips in people to modify their behavior, in general, is contraindicated. It's bestiality. This is Brave New World stuff. This is Orwellian nonsense and nightmares.

What we need, what you need, is a sense of entry into the reality of civilized human life. The opportunity to participate in life in a meaningful way. What you need is a sense of happiness about being yourself, picking something you enjoy in terms of a learning knowledge experience, and using that as a lever to get inside the educational process. And then gives you a point of reference for later. It's a kind of benchmark to find your way into other things. And also social environment. Friends and groups of friends, who are engaged in just knowing things, sharing knowledge, sharing the experience of solving problems, and discussing them. It's a social environment which brings out the best of anyone who participate in it. It's like a good school. People like a good school, because it's a place to be happy. It's a place where young people are happy. They're happy to go to school because they come to know something, they have friends, they get into discussions and fights and disagreements about things, ideas. They have a sense that they are growing, that they're maturing. That they're going someplace. And they want those kinds of friendships.

You know, take the ghetto kid who lives in a place which is hell, the whole neighborhood is hell. And the school is often a refuge from the hell in the street. Walking through the hell of gang warfare in the street, for example. That kind of environment. And you find the place you go to where you have what you consider really normal human relations with people of your own peer group, or others. And you enjoy it. Because it's not brutal, it's human. And what you should seek in life is just that. I don't like this, this insertion of chips into people. It's too much like George Orwell's nightmare. We don't need it.

Question: Hi I'm from Philly. I've been doing some work on this question of agape and emotions, and I've developed some ideas about this thing. I've been thinking about observations, especially when I'm organizing. Especially when we have a sign about Nazis and stuff like this, and you walk past the table and you talk about their music and they raise their [??]. It's an interesting phenomena. But the trouble comes in, in actually being able to generate this kind of agapic emotion and not actually seeing it as different from reason. Because I think, especially with men in this culture, we totally neglect emotion, because it would signify that something is weak. So what I found out about myself even in the past: when you do that, you become enraged because you don't know how to express real emotions, you become a rageball. You have this kind of thing in the general culture, and it's definitely a problem.

I've been looking at a little bit of Schiller, and this emotion question from the standpoint of drama, and similarly, Gauss. Because what I found is that when you look at the drama, you look at, say, William Tell, you have to get into Tell's mind, is what you're doing. You're not reciting lines, you're not, you know, I'm going to act a certain way. You have to get into the person's mind. And it's the same thing with organizing. But the question is what will force you, what would teach you to do that. And I think that's the question of passion. So you have the intellectual work you want to do, and you have an idea where you want to go, but that idea isn't separated from a certain passion you have to have to do that.

You've talked about a number of things already, dealing with personas. What Nick wrote up about the bipolarity thing. And looking at the Socratic method in the same way. So can you touch on this?

LaRouche: Let's take a look at a very specific case. The case of the Third Act soliloquy of Hamlet. Hamlet has all these questions that come up, but then the question comes, "But when we shuffle off this mortal coil," what happens then, when we die? Now let's take a man who's a swashbuckling killer, a professional soldier who enjoys killing, who does it on impulse. And suddenly be becomes nervous, shaken, frightened. "Does conscience make cowards of us all?" he says. And he goes off to his death, knowing he's going to die a futile death, and does, but nonetheless, does it. And then his friend, right after his body is being carted off the stage, his friend says, well, Fortescu is about to lead off in the same idiotic direction that led to the death of Hamlet. Let's stop here, while this is fresh in mind. Let's learn the lesson of these things.

Now, I think that is one of the most famous cases in drama, because it's actually how drama does help you in organizing. If you get into it, really. Isn't that typical? What is the case of Senator John Kerry. Senator Kerry is a Hamlet! How can you explain Kerry? Kerry is a decorated Vietnam War veteran, but yet, when it comes to risking his career by taking on Iran-Contra and going for the throat against Iran-Contra, when it comes to taking on Vice-President Cheney, he ducks it and takes on the poor ignorant fool George Bush instead. He won't go for the throat. Like Hamlet, he'll fight the wrong fight and he'll die at it, futilely, but he won't take the cause. This is the problem that I face in politicians. I face it in government, I face it around the world, I face it in leaders everywhere. The world is full of talented Hamlets, under whose leadership we're all doomed.

Now, you're on the street. You're out there organizing. What are you dealing with? Do you find something like that? Yes. "Look, man, I've got to worry about a career. I've got to think about my money. I've got to think about the community. I've got to think about my ego." Eh? And these are the kinds of things with Hamlet-like qualities, and you find as you go through classical drama, classical tragedy in particular, you find lots of this. Look at the case of Tell. Tell changes. His wife's influence changes him in his resolve to do something. You find it in the case of Jean d'Arc, in Schiller's treatment of Jean d'Arc, which is historically accurate as to all essential points. This woman had a conception that a nation-state must exist. She flinched once, but then said, no, I'd rather be burned alive than flinch. And her courage ensured the first modern nation-state that France under Louis XI came under existence, and also a general chance occurred in Europe, in which modern European civilization was given a chance to exist.

These are the kinds of things in classical drama, and also in some poetry, which address exactly this problem. Plato's dialogues, treated as drama-and they are drama-and Plato wrote, as he said, with knowledge of the great classical tragedy of the previous time-that of Aeschylus and Sophocles and so forth-that there were defects in this, because they defined the problem without the solution, except for the Prometheus of Aeschylus, which was a slightly different case. Therefore, the Socratic dialogues were composed partly under the influence of the Pythagorean tradition, but as a dialogue as a form of drama, like classical drama, to focus these kinds of problems in life. Like the question of immortality. These other questions, including scientific questions, were all posed there: who is God, and how do we know that?

So actually, a classical education, a study of history from the standpoint of these kinds of classical insights, is the most essential thing for getting to the everyday street problems in life today. Because while the conditions may be different, and the way they're expressed may be different, essentially-as the Hamlet problem, which is a typical problem in society-is still true today. Occurs in a different context, in a different historical setting, with different predicates, but it's a problem. And if you understand these problems, then you'll have an insight into how to deal with everyday problems. The problem that people have, in part, is, think of the stinking entertainment, drama. Think of the television set, think of so-called news broadcasting, think of the newspaper articles. Think of all of these things you're exposed to in culture today. What value does this garbage have to you? None! So therefore, even though you're formally exposed to an education, you are deprived-except under exceptional circumstances, sometimes you'll seek them out for yourselves-to find out classical knowledge from history, especially from great art and the study of history in the light of great art, in order to have insight into what's going on in the society around us. And you call upon that insight, that history, that knowledge of the principles of history, to be able to do that.

I think there is no other solution. For me, it's the only solution. Living through the act of creativity. Looking at things as I look at that, through examples like the works of Shakespeare, such as Hamlet, the Greek classics, Plato and so forth, certain aspects of history, these are the sorts of things that give an idea what mankind is like, what society is like. And what you're doing is the right thing. Except do more of it. You have to concentrate on developing your power to have insight into the society around you, and the more insight you have, the more effective you'll be. And you have to enjoy being a more effective person. You have to enjoy the idea that this month, you're more effective than you were last month, and the month after that, you'll be still more effective. The other thing is to share this process with other people around you, who are going through this same process. Share the same experience, discuss the same problems as a Platonic dialogue is an example of this kind of discussion. Just increase your power. There's no miraculous solution as such. There's no formula. It's just doing it, and having a sense of history. And you see yourself in a situation, and you say, I'm a man also from the past. I've just come fresh from history 2500 years ago, and here's what I have to teach you about what we do then which is applicable today.

Question: I have a brief question about William Shakespeare. I've been going over this 1992 special edition of EIR about Alexander Hamilton's networks and the genealogy behind him. And one person that people forgot about, they left out, is the great epistemologist, physical economist, inventor, statesman, historian William Shakespeare. I've been reading a whole lot of your recent writings, and you keep on referencing Shakespeare.

LaRouche: Case history. Shakespeare was nearly destroyed personally by Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes. Shakespeare in the last years of his life was not published, was not performed. His enemies did everything possible to destroy his work. In England, in the remainder of that century and during the most of the 18th century, Shakespeare, if performed at all, was performed like (unintelligible), the way they perform him now, where they'll perform something like Julius Caesar in the nude, or something like that. So what happened? A German, who is a great mathematician, Abraham Kaestner, one of the teachers of Gauss, a leading teacher of Gauss, actually-had an influence on many people in the 18th century. He was born in 1719 and lived until 1800. He was the greatest teacher of mathematics in that century. He had two missions in life. He was born in Leipzig, from which Leibniz had come 100 years earlier, and one was to defend the ideas of Leibniz and the other to defend the work of Johann Sebastian Bach, who was also coming under great attack throughout Europe at that period. What he brought in, was the work of Shakespeare.

The reason we have Shakespeare today is because, in the late second half of the 18th century, just about the time the American Revolution was being fought, in Germany Shakespeare was revived. And this revival of Shakespeare by people like Kaestner's influence and by others, including Moses Mendelssohn, led to creating the so-called German classical revival of the late 18th century. So therefore, even though Kaestner was one of the backers of Benjamin Franklin and the American Revolution, and though Franklin knew some of this material, the knowledge of the work of Shakespeare did not exist extensively in the English language until late in the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th.

One of the greatest exponents of Shakespeare in the 19th century was President Abraham Lincoln, who would hold these meetings of his so-called cabinet, and he would educate his cabinet members in the middle of war, by teaching them lessons from the dramas of Shakespeare. He's one of the greatest geniuses in American history. Certainly one of the greatest political geniuses in American history, and he taught Shakespeare to the members of his cabinet in the middle of warfare, on how to conduct a great war! But in the time of Alexander Hamilton, Shakespeare was not widely circulated in the United States. It had only begun to be circulated.

Question: I've got a question about history, and the possibility of there being intentionality in history. I've been looking very closely at the history of the Non-Aligned Movement, and specifically the Bandung Conference in 1955, and the significance of that for the creation of the Non-Aligned Movement. I was wondering if you could talk about. Well, I've got a couple of questions concerning this. If you could talk about a few of the figures in the fight that they were in: Lumumba, Sukarnho, and Nasser and others-and you! And also how they were subverted. My specific questions about it are: is there a significance in studying this history, concerning the incredible work that you're doing now in the Third World, with Turkey and other places, and the networks that are developing around Mbeke, Sukarnoputri, and all these people, and Dr. Mahathir. And also, how does this struggle in the Third World and the struggle that was waged in the Non-Aligned Movement back then, go into this idea of an intentionality in history? You know, specifically, every time I look at the School of Athens, that argument that Plato and Aristotle are having in the center of it.

LaRouche: Well, in 1974-75, I was involved in organizing a conference for a just new world economic order, partly with the government of Peru, with a dear friend of mine who was then the foreign minister of Guyana, and others, and the proposal which I drafted, together with these friends and others, was submitted at Sri Lanka, at Colombo, in August of 1975, and was adopted by the Non-Aligned Movement. My friend Fred Wills came back to the United Nations, and reported on this resolution to the UN General Assembly, which turned it down flat! Large amounts of cash must have been arriving with the roses for the visiting delegations from Third World nations and others at the UN headquarters in NY, to the various embassies. Threats would also be delivered, as the alternative. The usual mafia methods which are called "US diplomacy."

So, that died--but it didn't! We had a conference in Bangalore, India this past month, which my wife and I and some friends in India organized. When I made my presentation on this subject, the Indian official--formerly the head of the Non-Aligned Movement for the Congress Party, N [??] Singh--was the person who introduced me, with a speech introducing my address to that conference. And probably as a result of that conference, there was an accelerated effort with India and China, on accelerating their collaboration of the type you've seen with the visit of the prime minister of India to China just this past week. So it lives! The Non-Aligned Movement lives on in the form of what we sometimes call the Strategic Triangle, which I tried to get Bill Clinton to adopt in August-September of 1998. Typical Bill didn't. He was scared. They put a sucker in the basement of the White House, and that was used to get him off the track of any monetary reforms at that time. So, don't let organized crime put a sucker in the White House. That's the lesson.

So, that's us! That's our tradition. I am part of the Non-Aligned Movement. I've been a factor in this thing, and still am, and I have done the most to revive it. They thought they'd killed it. It's now revived.

Question: I've been working with this question: how do you know what you know? How do you know something to be true? And, um, my idea is that you have to make a discovery to know truth. Right now, I don't really know that the economy is collapsing. I want to discover, I want to prove to myself that our service economy cannot maintain itself. This is what I've been hearing, what I've been learning, but I have not obtained this knowledge yet, and I'd like to be able to prove this in my organizing. Because I see our service economy, and I see that it's in a recession, but I don't know that it's not just a cyclical up-and-down. So, I'd like to be able to prove that. And why do we need a new monetary system?

LaRouche: First of all, a service economy includes such things as artificial insemination. What happens essentially is this. People think of an economy in terms of money. That is lie number 1. Money is an idiot. Try to conduct a composition with a dollar bill. It will rattle a bit, maybe, but it will not give you any ideas. So why do we put any value in money? Why do we measure economic performance in money? Obviously, you shouldn't measure economic performance in money. For example, you look at the charts that we've drawn, pedagogically, and the actually figures on these charts, and you'll find that since 1966, the nominal value of financial output per capita in the United States has been rising hyperbolically, on the average. Until recently, the rate of monetary emission to pump the financial markets into rising, was going at a slower rate than the expansion of financial values. In the 1999-2000 period, the amount of money required to be pumped into the economy, the world and US economy, to keep the financial markets from collapsing, exceeded the amount of financial values which were being rescued by monetary pumping.

In the meantime, over the same period, the per capita output in physical terms, per capita and per square kilometer of the US population, the US nation, has been collapsing. So the assumption that the economy has been growing, is obviously false, because if we measure economy in terms of the general welfare of the population of the nation. And look at another thing, capital factors. What has happened? We have an energy collapse in the United States. The production and distribution of energy is insufficient to meet the present needs. We have a collapse of water resources. The fresh water resources, the potable water resources in the United States are collapsing, per capita and per square kilometer, as part of the infrastructure. We have lost our transportation system. We no longer have a transcontinental railway system, and the rest of it stinks. All the transportation system is useful for is collecting tolls on highways. You drive 10 miles, click, click, pay a toll! And the toll booths cause traffic jams, terrible traffic jams. Actually, the US economy loses money on toll booths, because the cost to the US population of traffic jams caused by toll booths exceeds the income from toll booths. Besides, the highways aren't being maintained to relieve them, with all that toll booth money being collected. And people probably want to kill each other because of the toll booth factor. They hate each other. They drive down the highway. Toll booth coming. I hate you! Not good.

Now, what's happened to the United States? The fascists took over, in a sense, by killing Kennedy and launching the Indo-China war in 1994. Not that Johnson was a bad guy, but he was afraid they were going to shoot him too. Therefore, he didn't do anything to make them shoot him! So we had the war. What happened at the same time? You had the rock-drug-sex counterculture. What you do is have sex with the nearest person next to you. Don't worry about the species. You'll find out about that later. You want to "improve your mind"? Drug it to death! You lack emotions? We've got the right pill for you! Everything's a fake, you don't want anything, it's all bad! What you have to do is choose a new lifestyle. We need to invent a fifth of sixth sex, because we're getting bored with the old ones!

This happened. This happened. We destroyed our industry, we destroyed our educational system, from 1973 on we destroyed our health care system with the so-called HMO bill passed by the Nixon administration, and pushed through by Monkeyglands, otherwise known as Moynihan, one of the right-wing creeps of the Democratic Party who was working for the Nixon administration at the time. So, we became a parasite on the world. We destroyed our industries, we don't have industries anymore. We have cheap labor. We have services. What are services? Prostitution, for example. That's a service. Various forms of surrogates for prostitution, also a service. You don't cook at home, you go out and have somebody service you at McDonalds, and you don't know who you're eating. You have so-called entertainment. You have rock singers who are dying of drug addictions-that's called entertainment. You have a new kind of entertainment, a service called a wave concept. That's a service. Our degeneracy and decadence are services. You have financial services, which is called stealing from the public.

Take one example of this service economy. What is happening to the economy right now? What happened this past week? The discount rate dropped another 25%. What is happening? What is happening is that dear old Alan Greenspoon, the sort of Witch of Endor's kid-sister. This guy dropped the discount rate. Why? To pump more money into the financial markets. What's he pumping into. Take Freddie Mac for example, which is about to blow up. Or Fannie Mae, or Fannie May Not, for that matter. What's happening. People are cashing out on their mortgages. Because of a fake, a fraud, the estimated value of real estate properties is rising. There's no improvement in them, they're just rising. So therefore, people are invited to come to the bank, to rewrite their mortgages, and to cash out. They're paying their food bill by cashing out on increasing their mortgages. This is being pumped by Alan Greenspan, the Witch of Endor's sister.

What is going to happen? We're now near the zero-percent level of discount rate. This is hyperinflationary. What is going to happen? The whole financial system is about to blow. We don't know what date it will blow, but it's about to blow. What will happen on the day it blows? Well, before it blows, all the suckers of the world saying that the financial market is going up, that you can cash out on your mortgages now and get some more cash to eat by taking out a larger mortgage which the banks will now go along with because Alan Greenspan is fixing it, you're going to go more deeply into debt. What will happen? The interest rate will go from near to zero percent, suddenly to 7 or 10 percent. What then happens to all the suckers who invested in this economy? We know what will happen? People will die. Banks will close. Firms will close. Government institutions will close. People will sit starving in the streets who thought they had an income and savings the week before, all wiped out because Alan Greenspan jacked the interest rate up from near zero percent to 7-10 percent.

And that is about to happen! That's the world situation-a service economy. What's the problem? The problem is, we don't have infrastructure, we don't have a transport system, we don't have a health care system, or not much of one, we don't have an education system, we don't have a power generation and distribution system, we don't have a water management system, we don't have industries-they're being closed down. The machine tool industry is being closed down. Automobile companies are selling cars below cost and giving cash back premiums to purchasers, and they're going bankrupt. And the industries that are tied to the automobile industry, are going bankrupt. What happens then without industries, without farms, without these institutions, on the day the Great Crash occurs because Alan Greenspan jacks the interest rate up to 7-10 percent? What happens then? We're finished.

That's the contingency I'm worried about dealing with. That's one of the problems I have to deal with. I know exactly what to do about that. No one else who is even thinking about running for president has the guts to do it. I'll do it. And therefore, the point is to go back to recognizing that monetary values and paying people for prostitution and the moral equivalence of prostitution at McDonalds, or on stockmarkets-stock brokers are all parasites, that's your service economy. All of your financial advisors are parasites. No use, no need for them in the economy. We don't need them, and they'll be on the streets soon anyone, all of them, or nearly all of them. So, therefore, you come back and say, what's an economy. An economy is food, it's the production of food, it's the production of essential services, of essential infrastructure, it's capital investment and improvement in productive facilities and public works. It's health care, it's education; it's physical values.

And when you say a service economy, this is what happened in Ancient Rome. Slavery was introduced on a large scale following the Second Punic War. The parasites of Rome were developing imperial power to loot the entire region of adjoining nations. Shut down production of food and production inside Italy. The people of Italy were supported by services, at the Coliseum, watching the gladiators kill each other, or the lions trying to eat Christians, or some kind of entertainment like that. What happened to Rome? What's happening to us? We became a service economy, we became a parasite sucking the blood of the world. We have been living on and regulating the prices of other currencies. We have been looting our neighbors to the south, in Central and South America. We have been looting Africa. We have been looting Asia by our power of control over finance through the IMF and World Bank system, and through banking generally. Now that is coming to an end, and the 40-year fraud of a shift from the most productive economy on the planet, to a services economy which is a predator sucking the blood of other nations, at a time when the other nations aren't going to put up with the sucking, we're finished.

I know how to fix the problem, but I have to recognize the problem, and you do too, because we're going to have to fix it. This thing is coming. It's here. The system is finished, and the question is do we know what to do about it on the day the Great Crash comes? I do, that's my job. And because of the kinds of figures I've described, which we've got on my campaign site-the tables, the figures, the charts, and so forth which indicate this problem, how to measure it. But always think not of money. Think about physical values. Think about the things that serve human life, that increase the productive powers of labor that enables us to produce wealth, to satisfy human essential needs, think about that. And treat money as the idiot it is. Especially when George Bush signed the paper.

Question: I've been working through this paper, The Truth About Temporal Eternity. I mean, I once asked you a question about simultaneity of eternity, and I don't understand the difference between the two. With simultaneity of eternity, you're living within history. I mean you talk about how you actually have a dialogue with all these people in your mind, and then, temporal eternity is like, the person's dead, but they're living within your own mind, and they're alive You bring them back to life in reliving their discovery. But isn't that the same?

LaRouche: Yes, it's the basis for it. We are a special species. The characteristic of the human species is not what most people think the human species is. Man is not an animal. Our animal acts are not human. It's the act of discovery of principles which increase man's power in and over the universe-the power to exist-that's us. And since we all die, "us" is our sense of  our connection to others both before and after us, who are part of this process of serving humanity with discoveries of principle which correspond to the human mission.

Now, when you understand the other issue, of what is the universe. Well, in the universe, there's nothing outside the universe, there's nothing before it, there's nothing after it. Right? The sense of time, as we can demonstrate it, is not clock time, because as we improve our power over the universe, we speed up the clock! Think about it. When we improve transportation, we speed up the clock. When we improve communications, we speed up the clock, because the human action produces its effect more quickly. We're speeding up the clock of the universe. There's no such thing as fixed time in space. It's a relative time. And we, in this process, we are connected to our earliest ancestors and to our most distant future successors. We are part of a process. The key thing is a sense of human identity. Can we think of ourselves as, yes, I'm a model person but I can think about people in the past, and I can think about people in the future. Or, do we see ourselves as living in their time, in the past, because we're a product of that time, we're a continuation of that time, and we exist therefore in their time? We replicate exactly their experience and we're part of that. And those future generations are part of us.

So, when you think about life, your mission in life, you're going to die. We're all going to die. Therefore, what are you fighting for? You're fighting for us. You're fighting for your place in the skein of eternity, and you're always there, and your intention is to be always there. Your intention is to be always useful, to the past and to the future. And as long as you're useful to the past and to the future, you're actively part of it. And your purpose in life is to die in peace because you know you're part of it all. I have done my mission. I can die in peace. I'm not an animal. I'm human. That's what it's all about.

Question: Hi. I am from Baltimore. I been doing my own little study. It was on you. I believe in some things, like the Eurasian Landbridge and all that you were talking about. But some things, I ain't really got the experience for it, but what I wanted to know is what you thought "respect" is? That's my main thing. What leadership is? They put me on the field. You see, I'm a new cadre and stuff, so I wanted to see what you thought about that.

LaRouche: My job, our job, is to address those kinds of problems, not with magic solutions, but simply with understanding. The natural thing about life is that you're born as a baby. You've already had a little experience. You've heard the quarrels between your parents while you were inside the womb. The banging of the neighbors on the wall when you were crying afterwards. So you start out as a child. The name of the game is development. And if you understand life, your life from beginning to end is a process of development. One need not be ashamed, ever, of feeling a need to develop more. And if you're wise, the function you demand of social relations is that they be a context for your continued development. And those things of which you are uncertain, can be made clearer by your development, and your selection of people who are useful to you, in a real sense, are people who help you develop. If you have fears, if you have problems, if you have doubts, others have been through a similar experience and can share their experience with you. You can relive it, reenact it, and find strengths you didn't have, just as a child develops strengths in growing into adolescence, and beyond, into adulthood.

So, the function of an association like this, is precisely to provide inherently the kind of environment in which those kinds of questions are dealt with in the normal course of experience. Simply by treating life as a drama, seeing what's going on around you, seeing what leadership is, seeing what fears are, seeing what problems are, seeing them reflected in other people. Judging what it means for you, what you're seeing in other people. And you develop strengths. Life is a great education, and I would hope that our association could perform that function, as it can and will, of providing people through themselves, through their association, provide to one another a shared experience which is a source of strength and knowledge to all.

It's like a university on wheels, is how I've described the Youth Movement, which it should be. Here we have a situation. The universities are not worth poop. Here they are, running around, charging all these fees, and they're not really providing much of anything, except student loan debts to their victims. So therefore, I said, okay, we'll create our own universities on wheels, and we'll take as a reference point Gauss' 1799 lecture on the subject of the complex domain, which is a point where the principle of truth is demonstrated. Gauss demonstrates the principle of truth. The reason I emphasize that is two reasons: first of all, Gauss does demonstrate the issue of truth, and secondly, he demonstrates it by referring to a precedent from the Pythagorean work in constructive geometry, pre-Euclidian geometry, which is also, from the standpoint of geometry, a demonstration of a principle of verifiable truth, which Gauss recapitulates in modern mathematical physics context as a principle of truth.

Therefore, our job is first of all to concentrate on saying, what should be our final decision on anything, and the decision should always be from the standpoint, what do we know is true? And if we don't know, how do we find out what is true? So, the first thing to develop is a yardstick for our use of the term "truth," which Gauss provides as a sample yardstick for the word "truth." Therefore, with one another, we try to find the truth of matters which bear upon experience of society as we see it, and have seen it in the past, on the present situation, and on what we're going to do, about the present situation, with a view to the future. All of which is a search for truth. A good university is not a program. A good university is an engagement of people for a period of four to seven to eight years in the process of perfecting a discussion of important matters pertaining to the idea of truth. Which means it should include the two areas of human experience, those we call mathematical physics and related science, and those things which refer to classical art, principles of social relations. These are the two areas of general concern. Therefore you should not come out of the university without a good sense, a scientific sense of the universe, how we got here, how we got what we know about scientific matters, what we know about the universe. And also, what do we know about man's experience in the light of classical artistic composition which tells us what man is like and how man and society have developed. All of this, a university, is a leap. It's a leap upward. A period of life where you make a leap, to go forth into society as a person who's now prepared to engage society, engage its problems from the standpoint of a sense, of what truth is, and what is the scope of what humanity has given to us, to work with as a starting point. That's all that a university is.

And my view is that associations such as this, should be a university on wheels which is engaging society, with all its problems, its lunacies, and whatnot.  But at the same time, using the experience of engaging society, to devise a better understanding of how to put it together, your purpose should be, to become the leaders of the next generation in the United States. That's your purpose: To qualify to become the leaders of the next generation, which means you go through a process, in which one is like a university process of developing yourself; and then going forth and getting sort of the second generation of your life, the second 25 years. And go forth, to become leaders of society, but using what you've learned in the first 25 years, to launch you as a person, who is going to assume increasing responsibility for leadership in the coming generation. Hmm?

And, that's the only way to look at it. And, relax and enjoy it. It's fun.

Question:  I've been studying art for years and years and years, now. So, definitely a modern art education. So, it's basically led me to a very existential way of dealing with other humans. Now, the one thing that breaks this, is when the concept of truth--just stirs--it's very exciting. And, now, my next step is, interacting with other people, I can't help but feel very strong love, for like the story of a person's life.

And, when somebody tells me about--how is it you can teach somebody, when you believe in what they're telling you? I have a lot of trouble telling people they're wrong. I really want to help, and teach, and--I'm 20 years old, I've been in school my whole life. I've been spending my whole life learning, so far. So, when I sit down and have a conversation with somebody, I listen, you know. Anybody, almost anybody. So, how is it? Where do you draw the line, and say, "Nooo." [laughter] It's really hard for me, to--

LaRouche: No. No, you're saying--not hard: It's frightening. It's not hard. It's frightening. It's frightening to take the responsibility of saying yes and no.

But, there's an easy way to go at that, you see. If you have that kind of problem, the way you go at it, is you take the case of Socrates. What did Socrates do? I mean, Socrates: Is he teaching, or is he not? How is he teaching? He's eliciting from people, the contradictions, which they can recognize in their own views. And, then, that opens the door, to now bringing in alternatives. That's teaching. Nothing frightening about it. It's when you get the idea, that you're going, going to say, "I'll lay down this line."

Well, you can say, very simply, "I don't agree with that. I have a completely different picture. Let's discuss it."

What do you think you believe? It's the Socratic method. The point is, you get the wrong conception, of education, as something where you're being rehearsed in passing a multiple-choice examination, which you'll be score for, and the institution that you work in, will get the benefit, if any, of the score you get. You don't get a benefit from it; not necessarily--they get a benefit, because they get more money. If you score nicely, no matter how fake the examination is, and they get a nice score on a competitive examination system, they get more money! And, that's the educational system today!

There's not much to give to the student. Except, as they say in Yiddish, tsouris [ph]. But, a real education is actually reliving the process of discovery of truth. The discovery of truth always involves bringing forth contradictions, paradoxes in what people already think they believe. That poses the question: Oh, if this is the case, and you can't answer the question, what might be the solution? What we're doing about this paradox, is the following. Simple. Just think about it. Don't box yourself in, to a hard-line, university, multiple-choice questionnaire routine: right/wrong answers. The right/wrong answer is not the question. You have to know the right answer. But you have to find out, how to get the other person to it. Which has to come from inside them.

Question: It's an honor to be here, Dr. LaRouche. And my name is Fan. I graduated from Drexel University in electrical engineering. So, I guess I can request my $50,000 refund, there.

Mr. LaRouche, I've been a reader of your articles for two years, now, and I just started going to the meetings, like a week ago. And it's been very interesting to see what's going on with the young people here--you know, the passion. And, I just wanted to mention, that growing up as a child, in Nigeria, West Africa, this idea of being a leader; what is a leader? And how do you make a leader in the community, you know: passion, and ideas, universal principles.  And, being introduced to the truth, as Jesus, growing up, made a whole lot of difference in my life, both passion-wise, and my career, and the way I move in life.

But, the question I have for you today, when you do become President of the United States of America, how you propose a game plan for the continent of Africa, to bring it up from the Dark Ages of neo-colonialism, and the brain drain we have there now--all our intellectuals are moving down to the Western world, and seeking Western modes of knowledge and all other stuff. And, also, information technology is now moving down to Africa, today. They have the wildest communication, and it's blowing out, and everybody's catching on now, with the cell phone; and with the computers, now--there's a big thing there.

So, what is going to be your game plan, based on that?

My second question is this: What is the relationship between Plato, Cusa, da Vinci--you know, all the great minds of the past--and Jesus? And what is the significance of Jesus, as he claimed to be the only begotten Son of God, of the Creator, and the way they treat him in life?

The third question is--[laughter]. The third question is: If all the engineering principles that I learned in school, all the axioms and postulates are all based on not reality, is all false, my question is: How is it possible that man has been able to make all the inventions, from wild communication to technology and computers and that stuff? That's another question altogether.

And, the last question is: When you do become the President of the United States, and ushering in this Golden Age Renaissance, do you think about the Book of Revelations [sic] as it refers to the End Times, and how everything's panning out in the world, to people dying, and everything happening--. Look, LaRouche, I'm sorry!

LaRouche: I have no truck, with what's called the concept of the Book of Revelation. That is not a book of revelation, it is the vision of St. John. And, it is his vision of the evil of that time, which was based, as he said, in the Whore of Babylon, in the tradition of Mesopotamian evil, which is the evil which afflicted the Middle East and Europe, at that time--what became Europe.

The role of Christ--I'll go backwards on this: Christ is very simple to understand, if you do it in the right way. You have two works of Bach: The Passion of St. John and the Passion of St. Matthew. Now, these two works were designed by one of the greatest artists of all time, to present Jesus.

How was it done? You had a chorus of boys, singing at Thomas School, at the same place I referred to earlier, where Bach was the master. You had an orchestra. You had soloists. And you had a congregation. And they all participated in the event, which was the Passion and Crucifixion of Christ. And, through this event, as a great artistic work, based on the New Testament, the congregation, the people, participated in a re-enactment of the experience of the Passion and Crucifixion of Christ.

The issue there, is precisely this question, of the simultaneity of immortality: That is, that, if Christ died for mankind, what does that mean? And, you look at the history of mankind, in Europe, in particular, since that time, and the lesson's clear: The condition of mankind, prior to Christ, insofar as we know any history, was that most men, who ruled, treated other men as hunted or herded human cattle. That, the conflict among peoples, was considered natural. People considered other peoples, as human cattle. So-called "nations," or "nationalities," or language groups, treated other people as human cattle.

For the first time, with Christ, the universality of mankind was established. The way in which this occurred, is, Christ's life was lived in the midst of a Classical Greek culture, where no Hebrew was spoken. Hebrew as a spoken language did not exist at that time. There was an Arabic language, called Aramaic, which did exist. But, educated Jews spoke, essentially, Classical Greek--as did the Apostle John, who wrote in Classical Greek; as did Paul, who wrote in Classical Greek. And, there's been much fakery in the translation, where the Classical Greek has been changed by certain editors--not authorized editors--and by various translations from the Greek.

So, the point was, that the idea of mankind, was taken on the issue posed by Plato, in particular, on the nature of the human soul, the universality of man. Christ made this actual, by his Passion and Crucifixion. The Christian Apostles, especially John and Paul, who were the most thorough in the presentation of this, conveyed this. However, it was not until the 15th Century in Europe, that this idea of man, of the universality of man, and the wrongness of treating some people as hunted or herded cattle, was understood, in the emergence of the 15th-Century Renaissance.

After that, evil men, from Venice and others of their collaborators, started religious wars, among Christians and others. You had the evil of the Spanish monarchy, in the expulsion of the Jews and Moors from Spain--which was evil. And resulted in a process of destruction of Spain, by itself, because it became an expression of this evil. Then, the religious wars that tore Europe apart, from 1511-1648, until the Treaty of Westphalia. You had other corruption, by the Enlightenment--corruption.

But, the idea of Christianity and the idea of the Passion and Crucifixion of Christ, is a continuity within European civilization, which defines, for anyone who experiences it, an understanding of what that means.

Now, the question of truth, the question of knowing truth, comes from these kinds of exercises, which Plato and the Platonic dialogues describe. The paradoxes which--I've just written another paper on this subject, which I won't try to repeat here; it's a longer paper, just been out today, but you'll have it in a short period of time, on "Visualizing the Complex Domain," which deals with the problem of Satanism, and how that comes in, in society.

Well, on the question of Africa: We've done a lot of work on Africa. The condition of Africa today, especially Sub-Saharan Africa, so-called "black Africa," is: The British and Americans, and Israelis, have been committing, since the middle of the 1970s, have been committing systemic genocide throughout Africa. It didn't begin there. But, a policy, in 1974, Henry Kissinger, as National Security Advisor, wrote a memorandum, called National Security Study Memorandum 200, which said--referring to Africa, among other places, that Africa contains valuable mineral resources, and other resources which we, in the United States, need. Therefore, we must prevent Africans from using up these natural resources. We must do two things: We must prevent Africans from acquiring technology, because they will use up natural resources more rapidly, per capita. We must also reduce the African population, and destroy their ability to consume these natural resources.

So, my mission on this subject, is #1, is to eliminate the policy of genocide, which the government of the United States, and the United Kingdom, and Israel, have practiced against Africa, and are practicing to this present day. I know a lot about the inside of Africa, and about how the genocide is being run, and some of the details of who, in the United States and elsewhere, are doing it.

What they did to Nigeria, for example: They destroyed Nigeria! And they're determined to finish the job, and break it up. We're determined to deal with it--but how to deal with it? We take the genocidalists, we take them out, and we deal with them properly. Get 'em out of the picture; get 'em out of the picture! We must save Africa. But, Africa's a very poor part of the world. They do not have the physical resources to develop, adequately. All right.  Now, they must develop themselves. We must not develop them; they must develop themselves. But: We must give them the conditions under which they have a chance to develop themselves. What are those conditions? Well, if we, in the Americas and Eurasia, agree--if we're dealing with our problems and solving our problems--then, we have the resources for doing for Africa what we need. One of the first things, which I prescribed, since the middle of the 1970s, is a system of mass-infrastructure corridors, from north to south, and east to west, in Africa. I.e., from Cairo to Cape Town, on the one side; from Dakar to Djibouti on the other side. And, other trunk lines.

We must provide, with cooperation with the Africans, we must provide the extra effort, needed to build high-speed rail lines; power lines; new urban centers in places like Chad, which are now desert; water management systems on a large scale. We must turn these over to Africans, in a technology-transfer mode, and give them, through the technology-transfer mode, the ability to develop the institutions inside Africa, to do the same kind of thing, on a more extensive scale, internally.

The prospects for Africa are good. Africa has one of the largest areas of agriculture in the world. The problem is, the agriculture is poor. Diseases abound. The food rots before it's harvested. It rots after it's harvested. It doesn't get to the people. Africa is, essentially, a potentially food-exporting area of the world to Asia, the most densely populated part of the world. Southeast and East Asia, hmm?

So therefore, Africa has a perspective for development. We must give them the freedom and choice, and assistance, in programs, which will actually result in that. One of the first things we have to concentrate upon, within the infrastructure program, is to save the agriculture. We must help them save their crop; improve their crop; we must help them protect their crop, after they harvest it, so it's not rotted away and destroyed.

And we must help them in other ways, in medical ways for example. For example, our friends in Brazil: Brazil has a policy of using generic drugs, providing generic drugs for Africa. It's one of the few parts of the world, that believes in generic drugs for Africa. Africa, as we know, has a great tropical disease problem. They have an HIV problem, especially in Botswana, which is beyond belief. We don't know why. But we know the Botswana population is not the poorest part of Africa, but it has the highest rate of HIV among its educated strata. We want to know why? Is somebody poisoning the pills, or something like that?

So therefore, these are the kinds of things, that are concerns. So, if we straighten out our act, politically, with cooperation in Eurasia--which is about to happen: We're on the verge of success in cooperation in Eurasia. If we take the policy from the United States, of cooperation with Mexico, Central and South American countries, we will have a powerhouse beyond belief, on this planet, for economic development. With that power, we can fix the problem in Africa, of the part, that we should fix, and help the Africa to do the rest for themselves. [sustained applause]

Question: Hello Mr. LaRouche, my question has more to do with physics, so I'm sort of changing the subject a little bit. I've heard you refer to the inverse as being topologically finite. And Einstein said pretty much the same thing, when he referred to "finite, but unbounded." And, I'd like to open that up for discussion: See, if the universe is to be continuous, it has to be curved. Like, if you wanted to make a finite line continuous, you would curve it into a circle. If you wanted to make a plane, you would have to wrap it around a sphere to make it continuous. So, to make our universe continuous, that kind of implies an extra dimension of curvature.

And, I think you find pretty much the same idea in Gauss's method of squaring the circle, in that, every time you add an order of magnitude, you add an extra 360 degrees. And, so basically, my question is: How does the idea of continuous universe related to idea of a 360 degree time rotation of bidirectional symmetrical time-flow in our universe?

LaRouche: This is something, again, I just finished a paper, I started on and edited on May 30, on "Visualizing the Complex Domain." And, that's where the problem is. We've done a lot of things on Gauss, but I was not satisfied, that we had effectively addressed the epistemological implications of the Gauss-Riemann work. And therefore, I wrote this paper to, shall we say, "sharpen up" our epistemology, in dealing with this problem.

Now, the problem is essentially this--the epistemological problem--which is clear, I think, from Kepler, in part; it's clear with Plato; it's also clear with Gauss; and it's most clear with Riemann. But, it is not understood, generally, because of bad university ideology, where the university teaching of Gauss is ideologized to conform to Lagrange, LaPlace, Cauchy, and so forth. That's where the problem arises: fakery.

So, the problem is this: We do not know the universe by means of our senses. Our senses are organs of our body, which reflect the impact of the universe on that sense-organ. But, what we think we see, hear, and so forth, is not the universe; it is the shadow of the universe, upon our sense capabilities.

This, then, results in experiments, such as Kepler's great experiment on developing the Solar System conception. If you realize that there are paradoxes, in the perceived scheme of things. In other words, if you imagine that the universe, the astronomic universe, appears to our senses as a Sensorium, a kind of interior surface of a sphere of undetermined, but very large radius. And you're looking at this motion of the stars, and these wanderers called planets and moons, in this process. So, you find out, there are errors, in the attempt to find a principle, which can explain certain motions in terms of a continuous function.

For example, you have, in the case of the universe, the Solar System, you have elliptical functions as orbits, with the Sun at one foci of the ellipse, one of the foci. The rate of motion, along the orbits, is never continuous: It's always non-uniform. So, from the standpoint of continuous function, there is no simple principle, which accounts for--especially for the Solar System as a whole. Especially for Kepler's statement--proven by Gauss--that there was a missing planet, which had to have existed in this universe in the Solar System. But the planet had to explode, because of its harmonic characteristics. And then, Gauss, in 1803, 1805, 1806, demonstrated that the orbit of Ceres corresponded to an exploded planet, which is called the Asteroid Belt, today. And, with the characteristics attributed to that missing orbit, by Kepler.

So, that's the universe, hmm? Anomalies. Then, we had the anomaly of quickest action, as first discovered by Fermat; developed by Huyghens and Leibniz, and becomes the principle of universal least action, with Leibniz. There are similar things. The world is full of anomalies, which do not correspond to a sense-certainty interpretation of the universe.

Now, that means we have two curvatures. One of is the curvature of the apparent curvature, the sense-certainty curvature, which is best estimated by this looking at the interior surface of a very large sphere. That's one geometry, which gives us the first order of the complex domain. But, the action which occurs along the trajectories, within this sense-perceptual system, is not explained in that way. Something else is acting, something we don't see, but which we can measure, as a physical principle.

So now, you have an intersecting curvature, at every point, say, along a trajectory. For example: The concept of gravitation, by Kepler, is acting from outside the sense perceptual universe, upon every known part of the motion, of the orbit along its orbital trajectory--the planet. You don't see it, but it's there. You can measure it.

So, this is the curvature, we're actually measuring. We're measuring an intersection of each of these principles, which is a curvature, which is acting--in this case, gravitation--continuously along the orbit. There's another curvature operating, which is regulating the orbit, as a non-circular orbit.

Now, you find another principle: That one also intersects every part of that orbit, of the sensorium. So therefore, you have two geometries: You have one geometry, which is the sense-perceptual geometry, which is actually is an anti-Euclidean geometry, not a Euclidean geometry. It's just a geometry of sense-perception, as the ancient Greeks saw it with a constructive geometry, as Archytas, and Plato, and so forth, saw it. We have the second geometry, which is a geometry of the physical principles, which, invisible to the senses, are nonetheless efficiently acting at every point of motion in the universe. This is a [tech?] curvature.

Therefore, you have what is called a Riemann Surface Function. A Riemann Surface Function has two characteristics: One, a function, which is the perceptual function, in the simplest approximation. Then, you have a different curvature, which intersects that perceived function, at every point in the perceived function, which causes the net result.

So, that's the way in which it has to be understood. This then, becomes the complex domain. It's the complex domain of the physical domain, which is the so-called "pure" Riemannian domain, in which there's nothing but physical principles acting on the universe. The other is the apparent effect of that Riemannian domain, upon the perceptual domain, which defines a Riemann Surface Function.

Now, you find the Riemann Surface Functions also occur at a higher level, in terms of domain beyond the perceptual domain; that, in the higher domain, there are also Riemann Surface Functions. And the point that people have difficulty in, is understanding, that there is an efficient relationship between an unseen set of curvatures, but which are efficiently measurable, but unseen, sensorily, and the sense universe, in which these unseen principles are acting to produce. So, the two.

And, the problem is just exactly that, the difficulty of people of bridging, of getting away from the idea of trying to explain everything from a plausible sense-perceptual or Cartesian manifold, and trying to stretch a Cartesian manifold, in the way that, for example Lobatchevsky and Jonas Bolyai tried to do. They came up with a so-called non-Euclidean geometry, which was an attempt to "correct" and stretch a Euclidean geometry, as a non-Euclidean geometry. The Gauss-Riemann geometry is not non-Euclidean: It's anti-Euclidean, in the sense, that it's based on a pre-Euclidean, constructive geometry, as specified by Kaestner. And what this has developed, in a succession of phases, largely through experiment, by Riemann, as a generalized Riemann Surface Function.

But, it involves both of these concepts, and the mind must get used to this way of thinking about the universe. That's the usual problem.

Question: Hello, I'm a recent graduate of Drexel University. Recently, I read and hear comparisons made between pre-World War II Germany, and events occurring in America, today. I would like to get your thoughts on a similar topic: Earlier, you mentioned FDR. And, before you arrived, we watched a taped speech, in which you discussed FDR, in more depth. I would like to get your thoughts on how, after the Japanese attack, FDR allowed the internment of thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent; and comparatively, after the recent attack, there was a passage of bills, such as the U.S.A. Patriot Act, that was railroaded through Congress? Thank you.

LaRouche: Okay, well, look at the totality of the picture, from this. There's a little-understood aspect of that part of history--the whole span, leading up to today. You don't understand today's living history, now, unless you understand the truth about that period of history: Coming out of the Versailles system, which was a horror-show, you had a faction in Europe, which then called itself the Synarchists, whose origins are traced directly to Napoleon Bonaparte, and which became known as Fascists, with the establishment of the Mussolini regime, by the French Synarchists.

These Synarchists were essentially a group of private bankers, typified by Lazard--you know, the banking house Lazard, in France, which is now the key bank in New York: Felix Rohatyn's bank. And Felix Rohatyn is one of the chief officials, of the Democratic Leadership Council--my enemy. In other words, we have fascist neo-conservatives, controlling the Democratic National Committee, through the DLC. These fascists, who are controlling the top of the Democratic Party organization, not necessarily the Democrats in the Congre ss and so forth, but this part--are the same thing, as the fascists associate with Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the neo-conservatives. They're exactly the same people. And, there's more to that, but that introduces the case. All right.

So, what we had, is, then, 1928-1933, we had a situation in the world, especially in Europe, which was comparable to the international economic situation today. The system of that time, which was the Versailles financial-monetary system, was collapsing, was in a terminal phase of systemic collapse, because of the way it was constructed. Just as now, the present IMF monetary-financial system, is the stage of terminal collapse.

Now, under these circumstances, then as now, the same group of people, called the Synarchists, then, and the Synarchists, now--sometimes called neo-conservatives--run by bankers from behind the scenes, some of the same bankers behind Hitler, now, as then; and sometimes they're called "socialists," "neo-conservatives," etc., etc.

What they said to themselves, is this: The financial system is going to collapse. What we have in the United States, and in Germany at that time, through a certain Wilhelm Lautenbach, a doctor of economics, who was one of the leading economic thinkers of Germany, who in 1931, presented a report on how to deal the Depression, through a program very much like that which Roosevelt conducted from 1933 on. They said, "To avoid that danger, that the general welfare principle will be applied by governments, to reform the financial-monetary system, in order to reverse the effects of economic depression," they said, "we have to stop that." "How do we stop that? With dictatorship." "How do we create a dictatorship?"  So, in that way, in January 1933, through financing from the Harriman firm, in New York City, under the direction of Montagu Norman, the former head of the Bank of England--and Harriman was a member of the same firm as Montagu Norman, which was called Brown Brothers Harriman, and the official, who did the job, in this case, was Prescott Bush, the grandfather of the present President of the United States. Prescott Bush, as an executive for Harriman, on the instigation of Montagu Norman, moved money out of the U.S. system, which was then the world's creditor for the Versailles debt; moved it into Germany, to save the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler, which in December of that year, was about to collapse, because they'd lost a major election.

Then, through this same operation, through Hjalmar Schacht, who was an agent of Montagu Norman, backed by the Harriman firm, and by the grandfather of the present President of the United States, the then-present Chancellor of Germany was thrown out, through blackmailing of Hindenburg, and Adolf Hitler, on Jan. 30, 1933 was appointed as Chancellor. He was then considered a joke, because he had no real base in the population, and they thought they'd be rid of him soon. But, then, on Feb. 27 of that same year, a fire was set at the Reichstag. Like Sept. 11, 2023, this terrorist event against the Reichstag was used to launch Hitler's dictatorship.

Now, in the United States, that didn't quite succeed. But, Dick Cheney, who had had his present policies, and who is a part of this fascist group, explicitly so, moved then.

The role of Japan in this is interesting: Modern Japan had been created, essentially by the United States. U.S. intervention, through Henry C. Carey, the leading economist of the world at that time, had caused the Meiji Restoration to create the modern model of industrial Japan: the Japan model, which we know today. But, then, in the 1890s, under the influence of the King of England, or the guy who was about to become the King of England, who was then the Prince of Wales, the Emperor of Japan launched the first of two Sino-Japanese Wars against China: 1894-95. Then, conquered Korea, and then moved on, under British direction, with the collaboration of the President of the United States, President Theodore Roosevelt, to launched the Russo-Japanese War. At this point, Japan was an ally of Britain, against about everybody.

Roosevelt's President: Japan launches an attack on Pearl Harbor. The attack on Pearl Harbor was well-known beforehand: You had the case of Gen. Billy Mitchell, who had warned, explicitly in his public trial, that he had developed the idea of carrier-based aircraft bombing of the Japan fleet, as a defense against the Japan war plan, for a naval attack on Pearl Harbor. Now, this was before the Japanese themselves had developed carrier-based aircraft--which they did very quickly after that period. So, the attack on Pearl Harbor was a plan which had been worked out during the early 1920s, between the British monarchy and the government of Japan, for a naval attack on the United States, to weaken the naval power of the United States, to guarantee Japan-British world supremacy in naval power. That's the setting.

Now, in this process, the United States, under Roosevelt, was going against Hitler. In 1936, it was apparent to Roosevelt, and to Churchill, that leading circles in France and Germany, were moving for an agreement between the fascists of England, of Germany, and France, for setting up a power, against the United States, in Europe. Churchill went to Roosevelt, with others, and begged for help in Britain's attempt to eliminate the fascist forces, which were taking power behind people like Lord Halifax in London, at the time.

Edward VIII was part of the Hitler/fascist conspiracy. As a result of Churchill's appeal to Roosevelt, Roosevelt prepared for World War II, expecting an attack on Pearl Harbor, by the Japanese, which had been part of the British-Japanese plan for the attack on the United States earlier. Changes were made, with U.S. support, in the British government, which eliminated the power of the fascists, which, at that point, included the power of Lord Beaverbrook; who was the mentor, who gave us Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black, who are press imperialists, here in the United States, today--backers of the neo-cons.

That's the general gist of the matter.

Nineteen forty-four: the United States is going into the Democratic nomination, that year. Wallace, who is Roosevelt's Vice President, is Roosevelt's choice for renomination as Vice President. The fascist faction, in the United States, knowing that the United States had won the war against Germany and Japan, in fact, already, moved to make sure that Roosevelt would not control the post-war world. Their calculation was based on two considerations: No. 1) That Roosevelt, who had suffered from poliomyelitis, was about to die--overwork and his medical condition. He was about to die. Poliomyelitis has this effect; it's a degenerative disease, which hits people more and more, as they get older, even though they had the thing under control. So, they put Harry Truman in, instead of Wallace, in anticipation of Roosevelt's early death, from known medical causes. I had some friends of mine, who told me about this, who were witnesses of this whole scenario. So, those were the circumstances.

Now, under these conditions, you had a grave injustice was committed against Japan-origin Americans. You have an imitation of that, in a much more hideous way, now, after Sept. 11, 2023, in which this time, the persecution is led by a fascist, who is Attorney General of the United States, John Ashcroft; who is a member of the neo-con Straussians, the same ones behind Cheney, led by the Cheney's wife, Lynne Cheney (she's the ventriloquist; he's the dummy, right?), and the whole crowd around them.

So, what we're on the verge of here, in the United States, is the danger, not of an injustice, like that does to the Japan-Americans, under Roosevelt, but a much worse thing, of a systemic injustice, a fascist regime, a concentration camp regime of the Hitler type, being pushed by Cheney, Ashcroft, and Company.

Therefore, we have to understand, this history, its complexities, its obscenities, and its truths. We have to know, this what we're up against and this is what we must stop.

That is why I must stop Cheney! Because the poor, dumb President is not the problem. He is a problem, but he's not the problem. He is not a fascist, he is only a fool--and a nasty-tempered one at that. And a dumb one.

But, Cheney is dangerous: Because Cheney is actually the equivalent of an instrument of a Nazi dictatorship over the world. He must be stopped. And, the one way to do it, institutionally, is to impeach the SOB. And once you get him out, you can get the rest out. And Bush will not be much of a problem--I can assure you of that! Because, I'm working on this thing: Without going into details, I'm on the inside of this effort, to get this guy impeached! And, I've been on it for some time. I know who's working against Cheney. I know what the forces are, and I think we've got the coalition of forces, which is about ready to do it.

The biggest problem we have, is not in the Republican Party. The biggest problem we have, is in the leadership of the Democratic National Committee, which is controlled by a bunch of neo-conservative fascists, such as Donna Brazile, who's part of it, controlled by the same people that gave us Hitler, in the 1930s.

So, that's the job. We have to do the job. That is why I concentrate on this job, the way I do. Because, this is a case, where you have to understand the history of a problem, to understand how to unravel it. It's like a military operation. It's not fought with guns. It's fought with diplomacy. It's fought with intelligence warfare. It's fought with politics. But, it's like a military operation: We have to flank this danger, and save the United States from a fascist takeover. And we have to do it over the opposition, the intentional opposition, of some fascists like Joe Lieberman, and the cowardice, the Hamlet-like cowardice, of Senator Kerry, and the foolishness of most of the other Democratic candidates, or would-be candidates.

That's the situation.

Yes, the case of the Japanese-Americans is comparable, but it's not the whole story. You have to situate this obscenity, in another obscenity--the one which is now--and the two are different. But, to understand both of them, and understand them clearly, gives you a very clear sense of what you've got to do. It's like fighting a war: Don't shoot the wrong person.

Question: Hello, I'm from New York. I had a question that I thought should be answered by you, because you have a tremendous effect on these people. You have not only their hearts, but their minds. And these are people who can think for themselves. We have a job to do, not only just to think and to improve the ones around us, this is idea of agape. And, in organizing, I see flaws, and within the organization I see flaws, which is going to be atrophic through this organization. And, one of them is this: I worked as a youth minister in my church for a few years, and I worked with organizing masses of youth, lots of youth, hundreds of youth; the effective ways, and I saw the uneffective ways. And what I see, sometimes, when it comes to organizing, is an attack on people, and their beliefs, or their axioms, instead of first, reaching to the part of them that is correct, instead of attacking the part of them that is incorrect. In agape, we see the attack of axioms, and the type of response of the people is to defend themselves; it produces an irrational response, which is they feel that they're being attacked. And, they no longer are thinking cognitively, but more they're acting in defense. And we see lots of people who walk away because of this. And, we even see people who actually get in the door, and leave right back out.

But, with love and sharing the sufferings of humanity, and relating to them about the issues that are happening, the inhumanity of society's leaders, generating a degenerate society, and because of this, the fact that we want to change this, not only for ourselves, but for our oikos, which is our friends, our families, our neighbors, our co-workers, anyone who's around us--another Greek word to use. And, another Greek word, kolonia [ph], which is the fellowship between man, and the improving of each other. This has to be improved.

So, to become truly effective, we have to destroy these things, and we have to tell people to help us destroy these things. I want to hear, from you, what is more effective way, to organize people, with this kind of agape love, instead of this attack on their negative issues, but to join up with the positive part that is in every man, that sooner or later brings them up to us. [applause]

LaRouche: Well, one of the problems in life, is that people have very strong negative beliefs, which are very destructive, and you must not compromise with them. The problem is, always you must have, you must always have a regard for the person, as human. And that must come through. If you have that, then you can be a very stern person, and very firm person. We have many people who turn against us, because of what we do, but then they come back to us. They come back to us, because they turned against us. Why? Because they knew they were wrong, and they came back.

So, what you have to do is, sometimes, be patient. People don't like what you say? Don't worry about it. If you are right, if your attitude toward them is right, don't worry about it! If they go away, if they scream, if they yell, so forth--that's all part of the process. Don't worry about it. [laughter] Because, if you are straight, many of them will come back to you, and they'll come back to you, precisely, and they'll say, "Look, I was wrong."

So, the point is, you've got to make the argument, in the best possible way. I think our people do better than anyone else in this country, on this matter. So, I don't have any complaint about it. And most of them are young people, who have come around, recently, and are trying to do the best they can. And, they work together. I find people working hard, young people working hard and long hours at night, discussing what they're going to do the next day, and so forth, and thrashing out these problems. It's a university on wheels concept.

Yes, you always have to have a motivation, of love of humanity, care for everybody. You try to save everybody. You want to pull everybody in. But you have to be, sometimes, tough, like a tough parent, who loves the children. Don't exploit them. Don't take pleasure, in beating on them. That's the mistake. What you have to do is say, "Look, let me convince you, you're wrong. That's impotent. You happen to be wrong. Want to find out why? I'll tell you. No secret. I'll share it with you. I think you'll agree with me, by the time I get through with you!" [laughing

No, it's just that attitude; it's a matter of attitude--you care. If you don't care, if it comes across you don't care, you want to spit on them, you're going to start a war. If you say, "Look, you're wrong." And you say it like this guy, "You can't deal with Cheney, you're wrong! You can't do it!" I said, "You have to: Do you want Adolf Hitler, running the United States? That's the problem! Are you willing to make the decision, not to go against Cheney, which would mean Adolf Hitler running the United States? You want that?" See you have to put on them, the responsibility for what they're proposing, and ask them if they want it: "Do you want a Nazi dictatorship in the United States? You've nearly got it; it's called Cheney."

"It's called the leadership of the Democratic National Committee. Donna Brazile, for example, so-called liberal. Oh, you'll find out what we've got on her--it's going to be published. You're going to find out! Really, you'll love it. We haven't determined her sex, but we have determined her politics."

- 30 -