LATEST FROM LAROUCHE
LaRouche in Italy Outlines Exit Strategy From War
by Claudio Celani
- Time for Mankind To Come Out of Childhood
LaRouche's speech in Rome on April 10
'Four Democratic Candidates Stand Out'
An interview with LaRouche on Italian TV
The LaRouche Youth MovementThe 'University on Wheels' in Ibero-America
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
Lyndon LaRouche gave this address on April 12 to scores of LaRouche Youth Movement organizers gathered simultaneously in Mexico City, and in Lima, Peru. His opening remarks were followed by a question-and-answer dialogue, part of which follows below.
So, I'll take two basic areas, fundamentally, plus another one, for opening remarks here. First of all, let me summarize the international situation, as I know it, uniquely well. So therefore, I should give the report, since I'm the only one who really knows what's going on in the world, as adequately as I do.
Secondly, I shall indicate the specific implications of a youth movementmy youth movementworldwide, for the global strategic situation, today. And by that, I mean to include also, specifically, most emphatically, Mexico and Peru, which are the two parts of the Ibero-American organization which have, in a sense, a mass base of membership, apart from this horrible situation which our people in Colombia are suffering, for example. Or the isolation in Venezuela.
First of all, the world faces the following problem: We're now at the endthe collapse phase, the final collapse phase of the international monetary-financial system, which has ruled the world since 1971, since August 1971. That financial-monetary system is now in economic collapse; it can not be reformed; it can not be saved. It's finished. And any attempt to continue that system would mean the destruction of civilization in a more general manner. That is, the plunge of the whole planet into a prolonged dark age, of one, two, or more generations. Therefore, that system: We must be rid of that.
There's another aspect to the system, integral to it. That is, the beginning, about 1964, of the unleashing of an existentialist movement, which, with the Vietnam War especially, in the aftermath of the 1962 Missile Crisis, the assassination of President Kennedy, the launching of the Vietnam Warat that point, internationally, the young people entering adulthood, or such as entering universities, in 1963-1964, were subjected in increasing degrees, to a countercultural development, which made the entire generationnot every person in the generation, but the generation as a whole, in the Americas, throughout the Americas, in Europe and elsewhere, especially in Europe and the Americas, entire generations have been subjected to a classical counterculture, which was sometimes called the "rock-drug-sex counterculture," sometimes, simply called the "Now Generation." This generation, which came into increasing influence, as adults, beginning about 1964-66, has been correlated with a transformation of society, especially the United States and the United Kingdom, but also then spreading into Europe and spreading into the rest of the Americas, a destruction of the culture, from a culture oriented to production, to a culture oriented to a post-industrial society, a post-production society, a so-called "consumer society," or Now Generation.
That is, the values of this generation, coming into adulthood, from the middle to late 1960s on, was toward getting immediate gratification, in the short term, in life, as opposed to having a higher purpose for their lives. That is, in former generations, we may not have had very moral people, but they had a certain kind of morality: that they looked at their lives in terms of what they did, while they were alive, to benefit their children, or their children's generation, and their grandchildren's generation. They also looked somewhat to the past, to see what their obligations were to the contributions made to them, and their development, from earlier generationsgrandparents, parents, and so forth. This sense of connection, this kind of approximation of a sense of immortality, which comes from the relationship of one generation to another, in the struggle for progress in the human condition, was broken by the Now Generation.
The No-Future Generation
Thus, we have now a generation, and take particularly, especially the 18-25-year-old generation, who see themselves correctly, as having been dumped by their parents' generation into becoming a no-future generation. Thus, you have the generation which is now in the topmost positions of government and business, with a few exceptions of older people and a few other exceptionsthis generation is indifferent and cold-blooded in respect to the conditions of life they are imposing upon the rest of humanity. They're concerned about their comfort, their generation's comfort, their pleasure-seeking, not humanity in general.
Now, this is a break in historical culture, which confronts a generation, notably exemplified by those between 18 and 25 years of age, where their parents' generation has betrayed them. And there is virtually no efficient communication between them and their parents' generation, on these issues. This is the Baby Boomer problem; in France they call them the "Bobos"; there are other names, sometimes, a little bit scatological, for the same generation, in other parts of the world.
This is a key problem. And it's this problem which has led to the rise of a new kind of fascism, which is characteristic, especially characteristic of this generation, the so-called "Bobo" generation, or Baby Boomer generation. This generation has adopted an existentialist view, which is what the meaning of the Now Generation is. They're concerned with their local interests, with their personal interests, with their personal satisfaction, at the expense of society at large. If they're taken care of, they're content. They say, "Don't talk to me about society at large. Talk to me about my community, my family, my immediate interests, my pleasure, my desires. Not about society."
Now this kind of existentialism, which corresponds to that of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and so forth, or Jean-Paul Sartre, has been a corruption spreading through the Americas, in particular, as well as Europe, for as long as I've known. Actually, you had it, for example, in Peru, you had the spread of existentialism in Peru among educated people. The spread of existentialism in the form of the followers of Jacques Soustelle and so forth in Mexico. So throughout the hemisphere, in particular, we've had the corruption, this existentialist corruption, which took root in the form of the so-called Now Generation, the generation which is now under 60 years of age, which is dominating the institutions of government, business, and so forth, in society. This is our problem.
If this generation, the Now Generation, the Baby Boomers, the Bobos, are relied upon to lead society now, with their sense of values, we are going into a dark age. We have to see what happened from 1971-on, to the present, that is, the collapse of the economy, through the existing monetary-financial system, as a product of this cultural paradigm shift, associated with the Baby Boomer generation, who were the people who were mass-recruited into this.
Now this kind of ideology is also fascism, the fascism which is typified by the case of Napoleon Bonaparte, who is the first modern fascist. The model for fascism is, of course, ancient Rome, the Rome of the Caesars, and Napoleon, of course, was an imitation of Caesar. That wasn't the only form of it. European monarchies, in the pre-Renaissance period, were essentially based, by and largethough there were struggles by Charlemagne and others, to change thisbut the monarchies were essentially based on a feudal conception, which was a copy of this Roman-Imperial Caesarism. And this was true of the kings of Spain, and the Hapsburgs, in general, and so forth. They were essentially pre-fascists. Later, with the decay of the monarchical system, the old feudal system, you had, beginning with the pivotal case of Louis XIV in France, who was a real pig, hmm?you had the emergence of Napoleon Bonaparte, who was originally a product of British intervention in the French Revolution. Napoleon Bonaparte is the first modern fascist.
And from 1806 on, Hegel became increasingly, not only an enthusiast for this fascist figure of Napoleon, but created a theory of society and the state, which is the basis for the threat to civilization today. This idea of Hegel was expressed by what's called "the end of history": that a time would come in history, when a great man would destroy the historical process of development of civilization, and give society a fixed form, that is, the end of history, under which great men, powerful men, would rule over the rest of society. This conception was developed further by Nietzsche, the idea of the Dionysian cult. That a new Dionysus must arise, who would destroy civilization, and would exert his power and influence by committing such crimes as would horrify and intimidate the rest of society. So society, under the influence of this "Superman," this man who is capable of crimes beyond all belief, would rule society.
This became the theory of modern fascism, based on Hegel and Nietzsche. This is what was developing toward the end of the 19th Century, and this is what developed in the 20th Century. This is Mussolini, this is Hitler. And this is also what is running, controlling the President of the United States at this moment. The group around Cheney, the followers of Leo Strausswhich I've covered in this, my part, and others, in this paper on "The Children of Satan." So these are the children of Satan, especially those who have come from the Baby Boomer generation, who have accepted existentialism, and because of their acceptance of existentialism, tend to be sucked into the kinds of ideas which are typified by the Cheney Chickenhawk layer. This is the threat to civilization today.
The Positive Alternative
We have a positive side to this picture, which is that the development of the idea of an economic alternative, a positive alternative to the collapse of the present world monetary-financial system. This solution for the present crisis, is presently centered in Eurasia, and is focussed upon the prospect of cooperation among France, Germany, and Russia, on the one side; and on Russia, China, and India, and other countries, on the other side. That is, we have a large part of the population of the world concentrated in Eurasia; also a large part of the world's land area, in the central and northern part of Eurasia, has some of the greatest mineral resources available on the planet. Europe is bankrupt; it needs expansion of its markets; these markets exist in Asia. And therefore, by the connection, a Eurasian connection of cooperation in technology-sharing and long-term projects of capital improvement, infrastructure, mean a solution for the economic crisis in Asia, if that is done properly. And the same thing, the same principle applies to the Americas. So the solution exists.
The opposition to the solution is what? Just as I said back in January of 2001, before George Bush was inaugurated, the danger at that time, was that the combination of these kinds of conditions, the breakdown of the economy, which was then fully in process, would lead to something like the Hitler phenomenon, where someone, as Montagu Norman and others did in the late 1920s and 1930s, would adopt a fascist movement, in this case, that of Hitler, and with financing from New York, from New York bankers, directed by British bankers, that they would put into power, a dictator, i.e., Hitler, in Germany.
Hitler was brought to power in Germany at precisely the point that Franklin Roosevelt, with his New Deal, and revival program, was on target for being introduced in March of 1933. Hitler was put into power on Jan. 30, 1933. Shortly, three weeks later, the Reichstag Fire was set by Goering, and then used to make Hitler a dictator. And therefore, when Roosevelt became President, Europe was on the road to war and dictatorship. And by the middle of the next year, World War II was inevitable, globally.
The danger, as I pointed out, in that address I gave before Bush's inauguration, is that the new administration were likely to head in a direction of continuing the foolishness of his policy, and at the same time, the opportunity would arise for somebody to do something like a Reichstag Fireto create a crisis in order to establish a dictatorship, and launch wars from the United States. That happened on Sept. 11, 2001: From the inside of the United States institutions, elements acting as Goering had in the case of the Reichstag Fire, set the equivalent of a Reichstag Firethe bombing of New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001. That immediately unleashed a program of fascist world conquest out of the mouth, and out of the circles, of Vice President Dick Cheney.
That's the problem we face. That's what you're seeing in the war in Iraq, and the threat to extend this war to other parts of the world. They're serious about it.
So, our fight against this kind of existentialism is not merely against them; it's the fight to introduce the alternative which can prevent their success. That is, if we do not proceed to conduct the kind of reforms of the international monetary and financial system that I proposed, then this world is going into a fascist hell.
Now, that does not mean that Cheney has succeeded. Cheney & Co. have recently made a terrible mess in the Middle East. They are great failures. They have succeeded in nothing, except in creating chaos. Their incompetence is obvious; their military plans were absurd and destructive. They have no solution for the crisis they've created. The President of the United States is in jeopardy because of this situation, which is going to become worse and worse as the weeks pass, unless some fundamental change is made.
The Role of a Youth Movement
Now, the question is: How are we going to introduce the change? And that's were you come in. That's where the youth come in.
Now, by yourselves, you, as younger people, say, the 18-25-year group, can't do muchby yourselves, as individuals. Or simply as attachments to existing political movementsyou can't do much by yourselves. But, you have a secret power: And the power is, that your parents' generations, which were, by and large, that is, the majority of the generation, is corrupt, morally corrupt, in the sense of being existentialist members of a Now Generation, having lost the sense of the future, which earlier generations of the same nations had. So therefore, what you represent: You represent the future. They have given you no future. You have no future under the continuation of the policies which your parents' generation has put into place. However, if you organize effectively, you can recruit your parents' generation to rejoin the human race, and you're the only ones that can really do it. Because they have to recognize that you, and your children, whoever they are, afterward, are the only future they have.
So that's the meaning of a youth movement in the first instance.
Now, how does a youth movement work?
In former times, you had a transmission of culture, sort of a traditional culture, from one generation to the next. A kind of traditional morality, from one generation to the next, varying from country to country, and culture to culture, and region to region. But it existed. And therefore, young people growing up would adopt and use the culture they had inherited from their circumstances or their upbringing. And that would give them a guide as to what was a truthful orientation toward building the future. Well, that has been broken; that link has been broken.
Now, how do you find a cultural basis for building the ideas on which to base a successful future of humanity? You have to go to the issue of truth. That is, you can no longer rely upon tradition; you can no longer rely upon popular opinionbecause those have broken down. Those will fail you. You must now go back to a Classical standpoint, and find a solution for morality in discovering what should be meant by truth, in the sense that Plato defines truth. And I've used in the United States and elsewhere, Gauss's 1799 refutation of the follies of Euler and Lagrange, by comparing these to the Classical Greek understanding of the notion of powers in mathematical physics, to give people a sense that they can discover and know what truth is, independently of whatever popular opinion might be. And that is what a youth movement needs.
Now, since people 18-25 years of age, or university agethey are not finished individuals. They are people whose minds tend to be open to discovering truth. And the way they do that is the way we do it in university. You have a class size which preferably is not more than 15-25 people, somewhere in that rangeenough people so that everybody in the class can participate in the discussion, and not so many that they're buried, and only a few people of the many can participate. That's a typical Socratic-dialogue type of group, which is what a good class is, and a basic university class is today.
The young people in that age group require that kind of association, of groupings who meet, regularly or periodically, about 15-25 people, approximately, who have enough interaction, and enough opportunity to interact as individuals, to actually engage in a Socratic process of mastering knowledge. In other words, a university on wheels, of people moving through society, acting politically, providing leadership to humanity, inspiring a generation which is about to go over the cliff, and all these things, but doing it in the way they were conducting experiments and studies in university life. That works. We have demonstrated it in the United States, in particular, and also, to some degree, in France, recently. That method works.
Now this is a new method, introduced by me, but it's not new in the sense of principle. These are the same principles on which every great movement for a renaissance has been based. Young people, of essentially that age interval, who meet and work together in mastering the great ideas of principle from past history, including especially, Classical Greek history, and in that process, they develop the strength to become a revolutionary force in ideas and politics, for making a great advance in the condition of civilization. Now that's what we're doing.
Good Beginnings
We have very good beginnings in the United States, which are a model for how to do it. I broke through the garbage that was running the United States, from the top down, from 1992, to about 2000-2001. I broke through that. We now have an organization that was a shambles, on the way to the garbage dump; we now have a healthy organization once again. We also have got the rebirth of something significant in terms of the Ibero-American organization. That is in process. The youth movement is the key to that. The youth movement is not youth attached to the previous organizational network or ideas. It is a new dimension in organizing, which requires guidance in the sense that the university classroom represents a place of guidance. But it represents a force, a social force, to rapidly influence, not only their own generation, but that of the previous generation.
We have a fair basis for this in Mexico. Mexico is the key in all Ibero-America, for such a youth movement. Peru is an example of a second case, where there is already something there to start this, and to spread it. Peru has a certain kind of integrity, an historical integrity, which gives it something like Mexico, different from Mexico, but like Mexico, a basis for this kind of thing. It will spread, and can be spread to other parts of the Americas. Without the conditions that exist in Colombia today, it would spread there. Argentina is ideal, except for the extremely oppressive conditions affecting the people theremakes it difficult. It's also a great potential in Brazil, and so forth and so on.
So, what you're doing now, in meeting in Mexico, with Peru on the line, and with the United Statesyou are representing an extension of my international youth movement. It's mine because I have to take responsibility for it, because I can keep you free of the grip of the Baby Boomers [laughing]: I have to protect you from the Baby Boomers. But you have to have guidance, at the same time. So you are the nucleus of a new, revolutionary organization, which is the best hope for the transformation of this planet. Look around you. You're a few people, but you represent that.
Okay, now we turn this back to you.
Dialogue with LaRouche
Question: I wanted to ask you your position regarding the Cuban government of Fidel Castro, the question of the blockade, and the anti-Castro mafia based in Miami. Thanks.
Lyndon LaRouche: I had an interesting discussion yesterdayI was in Rome, in the Vaticanon just this question of Castro. And this question has a very amusing side. That anybody who has any brains or sense of responsibility in the Americas, will always be willing to talk to Fidel Castroeven if you disagree with him, violently. Because Castro can be dealt with, if you proceed in the right way. Even when he disagrees with you totally. Even when you disagree with him totally. The Vatican has tried to deal with Castro in that waythe Pope and his immediate circlesand they've done a fairly good job. Carter tried to go down there and deal with Castro. The way we deal with Castro currently from the United States is idiotic. Yeah, Castro does represent problems. But Castro is also the head of state of Cuba, and Cuba is a nation. And we have certain power to influence the condition of life of Cuba.
Now, for example, let's take the case of something good that was done by Castro: In the 1980s, the early 1980s, I proposed a program for dealing with what is now called HIV, which is otherwise known as AIDS. My program was strongly destroyedthe effort initiated was destroyed in the United States very quickly. It was opposed in the World Health Organization, also. Fidel Castro, doing virtually exactly what I specified should be done, as the basic approach to health care, against HIV, had to deal with the spread of HIV into Cuba from people who were returning from the wars in Africa. And to this date, Castro has succeeded.
Now, at the same time, I have friends in Brazil. Friends in Brazil, associated with the scientific circles there, are one of the key resources for producing generic drugs, at low prices, with an orientation to provide these drugs to African nations, if that were possible.
So therefore, we have a practical reason for dealing with Castro on such things as his ideas, what his government has done with the question of HIV, is valuable for a world in which HIV is spreading rapidly.
Castro is also a factor in respect to what we have to deal with with Venezuela, and with Colombia, with the drug problems in Colombia. Therefore, we should be constantly in dialogue with him, to induce him to accept a good position on these matters.
We have the case of Lula da Silva, who I will not swear for, but he's President of Brazil now, and I respect the head of a sovereign country, elected President, such as Lula, and Lula and Carter tried to do something to avoid a bloodshed, outbreak of homicidal bloodshed in Venezuela. They may not have succeeded entirely, but it was a useful effort. Also, Carter's talking to Cuba, to Fidel earlier, was a part of the process enabling Carter and others to have a certain influence in Venezuela to try to prevent a bloody coup imposed by a U.S. or other military bunch of conspirators. The concern about Colombia is a concern to us.
So therefore, my view of Castro, is, rather than trying to be categorical about it, we should have very clear ideas about what we stand for, work for objectives that we stand for, and realize that we have two choices: First of all, we must try to deal with Castro, as with Cuba, as we would with any other state. We're not going to go into Cuba the way that Bush went into Iraq. We're not going in for regime-change by force. We will not go to war unless we have to, in unjustified warfare. Therefore, we deal with Castro because he is, presently, the head of government. We deal with him with a very clear idea of what our principles are and our concerns are. And we realize that we have resources, pressure resources, in which he can find it to his interest and Cuba's interest, to accept some of our strong proposals to him. The history of the relationship has shown that this is possible.
Therefore, we have to act like statesmen and diplomats, and deal with it, in a sense, the same way that the Pope and his retinue dealt with Castro on their visit to Cuba, and from abroad. That's exactly the way to approach it. We do not wish to have a war in the hemisphere. We have enough of a problem with this war on drugs. Admittedly, Castro has a certain relationship to that. We have to deal with this, to find a solution; we want a minimal war solution. And if we can get Castro to cooperate, in terms which are acceptable to us, we're very happy. And that's the way we have to approach this kind of problem, realizing that the choice is either war, or finding effective diplomacy to solve problems.
I believe that we have the resources, if we use them. If I were President of the United States, I could deal with this problem. We have the resources of diplomacy to deal with the problems of Cuba, and of Castro; in such a way, we can live with it.
LaRouche: The President in the Wings
Question: Hello to the international LaRouche movement. I'm a representative of the Youth Movement in Peru. My question is the following: We have already had a war which is not over, and which is clearly going to have terrible ramifications for humanity. I understand that we know the work that we are doing internationally against this accursed war, against this accursed system, is being waged with all of our forces. I would ask Mr. LaRouche whether he, as an aspirant to the U.S. Presidency in 2004, if he wins, what forces, or shall I say what countries, could we pull together to get us out of this international crisis, where the law has definitely been trampled, and respect for sovereignty endangered? Which are the countries that in some way might have a world geopolitical vision, as the U.S. will most certainly have when Mr. LaRouche wins the U.S. Presidency? Thanks.
LaRouche: Well, I'm not waiting to be President; I'm already acting on this now. As you may have observed, that there is a tremendous amount of opposition [to the war] in relevant circles, associated with some political party circles, and associated with institutions in and around the Executive Branch of government inside the United States. These are people with whom I have shared information, and have shared views and proposals, on trying to prevent what has become this present Iraq War, and similar things. This includes people who have high rank in many of the institutions associated with governmentin government and associated with government.
So I have no problem with this: That were I President, I know now that I would have the backing and cooperation from within the ranks of government to do the things that I know need to be done. That does not mean the government would follow out my orders automatically. The government doesn't work that way. But it does mean that the conceptions which I stand for do have receptivity in a predominant number of leading circles inside the United States on this level. So I don't have a problem with this. It's not a hypothetical question.
What I'm doing now is, I'm acting on the basis of the recognition in circles inside and outside the United States, that I have that kind of influence and position. Now, this is a position of limited strength, of limited authority. But it's the best the United States has right now. If you take my candidacy for President, and you look in the two major party systems, you look among the candidates, you look in the Congress, you look in the institutions of leadership in the United StatesI'm the only competent leader in the situation. And more and more people in leading positions are recognizing that fact.
There is no candidate who is rival to me in the Democratic Party who could possibly face the problems that face the United States and the world right now. We have one or two candidates, for example, Kerry from Massachusetts, the Senator, and some other individuals who might be good leaders under normal conditions, and might be useful co-leaders under present conditions. I mean, one of them might be a good Vice President for me, in the future! But we don't have people who are qualified to understand and face the issues now. I'm the only one that does.
Therefore, I am acting as a President in the wings, a shadow President, as the alternative. I'm providing leadership internationally, as well as in the United States, for bringing certain forces together, either for developing ideas which will solve problems, in the general case; or in some cases, for actual ideas for action now. So that's my position.
In the case of the Americas, obviously: You go back to 1982; I wrote a report which was actually associated with this situation in Argentina and in Mexico then. It was called Operation Juarez . Now if you look at that report from then, and look at the conditions today, you see the report, in some respects, was rather prophetic, and is not only prophetic, but gives you a general map, a policy-making map, if not finished policies, for what we have to do immediately.
We've had a long story also, in our struggles, against the drug problems in Central and South America, in particular. We know how to deal with these problems. We have longstanding friends who share, more or less share our views on these questionsgovernments which share our views. On the economic questions: There are forces in every part of South and Central America; I could name for example, Peru, formerly. We have Mexico, I mean, we're very close to a major current in Mexico's political historythey're sympathetic, if they don't always agree with us, they're sympathetic. If I'm in power, they will cooperate with me, and I will cooperate with them. We have the situation in Colombia: Many of us share that view of what has to be done about that problem.
Brazil: A major power in the hemisphere. Leading forces there do know me. They know me very well. If I'm in a leading position, they'll be much happier to work with me than with the alternatives presently available. Argentina? Hah, no problem! And so forth and so on. So, what I'm doing now, is essentially doing now, as much as I can, what I would do in the future as President. And I'm acting now, not with the idea of waiting to become President to do these things, but as a President in the wings, a shadow President of the United States. The only qualified candidate for President of the United States at this time. I am moving, as much as I can, to put into motion the things I would do, say, in the year 2005.
Classical Art Is Essential for Humanity
Question: Good day. I am a collaborator of the LaRouche Youth Movement here in Peru in the field of music. I would like to know how we can adapt musical education to a system of a "university on wheels"? That is, what suggestions could you give me, Mr. LaRouche, on how to include musical education in the Renaissance Platonic tradition, within a course of study?
LaRouche: Well, first of all, we start with the Pythagorean version of the Classical tradition, which I'm sure you know: That the difference between the characteristics of the human singing voice and a monochord, which is the experiment conducted, as reported by Pythagoras, in which he defined the "comma," not as a mathematical figure, calculation, but as a measurable difference between the singing intervals, various intervals in the bel canto mode in the human voice, as opposed to the intervals as defined by the plucking of the string of a monochord. Now, that's one example of it.
However, the difference goes deeper, as you know. The difference in the Classical musical tradition, especially since the developments in Florence, and so forth, in the 15th Century, and the lost, or partly lost work of Leonardo da Vinci, "De Musica." We go into the great work of Bach, which of course is the modern revolution in music, because Bach gave us a demonstration of the perfection of the methods of counterpoint, which are consistent with human singing, and with the spectrum of the range of human singing voices. What this does: Music is a medium, not as a form of entertainmentthough it is entertainment, like great Classical drama, like great Classical poetryand music is actually a higher form of great Classical poetry, in which the human being, instead of looking at a figure on a stage, for example, is inspired by a good performance to look quickly from the stage, to the stage of the individual's imagination. And in this way, the individual is able to communicate human ideas. It can not be done without that medium. The great operas, the great solo works, choral works, and so forththese are examples of an expression of man's humanity: the difference between man and the beast. And the essential power in politics, the power of the individual and the group in politics, is a conviction, an understanding, a confidence in the difference between man and the beast. All political movements are based on that.
Thus, Classical art, as typified by Classical painting, Classical musical composition and its performance, Classical poetry, the great painting, the kind of sculpture which is typified for modern times, by the Classical Greek sculpture. These kinds of things are essential to humanity, and political movements which have any basis in depth, will always base themselves on a deeper understanding, and participation in this kind of Classical art.
We're Out To Save Civilization
Question: I study in the humanities department of the UNAM. I would like to know, Mr. LaRouche, if the youth do not become aware of the historical role we must play at this moment, and that guided by you, as the only candidate ready to do something for the situation or for the world crisis which we are facing, can we say that we are facing World War III?
I also want to know if you are ready to change the way in which the communications media has invaded the minds of the youth with subversive and dangerous subliminal messages, like sex, drug addiction, anti-family values, and morals that have produced, just as you say, youths' indifference to world problems and a search instead for personal gratification. Thank you.
LaRouche: Yes! Well, the basic point is, we have tomy job is to get this kind of movement in motion. There's no particular problem here. We just have to do it. We can reach out. We can inspire people to find their humanity in themselves. We get away from existentialism into this sort of thing, and that's the way it goes. The Youth Movementit's almost sui generisif we don't do this, if we don't make this kind of change in society, there is going to be a new dark age, of two to three or more generations. Because the present civilization is a very fragile, physical civilization. It would not take much collapse, for long, to set forth a chain-reaction collapse, which would bring us down into a population level well below a billion people on this planet, in a very short period of time, a generation or so.
Now that kind of calamity means the wiping out of culture: It means a new dark age. If we don't turn the corner away from the trends and policy of the past 40 years, that's exactly where we're going to go. So we're out to save civilization. And my view is, only a youth movementfor reasons I stated earlieronly a youth movement can do this. That is, a youth movement which can itself challenge the preceeding generation, the so-called Now Generation, and challenge them to come back to humanity. To come back to morality, in the sense, that you pose the question of morality. And on that basis, we have a sufficient force to respond to an impossible crisis, with possible solutions.
We have to develop that kind of consciousness, that kind of leadership. That's why I emphasize this idea of the role of the university on wheels. There are profound ideas, such as I raise in this question of this Gauss challenge on the errors of Euler and Lagrange. And the comparison of that, to the work of Archytus and Plato and so forth, on the issue of the early physical geometry, pre-Euclidean physical geometry, as brought into modern times by Gauss and Riemann and so forth. That this kind of educational process, this mastery of music, Classical music, the mastery of what is meant by great Classical painting, the work of Leonardo da Vinci, the work of Raphael Sanzio, the work of Rembrandt, especially. I particularly love, I think is most inspiring, is the famous painting of the Bust of Homer looking at the stupid Aristotle, the blind Aristotle, of Rembrandt. Beautiful example. Other things of that sort.
So, a sense of this education, with no division between art and so-called physical science. Bridging it, in the way that Classical studies do, the way that Plato does, in a sense, in his dialogues, overall. The idea of spirituality, of theology, of the organization of nature, of the Classical composition of ideas, as being distinctively human: These things going together create a kind of happiness, a superior kind of happiness, in people. And the essential thing is, we have to be a movement for happiness, with a clear understanding of the danger to civilization if we lose; that is, we do not reverse the current trends in policy. That for me, is the essence of the matter.
The main thing, is to get acrosslet me just take one step back, and addI've said it so many times, I sometimes forget to say it again: The essential difference is the difference between man and an animal. That is, man is not limited, as an animal, to some fixed propensities. For example, if man were a higher ape, the population of human species on this planet, the past 2 million years, would never have exceeded several million individuals. We now have over 6 billion human individuals living on this planet. The possibility of this population flows from discoveries transmitted from generation to generation, improvements transmitted from generation to generation, which give man an increasing power in the universe.
But the problem has been, as the problem arises again today, that in society, prior to the Renaissance, in particular, in every case we know, society was based on an oligarchy of a few, with the help of some lackeys, either coming down and killing human beings who are treated as wild animals, or taking human beings who are treated as human cattle, and herding them, and culling the flocks. So the problems with society earlier, as Plato's time addressed this question, the question of slavery, the question of degradation of mankind, is the degradation of humanity, or most of it, to a condition which resembles that of an animal, an unthinking animal, who does what he's supposed to do, and is culled when he becomes excessive in numbers.
So this consciousness of what humanity is: Getting Classical music into the young child, say in Mexico, the young, poor child from a peasant family, participating in Classical music, is an affirmation of that child's humanity, and of the humanity of that child's parents. So all of these things go together, by affirming the humanity of the human individual, in saying that society must be constituted on the basis of promoting the humanity, and the development of the humanity, of the individual. If we start from that, all things fall in place. The rest of it is simply practical strategy.
The American System...
Question: I'm from the Polytechnic Institute [of Mexico]. My questions is: How can we make our opinion about the economic crisis the world is facing be more widely known? Because speaking of a situation since 1971, as you have just now, where the United States, as far as I know, put its currency above money in generalthat is what I have understoodand in this way has succeeded in buying and handling everything on the basis of dollars, and making its currency the one that grows, and in this way, ruling.
I understand that oil is also being bought in dollars and that in this same way, the other countries have to invest their wealth, their money, in buying dollars, getting rich in a "virtual" way. Well, anyway, that's more or less what I'd like you to expand on, this business of the "virtual" dollar and if it's real.
LaRouche: Look at the problem of European nations, for example, today. It makes clear what the problems of the United States are. Europe, coming out of the Renaissance, particularly after the Treaty of Westphalia, which was, in a sense, the rebirth of European civilization, after the intervention of Cardinal Mazarin, together with his associate Colbert, in the situation of the Thirty Years War and the aftermath. This was the beginning of a European civilization, a European-wide civilization. So, out of that, you had a problem. Europe was so corrupted by various traditional influences, such as the Hapsburgs, and such as the Venetian crowd, as such, that it was impossible, it was thought, during the 17th and 18th Centuries, to create a true republic in Europe, as had been intended by, say, Nicholas of Cusa, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, and others in the 15th-Century Renaissance.
So therefore, the leading minds of Europe, concentrated on North America, in particular, for the launching of what would be, presumably, a model, true republic, which could then inspire Europe to copy that model. What happened during the course of the 18th Century, after some influence in that direction from Leibniz to the Mather family, as with Cotton Mather and so forth, is that there was a more strenuous effort to bring the culture of Europe, the best culture of Europe, into play among the circles struggling for independence inside North America, the North American English-speaking colonies. This was basically a relationship between a fellow called Abraham Kästner, a leading scientific figure at the University of Göttingen, in Germany, and Benjamin Franklin, the leader of the independence forces inside the United States, or what became the United States.
On this basis, the United States developed a republic, whose essence is expressed by the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, which defined three principleswhich are rather popular among the patriotic circles of Mexico as well. Number one: that the nation and its people are sovereign. That is, there is no external authority over their administration of their own affairs, among their own people, in their own territory. Secondly, that government is not legitimate, unless that government is efficient in its promotion of the general welfare of all of the population. Third, that the present generations' government is not efficient if it does not promote the general welfare of posterity more than even the living generation.
So, what happened in Europe was this: As a result of the British intervention in the French Revolution, in the form of Philippe Egalité and Jacques Necker, who were both British agents, to create the orchestration of the July 14, 1789 Bastille event, which was a British intelligence operation, which destroyed much of the capability of Bailly and Lafayette to establish a monarchical republic, consistent with American principles, in France. France degenerated through the Jacobin Terror, and through the fascist regime of Napoleon Bonaparte, and thus, Europe was thrown back. There was an effort from various quarters, especially the Prussian Classical effort in Germany, to establish a true republic on the American-style model. That failed at the Treaty of Vienna, in 1814-15.
...vs. The Anglo-Dutch Liberal Model
So as a result, what had happened, was that Venice had taken the Venetian model, which is of a state, a maritime power, with imperial tendencies, based on control by a financier oligarchythe so-called Venetian Republicand this model of Venetian Republic was transplanted into the Netherlands, and into England. Over the course of time since, European governments have evolved into what is called the Anglo-Dutch Liberal model. The Liberal model of this form: First of all, it is based on a monarchical principle left over from feudalism; that is, the concept of the President or Monarch as head of state. That the government, and much of its detailed executive functions are assigned to a parliament, a parliament which really does not have real control over the future. You have a third institution, which is called an independent central banking system, as opposed to a national banking system, which exerts veto power over the government, and often overthrows governments it doesn't like, through parliamentary crises.
So the general model of society, which is accepted as the "liberal" model of society, or the "democratic" model of society, is this Venetian model, which is based on a government, that is, an executive branch of permanent institutions of government; a parliament, which is easily destabilized by financial and other crises, or by bribing; and then, a central banking system, which is independent, which is actually the agency of financial interests, foreign and domestic.
So this has been the major problem. The United States has suffered from the influence of what is called the American Tory faction, which represents this Anglo-Dutch Liberal model. This is associated with Wall Street, which is an example of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal model. The crisis of the world financial system today is the impositionespecially after the death of Roosevelt, and especially after the events of 1971the imposition of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal model, as a model of real tyranny. That's what we're struggling against.
Now, what's the issue? The issue of money versus economy. Economy should be understood to mean, primarily, the welfare of the individual member of society, that is, the general welfare, both for the present and the future. And also, the sovereignty of the nation-state, of the republic. This means something that is measured in physical terms: that is, in terms of longevity; in terms of health care; in terms of physical productivity per capita; in terms of capital improvements in the capacity of society, in land reclamations, improvements and so forthall physical things which can be measured per capita and per square kilometer.
So therefore, the policy of society should be to realize economic objectives which are physical in nature, if we include culture as one of the physical benefits in nature. Therefore, how do we run a money-economy in such a way that we achieve physical benefits? We have to put the money system under control of government. We do that in several ways: We do it by national banking; that no debt can be incurred by a nation's government, except by its consent. In the U.S. Constitution, this means that the Executive Branch can create currency and debt, but it must do so with the consent of the Congress. Among nations, we also add another feature, that governments can enter into treaty agreements affecting trade, and these long-term treaty agreements can be used as credit among nations to promote growth among nations, also, as well as generating credit from with governments.
So what we have to do then, is to realize, as the past 30-odd years should have shown, is where we had a great increase in financial aggregates, and a galloping and accelerating increase in the amount of money emission, or near money emission, accompanied by a decline, especially in the Americas, of per-capita, per-square-kilometer physical production. So therefore, what is needed, as we used to understand, is government must not only regulate its currency, it must regulate the uses of currency, and regulate the financial practice within society, in such a way, that the monetary and financial assets do not run away from the reality of the physical assets. And that's the basic problem in economy.
So therefore, what we did in the postwar period, under Roosevelt, was to launch a Bretton Woods system, which regulated the world economy's relations in such a way as to promote reconstruction in Europe, and expansion of the economy in other places. We see this, for example, in the case of Mexicothat despite all the problems of the U.S.-Mexico relations during the postwar period, the post-Roosevelt period, we see that there is a secular tendency toward improvements, physical improvements in Mexico, which began to be reversed in 1971, but conspicuously from 1982 on. So therefore, the rules, protectionist rules, by which the Mexican government, in international relations, could regulate its internal affairs, were removed. And thus, we have now a predatory financial interest, and predatory monetary interest, have been looting Mexico and the other countries of the Americas.
Our problem now, is to simply recognize these principal differences, and go back in the first approximation, to what did workthat is, the idea of a regulated international monetary system, and monetary forms, and to financial controls, and trade and tariff agreements, which insure that the flow of money produces a result which is in conformity with the intention of society to improve the physical conditions of life.
A Hunger for Beauty
Question: I am from the LaRouche Youth Movement in Peru, and I want to ask Mr. LaRouche, how can we make aesthetics a part of our daily lives? Thank you.
LaRouche: Ah! This is very good. I try to do that. It's a struggle, but I try to do it. I insist on music; I insist on poetry; I insist on being serious about music and poetry, in the Classical sense. I insist upon people being serious about art, in a Classical sense.
For example, I've often used with the youth movement, who really have not been much exposed to Classical art as a concept, the connection among several things: First of all, what is the difference between the Archaic method of sculpture, as known to Greece and to Egypt at that time, with what became known as the Classical Greek method of sculpture, Classical Greek method meaning a figure, say, a human figure, caught in mid-motion, and effectively so represented by a statue?
Then you to into the 15th Century, and you go to Florence; in that period, there was a cathedral, Santa Maria del Fiore, which had been established, but without a cupola. The problem was, the designers of this cathedral had intended to build a cupola of that cathedral which would be greater than the cupola of the Pantheon in Rome; that is, the idea that: to affirm Christianity's superiority to pagan pantheism. But they couldn't construct it with the existing methods. So along came Filippo Brunelleschi, who took the contract, and said, "I can solve the problem."
The problem was that they couldn't get enough timber available to build a cupola, by then generally accepted methods of construction. He built it. And I had great fun with that, because I solved the problem; and I've had my solution confirmed by a leading Italian engineer: that the principle of the catenary, the principle of Leibnizian least-action, was used through the form of the hanging chain, to enable this construction to be built with economical use of building materials.
So now what we have, therefore, you have this beautiful cupola, which has two walls, inner and outer wallsyou can walk up the steps inside it, if you need the exerciseit's good for you. It's a beautiful cathedral, with many wonderful artworks, which represent the Classical tradition. But the key thing is this: The principle of the catenary, which is known also as Leibniz's principle of universal least-action, and the principle of Classical Greek sculpture, the principle which is praised by John Keats with his "Ode on a Grecian Urn," of somethinglife in motion, frozen in motion for eternity. That idea of sculpture; that idea of painting, in the greatest paintingsthe work of Leonardo da Vinci, the work of Raphael, the work of Rembrandt. The same principle is applied in a different way in the system of Bach, as appreciated by Haydn in a certain degree, especially from his studies of Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, as a young man; the work of Mozart, especially from 1782 on; the compositions of Beethoven, of Schubert, of Mendelssohn, of Schumann, and Brahms. These greatest compositions all involve an expression of this same principle.
So you have, in this approach to art; the approach to music, both as sung music, and as instrumental music of Classical form; the approach to sculpture; the approach to construction, and so forththese things are unified. They're unified with the ideas of universal physical principle. They unify what we call "art" and "science" in one conception which is a humanist conception of man, as in the Classical humanist conceptions of the 15th Century.
So, if one participates in the experience of these aspects of culture, as something which must be experienced simultaneously within any individual's mind and experience, then we have a Classical conception of ourselves, as an individual within society, and then we are unified, rather than being, as otherwise tends to be the case, fragmented. So this is the necessity, to do this, not because we have to learn this, or learn that, or learn this, but because we need to feel a rounded sense, emotionally, intellectually, of what it is to be human, as opposed to being an animal. We hunger for that realization, especially in times of crisisa sense of our identity as human. And it's the strength of identity, so encouraged, that gives people the strength to face the great challenges of leadership in society.
What Ever Happened to 'Cold Fusion'?
Question: If, in the technological process in Peru, they could create a kind of nuclear plant, and use cold fusion for agricultural activities becauseas I understand itwith cold fusion, you can produce a great quantity of energy, and the cheapest fuel is sea water. And I don't know if it can be done here, and where things currently stand with advances in cold fusion that are being worked on in the United States, and if there is a serious program to study it. I don't know that they are doing this now in the United States, and if it could be done in other countries, like Peru. Thank you.
LaRouche: Well, look, the idea of cold fusion as a source of energy was generally much exaggerated and misinterpreted. Cold fusion, so called, was actually a branch of physical chemistry, an anomaly in physical chemistry, which goes with a certain part of the Periodic Table, in the area of platinum and palladium very specific effect. It's extremely important, because there are certain aspects of the concept of the Periodic Table which are unresolved to the present day.
I have a friend of oursLarry Hecht has been involved much with this. He's trying to continue the work in a new direction of an old friend of ours, [Dr. Robert Moon], who did a lot of work in this area of physical chemistry, who died in 1989. So, we're continuing this.
So, experimentally, for fundamental scientific questions, what is called cold fusion, involves types of experiments, which have been understood, in part, since at least the 1920s, and are extremely important. The idea of using this as a substitute source of power is a mistake. It has a significance which we do not yet understand, though we understand the questions which these experiments tend to get into.
What we do have, is we have presently, we have very effective designs of high-temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactors, fission reactors. These run, in the present design, which is the so-called Jülich design from Germanythis design runs from about 120 to 200 megawatts of power. They are self-regulated in the sense that when the heat rises, the temperature rises in the reaction, that slows down the reaction automatically, keeping the weight of reaction within certain limits. Because the power is small, less than the 1.2 gigawatt type of reactors, and because it's much cheaper to construct these, because when you construct the big reactors, you have to do a lot of curing of concrete, which would take three to five years to cure the concrete, of simply the reactor. And often, you want a reactor much sooner than that.
So with a smaller, gas-cooled reactor of this high-temperature type, you can do several things. First of all, you can produce power. And you can produce power without the cost of transportation of coal or oil or so forth. And without the pollution effects. Also, not only can you produce power, but with a high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor, you can produce fuel. You can produce fuel, for example, from water. You can produce hydrogen-based fuels, by disassociation of water. These fuels then can power motor vehicles, trains, aircraft, and so forth. The wasted power from such facilities can be used as useful power, for heat, for desalination, and so forth, all these kinds of things.
So therefore, for a country like Peru, with its particular terrain, such reactors are ideal, because they permit us to set up new communities, which are, in a sense, self-powered, in that sense. If you need a gigawatt, you use four or five of these different, individual plants, which go up quicker, they're easier to maintain, the safety problems are much less, because when they have a problem, they shut down automatically, until the engineers can come in to fix the problem, or melt on you. So these are ideal.
So right now, I think the right is, for a country like Peru, and so forth, is to have the right to build and acquire such facilities, to train Peruvians in the development and use of such facilities, to use the existence of such facilities to create a more educated engineering cadre in the sciences. And to create new branches of industry, and so forth. So this is what I think we should be looking at. And we also need a conception of this throughout the Americas.
For example, you take the case of Brazil. It's a related case. Brazil is a place which needs precisely such types of reactors. It's a vast area, relatively, much of it very thinly populated, so you're going to build concentrations of population in urban centers, within Brazil. Therefore, this is the type of reactor combination you need. Now, if Brazil needs it, and other countries in the Americas have a similar need, then, obviously, this is a technology which should be characteristic of South America. It should also be characteristic of Mexico. So we should have the technology, we should share it, we should use it. And as far as the so-called cold fusion, we have to continue, as our friend Larry Hecht is doing, to put forward this work of our friend from Chicago [Dr. Moon], and get this research on the nature of the nuclear structures worked through, the so-called Archimedean solid method done.
But the cold fusion should be looked at as an area of experiment of which a certain mythology was built. It has a very specific significance in physical chemistry. That should be pursued. It may lead to who knows what benefits. We should seek those benefits, but in the meantime, we should concentrate on, right now, the fission we have.
'The Children of Satan'
Question: My proposal would be: We have entitled our cadre school, "Stop the Imperium Insanum with a New Bretton Woods." With the war against Iraq, a world empire has been practically installed: My question thus, is, what chances are there for nations like Germany, France, Russia and China to lead the world to a New Bretton Woods? With you in the White House it would be easier, but we need it now! Thank you.
LaRouche: [Laughs] Yes. Absolutely true. Even without the White House.
The first thing you doI don't know if you've all seen this transmission; I know it's been done in English; I don't know if it's been done in Spanish yeton "The Children of Satan." Now, this pamphlet, or pamphlet length, which is on the Internet siteI know in English; I don't know if it's in Spanish yetthis is a compilation of several pieces, including one by me, on the question of the issue of the authors, inside the United States, who have authored this imperial policy of warfareof international fascism, world fascism, is what it really is called. And so, much of the questions in this direction should probably refer to the content of that report, entitled, "The Children of Satan."
Now, I'll add one thing to it, which is extremely important. I referred to it earlier, but just in case you have not read that report, let me just summarize it here, as part of the answer.
You have a group whose birth was in Nazi Germany, or pre-Nazi Germany, but from the same sources as the Nazis. They were existentialists. They are typified by a man who became a professor at the University of Chicago, who came from Marburg, GermanyLeo Strauss. Now this group of people were trained under Strauss, in successive generations: There's now a total of four generations. These are the people who are the controlling influence, the so-called Neo-Cons, the Chickenhawks, who are controlling the President of the United States, currently, in the war policy just expressed by the war against Iraq. These people are fascists; they intend to set up a world fascist system, with all of the evil qualities of Hitler's fascism, but going a bit further.
Now, what the pamphlet does, is describe these people, and the thing to bear in mind is the ideology. People often look at something and say, "These people are bad because they do this, A; they do that, B; they do this," and so forth. That's not the way to understand evil. That may define bad acts, objectionable acts, but that doesn't tell you what evil is. Because evil is something deeper than simply bad practices or bad habits. It's a state of mind, a desire to do evil.
Now, where this particular kind of evil came from, it came out of, in particular, the ancient cult of Dionysus in ancient Greece; but it came more specifically, more immediately, from the aftermath of Napoleon Bonaparte's dictatorship (we could probably compare him to Maximillian, who was one of the successors to Napoleon Bonaparte, in a very meaningful way). But, Hegel, in the success of Napoleon at the Battle of Jena-Auerstadt, became a Romantic enthusiast for Napoleon Bonaparte, and made a theory, which he developed, based on his almost sexual obsession, admiration for Napoleon Bonaparte, the Emperor. This became Hegel's theory of the state and of history. In Hegel's state, came the idea of "the end of history": that is, a stage of mankind where history stops; that is, the development of mankind, in the historical sense, ceases, and a fixed world order comes into existence, a permanent world order of mankind, which we call today, fascism. That is Hegel's theory of the state.
Now Nietzsche's theory of the state and society is an elaboration of Hegel's, which is based on this idea of the "superman," a man who comes in a period of great crisis for humanity, is able to seize power in humanity, by committing an act so monstrous, so evil, that humanity gets down on the ground and begs for survival at his mercy. This is the mentality of the people around Leo Strauss. This is the mentality of the Chickenhawk crowd. This is what we're up againstnot just ordinary corruption, but this kind of evil, which you've seen manifested in the pushing for the war against Iraq, against the United Nations, and so forth and so on.
So that's our key problem.
The Nature of the Enemy
What we have to do therefore, is we have to understand the state of mind of this kind of evil, not just to observe this evil. We have to understand how it works. We have to recognize it. We have to recognize what kind of behavior it generates, and where that comes from. And therefore, when we produced this report, it was to show people not that the Bush Administration is bad, or that the people controlling Bush presently are badthat's one thing. The point is, we have in society, we've had for a long period of time, a nest within the U.S., which has produced four generations of Utopians, all headed in this direction, who have gotten increasing power in our universities, increasing power in our institutions, but are now a bunch of lackeys, academic-type lackeys, who control the government of the United States, from the top. It's a small group, relatively speaking, which could be pushed out of power rather quickly. But we have to understand what the nature of this enemy is, and we have to understand what is wrong with society, that society allows such an evil to come into such prominence, and to gain such influence.
That is one of the functions which I've projected for the youth movement, in the case of the Gauss: That if you understand what this Gauss issue is, as it is expressed in the 1799 paper, as it echoes the propositions developed by Archytus, and by Plato earlier, on the question of the elementary principles of physical geometry, then, you get a sense of how the human mind is organized. And the secret of real politics is to understand one's own mind, and the mind of others, by understanding how the mind is organized, how the human mind is organized, as distinct from the animal mind. And that's what's crucial. That's what I hope we can get across in the process of discussion of the youth movement, as opposed to what normal politics are considered to be.
|