The Coming Pearl Harbor Effect

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

August 30, 1997

Part II:  Carnot's revolution in France

How does this work? Let's take the next one (see Figure 4). Beginning, essentially, in 1793-94, a revolution was made in France. It was not the French Revolution, which was bad. It was a revolution made by a man in France, who was known as the Organizer of Victory. France was invaded by foreign armies. It was on the verge of being crushed and dismembered as a nation, and Lazare Carnot was appointed to head the military forces of France. And Lazare Carnot made a revolution in warfare, and in economy, within a two-year period, which culminated with Robespierre and Saint-Just losing their heads. 

Now, this was not entirely successful in France, because there was a fellow called Barras, who was a very evil fellow, who took over France at that point, and brought in Napoleon Bonaparte as his protégé. So France was not a very good nation. Napoleon was a very bad person, in point of fact. 

But the accomplishments of Lazare Carnot and his friend, Gaspard Monge, who had been formerly his teacher, was a revolution in economy. Lazare Carnot invented the machine-tool industry. He invented it under wartime conditions. It was used, first, for mass production of products, through machine tool design. And he laid down the principles in some of his writings. He was also a scientist, as well as trained as a military professional; but also as a scientist. 

His associate and former teacher was Gaspard Monge. Gaspard Monge was probably one of the leading scientific thinkers of all modern history, who founded, together with others, what was called the Ecole Polytechnique, which took young boys--again, the same old principle of the Oratorians and of the Brotherhood of the Common Life before it--took young boys, and educated them in what were called "brigades." These brigades essentially started out at a secondary school level, and produced, literally, brigades of leading scientists and engineers. And, this is during this period. 

This is how the French won the war of 1793-1794. Carnot revolutionized warfare, introduced modern machine-tool technology to the conduct of warfare, conducted scientific revolutions, and implemented them, within a period of two years, with his friends.} How do you like that for today's bureaucrats? That's how you win a war. He started from nothing. 

We did something similar, but it came about in a process. We were isolated at that point. We had not a friend anywhere in Europe. Every nation in Europe was an enemy of ours. This was the meaning of George Washington's Farewell Address. It wasn't "avoid dealing with Europe," it's "we have all enemies in Europe. The British are our enemies, the Holy Alliance is our enemies. We have no friends in Europe." Russia had been our friend, but that had changed, with Alexander I. 

So we were isolated, until the 1850s. We had no allies. We had no friends. We had friends, as individuals, networks of people. But there was no nation, no government, that was not an enemy of the United States, in any part of this planet. We were isolated. 

We had Presidents who were not so good, like Jefferson and Madison. (You shouldn't play with Dolleys, when you get to be grown.) Monroe was not so bad. John Quincy Adams was a great guy. Jackson was terrible, Van Buren was a traitor, Pierce was a traitor, Polk was a mess, Buchanan was a traitor. 

But we had people who were still fighting for what the United states represented: Carey, Clay, Quincy Adams, Henry C. Carey, and then, of course, their protégé, Abraham Lincoln. 

When Abraham Lincoln became President, he set out to destroy evil in the United States. It was forced upon him, by the British-organized Civil War. The Confederacy was a creation of the British. It was a creation of Palmerston, Lord Palmerston in particular. That's another whole story. 

So he organized a war machine, on the basis of the principles of Carnot and Monge. This was already built into the U.S. military, because under Sylvanus Thayer, the commandant at West Point, the French system of the Ecole Polytechnique, the Carnot-Monge system, was incorporated in West Point, and West Point became the center of U.S. industry, and so forth. Connections from West Point: Alexander Dallas Bache, a graduate of West Point, the great-grandson of Benjamin Franklin, was the liaison to our friends in Germany, to Alexander von Humboldt, and Gauss, and others. He created the Coast and Geodetic Survey, created the first high school of the United States in Philadelphia: all these kinds of good things. 

Lincoln builds the economic machine

So when the time came that Lincoln moved, this machine, freed of the succubus of the Confederate traitors--the slaveowners--proceeded to build the mightiest military and economic machine this world had ever seen. By 1876, there was no economy in the world which could match the United States for power and technology. And during this period, the United States utilized the lessons of Carnot, to build a machine-tool design system. In 1876, we were the leading industrial power in the world, the only one with a machine-tool design system. 

Now, since that time, we have used that system only under three general occasions: once in World War I, where it was used on a limited basis to mobilize the United States for World War I. That's under Woodrow Wilson. 

Number two: Franklin Roosevelt, on a larger scale, created out of this--some of you remember what people's faces looked like, in the end of the 1930s. They were gray faces. They were demoralized, pessimistic, people who had not had a decent job for eight to ten years, who had almost lost their skills from disuse. We took these people, in 1939-1940, we began throwing them into work. At first, they didn't do so well. But by 1943, we had exceeded every specification of Roosevelt's mobilizing program, by far. We went back to the machine-tool system. 

At the end of the war, we shut it down again! We shut everything down! We had the mightiest economic machine on the planet, we shut it down! Then we decided to have a war again, so we got it cranked up a little bit. 

Then the other thing we added, was a space program. Everything we've gotten in this century, in the United States, in terms of general improvement, has come from economic mobilizations, utilizing this principle, either for preparing for, or fighting a war, or for a space program. That's the only success we've ever had; so, that's the secret of economy. 

How does it work? How does this kind of program work? Well, at the top, as you would expect with Lazare Carnot and Gaspard Monge, you have an education system, like the Ecole Polytechnique under Monge. Young boys being herded in brigades, into an adolescent education system, which turns out scientists and engineers of the top quality in the world. 

Now, they're also creating science--the same people. They're involved in doing both: scientific research, development, and education, all at the same time. So you have discoveries of new principles, discoveries of new ways of looking at the universe. Out of this, you get machine-tool designs, which give us new kinds of products, improved processes, and, if you've educated the labor force, when you bring the machine-tool designs together with the labor force in production, you have a labor force which can assimilate and improve upon these designs in the process of production. 

That's how it works. The key thing, is the mind, the individual human mind. Now, pick up a textbook, and tell me where the mind is there. Where's the mind mentioned? People say we can't afford to educate people. But the only way the human race ever survived, was by discoveries which were made by human minds. 

Now, let's get to the next one (see {Table 1}). How do you make a discovery? I'm going to explain it to you. I'll ask for your concentration. It's really quite simple, and some of you already know it, so that will help me a bit. 

But, how do you make a discovery of principle? Not discovering where John Brown lives, but how do you discover a principle of science, a principle of nature? And, there are two kinds of principles we discover. One, we call principles of physical principles, the other we can call principles of cognition, that is, principles of how the mind works, how social relations among minds work. 

First of all, you have your senses and you have your beliefs. Now, you have, if you're a scientist, you have certain things you believe. You might call it "mathematical physics," just to use a loose term. These are things you believe, which you believe are all based on experimentally grounded evidence. You say, "This is what I believe." 

Then, you have some evidence, some events which have occurred. These events are something which your existing belief about mathematical physics, says never could happen. But, the authority for the new ideas, the new evidence, is as strong as the authority upon which all your scientific knowledge previously is based. 

So, now you have a contradiction. You have one set of facts, which support the old system. You have another set of facts, which the old system says never could happen. Now you have to solve this problem. You have to make a discovery, which brings the universe back together again, so to speak. You have to discover the principle, which you've overlooked in nature. 

The case of Eratosthenes

For example, we often use the case of the Eratosthenes estimate for the size of the meridian of the planet, which shows that you can not--very simply, that in all the estimates you were trying to make, in measuring large distances on the surface of the planet, as long as you were assuming that the Earth was flat, more or less flat, you came up with the wrong answer on a large scale; which meant that you had to take into account something you'd been overlooking. And, the evidence showed you'd been overlooking it, that you had to consider another dimension, another principle. You had to deal with a surface which is enclosed in a solid, that is, a spherical, or quasi-spherical surface. 

So, here's two sets of facts: one set of facts which supports the old way of thinking, the old geometric way of thinking, and another set of facts which shows you something that couldn't occur under the old thinking. So, you must now discover what the solution is, which puts the universe back together again. You say, "Ah! We have to consider a third dimension, which is the perpendicular to the surface of the Earth, which is the radius of a quasi-sphere." Then everything comes back. 

In all scientific discovery, a physical principle is of that nature. You are faced with a contradiction, where you have evidence which supports what you believe, up to now; and you have evidence which the present belief says could not occur. There's only one place that this discovery could be made: that is inside the individual human mind. You can not make a discovery by committee. You can not make it by opinion polls. It has to be made inside the individual mind. 

Now, how does that occur? Well, if we have a good educational system, which you don't have in the United States these days, haven't had for a long time; then the student is never taught from the textbook. The student is never given a questionnaire, a multiple-choice questionnaire for a test examination. Never! No good school would allow such a thing even within 50 miles of the premises of the schoolyard. 

The student must relive the experiment. The student must become familiar with the principles which mankind has discovered before, and must, each time, come to an experiment, which shows evidence that what he believed up to then, is incomplete. That he now has evidence which showed that something happens, which the old system said could not happen. 

And you must have the children in the class--not too large, not more than 15 to 17 children, generally--in that class, go through this experience, of figuring out what the solution is. And a good educational program structures the program, so the students go through each successive step, in a decent order, so that they're prepared for this next discovery, on the basis of the previous. 

Now, if a child is educated in that way, what happens? The child is reliving a moment from the mind of an original discoverers, because the original discoverer did exactly the same thing that child does. Restructure education, so the child is capable of rather rapidly reliving what happened in the minds of great discoverers, from as long as thousands of years ago. 

Now, when the child lives, and is educated in that way, the child now knows how to solve this kind of problem. Because the child has developed his creative powers, and now knows how to use them. That's the kind of education system you need, one which is based on this experimental conception. 

The question of the passions

Now, let's take another part, which Helga [Zepp LaRouche] will deal with in a different way tomorrow, on the question of the passions. 

Now, there are some people who invented the myth, such as Aristotle, that objective knowledge is based on objectively looking at something, dispassionately, as by an abstract observer--someone who doesn't exist, in fact. If you can become someone who doesn't exist, you can be dispassionate, and you can be objective. The only problem is, who's going to pay attention to you? Unfortunately, some people do. 

But, what is the nature of nature, as I've described it? Nature is something that man is changing, by discovering new principles. We are acting on the universe. The universe lets us do it, whenever we're right. If you make the right discovery, the universe will go along with you. It's as if the universe were predesigned to submit to man's will, whenever man discovers truth. If man's will behaves truthfully, the universe will obey him, in that matter, and will sit back and smile and say, "Okay, now make another discovery. If you want to do better, make another one. Solve another problem." 

That's what we exist for, to solve problems. 

But, we change the universe. So, when we're looking at the universe, what are we looking at? We're not looking at the universe. We're looking at man's intervention in the universe. That's where our knowledge comes from. We don't observe the universe. If you study all the great discoveries, in astrophysics, for example, no one ever observed the universe. All the people who did, never made discoveries. It was people who intervened, with innovations, who made the discoveries. 

So, what are we looking at, when we look at man's knowledge? We're looking at man's intervention into the universe. When we increase our population, we're increasing the change in the relationship of man to nature. Therefore, man in nature is changing. What we're observing, is man is observing himself. Man in the universe; man as in the image of God, in the universe. 

What is this? I can think a thought which I have, because I replicated exactly what Plato, or Eratosthenes, or Archimedes thought, thousands of years ago. As I said recently, I was much closer to Gottfried Leibniz, on a personal level, than I was to my own parents, in my adolescence. Because his thoughts, which I replicated, were more important to me, than anything I exchanged with my parents. 

We live in the simultaneity of eternity in these relations. Our relations among human beings, are relations among ideas. They're relations among cognitive processes. Everything we're able to do, is a sharing of an idea with somebody, including somebody who died a thousand years, or two thousand years, or three thousand years ago. 

Our relation with the future, is our relationship, through ideas, that are transmitted, of useful ideas from us, to those who come after us. Our relations with other people, if they're good relations, are based on ideas. We're not animals. We don't rub against each other like animals. At least, I hope not. Dangerous these days, with diseases. 

We are not beasts who cuddle up. We are people who have as much affection, and passion, for the minds of those who have gone before us, long before us, who were valuable, as we do for the person next to us. The person next to us, is our responsibility, not necessarily because we like them. Even if you don't like them, they're still your responsibility. That's the tough part about the program. 

And the people who come after us, we hope will be much better than the people next to us. They're our bigger, happier responsibility. 

So, what we're dealing with, is social relations, in terms of this relationship of ideas, of man to the universe. 

Now, there is no such thing as a contemplative observer. No one ever made a discovery without great passion. In Christianity, we often use the image of Christ in Gethsemane, as the image of passion. Passion. "I must do it. I'm presented with an impossible contradiction. Everything I believed up to now, is proven wrong, by this set of events. I must solve this. I must have a passion to solve it." 

You never made a discovery without passion. To maintain concentration against a seemingly impossible problem, requires passion, emotion, dedication. A commitment that will not let you go! 

So therefore, what we're talking about here, is we're talking about passion. And there are two kinds of passion we have, which is what I've indicated here. We have what's called agape, which is referenced by the Apostle Paul, as in I Corinthians: 13, which is the quality of emotion we feel, when we actually make a breakthrough in a truthful discovery of principle. It's joy, a joy beyond any other kind of passion we have. The joy of discovery, the joy of fighting for truth, and winning the fight for truth in that matter. 

This is the truth of art, the truth that is beauty, the truth that is justice, the love of justice, the love of truth, which is a sense of beauty. 

Then you have the other kind, called eros, which generally deals with particular objects, sometimes--not always the best choice. 

So, we have, on one level, we are dealing with principles; on the other level, we're acting a little bit like animals, dealing with objects, about "me, me, me, me." That Johnny One-Note thing again, right? It's entropic. 

And therefore, as Helga will address this from a different standpoint tomorrow, it's this passion. The education of the mind, cognitive education of the mind for intellectual achievement, can not be separated from the moral education of the mind, which is the education of the passions. These passions involve--what? They involve, essentially, social relations. Our relationship to great minds of the past, is a social relation. What we hope to give, in terms of discovery, to our descendants in the future, is a social relation. When we try to share knowledge with people around us, that's a social relation. 

These ideas that man creates, of this nature, are the distinction of man from the beast. And our relations must be based on those things which set us apart from and above the beasts, which are ideas. 

The teaching of children is one of the greatest passions, if you do it well; because you're taking a little human being, and uplifting that human being, by enabling them to participate in some of the greatest moments of thinking of the greatest thinkers, of all history before. You are developing, as von Humboldt says, the character, the moral character of the child, by that kind of education. 

And when we educate ourselves in the same way, we are developing our moral character, because we are locating our passions where they belong. We attach ourselves, commit ourselves to principles, to which we should commit ourselves. And that's how our moral character, and our ability to solve problems, is developed. 

How can a person lay down his life in war for his country? How can a person make a sacrifice for all of humanity? How is this possible? It can not be possible as a sacrifice. It can only be possible as a realization of a purpose, a mission, a passion, a devotion. And that's what we are dealing with here. 

The greatest cultural shock ever

So, we're dealing with a Pearl Harbor effect. You come to a crisis, like this one. You're about to experience the greatest cultural and psychological shock which you've ever known of: the disintegration of the entire world system, on which all your calculations and estimates of your future and present life, and of this nation's life, and the world's life, are based. It all is going to disintegrate. It's all doomed. 

That's a horror which is worse than nuclear war. Nuclear war means that not all of us will be killed, and then the war will be over. A depression, mere depression: that's another thing. 

But, this is something awesome: The entire world system, as most people have come to accept it, is finished. Something much more profound than the people of the Soviet Union experienced, beginning 1989. Much more profound. They had illusions, which they could nurture, that it was going to work out all right. We can have no illusions. 

The problem here, is that our people are attached to ideas, which are sometimes called "mainstream opinion," to which, if they cling, if they continue to support those ideas, like liberal economics, this, that, and so forth; you know the routine, then this nation is hopelessly doomed. Because the will can not be found, to do the things which must be done, which oppose those opinions. 

So, the question is: How quickly are people willing to give up their opinions, on these matters? So this takes us to the question: Can we convert the fear into the passion of discovery

And, this is always a matter of leadership, because man's nature is, that we are creatures of ideas. The nature of the thing is that ideas are generated not by masses of people, they're generated by individuals within the mass. They're not circulated by communication. Ideas are circulated by helping the person next to you relive the act of discovery, as you relived it. Then you can look each other in the eye, and say, "Now we understand each other." That's how ideas are communicated. 

What we require, is optimism. What we require, is leadership, from people, who, because they are in leading positions, as persons of ideas, as persons of authority, as persons around whom you can rally, we need people who will lead the process of saying, "Let's go up the hill. Let's climb the mountain. Let's give this up, put it behind us. Climb the mountain." 

This moment in history

Think of ourselves as living at the most important moment in history. If we fail, if we can't do this, what is going to happen to mankind? Oh, man will live, in some form. But man will go through a great self-purging. Most of the cultures which have existed on this planet before this, are dead. The great empires of the past, are dead. Why did they die? Because they had lost the moral fitness to survive. And when a nation, or a culture, loses the moral fitness to survive, when it clings too long to ideas of the type which have taken over this nation in the past 30 years, it's doomed. Unless it can change its ways in time, it is as doomed as Sodom and Gomorrah. And that's where we stand. 

The great moment, now, is that we have an opportunity to prevent that from happening to this civilization. We have the opportunity. We have one of the most important opportunities which could come to anybody, or any people, at any time: the possibility to rescue the continuity of modern civilization, to cause it to begin cleaning itself up, to do what it must have done a long time since, at the last moment, before it headed itself to doom. This is our opportunity. 

Now, what are we going to do? The point is, to get that passion, get that sense of passion. Don't try to convince people on slogans, don't try to convince them on other things. Do as the great artist does. Learn from the greatest Classical art, which is always addressed, not to the words, not to the notes on the paper. It's always addressed to the innermost mind of the individual toward whom it's directed, to uplift, to ennoble that individual. 

And only ideas which are presented with that attitude, and that intent, can move a whole people in a time of crisis. That's what we've got to do. Let's go through some of the things. 

First of all, we have to have the President of the United States put the international banking system into government-supervised bankruptcy reorganization. We must do it, before the absolute bottom is reached. We must do it--we probably can not do it, until the perceived crisis is sufficiently intense in the minds of enough people, so the support is potentially there, for the President to do that. 

We have to be prepared

But before we do it, we must have it planned. You can't wait until you find a popular sentiment for action; you've got to be prepared before the sentiment arises. Then, if you know what you're going to do, when somebody says, "Okay, go ahead and do it," you're prepared. So, we have to be prepared. 

What we have to do, is put it into bankruptcy--and you can't do it by the United States alone. The United States President, because our system of government is the best in the world, constitutionally, we have imbedded in our structure the best form of government, which means a President who can, under certain circumstances, act, as no other person on this planet can act, to change things internationally. 

No government in Europe can do this. The governments in Europe are rotten compromises, where they imposed a quasi-nation-state status, upon a monarchical or oligarchical system. So you have a parliamentary system, or a modified parliamentary system, in all of the nations of Europe. 

There are no true governments, in the sense of the U.S. Constitution providing a government, in any nation in Europe. They're compromises. Most governments are headed by prime ministers, and that's a terrible thing. It's like the man who cleans out the toilet. He doesn't know whether he's going to have a job or not tomorrow. He can be fired in a moment. So, therefore, he has no executive capability for leading the nation. 

The governments are dominated, which we already have too much of, by a permanent bureaucracy, a permanent civil service bureaucracy, which runs the government, while elected governments come and go. You have these bureaucrats, like the Justice Department creeps in the Criminal Division, who are a horde of creeps, degenerates, and traitors, to the United States, or at least to its Constitution; who continue to do as they please, disregarding the elected governments of the United States, making up law as they go along, and even framing up the President of the United States and leading institutions, and destabilizing the government. That ought to be cleaned out! 

But in Europe, that's the situation all over. Sweden? Swedish democracy is the worst joke in the world. The Swedish system has ministers. The ministers are relics of the absolutist monarchy, or quasi-absolutist monarchy before. The parliament is simply an advisory body, effectively. The parliament has no control over the ministers. And all throughout Europe, you have this combination of relics of feudalism, in this form, combined with a parliamentary system, which is, you know, it's a concession to the dupes out there, called the people. 

In our system of government, we have a President, who, when he functions properly, can do what Roosevelt did. And we've come to the time when we badly need that. What he has to do, is to find some allies. We have some allies. 

The allies include China. Now, China is a great power, but it is not a world power. Why is it not a world power? It's got over a billion people. That's pretty good. But it's not a world power, because it doesn't think like a world power. It thinks like a China power in Asia. It thinks in terms of its Middle Kingdom outlook. 

Now, there are individuals in China, who are leaders, who we know of, who do think in world terms. But they're dealing with a culture which has never gone through this idea of--well, because, remember: One of the key things about the government of the United States, is that our Constitution is based on Christianity, and on the Christian conception of man, which is the universality of man, and the sense of a moral obligation of any government, to the image of man internationally. 

So, it's not a question of some kind of cooperation among nations. We in the United States think of ourselves as an individual in a neighborhood, that we are responsible for the whole neighborhood, implicitly. When trouble comes, we are responsible. 

So, our system of government is designed in that way. We are a nation of concern. For those of you who lived during the end of World War II, Roosevelt was going to eliminate the British, Dutch, French, Portuguese empires, at the end of the war. Eliminate them! We had the power to do so, and he was going to do it. And that's real American thinking. 

And, all of us who served overseas, who saw the imperial conditions, said, you can not expect to have peace and security for the United States, if you allow these conditions to persist in other parts of the world. How can you do it? Can't be possible. You must bring justice to the nations of the world, or we are not secure. We can't go around sticking our bayonets, or something, into every country, telling them what to do. But we have to have a commitment, to the degree that we have influence to shape things in the way which moves things in that direction. 

So, China is that kind of a nation. It has some very good thinking. India is very important. Cooperation between India and Pakistan, and with Iran, as China with Iran, is extremely important at this time. You have chaos in Central Asia. Without dealing with China, and some people in Moscow, and Iran, you can't deal with the crisis in Central Asia. It's not possible to deal with it. These places can blow up. And you have Americans, and mainly Brits, monkeying around there, causing all kinds of problems. And this whole area, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan: The whole thing could blow up! It's on the edge of doing so right now. 

The key thing is, when you're trying to recover from a depression, the private sector is on its last legs. It can't function. You can't sit back and say we're going to let the private sector do this, the private sector do that. It's not going to work. They're not going to do it. They can't do it. 

Government must act

So, that means that government must act. Now, government has to be very careful about how it acts in running an economy. Government is not good at running a lot of small firms. Government is good at doing certain things, of the character of basic infrastructure, which nobody else can do. 

Who is responsible for all the land of a nation? Who is responsible for all of the people of the nation? Some private interests? No. The government has to be morally responsible, to see to it that the needs of development of the whole land area are taken care of; that the development of all the people, their education, their welfare, their health, are taken care of. And that opportunities are created for those who wish to do good in the private sector, to do good, and to get blessings of government, in the course of doing it. 

So, therefore, government should concentrate itself on the things it does well; and, what the government must do, and what it does well, better than anybody else, is large-scale infrastructure development. Railroads, power systems, water systems, and so forth. That kind of thing. On the Federal and state level, that's the way we've run our system effectively, for many generations. 

So, what we need, is a large-scale--We need a new monetary system. We can do that, that's easy. We need a large-scale development program, which will start the wheels of economy moving, and will also create the opportunity and stimulation for the private sector to begin functioning again. How do you do that? Large-scale infrastructure projects, with the private sector participating in the development program. Like the building of the railroads, like the building of power systems, and things of that sort. 

Develop the Eurasian heartland

Now, what we have, we have Eurasia. Eurasia is the heartland of the world (see {Figure 5}). Asia alone contains about three-fifths of the world population. You have China, 1.2 billion or more. India, about the same amount. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Southeast Asia. Iran. And then to the north. 

This is the majority of humanity. And their development is very poor. China has a coastal area, which is fairly well developed, the interior not. Central Asia is almost a vast wasteland, in terms of utilization of land area. India has got a problem, a sociological problem, because of the heritage of the caste system. So it has a vast underdevelopment, in a population which also has a fairly well-developed technological capability. Pakistan can not function without India; economically, it's part of India, for historic reasons. It can not function, except in collaboration with India; Iran is a perfect excuse for that kind of function, it's the gateway to Europe. 

So, what we've proposed for some years, is the development of development corridors, across Eurasia, which are not only transportation corridors, but which will be development areas, just like the Transcontinental Railroad that we developed in the 1860s. On either side of the transportation route, you have 50, 60, 70 kilometers, which is close to the transportation route, which therefore becomes an area of economic development. 

So, our objective is to build zones of economic development along development corridors, across Eurasia. And there are about four major routes which we've proposed. China has agreed generally to three of these, and a fourth one, India has taken the initiative in, with China, in developing, which goes down into places like Jakarta, and then goes up to Teheran, and around into Europe, and down into the Middle East, and down into Africa. 

We haven't shown here the Africa business, but that's also part of the same thing. 

So, the point is, let's take the nations here. If we can have peace between Pakistan and India, maintain stability in Bangladesh, keep the collaboration with Iran going, and China. And then, among these nations, you have a core of nations, which are all committed to a great project, each to their own advantage, and each to their own benefit, which need a new monetary system, to be able to turn this project into a general economic development and recovery of this region of the world. 

So, why shouldn't those nations, and other nations, which are prepared to break with the British Empire--which is opposed to this, and will be opposed to it. It's the enemy. Why shouldn't we, around the President of the United States, gang up on the other guys, by one weekend announcing that we all agree to do this? If the other guys [the opposition] don't like it, it won't work, because once the United States, together with other nations, declares the system bankrupt and in bankruptcy, it is bankrupt and in bankruptcy. That's one of the powers the President has, if he has backing from some other nations. 

The IMF ceases to exist

At that point, the IMF, in its present form, ceases to exist. Just like that. That simple. Because, once you take away the negotiability, the convertibility of power, credit, and so forth, from an institution, it no longer exists as a financial institution. It's finished! It must come begging at the door, and say, "Please let us in. We, too, are paupers, and we need management." 

Under those conditions, then we can do that. The way we can do it, is because we have a project, we have a purpose. Infrastructure development. For example, let's take the India case, this Southeast Asia case. From Jakarta, across Singapore, through Malaysia, across Bangladesh, into India, and so on; also, with a route going into Kunming in China, and so forth. Also to this area. 

So, we have a project. Now, along this particular area, there are relatively few kilometers of area, which are not already linked by rail. The major problem is a few bridges, like a giant bridge across the straits from Singapore into Sumatra, which would bring us, essentially, into Jakarta. 

So, the project is eminently feasible, in terms of preparatory steps, which could begin now. The preparatory steps would be immediately beneficial to these economies. The bringing of the private sector in, in the areas, in terms of contractors, and so forth, to support the process, would mean you would immediately stimulate growth in these areas. You would be converting wasted assets into productive assets. When you take people off the unemployment lines, and put them to useful work, you have recovered lost wealth. When you take land area, productive capacity, and put it back into production, for some useful purpose, you have recaptured lost wealth. And our greatest resource, asset, on this planet today, is the possibility of recapturing lost wealth in that way--as Roosevelt did, in his own limited way; much more limited than this, in rebuilding the U.S. economy, under the conditions of the late 1930s and the 1940s. We can do it again. 

What we have to do, is, as I say, overcome--the great problem is the resistance. 

The larger picture

Let's go ahead with this next one (see {Figure 6}). This is just more of this--this includes, across Siberia, a railroad bridge, across the Bering Strait, which comes down through Canada, into the United States, and essentially will run down to most of the continent. We can extend it down into South America, which means, that you could actually have a land route, with a matching development corridor, which will connect virtually every continent on this planet, except Australia, and we'll figure out how to deal with that one in other ways. 

So, that's the nature of the project, so that everybody benefits. And a good principle is, when you develop a project, try to develop a project in which everybody gets their fair share of the pie, so to speak. That's a good thing, even though it is somewhat erotic. But we agapic people will allow some people to be erotic, as long as they don't do bad things with it. 

So, that is my message, essentially. A lot of things I've skipped over, or brushed over, because I wanted to give you just enough to give you a concept. Policy has to be centered on a simple fact, which none of the present economists take into account: The source of wealth is the creative powers of the individual human mind, which must be developed, and which must be given suitable expression. 

The purpose of government, is not to please the people, but to give them happiness, which is much better. The happiness of knowing that their lives are meaningful. The essential thing about policy is to recognize that each of us is born--I hope. We don't know these days, with this new Third Wave stuff going on. I'm suspicious about some of these members of Congress, as to whether they were born. 

And we're all going to die. Hopefully, we can postpone that. We have a dear friend of ours in Germany, whose birthday we just celebrated with her. She had some illness, so she wasn't ready for a mob scene. She's one of the world's great singers, and she's 94 years old. And we had a gay old time for about two hours with her, visiting with her, to celebrate her birthday with her. And her "kid brother" was there, who is 89. It was a grand old time. 

So, we would hope, when you look at the beauty that some of these people in their 90s represent, which I think that our dear friend is going to do, if she gets that hip fixed up, you see that the preservation of individual life, and to extend it so that we may enjoy the blessings of great individuals for a longer period of time, is rather important and feasible. 

But, in general, nonetheless, we're all going to die. And, that poses the question of what are we, if we're all going to die? What does life mean, if we're all going to die? Isn't that the question that government has to face, in real statecraft, in real law? Isn't that the question? Do we provide for the individual the opportunity for a meaningful life, a life which can be so lived, that it implicitly answers the question, what is the meaning of that travel, that transit from birth to death? 

The bearers of great ideas

This can only be answered in the realm of ideas. It's not possible for any animal, in that way. Because if we are the bearers of great ideas, of truthful ideas, which we transmit to other generations; if we are custodians of the trust which is placed in us, the trust of humanity, while we are alive, if we are good custodians; if we solve problems when we must solve them, because we're there to do it; if we contribute to the stock of ideas that make humanity better, can not government say, without being accused of bringing in religion, can not government say that the responsibility of government, is to give to each person the opportunity to realize themselves, as creatures made in the image of God, within the universality and simultaneity of eternity? 

That should be the purpose of government. That, I believe, is the spirit of agape. And that is what we must do. And we must find the connection between the practical, which I've just summarily indicated, which is the measures we must take, and realize that the obstacle is not the measures, because these measures are quite feasible, and they're based on many precedents which we can call upon, with respect to implementation. 

The problem is, the need for the will, the commitment, the passion, to make the change. And the great challenge before us here in the room today, and many others like us, is to become like a virus, to infect humanity with optimism, and with the means to find the will to bring about the change. And if we can do that, and you have benefitted, in any degree, from either what I've said today, or the repercussions of it in the time ahead, then I hope this may have been the most important day in your life. 

End of Part II