Thousands of Youth With aby Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
Passion for Truth Will Determine
Mr. LaRouche gave this speech to a cadre school of the LaRouche Youth Movement in Pennsylvania on Nov. 1, 2003.
There are going to be some very significant changes in some of the ways we do politics. Our changes will be less, in some respects, than the changes we're going to impose upon the fools who are on the other side.
Now, the key thing here, as I said last night, is the question of emotion: that people view what they call "logic," which is generally meant by them, deductive or deductive/inductive argument, as logic and as rational. It may be, but it's often insane. The problem lies in an area called emotion, or passion. For example, did anyone ever say to you, something in which you knew they were lying; you knew that what they were saying was a complete lie? And saying it very assertively, very aggressively.
And you say, "Well, that's a lie. Where do you get that misinformation from?"
"I get it from the press! Don't you believe in the news media?! I got it from a man who is very authoritative, very well informed. And I know he's sincere—therefore, I have to believe him." Even if you claim you know it's false.
Did you ever have such experiences? Does that tell you something about our society and our culture? It tells you, look for where the real problem lies.
Now, take the case of the so-called Euclidean geometry. (I don't think they have the "New Math" now, which is not worth much, and probably some of you were exposed to that. Forget it—you didn't learn anything; I hope you didn't learn anything, because it's damaging to your mind, if you did. In the former time, before the end of the 1950s, when this "New Math" was brought in—when they thought you weren't sufficiently stupid—they took away geometry and they gave you the New Math; and they succeeded in making a lot of people stupid; they say, "I hate mathematics." Well, good! You didn't like it, right? Good! So forget that.) But, the problem was, in the old days, when the Euclidean geometry, or a version of it, was taught as an integral part of a mathematics education in secondary school, or what you call today, middle school; at that time, you were told that there were certain self-evident definitions, axioms, and postulates; and that everything in mathematics, or which involves the application of mathematics, can be, and must be explained in terms of deductive, or so-called inductive arguments, which never deviate from this set of arbitrary, so-called "self-evident," definitions, axioms, and postulates.
The Question of Axioms and Emotion
You get the impression, then, if you look at a mathematician, you think, "Well, you're a mathematician. Gee, how'd that happen? When did you die?" Because you get from formal mathematicians, when they're talking mathematically, or arguing mathematically about science or anything else, you have the impression that you're talking to something who's dead! Particularly in these days, when you have computers; and you say, "My computer is more sexy—it responds, but much more affectionately, than this creep does!"
So, the problem lies in this question of emotion. And you have to understand the connection between definitions, axioms, and postulates, and emotion. Now, for example: "Look, the news media run the country. We have to go by the news media. If you can not influence the news media, nobody's going to accept you!" What is that saying about our country? If, for example, you accept the news media as the standard, what does that say? You are told that there was a real increase in the economy. How many of you people, did you feel that? Did you experience that? Did you look at the figures? Did you see how they're faked? Anyone knows they're faked. The European press is talking about how it was faked. The figures are faked! Even the leading press says, "Well, the economy is growing! (Although the jobs are decreasing.)"
The Case of Wal-Mart
I'll give you another case of this: the case of Wal-Mart. Now, Wal-Mart is not a company, it's an epidemic disease. Wal-Mart is one of the biggest factors in causing unemployment in the United States. What Wal-Mart does: When Wal-Mart sets up an operation in an area, they go to all the prospective vendors, whose goods are manufactured, processed, and delivered to Wal-Mart to be put on the shelves—where you have this, you know, 300 lb. person standing there with a blank stare, and you ask them, "Where is this? Where is that?" "I dunno." Right? This is called part of our employment picture: You get all the people who didn't know which way to the store, and they now employ them at Wal-Mart!—But, the order was: You can not sell to Wal-Mart, unless you eliminate all U.S. vendors, except vendors which bring in goods which are produced in countries which engage in cheap labor, such as China, or other countries. So therefore, when Wal-Mart gets a bigger impact in an area today, employment in that state and region collapses, because firms are shut down, because Wal-Mart won't buy from them. Why? Because they're producing with U.S. labor. It's one of the big factors in unemployment.
If you look at the general pattern of unemployment in the United States, what happened to the factories and farms? The goods still come in, at least to some degree; where are they produced? What is a General Motors car? Well, don't ask General Motors—they don't know! Because General Motors assembles its cars from components from all over the world. They not only buy parts from various parts of the world; they buy assemblies, like a rear-end assembly or some other kind of assembly. The company that sells the assembly does not inform General Motors, or Chrysler, or so forth, what the parts are! Or who made them! So, when you have a car to be fixed, in the old days, you would go and look for the part. You would go to a parts store; and you had a part of this manufacturer, or his subcontractor. The part was listed. You would get a copy on order, within a fairly short period of time. And you would replace the part in the car, according to prescription. But, the manufacturer doesn't know what the part is any more! Because the manufacturer bid, on the basis of getting the assembly! And the specifications are designed to be attuned to the assembly, not the component parts of which the assembly is made.
You look at everything: You look at power, generation and distribution; water management; you look at the amount of time that people spend travelling on highways, between jobs and non-jobs. How many jobs do people have, who have households? How much commuting do they do, in the course of the day, particularly when they travel in high-traffic hours? And in areas where employment exists, the density of traffic is higher than ever before. So, people are out, for an hour, hour and a half, two hours, commuting to and from work. If they have two jobs in that day, they're probably commuting, again, another commuting cycle. What chance is there to have family life under those conditions?
So, the society is being destroyed. Skilled employment is being wiped out. We are now like ancient Rome under the emperors, under the Caesars. We are a "bread and circuses" society—get your entertainment from your neighbor; find out which sex he has this week, or she, whatever. Or the third sex, the fifth sex.
So, what we are, we're like the ancient Romans: where Rome conquered the world, or much of it, particularly from the end of the Second Punic War, before the Caesars came to power; and Rome, which used to be a productive society, based largely on agriculture and similar kinds of things, began to rely upon slavery. And the farmers were displaced. Returning veterans of the old Roman legions were thrown on the streets, with no place to go—no pensions, no nothing. So, you had a mass of Romans, who were called citizens, as in the United States, who were essentially wandering around, and living on what were called "bread and circuses," getting a dole, a handout, to live on. And now, we have handouts—not so many handouts, but you have jobs, which are handouts. Worthless jobs, which pay almost nothing, which are handouts. They keep you quiet.
Then, they tell you to have pleasure, as in ancient Rome: entertainment, bread and circuses. Well, television is supposed to be that. Hollywood is supposed to be that. A rave dance is that—the same thing. Gladiator contests. Large sports events. There's no difference between the decadence of ancient Rome, and the decadence which has crept up on the United States in the past 40 years. We are a decadent, dying culture. A decadent, dying economy.
How do we live? Well, in 1971-72, we collapsed the Bretton Woods monetary system, the system in which we had reorganized and rebuilt the world somewhat in the post-war period. Then, we used that power, increasingly over the 1970s, to dictate to other countries what the value of their currency would be. It was done very simply: The London financial market, which was specialized in this kind of thing, would organize a run, like a George Soros-type game, against some country—the way George Soros went at, particularly, Malaysia. They drive down the value on the international market—the trading value—in an orchestrated money market, like a rigged casino; they drive the value of the currency down on the international money-exchange market. Then, authorities go to the country and say, "Well, bring in the IMF! Bring in the World Bank, to advise you on how to deal with this problem." The IMF would come in, and give the "advice" (or the World Bank): "Devalue your currency! Twenty, 30, 40, 50%!" Say, "Okay, we'll do that, if that'll work."
"Oh, but don't think that you're going to pay off your debts in your currency! We don't let you pay off your debts in your currency any more! Now, you pay off in dollars. And since your currency is less, in value, than it was, you're going to have to pay more of your currency, in order to match the dollar requirements."
Now, therefore, you have to have an additional debt, which you did not incur, which is imposed upon you, through the orders of the IMF and World Bank. And the IMF and World Bank are doing this, under direction of the Anglo-American interests that dominate the world.
Therefore, we converted these countries into markets of cheap labor. We ordered them, through the IMF and World Bank, to shut down their industries, to shut down their infrastructure! We turned them into virtual slaves. We turned them into cheap labor. Now, we come in with a program—they would come in with "tourism": Give your body to a foreigner—that works when it has to—and similar kinds of things.
And then, take the case of Mexico: Mexico used to have infrastructure; it used to control its own petroleum industry, which it doesn't any more—so forth and so on. It lost its railroads, lost its transportation system, generally. And what happened? Well, the United States lives largely on Mexicans. We steal from them' we call it employment; we call it maquiladoras; we call it NAFTA, which was pushed through in the Clinton Administration, pushed through by Al Gore. Good guy, huh? We are exploiting people to the extent, that in one state in Mexico, the majority of the income of the state is remittances from Mexicans who are working inside the United States—particularly in the South and Southwest in the United States—and, what they're sending home to their families, as part of the cheap wages they're getting as income, in California, Texas, and so forth, is the majority of the income of the entire state, within Mexico. If the U.S. were to collapse further, Mexico would be a disaster area. It's almost nothing. That was done in Mexico in 1982, before the raid on the Mexico peso had occurred, which I was involved in fighting against.
Living on China
But, this is what we're doing throughout Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Central America, Bolivia, and so forth. This is what we're doing!
We are also living on the Chinese: Now, the Chinese have a large population. And the Chinese take the view, that they can use up part of that population—use it up!—as cheap labor to produce things for the United States. It's not good, in China. I have a friend of ours, who is a European entrepreneur, who created a high-tech firm in China, which is producing things in China of significant value, applying what are called "nanotechnology" methods. He has a firm. He has an immediate group of Chinese partners, who run that firm. They have another group, under them, who are the key men and women of this firm. And the people who are the partners, treat the key people fine. But, the key people, the immediate executives and sub-executives of the place, treat the rest of the Chinese employees like shit. So, China is not really a country of great freedom: It's a country whose culture has not overcome a long history of the destruction of the poor of China, who are used up as human cattle for the benefit of those who are more privileged, who have a better standard of life.
So, China, like Europe before the Renaissance, has a great culture, a great cultural tradition at the top; but you have to look at the bottom: There are many poor. So, the Chinese are using up part of their labor force, like burning wood in a stove, in order to earn money from the United States; justifying this, on the fact that the sacrifice being made by these Chinese, who are being thrown like cord-wood into a stove, is building a future China. In a sense, that's true. But, if you think of the relationship of the United States to China, that is the relationship of the United States to China. China is a dumping ground for the United States, and China is a vast source of cheap labor, for people like Wal-Mart.
This is the ugly reality of the situation.
The Legacy of Truman
Now we're in a destroyed society, and it's worse: Look, since the end of the World War II, since that son-of-a-bitch Truman dropped two nuclear weapons—for no military, justified reason—on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world has lived under nuclear terror. Now, the nuclear terror was invented by a guy who was called, by many idiots, a "pacifist": Bertrand Russell. Bertrand Russell is the single person, most directly responsible for the creation of nuclear warfare. He did so, stating that his purpose, and that of his sidekick—"animal man" H.G. Wells—their statement, of their policy, was to use forms of warfare which are so terrifying, that people would submit to world government—dictated by them—in order to avoid that kind of warfare. Bertrand Russell and Co. developed nuclear warfare, to create a weapon so terrible, that the world would submit to world government, by their design, in order to avoid that kind of warfare.
The United States policy under Truman, from about the time of the death of Roosevelt until the present day, but especially up until the beginning of the 1950s—the policy was, to launch preventive nuclear warfare against the Soviet Union, as a way of bringing the entire world under world government, as specified by Bertrand Russell. That was the policy of the Truman Administration. That is a policy embedded in the United States from that period. That is a policy which existed, which turned many of my friends, probably 90% of them in military service, into worms, morally. They were so afraid of the right-wing turn inaugurated by Truman, with what was done with the so-called "strategic bombing" against populations, and capped by nuclear weapons bombing, against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was the policy of the United States: That was considered patriotism! "If yer not for it, buddy, you ain't a patriot—and maybe, yer a Commie bastard!" That was the policy.
Then, we got rid of Truman. Why did we get rid of Truman? Well, because traditionalists didn't like Truman—including me! I despised that fellow from before he was President. And, when Roosevelt died, people asked me what was going to happen; I said, "Our fate is horrible, under this little man. This little creature, not fully human. This haberdasher!" I was right.
But then, the Soviet Union developed a thermonuclear weapon—first. At that point, the United States: "Uh-uh! This preventive nuclear warfare ain't no good. They got a thermonuclear weapon!" So, we dumped Truman, and we brought in Eisenhower. And, Eisenhower was opposed to this kind of funny stuff, this fun and games. And we had about eight years of relative peace, under Eisenhower. It was not true peace, because the evil was still there. But, the evil was on the underside, and Eisenhower was on top.
Kennedy came in. Kennedy did not understand the story. And you see the Kennedy family does have problems, as you see in California, with this Schwarzenegger. And then, we have Schwarzenegger in California—a Hitlernegger in California—and we have "Katzenjammer" in Philadelphia: the kinds of evil we have to get rid of.
So, we had that situation. Then, because Kennedy did not understand the issue—and because of complications in the Kennedy family and so forth, and in the administration—the Democratic Party had tended to become the party of nuclear warfare. The Republicans were not the war-party, at that point. There were right-wingers in the Republican Party, who were the war-party; but the hard core of the nuclear war-party in the United States was the Democratic Party. And it's still there. It's still there: They call themselves "liberal." They kill liberally—more people, that is.
So, don't have any illusions about the Democratic Party, as a party. The Democratic Party is an object we are going to take over, and transform. It is not a kingdom of virtue—or even good sentiment.
The Current Strategic Crisis
We are now, therefore, in the following situation: The fall of the Soviet system, was viewed by some people as the opportunity to establish an Anglo-American world government, and the fanatics in the United States, said it's going to be a U.S. empire. It's called "globalization": Globalization is imperialism. Globalization is the enemy of the United States, as you see in the case of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is your enemy! When you pass that store, you know, "That's my enemy." It's destroying our community, it represents globalization, it represents an institutionalization of the values which stink. Or, George Soros is your enemy. Other institutions of this type are your enemy. George Shultz, Bechtel, is your enemy. Halliburton is your enemy. Your personal enemy! Certain financial institutions and bankers are your enemy. They're destroying this country.
And, people say, "But they're powerful, therefore you have to respect them." Emotion, again. Passion, again. It's like the news media, "You gotta respect the news media." "You must respect these authorities! You must respect the Democratic Party. You must respect the Republican Party. You must respect the President." "No! You must respect the Vice President! You're going to attack the Vice President?! You're going to take our Vice away?" Anyway, so this is the kind of situation.
Now, what are we coming to? [In 1991-92], some of the wiser heads in the first Bush Administration, turned down Cheney's proposal to go to preventive nuclear warfare. And, the idea of the continuing the Iraqi war with an invasion at that time, was an attempt to go to global, nuclear preventive warfare. That was the intention.
Cheney has had that intention, since 1991-1992—no later. The neo-conservative faction which is controlling the Bush Administration is that. The neo-conservatives are also a major factor in the Democratic Party. Marc Rich is part of that, and Marc Rich is the guy who was pardoned by Clinton, and Clinton got a lot of money for it. It was dropped in the coffers. Gore is part of it; others are part of it; Lieberman is part of it; same thing.
All right, so, what's the situation? We're now at a point where we have thermonuclear arsenals on this planet. If thermonuclear arsenals are fully deployed, in a full-scale war, it can destroy human civilization—wipe it out. Therefore, the argument has been, since the end of the 1950s, that with thermonuclear weapons and advanced methods of delivery of those weapons, you can not have a full-scale thermonuclear war. This was called the doctrine of "Mutual and Assured Destruction." You can not go to Mutual and Assured Destruction. The policy was—while the Soviet Union was still the number-two power—the policy was, that we would manage the superpower conflict. And therefore, the threat of Mutual and Assured Destruction would now be used to bring about a certain kind of one-world government, between chiefly two opposing powers: the United States and the Soviet Union. In other words, whatever they agreed to would become the fate of all the world.
So, you already had an empire, which is an empire of two opposing forces: the U.S. forces and the Soviet forces. This was brought together under Nikita Khrushchov, while he was General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party. And, that was negotiated by: Bertrand Russell, personally! Negotiated, in implementation by Bertrand Russell's fellow running-dogs.
All right, so now, we still have that situation: We live in a world, in which thermonuclear weapons, and related things, define an environment of Mutual and Assured Destruction, really. Now, what is Cheney talking about, therefore? What's the problem we're living under? What Cheney is talking about, and others are talking about—the neo-cons—is: Let's have a sub-Mutual and Assured Destruction regime. Let us conduct nuclear warfare, in such a way, that we never go to full-scale thermonuclear war, but that we use mini-nukes, and other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, in order to find a level between what used to be called "conventional warfare"—pre-nuclear warfare—and thermonuclear warfare, generally. So therefore, to find a "middle area" to fight limited nuclear warfare, as preventive nuclear warfare: to establish a world empire; to eliminate all nation-states, and establish imperial control over the planet, by this method.
Now, what this means is—go back to another part of this story. Now, Truman was an idiot, and Truman was of the belief, and his administration was of the belief, that because the United States had a threat of a nuclear arsenal—we didn't have many nuclear weapons, then; but they were talking about having them, to use. That's why they didn't use them: They didn't have them, yet. We used up the last two nuclear weapons we had in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the production of further weapons of this type took some time. And, the development of delivery systems took some time. So, in this period, Truman believed that because of the United States' possession, or Anglo-American possession of nuclear weapons, that they could do whatever they damn pleased, with the Russians and Chinese, and other countries. And therefore, Truman, in the late 1940s, began to experiment with operations against China, and also against the Soviet Union; but specifically focused on China, but as a threat to the Soviet Union, and China. "We have nuclear weapons; you don't. You won't have them in the near future, we will. Therefore, you do as we tell you, or else."
So, the Truman Administration believed that the Soviets would be so terrified, and the Chinese so terrified, they would do nothing about it. They would be scared into submission. What happened is, is the Soviet Union and China made an agreement—and North Korea overran South Korea. And, the United States was pushed down into the Pusan perimeter, with no apparent chance of reconquering the territory. The South Korean army was wiped out—didn't exist. An American force, based in the Pusan perimeter, the tip of South Korea, was holding on, based by support from Japan.
MacArthur was brought into this thing; it was made a United Nations issue. MacArthur, typical of his being a traditionalist, flanked the situation with the so-called Inchon landing, and changed the character of the process. And, things have not changed, in terms of the geography of the area, since that time, since the immediate effect of the Inchon landing by MacArthur.
Now, the point was: The Truman Administration had miscalculated. They had assumed that the threat that they were making was so powerful, that the world would submit, to the awesome power of the United States. And, they found, and the world found, that China and the Soviet Union would fight warfare, in a way beyond the belief of these planners in the United States—then.
Today, countries such as India, China, and Russia, are prepared—under the kind of threat coming from the Cheney crowd in the Bush Administration—are preparing to fight the kind of warfare, which fits the kind of threat, which Cheney and Co. represent. Therefore, we're looking in the near term—unless we get rid of Cheney, and get rid of what he represents; unless we get rid of Soros, also, and what he represents, which has taken over Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party—unless we get rid of that, we will be, in the coming years ahead, at some point, in this kind of warfare! It will be nuclear warfare; limited thermonuclear weapons; submarines of a type which have not existed previously; nuclear bombs stuck in the mud along the Chesapeake and up the Delaware River and other places.
And, this will be the kind of warfare which you see in Iraq. They went into Iraq. What happened in Iraq? At a point that the U.S. killing operation—air power, use of super-weapons; destroy whole territories—became severe, the Iraqi military disappeared. It vanished! It didn't vanish to nowhere—it still existed. What you're now seeing—a decision was made, within part of the Iraqi population, among the military: Since they could not defeat the strategic arsenal being deployed against them by the United States, what they would do is, they would take a lesson from Korea and Vietnam. And they would say, "We can't beat their weapons, but when we're close up to them, next to them, walking the same streets, in the same neighborhoods, and they have to deal with us man-to-man; if we're willing to take the brunt of doing that, we can win that war." And, the Iraqi military is in the process, now, of winning the war, against a U.S. invading force! This is not a mismanagement problem: The United States is losing the war! And, it's losing that war, in the same degree that it lost the war in Indo-China.
You see, warfare finally comes down to people to people. Weapons to weapons don't mean much. What counts in warfare, is what comes out of warfare: Who wins? Now, winning is based on survivors, so mass killing is not winning warfare: It's extermination. It's madness. Winning in warfare, is winning it man to man, person to person. In the final analysis, when you get to this area, you think about fighting war between total thermonuclear destruction, and what used to be called "conventional warfare"—in this middle area, which these idiots are playing with, that's what the logic is. You force a situation, where countries which are capable, and understand military and related problems, and populations that are willing to fight for their sovereignty, to fight for their independence—you're up against the factor of humanity, where people say, "I would rather die, than submit to this. If dying meant that we were going to defeat these guys."
And what you're seeing is the defeat of the United States—a military defeat of the United States, created by the stupidity of an American people and leadership, which failed to recognize the lesson of even the past period, since the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is the logic of the situation.
So, what we're dealing with, again, is a question of passion. People are saying, "But, it's the United States. We have to defend the United States." Against what? How about defense of the soldiers who are not getting medical treatment, when they're injured? What about the trauma cases, the surviving trauma cases, piling up in hospitals, where they don't get care? What about the process of—they send these guys in as reservists and National Guardsmen, without body armor? They don't give them body armor! They offer to sell it to them! For $800-900 a shot! So, some people get body armor, others get joke-body armor—not serious body armor, it's something that adds some weight; you get on the scale, you weigh more. Maybe that's important. But in its effectiveness against these conditions of combat, it is not serious body armor. A Hummer: It may make Arnie Schwarzenegger rich, but it's not much use in this kind of situation. What you call a "Hummer," is called a "target." And, if somebody has to say, "What target?"—"Well there's one!"
So, that's the situation we face.
A Passion for Truth
Now, overall, go back to the thing I started with, this question about passion: The problem of passion lies in these areas of so-called axiomatic assumptions: definitions, axioms, and postulates. Or, generally accepted truisms; or, generally accepted public opinion; or, believing that sincerity is truth. In other words, if a person lies, in terms of fact, but they're sincere, you can't call it a lie. "Well, he may be telling a lie, that it's not the truth, but he's sincere! Therefore, you can not call him a liar." Or, "He believes it, he heard it from somebody else, whom he sincerely believes is an authority."
"Look, he's a member of the Democratic Party. And his leadership of his party says it's true; therefore, if you're a member of the party, you have to accept that democratic decision, by that leadership of the party, and that has to be your opinion; and you have to act accordingly." "You have to believe in free trade. You have to believe in Adam Smith." You have to believe in these things—otherwise, there's something wrong with you.
Therefore, you find yourself living like a goldfish in a goldfish bowl, surrounded by all kinds of truisms. Some are like the truisms of definitions, and axioms, and postulates of mathematics. Others are these kinds of social shibboleths, that you have to believe. And your emotions are attached to that. So, if you are convinced—a bunch of you get together, and you discuss something. You go through it, you do an investigation. You are convinced that a certain thing is true. You state your evidence and state why you believe it's true. And someone says, "That doesn't make any difference. Because that's not the way things are going to happen. Things will happen the way the news media believes; the way the party machine believes; the way my uncle believes—that's how things are going to be! I don't care what your evidence is, that's what it is!"
Therefore, you are now faced with a situation, where you are about to face social rejection—or lying. Because you know it's a lie! But you say, "Look, I've gotta go along. I've got to go along. I've got to go along! I've got to get along! Look, that's popular opinion! That's popular culture! You can't go against popular culture!" "I mean, the Nazi Party's has its culture. You gotta go along!" "Schwarzenegger has a culture." (I don't think he has any testicles any more—but he has a culture! That's why he went into politics.)
In any case, that's what you're up against. So, the problem of society, is the problem of emotion. People say, "Let's be objective. Let's not be emotional." The point is, you're being controlled by emotion. What they mean is, "Don't defy my emotions! If you disagree with me—."
For example, go to a professor of mathematics or mathematical physics, and raise the question of the Gauss Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, the question of the complex domain. You want to see an emotional display of fireworks? So therefore, you have met an axiom. You've met an assumption.
This guy assumes—he's a radical positivist; he assumes certain things, which are not true, which are false. But he and his buddies have all sworn an oath to this kind of freemasonic code: They believe in this thing. You are questioning the authority of Lagrange and Cauchy, in particular. What your evidence is, is to them, irrelevant. "We have already decided" that this is the way mathematics will be defined, that science will be defined. And, when you cross them, the dignified professor, you cross him effectively—you're presenting the actual evidence; and the so-called dignified professor, who has enough education to recognize that you've pinned him against the wall, that you've presented evidence that he shouldn't be able to overlook, he's got to consider it, and respond to it—he's not going to respond to it at that point, except one way: Emotionally! He has a freakout: "Get out of here! And, don't come back! You must be a Communist!" And, things like that. And you say, "Well, weren't you a Communist, once?" "Get out of here!!"
The problem that you are up against, and that you face, is that.
Brainwashing of the Baby-Boomer Generation
Now, let's look at another dimension of this. What are you up against? You are up against a generation called the "Baby-Boomer Generation," which was so terrified by several things, that they never came back; they went away some place, and never came back. They're still walking around; they've got bodies moving around there, but something inside them, which had been living before, went away; became part of the counterculture. The first thing, the most immediate thing that turned adolescents or late adolescents, in the 1960s, into Baby-Boomers, was the fear of—number one: the Missiles Crisis of 1962, and the effect it had on them and their parents (they were old enough to be scared; they were not old enough to judge the situation); the assassination of Kennedy; and the beginning of the Indo-China War—a hopeless war, which they had no confidence in, no belief in.
As a result of that, they fled into what's called a "counterculture." Various kinds of counterculture. Now, the people who fled first, were university students. And, the idea was, could your university enrollment protect you from being drafted to be sent into Indo-China? It was a big deal; and the whole ideology. That was where the expression was coined, "I don't go there." Typical Baby-Boomer expression: "I don't—. Don't bring it up! I don't go there!" "Don't talk about the economy; I don't go there." "Don't tell me about Adam Smith; I don't go there." "Don't tell me about Cheney; I don't go there." "Don't tell me the Democratic Party leadership is corrupt; I don't go there!" "I do not deal with those issues! I'm living in my goldfish bowl, and that's outside my goldfish bowl. That's not in my water!"
So therefore, you get this kind of situation with them. Now, what happened is, the concentration was like this problem we discussed in Sweden, where they go at castrating the minds of the boys, and they leave the girls alone. If you can make the males impotent—that was the purpose of this Gunnar Myrdal kind of operation, huh?
So, they concentrated on the college and entry layers in society, to brainwash them first. What they brought in, among the other things, very quickly, was LSD. Now, is LSD an essential part of your education? Can you understand the universe better with LSD? No? What was the slogan—the slogan of the London Tavistock Institute: "Drop in, and drop out." Drop in and drop out. You take LSD, with marijuana, cheap wine—and you're on a trip! So, the idea was to flee from society. The other thing was: "Technology is bad. Technology created the situation: We must get rid of technology. We must have new values. We must reject our parents' values."
So therefore, you had a fear-stricken generation, which had gone into a counterculture, a no-future society, and the older they got—when they got through their sexual enthusiasms; they couldn't do it quite as fast and often as before, so they had to think about things, then. Before, when they had sex, in their youth, they didn't have to think any more; LSD and sex would get them through the day, more or less. And when they had to start to think about earning a living and raising a family, and so forth, they had to find new kinds of entertainment, new ways of amusing themselves, of keeping themselves happy; new kinds of social habits, conventions, fads, costumes, and so forth. And so, they became a no-future generation, in and of themselves, called the Baby-Boomers. They became a "pleasure society," a "post-industrial" culture. They became a dead culture: Because, under the influence which was exerted partly through them, increasingly, the United States and Europe lost its ability to produce. The United States and Britain, first; Australia, and so forth, first; then other parts of the world were destroyed. Destroyed in the ability to see a future in the society.
Today's Youth Demand a Change
And then, you guys were born. You came out of a generation, or the effects of a generation, which went through that experience; you went through a generation, which had gone through the transformation, into something like Rome under the Caesars: the "bread and circuses" culture. It's called a "sex and entertainment" culture, in which 80% of the family-income bracket population of the United States is living in desperate conditions, increasingly desperate conditions. Some people say, "The economy is prosperous. The economy is doing well." What's that, but a state of insane denial? If 80% of our population is suffering, and the lower 25% of family-income brackets is in desperate conditions; if we're killing off older people, because we want them dead, by our health-care policy; if we're killing off people with serious diseases, because we don't want to care for them, we want them dead, as soon as possible: What kind of a culture is this? But that is the culture which the Baby-Boomer generation voted! Step by step, in a state of withdrawal.
You come along—and you're not prepared to die. You're not prepared to accept no future. So, you find, again, a barrier, an emotional barrier—with the very emotions involved in the fact that they, during the early to middle 1960s, made a choice, a kind of axiomatic choice of definitions and so forth—social definitions; and they have been living out those choices, of that and subsequent times, over these periods.
Reason and the Emotions
They have supported these kinds of changes. This has destroyed the United States' economy. It has destroyed much of the world; it has destroyed the basis for a decent expectation of life. But, they are defending it. For example, you've got Bill Clinton, who in 1996 and so forth, was running around the country, talking about the "Golden Generation"—his generation! That is the generation, which actually delivered the disaster which this nation is living through now; and he's still defending it. That's his problem. He's one of the brightest Presidents we've had, but he's still living out that delusion, the delusion of the so-called "Golden Generation." It was not gold, I'm telling you. It was something you generally flushed away.
But, this is what they're clinging to. So therefore, when you say, "I demand the right to a future. I demand that this society have a future. I demand that my life be meaningful, that I have access to being part of a society which has a future," you run up against the emotion of people, who made a choice—"We have chosen to believe": passion. So, don't look for what you call "objectivity." Don't accept the idea, that by arguing within the definitions, axioms, and postulates, of assumptions, without "getting emotional," that you're going to get anywhere. You're not going to change anything. Because, as long as you accept these axiomatic assumptions, you are going to hell, with the rest of society. You have no choice.
So therefore, you have to go directly against emotions.
Now, then we come back to the question: What about "rational" and "emotional"? Are these opposing categories? No. They are not. Irrational is a lack of sane emotion. A person who is emotionless is insane, it's a form of schizophrenia. So therefore, to be rational, is to be rational in your emotions, not to be unemotional.
What is the characteristic of our speech in society, today? What is the characteristic of speech, as you see it on television, as you see it in terms of news broadcasting, for example? In terms of ordinary speech in general? People-who-talk-like-ticker-tape. Who try to talk, as either one, as unemotionally as possible; or, realizing that that's awfully stupid, they try to color their speech by stylized methods of speaking. Sort of like rock music, it doesn't mean anything: You can just take and beat your head against the wall, and it achieves the same effect. But, you want to make it look it pretty, or something, so you develop a style of beating your head against the wall. Instead of saying, "I'm beating my head against the wall," you say, "I'm doing it with style!" We can have a little discussion about humor, these days, popular humor in your generation—you know, beating your head against the wall, or urinating on something, huh? This is called "high-quality humor"!
So, the issue here is: People don't even know how to speak. We have people who try to recite poetry, or sing music. It's horrible! They try to sing it, with a style, to impress people that they are masters of a style. But then, you sit back, and you say, "Wait a minute. What idea are you communicating? What idea are you communicating, and what is the passion which you are imparting, for that idea?"
Look at these actors. They can't act. Why? The function of an actor is to present, not himself, but an idea. An actor who is trying to sell himself on stage—get rid of him. He's useless. An actor who's conveying an idea, is useful. And therefore, when an actor is performing well, you don't see the performer; you see what he's doing, you see what he's representing. He's able to disguise himself, in a sense; to such a degree, that he becomes the instrument of conveying an idea. And then, you see him after the performance, and you have the impression to go up to him and say, "Thank you." Not because you liked his performance, as a physical performance, but you liked what he had done to you, in the conveying of an idea, by his performance. He was able to subordinate his ego, as such. He did not present his ego—he presented an idea. And the idea was important, and you were glad you got the idea. And then you say, "Hey! He did it!" Go up and thank him! Because he did it. Every great performance, is the same thing, conveying an idea.
So, the question we have before us, is, how do we bring passion, and what is called rationality, together? Because without passion, rationality is insanity. Therefore, the thing to look at, is what are the assumptions which are controlling the way we choose axioms.
Let's go back a bit—one last point on this. Go back in history: Mankind, until Europe's 15th Century, as far as we know, most humanity were kept as human cattle, not as people. They were kept as slaves and serfs and so forth, in forms of subjugation where they were used as cattle. The guild system is cattle: "Learn your trade! Do as your father, and grandfather, and great-grandfather did before you. Don't try to change anything." That is being an animal. You were not using that quality in you, which distinguishes you from a beast, an animal.
The difference is, in the 15th Century, the ideas which had accumulated about the nature of man, and in European civilization from the time of ancient Greece, the Pythagoreans, Thales, Solon, Plato, and so forth: These ideas were suddenly given an expression in the form of what became known as the nation-state, first in France under Louis XI, and in England under Henry VII. The law was the law of the general welfare, the concept of a constitution, the concept of natural law. It is a natural law of man which is based on the fact that man is different than any animal. Man is a creature of reason, not of sense-perception. Man is able to see through the paradoxes of sense-perception, as Gauss implies this with the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, to discover principles, which actually run the universe; principles you can not directly "see" with your senses, but principles which you can know, through reason, and prove experimentally, to control the universe. Therefore, now you become a person, who has principles; you can change the universe, because these principles, once you discover them, you're able to change nature, because you have principles that control nature; you're now able to control it.
Now, you have knowledge. Without these principles, you have no knowledge, you're only an animal. You're just acting like a baboon, on the basis of your heredity, on your hereditary sense-perceptual powers. You play games and tricks, but they're all limited to those sense-perceptual powers, like a cat or a dog, or a monkey or a baboon. And there's no difference between that and the typical liberal. There are no ideas there. The typical reductionist, the empiricist, is not human: They deny the existence of universal physical principles, and say, "What we call principles, is limited to things that we can deduce, deductively, or inductively, from sense-perception." That's empiricism. That's what it is; that's what's taught. That's the dominant culture.
The function of empiricism is to deny the existence of humanity. To deny the thing that makes you different from a beast, from a baboon: this ability of the human mind to see beyond sense-perception, and to prove those discoveries, which you make through looking at the paradoxes, the ironies, the metaphors buried in sense-perception. "Look, it doesn't make sense." Discover the solution. And, as Kepler did, discover a principle, like universal gravitation. And now, the universe makes sense, because now you know a principle which causes this aberrant behavior. And now, it's no longer an aberrant universe, an insane universe—it's a principle.
So, this is what makes us human.
The Issues of the General Welfare
Now, if people become human, are they going to accept being slaves; are they going to accept being serfs? Are they going to accept that kind of condition of being human cattle, who are moved out into the field, bred and culled, used up, and thrown away? Which is what is pretty much done, today, with our society. The lower 80% of our population, is essentially reduced to the category of human cattle. That's why the Democratic Party and others go out to get, and spend, big money on mass media as a way of campaigning, rather than going out in the streets and dealing with the people. Because the people, the rightful citizens of the United States, are chiefly in the lower category of the 80% of lower family-income brackets. Now, if you're organizing the lower 80% of family-income brackets as a force, what is going to be prominent today? The issues of the general welfare: health care; a decent life, these kinds of things; the development of children. So, you don't go there. You go into the mass manipulation business: bread and circuses.
So, in this kind of society, the problem we have, is the following: We have a modern nation-state, which was created, as a form of institution, based on what humanity had discovered about mankind over thousands of years before then. The modern nation-state, based on the principle of general welfare, and commitment to posterity; that the state, the nation, as an institution, must be responsible for protecting and promoting the general welfare; that the state, the nation, as an institution, controlled by its people, must be accountable for the future condition of our posterity. The nation-state! And, the condition of posterity is based on man, as man. And man as man, is a creative creature, who discovers universal principles, who increases the species-power in the universe, who can fix things in the universe. We are a creative species: To be man, to be human, means that these creative powers must be developed. They must be encouraged. They must be utilized. That is the general welfare. Without that, there is no future, except as for baboons—who have a questionable future, as baboons.
So therefore, that's the issue. The first time such a society came into existence, was then, in the 15th Century, with the idea of a nation-state based on natural law; ideas which were expressed ecumenically by the Council of Florence, back then in the 15th Century, and were expressed in the outgrowth of that as Louis XI's France, and Henry VII's England.
Immediately, the forces which represented feudalism, represented the Middle Ages, fought back, and sought to destroy it. One of the products of this destruction was to destroy the idea of man as a creative being; of the individual as a creative being; one capable of creating discoveries of knowledge, beyond the veil of sense-perception, and using that knowledge as principles to improve the condition of man.
Now therefore, if you create such a citizenry, what happens? Well, you get the inspiration of the United States. So, you had people in the 18th Century, in particular, who looked at the colonization efforts in the Americas, and looked particularly at the option in English-speaking North America, especially from the middle of the 18th Century around Benjamin Franklin—from about the 1750s. And Franklin, at that point, was supported increasingly from the greatest minds of Europe, directly, to build around Franklin a set of ideas, which became the conception of this republic. And the purpose was of that effort, was not merely to create a republic, a utopia, in the United States: The purpose was to set an example, in the emergence of an American republic, which would then inspire Europe, which had given us these ideas—would inspire Europe, to do the same for itself.
So, against that, to prevent that, the British East India Company—headed by, at that point, actually, by Lord Shelburne—in 1763 moved with two stated objectives, of that period. He was the boss. He ran Barings Bank; he was the political boss of Barings Bank. He was the political boss of the British East India Company. He also was the paymaster for the British monarchy. The British King was paid—personally paid—by the British East India Company, through Shelburne. Most of the members of the British Parliament were paid, bought and sold, by the British East India Company.
So, the British East India Company, with a certain model, set out to prevent, first of all to attempt to prevent what became the United States from coming into existence; and to destroy France; because, among the intelligentsia in France—typified by Bailly, for example, and Lafayette, who were young people (Bailly was somewhat older)—these were the people who formed a constitution for a French monarchy, which was presented in the Spring of 1789, to deal with the crisis in France. This intelligentsia around Paris, which had been the leading force in supporting the struggle to create the United States from Europe; this intelligentsia was determined to move in that direction, to take the American model, which was just being established under the draft Federal Constitution. And, to use that as a model, to spread into Europe, beginning with France, a system of republics—whether under monarchs or whatnot—which would represent this new conception of man, this new kind of society: to free man from the relics of feudalism, so to speak; and from the relics of what the British East India Company represented.
They were removed, immediately. It had been prepared by Shelburne. The French Revolution was run by Shelburne. It was run by the British East India Company. Philippe Égalité: British agent; Jacques Necker: British agent; Danton: British agent; Marat: British agent. The entire Jacobin Terror leadership: British agents. Napoleon: British agent.
Synarchism Against the Nation-State
So, what was set into motion, is what has been called in recent times, in the recent century: Synarchism. It was then called Martinism. This instrument, typified by the Jacobin Terror and Napoleon's tyranny, has been the curse of Europe from that time to the present day. Every time a financial crisis or a threat to this financial order occurs, these guys go into motion. And do, as they did in the 1920s: 1922, they created Mussolini; they created Adolf Hitler; they created the fascists of France; they created Franco of Spain; they created the Synarchist movement in Mexico, the Synarchist movements throughout the Americas. These are the people who are behind, in the United States, putting Hitler into power from here. These are the people who were prepared to run a coup—Morgan, DuPont, and Mellon, in 1933-34: A military coup against the President of the United States was planned by these guys, as reported by Smedley Butler, who had been approached to run this coup; he was a commanding Marine general, who had a few things to say about this.
These are the guys, who went against Hitler only because the British, and their American friends, decided they didn't want to be run, in a world run by Hitler! They didn't fight because they were opposed to what Hitler represented. They fought because he was a continental European. And the idea of a continental European power arising to dominate the English-speaking world, was something they wouldn't accept. They would put Hitler into power to destroy Europe! But, not to conquer them.
And, the minute that the war was virtually won, in June-July 1944, these swine moved immediately with a right turn, which included Russell's plan for preventive nuclear warfare. The conflict with the Soviet Union was created by these people, by this British-American influence, the same crowd, which had tried to assassinate President Roosevelt; which had then backed Roosevelt against Hitler. And then, as soon as Hitler was defeated, moved to destroy Roosevelt's work, destroy the tradition.
So, what we're dealing with is a long history, which goes back into the medieval period; a long history of a struggle, out of the aftermath of the Roman Empire and feudalism, to develop a form of society which is committed to the welfare and promotion of the individual human being. The United States was the first such nation created on the basis of that principle, in a modern form, the Constitutional principle. We have been the victim of subversion, corruption, and so forth, typified by the present Administration; typified by the present leadership of the Democratic Party, who are paid by bankers who get their money out of stealing, or running drugs, like Soros; who control the Democratic Party; who control the Republican Party at the top.
If you try to deal with the existing institutions at the top, you'll get no place. Do what we do: Go to the people. Go to two groups of people: One, the people in the lower 80% of family-income brackets. They are the ones who are aware that their interest lies in a change. Go to people of conscience, among your parents' generation, who may not be, in a sense, of the lower brackets; go to them, and, as a matter of conscience, engage them in the idea that we've got to think about what kind of future we're leaving for our people, and for the world. Go, with a clear image, to these people, those who understand some of this, of what we are looking at: We are now looking, in the fairly medium to short term—at this kind of warfare, which lies between thermonuclear destruction and so-called conventional warfare, which is being pushed. If this happens, within several years, there will be no civilization!
And, we're the only ones who represent the opposition to that. Yes, there are many people, who are sympathetic to aspects of what we're trying to do; but they're not willing to do the job. You have to eliminate the influence of those institutions which are responsible for getting us in this mess, and keeping us in this mess.
And, the only way you do it: You've got to go to the people. The poor, especially. As we're trying to do in Philadelphia. What's happening in Philadelphia on the [Mayor John] Street case: We're trying to mobilize the people of Philadelphia, the poor—the poor, the so-called African-American, the late trade unionists, and others—or people of conscience. To mobilize them as a people to exercise their right to select their own government, to keep their own government accountable to certain principles, which are the general principles of our society.
There's no other force in society you can trust. None. Individuals, yes. But, there's no force in this society you can trust politically, except those who sympathize, and are part of, the cause of the lower 80% of our family-income brackets. And therefore, the reason that you are effective as a youth movement—the key point—the potential you represent lies in that direction.
The key thing here is emotion. Emotion should not be treated as some irrational thing, contrary to reason, as reason is misdefined. But rather, we must look at emotion critically, to define what are sane, and insane, forms of emotion, and then judge the rest of the policy from that standpoint.