Subscribe to EIR Online
This dialogue appears in the May 9, 2008 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

LaRouche Dialogue with Mexican Youth:
`We Live in a Creative Universe'

Lyndon LaRouche engaged in a dialogue for nearly two and a half hours with the LaRouche Youth Movement in Mexico during his visit to Monterrey, April 18-20. The discussion opens with LaRouche answering a question that Tarrajna Dorsey (who had been fielding questions on the LYM scientific work for 90 minutes) had deferred to him. Dorsey and Sky Shields of the LYM "Basement Team," which is working under LaRouche's direction on fundamental scientific questions, preceded LaRouche to Monterrey, and gave cadre school classes there. Following this, LaRouche presented his "opening remarks." The questions are taken from the English interpretation, and some are summarized.

Well, the best way to do it, in keeping with what Tarrajna's been doing here, as I've heard it: Is to go back to the question of Kepler, and particularly the second great work of Kepler. He had many great works, but two are most important; one is the New Astronomy and the second, of course, is The Harmony [of the World]. And we further The Harmony in particular, and go back one step before Kepler.

The idea of science, and all the conceptions of science, come not from astronomy as such, but rather from the discovery of changes in the universe, as observed by maritime cultures which travel great distances and navigate by the stars. And everything we call "modern society," or "modern science," comes essentially out of what is reflected to us, through people we call the "Greeks." They didn't call themselves Greeks; we call them Greeks. You know often people are called things they didn't call themselves.

But when you navigate by the stars, as in glacial times, people had to navigate by the stars. There were big ice cubes on the land—you have to go to sea, and you have to travel great distances, because there are different seasons. And you had about 100,000 years of solid ice in parts of North America and Europe, prior to a period of about 17,000 B.C. where the ice began to melt. So people navigating by the seas, and they did discover the magnetic North Pole, they discovered that it moved, and they discovered it moved with a certain periodicity—slightly less than 2,000-year cycle.

So therefore, you begin to find that the universe is not fixed. It's changing: Not only is it changing in terms of cycles, that is, repeating changes, but there are also permanent changes, and these permanent changes have a certain direction, which we attempt to understand somewhat. So therefore, what happens, is that you discover that the universe was controlled by something which has nothing to do with your experience on Earth as such. Experience in social relations will have little benefit for you in this matter, although these changes may determine the fate of all humanity.

Navigating by the Stars

Then, you go ahead to Kepler. Now, Kepler's discovery was not new to him. The ancient Pythagoreans and Plato, and people before them, had already made this discovery. And all ancient and modern science is based on this one great discovery, which is provoked chiefly by studying the changes in astrophysics, the changes in the heavens which are caused, or observed, by trying to navigate by the stars. There is a certain order in experience in the universe, for whose cause there is no visible sign. But the great observers see these changes occur regularly, and these are principles you can not measure simply by ordinary mathematics. They belong to a domain, which, from an experimental standpoint, is called the "transfinite." And in most universities, today, in studying science, nobody will tell you anything about the transfinite. You're supposed not to know it.

So they give you other explanations, which are not true: They call this mathematics; sometimes they call it physics. Sometimes they take "what my ol' man told me" or something. Or gossip in a bar.

But as you study, for example, as Kepler discovered, which he reports and develops in his first book referred to, the New Astronomy: Not only did he discover that the pathway of the Earth's orbit, relative to the Sun and Mars, was not circular, but elliptical; and it was not simply elliptical in the sense of drawing an ellipse which you can do fairly well in any drafting class. All you have to do is pick two centers and rotate a string around these two centers, and generate an ellipse. But the elliptical orbit of Earth, Moon, and Mars—the relationship is not simply that type. The ellipse of plane geometry and the ellipse of physical science, are two different things entirely, as Kepler demonstrated by the fact that the motion of the Earth along an elliptical pathway, is a function of the relationship of the area swept, to time. So you're looking for a constant rate of change, determined by these two parameters.

Now, if you took a course in ordinary geometry, plane geometry, Euclidean geometry—never believe in Euclidean geometry, it's a fake, but that's what most people believe in—you discover that the rate of change, defined by the movement of the planet along its orbit can not be derived by a geometric construction. It is infinitesimal: That is, the changes are so dense, there's no degree of smallness to define a regular motion accounting for this elliptical orbit. And that is called the transfinite: a physical effect, a physical effect of change, which is so small that it can not be measured. It can not even be estimated or guessed at. But the effect can be measured. And this is the transfinite.

This was Kepler's first discovery, but it was not original to him. It came from ancient Greeks, the Platonics and Pythagoreans. It also came from the founder of modern European science, the great predecessor of Kepler: Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, who recognized that the construction by Archimedes was wrong! You can not competently construct a circle, or an ellipse, by Euclidean geometry. Not actually.

However, there's a principle that the human mind can discover, which does account for this, which is called "physical science."

Now, this goes on and on, and I can go on for three weeks on this one, just to deal with the immediate, most simple aspects of it. Because it's the most important question in all scientific method: the concept of the ontologically transfinite, or the ontologically infinite. Which is what most universities refuse to teach, and most could not teach. It's the kind of thing I emphasize in connection with the Basement work.

Now, what this demonstrates is, that the universe, as we experience it, is governed by principles, which are not, themselves, subjects of sense-perception; you can not distinguish these principles by simple sense-perception.

Now, there are two aspects to this thing, which I'll limit myself to in this answer. First of all, the universe is organized by such principles: That's physical science—as not taught, as it should be taught; as Einstein understood, for example, as Cusa understood, as Kepler understood, as Leibniz understood—but most universities today do not understand: The universe is governed by universals, which means that these principles are not seen by the senses. They're seen by the human mind: And you know them, not by seeing them, but by applying them. You demonstrate they're true, because you can change the universe by adopting the principle and applying it.

Now: In incompetent courses in science, they will go to the blackboard, or some similar atrocity, and they will argue that a certain mathematical formula is the identity of a principle. Absolute bunk. Witch-doctory, witchcraft. No principle is demonstrated in that way.

Some of these formulas, mathematical formulas, do correspond to experimental evidence, but they are not principles. They are echoes, shadows of principles. It's like your shadow on a wall: It's a true shadow! But it's not you! So the ontological question is, we have discovered and we have demonstrated certain universal physical principles, such as Kepler's demonstration of gravitation.

Forget Euclidean Geometry

And then we'll go to the second question on this one: that's the New Astronomy. This principle encloses the universe. There is no authority outside this principle in the universe. So forget Euclidean geometry, it has no intrinsic scientific merit. Because the universe is encompassed by closed physical principles which you can not see.

Now, how did Kepler actually discover a measurable principle of gravitation, which is in the second of the two books, The Harmony. Idiocy is saying that vision is the best sense, and at the blackboard they insist, by the faker called a professor, that they can "demonstrate and show this principle on a blackboard: Come forth! Dance for us!"

How did Kepler discover the measurable principle of universal gravitation as an organizing principle within the universe? He considered two measurements, two instrumentations. One, by vision, but which doesn't give you any answers. And anybody who tries to reduce a principle of astronomics from that, doesn't know what they're talking about. How did Kepler discover the principle of gravitation, as a measurable principle? By also considering hearing! Not only vision, but hearing.

Now, how does hearing function, as contrasted with vision? In first approximation, vision is linear, at least in the small. Hearing is not linear. Hearing is harmonically composed; in fact, it's composed according to the principles of well-tempering of Johann Sebastian Bach. But the two principles don't coincide. But they have a resolution.

Now what does that mean? That means that what you see, what you hear, what you experience, is never the truth. You may have experienced that by watching TV, or a lecture in a university! You understand neither what you see, nor what you hear. What are our senses—our physical senses? Is that the truth? What you see, is that the truth? Certainly, what you hear is very rarely the truth!

What you realize is that these senses which come with us, when we come out of the box, so to speak, the manufacturer's box, most of us, after a few weeks and months, begin to recognize that we have senses. We use these senses, to guide us in a certain way. But they are not the truth. Mama lies.

No, the truth lies in the contradictions among the senses. For example, how do we explore macrophysics, the universe on a large scale? Not by sight or hearing: by the aid of artificial instruments. For example, if you want to take a question, take the question of the perception of the Crab Nebula, by various kinds of instrumentation. The same Crab Nebula observed by various instrumentations looks completely different, on a different scale than any other measurement.

Now, this leads to the question: What do we know? Do we know what we see and hear? No, you don't. Can you learn, as Kepler, by taking the contradiction between two different kinds of senses you come born with, as if "out of the box"? Yes, you can. That's the beginning of the truth, true knowledge. Because now you have transcended your biological existence, with a higher form of consciousness, your human existence. You have now used a quality, which only a human being has: Out of the box with you, when you're born, comes also a potential which does not exist in any animal: the potential for creativity, for discovering the truth through creative powers of reason. Discovering paradoxes in experience, and finding out why, what you think you saw, what you think you heard, is not true. This is the way in which you discover universal physical principles. And now, you're able to bring to recognize what Einstein meant, when he spoke of universal physical principles, as being the reality of the universe, the reality which governs everything which happens in the universe. And our job is to keep discovering new principles, not only gravitation, but other principles which we know to be universal physical principles.

For example: We know that no non-living process can ever generate a living process. No living creature can ever be developed by a non-living process. The principle of life has no basis in inorganic physics. But you find, therefore, we're dealing with principles which are known only to the human mind as principles, because they're discoverable. We understand that the universe is controlled by these principles. And the universe is controlled by nothing but such principles, none of which can be seen or heard by a single principle of sensation. Therefore, we say the universe is perfectly bounded, by discoverable, but invisible physical principles, such as gravitation. There's nothing outside these principles, except these are the discovery of new such principles, or possibly man's creation of such new principles—or, the universe's creation of such new principles.

Then, on this question of the creation of the universe, which is forced upon us by astronomy, we discover we live in a creative universe. The universe is the process of creation of new principles.

We know this especially from astronomy. The universe has grown by development of new principles. And only mankind is capable of understanding that, and that's the importance of it. Therefore, we know we live in a universe which is Riemannian, as understood by Einstein, as understood in a different way by Vernadsky. Because Vernadsky's great achievement was to identify the distinction of living processes from non-living processes, and to understand, you can not tell the difference between life and non-life without considering these kinds of processes.

Therefore, we live in a perfectly self-contained, but never externally bounded, universe.

But it is not simply a fixed universe: It is an anti-entropic universe. Anybody who believed in environmentalism today, is scientifically an idiot, and is probably dangerous to your health.

Tabletop Fusion

Q: What are your thoughts about polarized fusion?

LaRouche: Excellent! The polarized fusion was turned into a hoax by some various opportunists and other people for various reasons. It pertains to a phenomenon, which occurs in the physical chemistry as a whole, and so much is real. But the idea of tabletop fusion as a source of power for humanity was a fraud. It's an important question in physical chemistry, experimental physical chemistry, which has been known for a long time, to pertain to a certain part of the physical chemistry of the Periodic Table. There was considerable experimental work done on this in Germany in the 1920s. That line of experiments was developed by two British scientists, and somebody got ambitious and tried to make a swindle out of it.

So the problem is, two things were the result of that swindle: First of all, the legitimate principle of physical science, of physical chemistry, which was used to make that experiment is valid. The conclusions which were projected by that, by some opportunists, were frauds. And it was the Mormon Church which adopted this fraud, and tried to promote it as some kind of a miracle solution of radioactivity without radioactivity, or something.

Leibniz's 'Monadology'

Q: I have been reading Leibniz's Monadology and your paper on that subject. Can you discuss that further?

LaRouche: What is not understood about the Monadology is, first of all, it is by no means original to Leibniz. It is complementary to two concepts of Leibniz, both of which date back to Plato and to contemporaries of Plato among the Pythagoreans.

The Monadology identifies something: What is the object that the Monadology identifies as a monad? And remember, that in that period, in the period that Leibniz did this work, was a period of that century, from about the time of his birth, when the Thirty Years War was concluded; and remember, the Thirty Years War had been brought to an end by a great Cardinal Mazarin—he was a French cardinal, but he was actually Italian, Mazarini—who orchestrated the creation of the Treaty of Westphalia. In that process, until some bad things happened with Louis XIV, science in France was more free than it has ever been since, under Jean-Baptiste Colbert. So, in this period, Leibniz worked in an environment where there was hostility, such as Descartes, and the English disease was there, empiricism. But, in general, at that point in France, and in other parts of Europe, there was more honesty and freedom in science than there is today.

Now, first take two things you're dealing with: On the one hand, the concept of the monad; on the other hand, the same thing expressed in a different term: dynamics. Both come from the combination of the ancient Pythagoreans and Plato, as Leibniz emphasizes in his two principal works on dynamics. All modern science since that time, that's competent, is a rejection of Cartesian and British thinking, and is in terms of dynamics, the revival of the Leibnizian dynamics in the form of the work of what came out of Gauss, and Riemann makes it free; the work of Riemann is crucial in that.

The issue of the monad is this—it's also a theological, religious issue; it goes with the idea of the transfinite: that individuality, as it's defined by sense-perception, is not a concept of the human being. The human being is born and dies. But the mind of the human being does not end there. The efficient effect of the existence of the human being does not end there. So there's something in this human being which is supernatural, in the ordinary sense. The human being, being a creative being where no animal is, has some quality. What is this quality? That is the Leibniz monad. Which is what he emphasizes.

Then, when you look at this from the standpoint of his subsequent work again on dynamics, and the way he uses the catenary in respect to the calculus, for the universal physical principle of least action, he sees this!

So, the key thing is, to take the two issues, and put them into an historical sense of the immortality of the soul, of Plato, and the similar conceptions which you get among the Pythagoreans, in terms of Pythagoras himself, according to legend—now you get the conception of dynamics as you get out of the quadrivium of the Pythagoreans and Plato, you say, "Ahh!! It's the same thing!"

We, in modern society, in the great revolution which was lost in the Renaissance, under the leadership, in an important sense, by Brunelleschi, for example, who is the first modern discoverer of the principle of the catenary, in the work of Cusa and his followers, you have a rebirth of great ideas which had existed in ancient times, as a legacy of the Pythagoreans, Plato, and so forth: It's now reborn, with Cusa and Kepler. And the work of Leibniz is largely a direct reflection of the work of Kepler.

So you, as I, run into this question of Leibniz and Monadology, and you say, "Well, this is a great idea. Who was its grandfather?"

LaRouche is asked to proceed with his prepared remarks, which immediately follow.

The Westphalia Principle

I thought I would make remarks today, and then these questions came up. I was thinking of the relevance of the experience we've had, particularly in the past days here, again, in Monterrey. And once again, the great assembly of people, from not only various parts of Mexico, but from other parts of the hemisphere, coming here in the great pilgrimage to look at this "Ol' Geezer" here. I'm the only animal in the cage, and therefore, you can understand my discomfort when the right question was posed to me and referred to me, by her [Tarrajna], on precisely the point that I thought was thematic!

And that is, the paradox of sense-perception. Which, as most of you know, is the great problem you have, in any attempt to explore science, and also, human behavior. But I'll give you the example I had in mind to use, rather than the question that was thrown at me, but the question was very legitimate, so I'm not complaining about that!

It should occur to you that we're in a period of great global conflict, that all civilization is in danger. We're in the greatest financial crisis in all modern history, right now. And it's global. It's also mortal: Because those from Britain and related places who are imposing this crisis, as you see what the World Wildlife Fund is doing around Sonora, in respect to the PLHINO [North West Hydraulic Plan], in a period of great food shortage, they're trying to kill Mexicans, by starvation. This is something that has to be dealt with, obviously. And therefore, you say, we're in a period, typified by this, a period of great global conflict.

Now, naturally, to me, global conflict means my first military experience, which for most people in this room is ancient history: World War II. Before they were born, and probably in a past incarnation of the universe, or something.

Now, think about warfare, because we are in a period of warfare—as a matter of fact, the most dangerous warfare I know of in all modern history, or even much ancient history—the British Empire, more precisely described as the "Brutish Empire," is determined to destroy the United States and destroy much of the world. This operation has been fully unleashed, recently, since the middle of last year: Every part of the world is threatened. The intention behind this is to reduce the world's population from over six and a half billion people to less than one-half billion people. The British or Brutish Empire considers there are too many people on this planet, and they're going to reduce them. And epidemic disease and starvation are the recommended methods. And the promotion of indefinite warfare is a useful instrument for accomplishing both purposes.

Now, you think of the difference, for example, between the way we fought World War II, in which I had a minor degree of experience, including some training of troops, which, for a time, was my assignment, and today's warfare. Now, in that time, the Nazis were one thing, and the British were not too nice, either. We referred to this in World War II as a "difficult alliance," when you wished to be polite, we called it a "difficult alliance"; at other times, privately, we called them "damned British." If you travel in the world, as I had then, wherever you see British, you see great human suffering imposed by imperialism: Africa, India, other parts of Asia, Central and South America, are victims of this particular British imperialism, and have been for a long time, since early in the 18th Century. We fought a war to free the United States from that evil, in our Revolutionary War. And that evil dominates the planet today. The United States does not run the world: The British Empire does! There are countries in Asia and elsewhere which are prepared to resist the British, but that's about it.

Now, when we fought World War II, our policy was that of Westphalia. In other words, the Peace of Westphalia established a condition for avoiding warfare, not absolutely preventing it, but avoiding it. And to avoid it meant, that instead of looking at your own special interest against the other nation's interest, you would give first attention to "the benefit of the other" nation, even an opponent nation. This is the great principle of Mazarin and the Peace of Westphalia: Win the other party over, by proposing something which is obviously of benefit to both of you, but is to the distinct advantage of the other.

That is the basis of modern civilization.

When the U.S. troops went into an area, say in Germany, or elsewhere, it was the training and instinct of the U.S. troops, to take immediate responsibility for organizing the care and protection of the people into whose territory they had occupied. That was Peace of Westphalia: the advantage, the benefit of the other. The policy which binds us together, of different nations, together in a common purpose, which is called "humanity."

Look at warfare today, as in Southwest Asia. Look at warfare as we see in the jungles and so forth, of South and Central America. Look at drug warfare. Is there concern for the advantage of another? Is there concern for the benefit of the person who may be your opponent? Is there peace achieved through negotiation on that basis?

Or, as Schiller described it, in describing the religious wars in the early part of the 17th Century, "Do men fight another as beasts, not as men, and man?" Do they kill each other, as mad dogs, as has been done in Southwest Asia and elsewhere today?

The 'Brutish Empire'

So the great danger today, is, obviously, what I call the Brutish Empire. Like the World Wildlife Fund in the state of Sonora! "There are too many people! If they die, that is unfortunate, but there are too many: some have to die. They should starve! They should not have a PLHINO. The bats need freedom! People must die. Dracula forever!" A new meaning for "a sucker born every minute." These vampire bats are treasures of the British in the state of Sonora!

What's the mind that thinks like that? It's the mind that says, "There's too many people." It's a mind that says, "We're going to finally have an empire, which will last forever." And they intend it shall be a British Empire.

The United States is totally corrupted. Not by all people, but by people who represent the chief power. You know this in Mexico, for example, because you know people who have families that also have family members in the United States. You can smell the disaster. Complete inhumanity!

For example, take the Sonora area: One of the areas, from which people have recruited cheap labor, including by drug runners, who send people to death, on their way to be smuggled across the border into the United States. Now, they threaten to throw them back over! Back! When they took them out of Sonora, they took away farmers, they took away the men, who are farmers. They sent them to work at various cheap-labor farms in the United States. The women in Sonora are not farmers, the men were farmers. The economy collapsed, shrinking of production.

Now they're going to throw them back!

What's Mexico to do with these people who are being thrown back to farms that were closed down? And similar kinds of situations? What is that? What kind of responsibility is that?

Then you ask: What's behind this issue? When men go to war, on the one hand, with the great Christian principle of agape, from which they derived of the idea of the Peace of Westaphalia, the "benefit of the other," the sanctity of human life. And you fight a war, knowing you may die, but you fight as a man, not as an animal! Not as mad dogs killing each other.

What's the difference in the mind of the soldier, in the two conditions? In the mind of the person in civilization, if warfare is necessary—and you insist it damned well better be necessary! And as brief as possible, if necessary. Your concern is the peace that follows, with the other people with whom you're now going to live at peace. And you may lose your life in this process. How can you fight war, as a man, not a beast?

You fight as a man, because you believe there's something immortal about the individual human being. You locate your identity, not in your mortal flesh, but in something which the mortal flesh inhabits. The simple farmer, in old days, used to think in these terms. They'd often kill themselves with work under difficult circumstances. But they would say, "I'm dying for my family, I'm dying for my community. I'm leaving something good behind. My purpose of existence continues. I fight, not for mortality as such: I fight for the meaning of my existence as a human being."

And when you fight for the meaning of your existence as a human being, you have almost limitless capability. When you fight out of pure hatred, or assignment, or malice, you are not human! You do not fight as a man. You fight as was typical of religious warfare before 1648: You kill each other as wild dogs! And maybe even have an impulse to eat the person you've killed!

So, therefore, the important question, which is also a question of science, the important question is: What is man, and how do you identify yourself as a human being? And what kind of social process, within and among nations, do you demand? Do you want a civilization, in which the dead person, the deceased person's meaning in life has been continued into future generations? In which the dying grandfather asks to see the children and grandchildren, and to bless them before he dies? That's true courage.

And that's what's lost. It's lost among people who call themselves "religious," as well as otherwise.

We're now in times of conflict, as you can see in southwest Asia, where the beast fights, and men fight men as beasts do— without conscience, without qualm.

And how do we define our identity so that we do not allow ourselves to be trapped as thinking and acting like beasts? And here, at this point, morality and science are combined in a single concept. The expression of man as man, as not a beast, are those creative powers which human beings have, and no beast does. Morality is based on the conception of man as a creative being. And under stress, can you say that you know what it is to be a creative human being? Not merely to express it as a bunch of words?

You need to live in a culture, in which the essence of humanity is affirmed. It's affirmed in physical science, when you get into the question which Tarrajna got us into, today: The question of creative powers, what is creativity? What is the organization of the universe?

What can we believe is really true!? Including concerning our own existence?

If you want infinite power to resist evil, not to capitulate to fear, and to fight as a man, not as a dog, you have to be certain of human nature. You have to find it, and feel it in yourself. You have to rise above mere sense-perception, into a higher sense of human creativity, as distinct from the beast. And since only in the heavens, of astronomy, can you find the image of truth, of scientific truth, it's essential to master physical science in that way, not merely for what you can do as a result of mastering it, but because of what it helps you to say about your own nature as a human being.

And that was the subject I was going to present.

The U.S. Elections: Shaping the Presidency

Q: My question is the question of Hillary Clinton. How can we get people to start saying more truthful things about the elections?

LaRouche: That's my job. I have stopped running for President, I'm running for a higher position, and I say that quite seriously. I will be 86 years of age in September, and I will not make the mistake that the great Moltke in Germany made. He resigned from military command, at the age of 89: He was a fool! So anybody who has contrary ideas better give them up!

But because I have many duties, since many of my former friends are dying out on me, even though I tell them not to do it, I find myself deserted by friends who insist on dying! Therefore, it has occurred to me, that the future of mankind lies with younger people, who will be living to do their duty! And when I consider also the terrible mess, which previous generations have left the youth of their time in, my primary concern is the education and development of young adults, to develop a leading element of a younger generation who will not fail, as previous younger generations have failed.

So that the nature of my duties has been upgraded to a more significant and more permanent position.

Thus you have to look at the election in the U.S. in that way. I announced at the end of the Democratic nominating convention in Boston in 2004, that I was dropping my candidacy for President, and was going to support another man for President at that time. At that time, I formed an organization, a political action committee, whose function is not to back candidates, but rather to shape the policies of nations, which candidates should support.

Since the function is performed by young people, young adults, a still-younger generation of adult youth, who in a sense are being educated, and since most of history is made en masse, by people under the age of 35: Who fights wars? A few old generals. But! Young men between 18 and 35. Who leads society en masse? It is young men and women between 18 and 35 who are the active leadership of society. It is the young dogs who teach the old dogs new tricks.

And sometimes, I don't like the result. I've seen failures. So that's the point. The point of the matter is the way you have to look at it.

Now, what's the result? John McCain, a Senator, has mental problems—which is not unusual among candidates in the United States today! As a matter of fact, it's a great help if you're crazy and immoral—our typical adults will find you more sympathetic. If you're crazy, smoke pot, drive crazily and so forth, all these things—.

So, in any case, the problem is to find a mechanism, and organization, in which you select a Presidential candidate as being suitable, but not necessarily perfect. As a matter of fact, leading figures of society who are actually not too imperfect, are extremely rare in history. If you select a good President of the United States, he's likely to be killed pretty soon: That's the way the financier oligarchy works. They kill qualified Presidents, in order to get bad ones. Look at the vice presidents. The term "vice president" means "vice!"

So the problem here, is to orchestrate the design of a government, which is what I'm doing: I'm occupied with designing a new government for the United States, among other things.

Now, as you probably know, or suspect, I have a long history with the institutions of the United States. I have an enormous number of enemies among that class, and I have a large number of very valuable and good friends. Much of my time, over recent years, over recent decades, has been spent in trying to influence and educate useful people in leading positions in government and behind government. That's why some powerful institutions would prefer I be dead. And they haven't tried to kill me recently, because they don't want the embarrassment of having me as a martyr: That's a problem.

So my function as a private individual, with special positions in life, is to act as an independent to shape the way some important institutions of the United States think. That's my situation now.

So, in this process, the only thing we have, as a workable President in sight now, is the wife of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton. She is, first of all, unlike some other candidates, human. And she does address herself to the issues which involve the base of the population in general. Like many other people, who are good people, they require an environment of influence which helps them to see what it is they have to think about.

Mexico's Influence in the Hemisphere

And for example, if I come into a country, as I am here in Mexico, one of my concerns is to influence people in the United States on how to think about Mexico's interests. And what things should be introduced as considerations of joint concern of people in the United States and in Mexico. And what is the significance of the culture of Mexico, in shaping South and Central America? Only if you look at Mexico from outside, as I do, with knowledge of the history of the hemisphere, do you recognize the importance of Mexico as an influence in the hemisphere.

Since the crushing of Mexico in October of 1982, Mexico's active influence in the hemisphere has been greatly weakened. But if you look at young Mexicans and others, as I can look at them in this room, I know the culture of Mexico is not a useless consideration in this hemisphere. For example, how many people from Mexico, descendants or actually born in Mexico, live in the United States? How many are U.S. citizens? How many have a green card? How many do not? Look at the city of Los Angeles: What is the percentage of the entire population of Los Angeles which comes from Mexico? I'm talking about citizens, U.S. citizens, who have cousins and other relatives in Mexico. What is the ratio of those to the number of people who are illegals in the United States? How many come, for example, from Sonora, or adjoining states? Because of course, the proximity of California.

So therefore, Mexico, because we have so many people from Mexico, and others from South and Central America who are mixed in with people from Mexico, the Mexican population politically, is extremely significant for the political process and other things inside the United States. It's one of the three leading components of the constituency of the United States. So that's the function.

Now, look at that: I have similar relations—not as numerous—but similar relations in many countries in South America; and government circles in Africa; in circles in India, where I have a long history; with government circles in China; with scientific and other circles in Russia; with circles in France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, and so forth. So my function is of that type. It's much more important than being a President of the United States: Because what's needed, since I am the young age of nearly 86; that's the most important, and most durable function I can contribute.

One of my problems, however, is to shape in particular, the choice of the next President of the United States, not directly, although I always express my opinion (I'm inclined to do that), but in terms of the thinking of the institutions, of how we shall craft the Presidency, how the Presidency should function, who should be the Vice President, what should be the circles, who should be the key people who should be brought into government to building a new government in the United States. What should be the long-term strategic policy of the United States and the world? What should be the design of the new, international monetary system, which we have to create? What is the science-driver program for the planet as a whole? This is the function, which people like me perform, to shape Presidents. And we're fighting against old men on the other side, on the opposite side, at the same time.

So right now, we have Hillary, by a process of elimination. We don't yet have anyone who's qualified for President of the United States who's running. New candidates may come forward, before the election. That question, I'm not going to personally decide; it's not my function. How shall the next Presidency of the United States be composed, and what its policy should be.

Many Opinions; Few Ideas

Q: I have two questions: The mass-effect and the understanding of the social dynamic, what you were saying about the November elections in 2006 and the role of the youth in general, in generating new social dynamics, introduced creative ideas which generate a new dynamic. For example, what I saw with the HBPA [Homeowners and Bank Protection Act], obviously, in Mexico this doesn't have a direct relevance, but, the principle that was being defended in this way as such, that had relevance. But entering into specific issues, what I see on the work around the PLHINO, that mass-effect is still missing something—it's missing the element to bring about national unity, But, not only with the PLHINO. What kind of ideas do you have for us to introduce the mass effect here in Mexico, once we understand the ideas of Kepler's dynamics and so on?

Well, the point is, ideas are not produced by masses. Ideas, especially important ideas, are created by individuals, not masses.

So you have two primary questions: producing individuals who can generate ideas; which this young woman [Tarrajna] was talking to you about today, earlier. You have to produce such people. You have to catch them as they come out of the box, as you open up the box. And induce them to become people who want to generate ideas. It's always a few people in society that generate the important ideas. It does not necessarily have to be true, but unfortunately, it is true: Because of the social conditions, the way people think about themselves in society and so forth, we have very few people who are actually creative in society. You can many opinions, but very few ideas. That's the problem.

So the first thing, to put the emphasis on, is the generation of these ideas, essentially ideas which either are competent, or which provoke thinking which lead to competent ideas. For example, you know in any class, like our assembly here, people pose a question, which in itself is not a competent question, but it's competent in the sense that it provokes a response which is useful.

So the function is to create an organization of people who become professional thinkers. Obviously, you don't just become a professional thinker, by saying, "I'm going to become a professional thinker tomorrow morning!" You have to have a certain discipline and develop some competence—we can't just produce leaflets with mumbo-jumbo on them. The common mistake is to assume that if you have ideas, and express ideas, and many people accept them, to assume that you're right. In the matter of ideas, popularity is the skill of prostitutes. And the more professional the prostitute, the worse.

We have many kinds of prostitutes in society, in all kinds of professions. The practice may be slightly different, but the intention is essentially the same. And people become prostitutes, because they will look at somebody, and say, "I wonder what that person's opinion is? Whatever it is they want to hear, I'm going to say." That is the skill of the prostitute.

Or the prostitute will say, "But all of my friends disagree with you and agree with me." There is an excellent candidate for prostitution! Maybe low price, but nonetheless, a prostitute!

So therefore, the important thing is the process of developing in society, truthful ideas, first of all, in a form which is relevant to the problems facing society, more importantly. The third skill is to be able to put these ideas across effectively. And to do that, without any of the tricks of the prostitute. Some people who are not prostitutes, will borrow the habits of the prostitute to try to influence people. This is called "becoming popular." "Popular ideas, popular opinions, official ideas, official opinions." Truth is always in the minority. Leadership is always in the minority. We have not yet developed that utopia, in which all people are rational.

So that's the problem; and that's the problem you have to think about. Creativity, changes in society, come from the minds of unusual individuals, from people who have the quality of being professional in the precision and relevance of what they think. The test of truth is to tell the truth, when it is extremely unpopular to do so. The only qualification, is, it should also be useful, and presented in a useful way.

It is the minorities in society who meet those qualifications, who are the only competent leaders in society, in any sense. The others are called—sometimes well-meaning—but unreliable. Their opinions are unreliable.

So what you adopt, is, for all things, the same sense of precision which is associated with the ideas of physical science, effect of physical science. And all the improvements in society and history, so far, come from tiny minorities within society who meet those qualifications.

See, you may influence people around you, who are not dedicated to serious thinking, who are part-time patriots, part-time political leaders. That's useful, but they're not leaders. You have to give society, as an organization, you have to give reliable, truthful, and useful information. If you seek popularity, you will lose your honor.

Defeating the 'Cacique' Problem

Q: First of all, it's great you came. My question more or less, is, that it's good you mentioned the truth, even if it's uncomfortable, because this takes a certain amount of pressure. I'm going to try to be very brief, in this. Something I read in the latest work on "The Project Before Us" [EIR, April 18, 2008], and it's very useful because we know that the history we're living in is that from 1973 to today, and it comes from the intensive battle that occurred in the relationship—the fight between the British maritime empire against the United States, which is a republic. That's very interesting, because it's clear why that fight in history occurred.

As to what doubt I have, is, in the case of our country, I was wondering: There's a mass movement which is obvious, especially, in the center and south of the country, a mass movement headed by this structure, the so-called "legitimate government" some of which is based specifically on [Benito] Juárez, the people who are involved in that process—and this is what I read in the article—this is the 80% of the population, the lowest income strata, these are the people who have the greatest capability of leading. You see this locally, nationally. So, this is made up in Mexico of older people, of 50 and up. This seems to be a paradox. So, particularly, the idea of Baby Boomer is not a matter of dates, but it's rather a degeneration of a sector of society, which was born during a certain period.

So what are we going to do? Because the desperate situation in our country and the world—how can we coordinate and direct this social sector which is that of the lower 80%? That's my question.

LaRouche: Good. Well, you know, you've got a problem in Mexico, which is special, which is not from 1973, it's from the Aztecs. It's the symbol of the cacique [local chieftan].

The problem I see in Mexico—I've been involved in Mexico for a longer period of time, essentially from about 1972-73, is the cacique! Mexico is a victim of imperialism, including cacique imperialism. The problem is getting—sometimes, you see, the PRI had a certain advantage when it was viable—that's prior to 1983. The PRI was crushed. How was it crushed? The two processes, which involve in part the Baby-Boomer phenomenon: at a certain point, when President López Portillo came around to recognizing the nature of the threat to his country, and together with other leading circles in Mexico, mostly PRI, but others as well, began to recognize they had to do something in terms of a reform of Mexico's policy. And when this thinking around López Portillo, intersected the threat to the entire hemisphere from the Malvinas War, the attack of the British on the Malvinas question, on Argentina, was the threat of the British Empire to destroy the remaining independence of every nation in South and Central America.

So now, what happened: You had a generation, most of whom, like López Portillo himself, have died out. They belonged to a period of greater optimism. When they were crushed, what took their place? Nothing—well, in an sense who took their place? No, the cacique phenomenon took their place.

You have to understand British intelligence! British intelligence practices imperialist method. The British get in many wars, but usually they get other people to fight wars against each other. So, what happened is, the entirety of Central and South America, essentially, had its soul destroyed by the events in Mexico in September and October of 1982! The leaders of that defense of Mexico, many of whom with whom I was acquainted, were demoralized by the defeat! It became easy at that point, by the crushing force brought by the outside, when the President of Brazil and the President of Argentina betrayed Mexico: You had demoralization of the population of Mexico, even people who had been courageous leaders. I was personally involved at the time; I know the inside, largely.

What happened then, as in the United States, the Baby-Boomer stratum took over. They filled in the gap left by the people who had been demoralized, and who had run away or who were dying out. Everyone who was closely associated with López Portillo and the group around him, was victimized after that, on orders of foreign powers. Your father experienced it.

Now, what is the Baby-Boomer? The Baby-Boomer is an international phenomenon, born of the white-collar culture, born between 1945 and 1958. It is the sense, the part of that which is anti-worker, anti-farmer, pro-environmentalism, pro-drugs, the 68er phenomenon. And they have a very weak moral character.

What happened then, as you should know, if you think about what you can tell from the family stories you get, is that the most corrupt—so the people who are the Baby-Boomer generation, that age-group, white-collar, usually university-going, who are not pigs, found that the pigs were getting the jobs and the opportunities. So they, in a sense, over time—as in the United States—began to give in, more and more, to the influence of these influentials, whom they had considered the inferior people before.

Now there's only one way to solve that problem. You have two problems to solve: the cacique problem, which is embedded in the history of Mexico since the Aztecs, and to recruit a new generation of more optimistic, young leaders, who are the antidote to the diseases of the Baby Boomer. For example: Shooting Baby Boomers will not solve the problem. What you have to introduce is a change in the cultural direction. And changes in cultural direction are always induced by people between 18 and 35 years of age.

What you have to have, is, from that generation, an intelligentsia, which is passionately committed to making the changes. And to get rid of the cacique victimization, which the Spanish copied directly from the Aztecs. You have to introduce an international perspective. Because, if you think of your country as the summation of cacique districts, you don't have a country! To define a country, you have to define the country in relationship to people that are outside that country. You have to adopt a mission, that says, "What is the mission of our nation?"

The defense of Sonora on the PLHINO is an example of that! The Royal Consort of Britain—a pig!—called Prince Philip, has sent the stuffed bats of the World Wildlife Fund into the Sonora district to stop the PLHINO. That's the enemy! Is it the enemy of Sonora—no! It's the enemy of all Mexico!

The cacique problem is overcome by nationalism. Nationalism is not a rollo. Nationalism is a passionate commitment to doing something, as a nation. And always, it comes from a professional commitment, where your whole life is dedicated to winning that fight, where you train yourself and become trained, for that fight. You become the warriors of a national renewal, by the passion to make this nation, a great nation among nations.

And I see this, you know, from my experience in Mexico, that the cacique problem is so obvious to me, I happen to know the history of it, how the Aztecs did it, and how the Spanish did it. But then, I see it being done today! Ughhh! That's your problem.

Irony: Language, Science, and Classical Art

Q: I'm a student of pedagogy. You mentioned education, so that moves me, because this is my profession. My question is about education. What do you understand is the meaning of the content of education, number 1. Number 2, where does this go? And number 3, what does this have to do—I see similarities between what you're saying and Paulo Freire.

LaRouche: Yes, in true education, there's only one culture. But it is expressed in different language-cultures, and things which are analogous to language-cultures, which are sometimes called subcultures. But these other kinds of ideas, like Fanon and so forth, really are fraudulent. The principle involved is the principle of creativity, it's the principle of the human mind: a principle of creativity.

Now, for example, poetry, English poetry, Classical English poetry, such as Shakespeare, Shelley, Keats, the typification of Classical English poetry. Now, there is no difference between the state of mind of competent physical science, and competent literary and musical culture. See, in physical science, the mind is looking at human minds' behavior on the matter of scientific questions. Physical science is not the study of physical objects: It is the study of the way the mind should approach physical subjects. In Classical art, we look at the use of language, in which sculpture, painting, and so forth, are all functions of language. The principle of great art is otherwise the same principle as physical science.

In other words, cultural multiplicity is no good, as such. However, how do you approach culture? There is only one good principle of culture, and it's progress, it's evolution, it's development. The point is found in what's called "irony," rather than so-called literal meaning.

Now, irony arises in experience normally, from associations which are also embedded in the established use of a language, especially as poetry. See, if you take a people, you say, "let's make a universal language," as the tendency is with globalization: You destroy the minds of the people! Because in the people's use of language is embedded its experiences. So for example, when you refer to poetry, it is the associated meanings that come from the history of the experience of the people using that language, which is what you're getting a reaction to. For example, take any language, you always start from the greatest periods of cultural apogee of that use of the language, and often, the real meaning of a poem, lies in something that a person who is not familiar with the deeper use of that language will never understand. Because the active human mind is always looking at things from a dynamic standpoint, never a Cartesian standpoint. Existentialism, and things like it, come from a fragmented view of cultural reality.

The Classical view of a language and its art is always dynamic, it's never structural. And one of the greatest poisons that destroyed the French culture was structuralism. And structuralism is nothing but a degenerated form of Cartesian thinking.

The purpose of culture is to enable the speakers and users of a particular language and its culture, in which one person's ideas expressed in that language in a Classical way, should be communicable to the speakers of another language, by finding a medium for doing so: They're the same ideas, but they're formed in a different way.

Take poor people coming from south of the U.S. border: Their conditions of life, if they come from poor backgrounds, can be miserable inside the United States, not because somebody's oppressing them as such, but because they don't have the development needed to find expression in the language they're encountering, which corresponds to their intellectual potential. You have to think of a person who's living like a prisoner of their own body: They have ideas they want to express—they can't. The potential of the ideas is there, but they can't articulate them. You have the culturally deprived person, who doesn't know how to use their own language. You see cases, where people are educated, who can't articulate important ideas in their own language. You get, like a child beating its fists against somebody, because they can't express an idea they want to express.

The Case of 'Don Quixote'

So therefore, the key problem here, is to enable people to express important ideas, in themselves. The most typical way we approach that, is by developing a Classical culture in languages. For example, the case for which Don Quixote is used generally, not merely because it's a funny work, and more than funny work—except for those who find whores attractive—because it's an excellent piece of the use of the language, especially the sense of humor. You find the same thing, expressed in a different way, in François Rabelais from a similar period. You'll find the same thing expressed in Italian, in Boccaccio's Decameron: Here's a brutally tragic situation, the middle of the Dark Age! And he's sitting up on the hillside, across the stream in the city; he's looking down into the streets of the city. I sat there, and relived that experience one time. What's happening in the city? The carts are carrying the dead bodies off the streets! And what is he saying in the Decameron? He's talking about the moral degeneracy, that led to that spectacle in the streets.

So we have many examples in Classical art, and what we have in the Modernist tendency is deconstructionism—Cartesian and similar kinds, or structuralist deconstruction.

So, yes, we require that people who are trained, especially in education, to liberate the student, to be able to express ideas, and grasp ironies. First of all, in a Classical appreciation of their own language, with the help of the study of the history of their culture. And then, go beyond that, to go outside their own culture, and look at other cultures. And you know, ask yourself the question: How did the French, who spoke a very good variety of Italian, engage in that peaceful exercise called the speaking of modern Parisian French?

Tragedy: A Passion for Truth

Q: My question goes toward the question of intention. We always talk about great minds, like Kepler and Gauss, and so on. The issue is intention, the intention regarding immortality of the universe as a whole. I've got a problem with that; that's what I'm trying to resolve. Because if I'm honest with myself, I don't have this agape, this idea of fighting for humanity. I recognize it. I admit it's a problem. And as you yourself said, you have to recognize the disease to be able get out of it, and that's what I'm trying to do. I really want to solve this, because if I don't resolve this idea of why, for humanity, why I could take up these projects of Kepler or Gauss, but would I do it just to learn something for myself or for the good of humanity? And that's where I'm trying to find a solutions, because if I don't solve this, that's where garbage is going to come in.

That's the issue. What's your advice?

LaRouche: Well, you know, this is why the study of history is so important, and it has to be a competent study of history. And sometimes the study of great tragedy is extremely important.

The problem is, is that great tragedians—Shakespeare is an example of that, Cervantes is an example of that: Take Cervantes' personal experience, his life, his actual life; and take the Don Quixote and look at it as a tragedy, not as a comedy: Sitting up all night with a prostitute is not a standard of morality. The sense of tragedy! This is a tragedy! This prostitute—it's tragedy! This poor, old fool is doing that!?

And here you have Cervantes, who was wounded in warfare, who was persecuted often in his own country, who lived in a country in which the King was worse than an idiot, and in which the typical peasant was a Sancho Panza, whom Cervantes consistently represents as a person who can not rule himself, can not govern himself. His gut governs him.

It is through the appreciation of tragedy that you get rigor, from great tragedy, great drama, such as that of Schiller for example, precisely deals with this question. You get this with Keats, you get this with Lessing in drama, also. The sense of tragedy, of how mankind culturally destroys himself, whole cultures destroy themselves, for lack of something that would be called "truth." But truth is then presented to you as a situation, not simply as an assertion. And when people want to learn truth, they don't learn formulas, they learn situations. And they learn the consequences of their reactions to a situation.

And from this, comes passion, a passion for discovering what the truth is. And that passion becomes commitment. It comes in a society—see, the problem is largely, in societies in which morality is taught, it's taught like a recipe for a bad meal. And they think that's rigor. And the temptation is to choose when I go to a different restaurant, I get a different meal: I shoot the cook and get a new one.

The idea of truth comes from, starting from a sense of, "I don't know the answer. I'm going to find the answer in experience, by observing tragedy, to understand what the tragedy of Hamlet is, for example. Why does a nation fail to defend itself in a crisis? Why are people allowed to die, who shouldn't have to die, because of negligence?" These kinds of things compel you to say, "We've got to discover what the truth is, and recognize it in experience." And the best way to recognize it, is to have great drama, or other things, which portray to us, what the concept of truth is.

One of the great functions of art is that: Great Classical art, which is crafted by people who worked to become geniuses in producing this kind of attraction from society. Truth has to be learned, not memorized, but learned from experience of what is true and false. You want the truth? The desire to find the truth, and seek it, is commitment.

You know, we're not all born smart. We have to learn something along the way, and experience will give it to us, if we're open to it.

Addressing the Demoralization of Youth

Q: I don't have a personal question. The questions I have are from contacts who couldn't come, and asked me to have some questions answered. One is a youth who is working directly with the resistance fight—the workers who are now blocking the Congress, as you know, in defense of the petroleum. And this youth couldn't come here, although he wanted come, because he had that immediate responsibility, because he was in charge of a brigade of people. So, my question for you, is on his behalf. It's not that he's asking a question, but I'm asking a question: What can you say to the youth who are involved in these kinds of things—it's not that they're doing nothing, but this time, they're not here. But because they have immediate obligations to defend the oil resources in Mexico?

And the other comes from a youth who's more or less my age, but who works with younger kids—14-, 15-year-old kids, 16-year-old kids—and he's very worried because he's finding these kids to be totally demoralized, depressed, existentialist, with no sense of—. And he asked me, how is it that a youth can say you can't change things? How can he say that everything is lost, that nothing has any meaning? And he asked me that, to pass that on to you.

LaRouche: Okay. Well, the frustrations come, to some degree, from immediate response to a lack of vision of an answer.

Now, being a young person myself—well, younger than some people—I know something about this process of being "outside" the knowledge you need, to address a problem. And the answer lies, in developing the relationship to a group of friends, and others, who review precisely these kinds of questions.

Now, for example, the guy is working with a movement around López Obrador, on defense of the national patrimony of petroleum of Mexico. Nothing wrong with that! How he chooses to do so, is not for me to judge! I have my own views on the matter, which are well known.

But the point, the thing to get at, the danger here, which I think is what you're expressing on both cases, is a sense of frustration about not being able to socialize this in an effective way. And there are many problems that you face in life, that you have no solution for—like these young fellows you reported on. There is no immediate solution. There's a process which could lead to a solution. And you can try to help them, by engaging them in activities which are more optimistic.

Remember, an adolescent—as you know, from your experience—an adolescent and a young adult are two different categories. The adolescent is either totally estranged, or is not really accepting a responsibility for an adult outlook on society. They're complaining about society! But they're not thinking about their positive role in developing society. And, in educating adolescents, that is always the critical problem. They are not ready emotionally, to think in terms of axiomatic, adult responsibilities in their own lives. But yet, they have strong reactions to the conditions in which they live. But they're not disposed, themselves, to create the solution.

This is a problem, largely of education, educational activities. To engage them in useful activity of some kind. Not necessarily relevant to the big problem, but a form of something like play, which is useful, and gives them an orientation. That's what we do in schools. I mean, this used to be done with sports activity, as in gymnasium activity and so forth; let the young people express their energy in ways which are not harmful and involve cooperation, and thus get their emotions under control. Because the big problem with the adolescent is getting his or her emotions under control. And you're in a society, in which society does not, at this time, take responsibility for helping the adolescent deal with that problem.

But on the first case, I feel quite sympathetic about the emotions involved and commitment involved of this young person. There's nothing wrong with that. Sorry he wasn't here, and you should give him my regards.

Back to top