LAROUCHE OCT. 24 DIALOGUE
WITH THE MANHATTAN PROJECT
Outgrowing the Childhood of Mankind
This is an edited transcript of Lyndon LaRouche’s Dialogue with the Manhattan Project of Saturday, Oct. 24.
Dennis Speed: My name is Dennis Speed, and on behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee, I want to welcome everybody here.
We seem to be maturing: We seem to have some new process going on which I know Lyn has been talking about. Of course, it was only a couple of weeks ago, that he began discussing this idea of a Manhattan Party, and we seem to be having a lot more fun in Manhattan, so I’d like to first ask Lyn to give us an opening statement, and then we’ll go right into questions.
Lyndon LaRouche: Okay, well, it’s fairly simple. Manhattan is a very important area in the history of the United States. Without what was done there in our part of the world. We have an excellent opportunity now to provide a keystone for leadership, in terms of the entire consolidation of our population. So, the point is such that we now have a new level of access to the role of the United States as an organization. And I think this has become fairly evident. And I would suggest that, because you know what our routine has been here in this location, that we just simply start.
So that’s where we are. We are now, in this sense, using Manhattan as a place from which to organize the necessary steps for our purpose inside the United States, and for what goes beyond that.
And, as I wind up, we’ll just go take this thing and start to go with it with the question and answer with me, and it’ll all resonate better that way.
Speed:All right, I got it, Lyn. Let’s just make sure that the thing is sufficient. So let’s go right into questions and answers, and whoever we have first, please come right up.
The Southern Strategy
Q: I want to ask about Jeremy Corbyn. My recollection is that you said that he was for Glass-Steagall and to depose the Queen. Following his election [as British Labour Party head], there was a lot of protest about him. They were calling him a socialist, and they had this to say against him. Were these people saying that because they were frightened of what it is that he has to offer?
Also I got the impression that with his winning, and with his moving into a position of importance, that Scotland would again have their vote to create their own sovereignty. So, would you go into a further explanation and clarify that for me? And as of the moment, what has he done to bring about what would help us to remove ourselves from the control of London?
LaRouche: Well, the point is, London and the British system has been disintegrating. The Queen and the concert around her are now a piece of garbage, essentially. They merely are trying to fill in the cracks. And the British Empire is no longer the British Empire. It’s lost that kind of quality of operation. We have new kinds of considerations, but this process is rather complex, because most of the nations in the trans-Atlantic region do not know where they’re coming and going. They’ve lost their sense of identity, and therefore they are very confused. They stab at this and they stab at that.
So I think the best thing to do, to go with this idea—look, we have a position here in Manhattan: This point in Manhattan is the proper point of reference for the organization of our organization as a whole, and for the whole system of the planet. Now, we have—China’s very important; India’s very important, other parts of the world are very important. But the problem is the United States. The United States has to be restored to what would be a competent tradition. We’ve had very little in that. We’ve had Bushes, and the Bushes are not much good, or they’re less than no good. We have all kinds of things which have gone on so far, since the time of Bill Clinton in particular.
But also earlier, where I was involved in the organization, under Reagan, of running up the economy. And then, Reagan got knocked out because they tried to kill him; and didn’t quite succeed. And the second thing was, the effect was, that I was put in a tough situation. And so, since that time, except for Bill Clinton, there has been nothing worth talking about in terms of the United States, in terms of its functions.
So we’re now a damaged organization, the United States is a damaged organization from that time on. Bill Clinton made some beautiful contributions, but they were not really that strenuous; his wife didn’t help him much; she rather put him in another direction, and she’s still doing it, and it’s getting worse all the time. But that’s another question.
So the point is, we now have a situation that we have to recognize,—that we have to stop this stuff about looking at local areas of the United States. Forget it! The United States has one locality, and that is, the United States itself! And when you try to divide the United States into localities as such, you find you’re making a mess of everything, and that’s what’s destroyed the United States in its ability to function.
The history of the United States shows that, with all the problems of the history of the United States, all the fluctuations, and all the damage that has been done. So therefore, the idea that you have to have is a United States, not a collection of localities.
Now, it happens to be no coincidence that Manhattan is a very important and leading part of this whole process. And it was done by Alexander Hamilton. And he was the one who organized the organization of the United States, and then, of course, people assassinated him, and that led to a lot of confusion in terms of the history of the United States, because you had four terms of the Presidency after that point, and it was a screwball operation. We’ve had great Presidents in a few cases, we’ve had an organization in a few cases.
Library of Congress
But we’ve also had the Southern policy, and the Southern policy in the United States is what has destroyed the United States’ capability of functioning. Therefore, we have to return to that commitment, and that’s where we stand. And you have to understand the importance of Manhattan. You know, I went to work on this thing, beginning last October, and I said we have to orient to a Manhattan orientation, not local orientations. And it’s when you take the Manhattan area, and you make it a point of mobilization of our mission, you find that the characteristics of our citizens in Manhattan become quite useful. Because it’s only at that point, when we create a unification of our United States, as a United States; and when we understand what we mean by that, then you understand,—well, it’s not Manhattan, but it’s Manhattan in its role as being the unifying point of reference established by Alexander Hamilton. That’s the issue. And if you don’t have that kind of coherence, you do not have a United States which is capable of functioning reasonably.
Speed: Hmm! Interesting.
A Sudden Change in Identity
Q: [follow-up] I’d like to extend the question. As I understand it, London does still have some control, certainly over Obama, and they are working to try to fortify him and to regain some of his strength. I also had understood that with Corbyn winning the position that he did, that it would probably bring down the Parliament and cause another election, and that he would probably win leadership of the Parliament. If that does happen, does that quicken our position in our country to return ourselves to a better position?
LaRouche: Well, the fact that Corbyn was able to go as far as he has gone so far in his success, is a very important point. The British Empire is now a disintegrated wreck! And the leading figures in that empire are actually scrambled. The Queen doesn’t function any more; she has lost the fruit salad of her brains or whatever. The family as a whole is screwed completely. It’s a wasteland.
creative commons/scorpions and centaurs
And you have Scotland, which is a peculiar place. I don’t know what to say about Scotland; I know I have my family ancestry from Scotland which is fairly impressive. They played a key role in terms of the wars that the United States has sometimes fought, and so forth. But the problem here is that we don’t have an institution in Britain which is worth a damn, except for these people who suddenly come up and said “now we’re going to take over the leadership of Britain.” And that works, in a certain way. It’s insecure.
But we have to look at the planet as a whole rather than any part of the locality. It’s integral. For example, China: The role of China is the largest role in the planet right now.
What you’re going to have to do is go through a sudden change in identity. Let me qualify that precisely to make absolutely sure that you understand what I’m saying. The problem is that we look in terms of particular nations; we say, “this nation, that nation” and so forth. Now, the function of nations as an assembly of nations, does have a significance, but the problem is that mankind has to effect a unity, a unity of the population of mankind. The unity is largely located in, of course, what we have on planet Earth; but that is not the limit of mankind’s role or destiny. There is also the Galaxy; there are also the other parts of the nearby space. These are integral parts of the same thing that includes the United States.
The peculiarity is, of course, in the people of the United States, the people of the Hamilton types of claims,—the types of what people are, in terms of what mankind can become; and that’s the issue. You have to think that if mankind is not becoming an increasingly effective force in order of magnitude and quality, and mankind is not achieving things that mankind has never achieved before, then you don’t have a competent mankind. Because mankind has a special [mission].
For example, there is no such thing as a particular population being the be-all and end-all of mankind, none. Mankind actually belongs to the Solar System and beyond. And as mankind progresses, we’ll find that mankind always is, when he’s successful,—mankind always achieves goals which no other species in the Solar System or anywhere could achieve. Mankind’s progress in the sense of,—not science as most people talk about it, but the principles of creativity; where the individual people inside society are able to understand and comprehend like our greatest thinkers do, like Vernadsky and people like that; they created a new level of knowledge for the entire human species.
It’s that quality of creativity which we must instill in our population. And the meaning of the nation is that the nation has to be a unit,—our nation, our United States, has to be a unit of creativity, permeating the planet as a whole; man’s role in the planet as a whole. And if we don’t do that, we are not going to succeed; we’d be failures.
The British System is Dying
I mean, the division of the United States, the Southern vs. Northern population, this is a disease. This is not an option, this is a disease. We still have in the Southern parts of the United States, you have a state of evil, which dominates that part of the United States. You have other areas of incompetence; we have areas where we’ve lost the ability to create and to provide for progress.
Now, the time has come, that we have to look at these things in terms of a total picture; we have to situate the whole experience of mankind on this planet—but also beyond this planet as such. And mankind has to reach out to become capable of mastering points of space and time, which mankind has never been able to master previously. We have to locate the nature of mankind.
And your point that you stated right now, it’s valid; yeah, sure it’s valid. And what it means is that people like Corbyn and so forth, are actually probably the oncoming of something that is better than Britain has known itself. Maybe a few of my Scottish ancestors have done pretty well; but that’s not the big issue.
Q: Thank you very much.
Q: Hi Lyn. It’s A— here in New York. We have, in the recent period, been going after the Brits pretty straightforwardly; and we see an effect with that. The Mervyn King of two weeks ago, [former Governor of] the Bank of England; Geithner, an extension of the British earlier this week. And we think that getting a little paranoia into these folks, where they can’t just mosey into town and run their mouths, is very useful; because they’re hearing voices.
Now, South Africa earlier this week came out very clearly on the subject of CO2 and what they’re expected to do with this Paris conference approaching rapidly. And their response was that it was the equivalent to apartheid; so, they’ve gone and taken a step in naming and identifying who the enemy is. As this conference approaches and we continue to organize, how should we take advantage of that type of attack or open rebellion against the British?
LaRouche: I don’t think we want to look at it that way. For example, the British system is now in a process of dying; and hopefully, it will never come back. It will never resume. The world is not going to work on the basis of nations as such. Yes, nations have a function, because there are people who have different cultural development and experiences; so you have to take these into account.
But we’re headed in a direction where mankind,—when people learn to understand languages better, you’re not going to have much of this so-called language division. It will pass over. Because we’re so stuck with the tradition of the previous century and of the Twentieth Century itself, we’re so stuck with admiration of the peculiarities of that period of time. And we don’t realize what’s happening. It’s not an even development, but it’s an essential one.
We are no longer going to be operating on pitting nations against nations, in terms of competition. We have now entered the beginning of the process where, if we are successful, we will actually go through a process; we will have elements of cultural consistency, but we are going to come closer, and closer, and closer to the principles which govern over the particular nations. The nations are going to become absorbed, as the nations grow up, and they don’t act like little children playing toys any more.
And our job is to help mankind, not to play with little boys’ toys any more. It will be a process of growing up; it will be a process which is the highest rate of the development of scientific progress. But it will be that kind of scientific progress which will determine or pre-determine the options of mankind for mankind’s future in the Solar System and beyond it; including the Galaxy; or the Galaxies.
Q: Hi, Mr. LaRouche. This is R— from Bergen County, New Jersey. It’s been one week since the Drone Report revelations came out on The Intercept website; and to my knowledge, there hasn’t been any major movement in Congress to do something about it, whether that means opening up a major investigation, or a criminal investigation or criminal indictments for these war crimes that are being perpetrated or carried out from the top levels of leadership in the United States. And I find this to be shocking and outrageous, that our Congress seems to have done absolutely nothing.
What’s Wrong with Us?
At least, in watching last night’s Friday webcast, which was excellent also, I didn’t pick up anything from there. There might be a little bit of movement from the ACLU and maybe some outside organizations who apparently are going to pursue this. But as an American citizen, I am totally disgusted that the Congress has done nothing. They should have been on top of this; they should have been chasing this. They should have been opening up investigations; there should have been criminal indictments. This is hard-core evidence. Therefore, I’m going to say that this government does not have my consent.
LaRouche: That’s a reasonable argument. [laughter]
Q: [follow-up] And I want to go further than that. And although I haven’t taken a survey, I feel pretty confident that if we were to ask most Americans—most of whom are decent people—whether the government had their consent for their government to play the role of God and decide who is going to live and who is going to die; most Americans would not agree with that. Therefore, I feel fairly confident in saying that this government does not have the consent of the American people. Do you have any comments on that?
LaRouche: Yes. There was no intention to give that kind of consent from the people of the United States. And most of the people in the United States no longer believe that they have an option in this matter; they see themselves largely as victims.
Look at what’s happening to the population here. The entire association of the people of the United States is in a process of, mainly, degeneration! The people who had jobs, for example, have a poorer quality of job experience and options. Every year, there’s a qualitative degeneration in the conditions of life of the great majority of the people in the United States. Now, we have a concern in this matter—not to use the Quaker language—but actually we can use the term “concern.” Some of us fell into that habit, but it’s not our fault; it was done to us, we didn’t do it.
But the point is, we’ve got a situation where we actually have to take charge. We have to get rid of Obama; we have to get rid of two terms of Bushes, and you know, the Bushes were not good things to have. Bush-league people; not good at all.
So therefore, we don’t have the authority of our own Constitution! It has been taken away from us. And this process of degeneration began with the Twentieth Century; it came with people like Bertrand Russell and people of that type. They destroyed the people and the minds of the people of the United States to a very large degree. So therefore what we have to do, is we have to have a new school of education. And that is possible; there’s all the evidence available. It’s on the table; it can be used and discussed and so forth. But we’re going to have to have a change in mood; we’re going to have to clean up the United States itself.
Now, you’ve got a mess in Europe. Germany has a certain degree of quality, but it doesn’t function; it doesn’t function any more. The French don’t know what history is any more, they lost it; they threw it away. It wasn’t just—well, I could go through that story, but that’s another part of the thing.
But the point is that what we have is the leading influences for the good are located in places like Russia; Russia in particular, under Putin. Then you look at what China is doing, under China’s leadership. You see what’s happening now with India. You’re seeing smaller nations who are beginning to pull themselves together, and find an international coalition of trying to work together.
Where this thing is going to lead to if it’s successful, is we’re going to actually learn to use languages in a different way than we have before; a lot of talent will be developed in a different way. We will be pursuing scientific researches which are not known to practically anybody on this planet right now. The elements of that evidence are there, but very few people in the United States or anywhere else on the planet know very much about this whole thing. They don’t have a guidepost for how to do it.
What we have to do, is take the negative approach, and say, “Look, what’s wrong with us?” Say in the United States, in particular, and other nations as well. “What’s wrong with us? Why do we keep doing things which are absolutely incompetent? Why do we do it? Because we try to adapt ourselves to popular opinion, various varieties of popular opinion?”
The Role of the Teacher
And we’ve lost the sense of the Columbus principle. Remember Christopher Columbus, who integrated the single planet Earth for a time; did a pretty good job of that. And he was a courageous person. And he did launch, in his period of work, he did launch a new way of thinking about mankind; contrary to kind of European system and related systems which functioned at that time. And Columbus was not just a discoverer; he was a maker of discoveries, of human discoveries.
And we’ve come to a time now where we’re going to go back not to Columbus, but we’re going to take the example of what Columbus did, and we’re going to recognize that mankind is not based on nations as such. Mankind is based on mankind; and mankind has to discover what mankind is. And the problem today, is very few among mankind know that mankind really means.
And I think what you’re contributing to, in your several repeated interventions, you’re doing it; you are demanding a change in the way that the nation is considered. To make it more rational, more constructive—an obligation to be more constructive in the truest and highest sense. And that’s what’s important. And I would hope that what we’re doing here, on this particular occasion and similar occasions about the world, we would be able to see ourselves as, shall we say, my Scottish ancestors put it: “To see oursels as ithers see us.” [Robbie Burns]
Q: Good afternoon. This is J— from Brooklyn New York. I wanted to say something that you may or may not have heard about, but I’d like to get some input from you, because it’s really important to me to see what your ideas are about this. Now, as everyone here knows, I’m a teacher. I teach science in middle school; which is 11-, 12-, and 13-year olds. Now, I have always said that Glass-Steagall relates to every single thing in our life that is important. That because of the takedown of Glass-Steagall, we have seen and we are seeing the disintegration of major, necessary institutions; such as our manufacturing, our hospitals, and our schools.
Now, I just want to zero in on the schools a little bit. Recently, there has been a class action suit on attacks by the bureaucracy on teachers. The teacher in question that I’m talking about, I think it was Oct. 16, something like that recent, has filed a class-action suit against the L.A. school system.
Now, this teacher was fired for misconduct; however, the particulars of this so-called “misconduct” are just surrounded by discrepancies and innuendos. So, nobody knows what this “misconduct” was actually about. But what we do know about this teacher is that he had been teaching for over 20 years; he was tenured. He has been an instrumental part of re-establishing Shakespeare, and Classical poetry, and Classical literature in the high school that he was in. And he actually received the Teacher of the Year Award during the last part of the Bush Administration. He was given honors for being the Teacher of the Year; and then just recently, he was fired for misconduct.
What Mankind Means
Well, this brings to mind things that are happening right here in New York City. Our teachers are under attack here in New York City, and from what I can see, all over the United States. And we’re under attack because those of us who tell the truth, and who want to make sure that our students are actually taught something, and want to see an end to the miserable dumbing-down of the population and the ending of the lives of our students—who are our future—we are under attack.
I have 20 years in the system; I’m a tenured teacher. I said in my school when a principal came in who was a total demon and who wanted to close us down; I said that she was a closer, and she said that I was insubordinate. And I was; still am. [laughter]
So, I was brought up on some vague charges, just like this young man; and I was suspended for a month without pay, and I was told I needed teacher development. Professional development, because I was “unprofessional” and some of what I was saying to my students about Newton being a fraud, and the need for nuclear energy, and climate change and global warming being ridiculous, I guess that falls under “misconduct.” So, I understand this class action suit. As a matter of fact, I’m trying my best to find out how to become a part of it.
And I’d like your comment on that, because we need to end the dumbing-down of our children; we need to teach them the truth. And that’s the long, tall, and short of it. Thank you. [applause]
LaRouche: In reply, I would emphasize the following: That we have the ability intrinsically in us, but not much in our practice, of developing the concept of what mankind means; or what it should mean. And the meaning, is that everyone who lives as a human being will die; every human being as of now—and there are no exceptions available to my information now on that—that we die.
Now, what is the meaning of the death of people who die of, shall we say, natural causes; as opposed to the radical kinds of things that sometimes occur also? But in the normal course of society, what is the meaning of death for a senior person, or a person who has been run down because of other reasons as well? What’s the meaning? The meaning is that we have to, as a human species, we have to get out from this just plain old gossip idea, of what’s going on with us; and realize that mankind, all mankind so far, to the best of our knowledge, dies.
Now that idea of death is not a tragedy. Because under all kinds of conditions, it is possible for human beings, human individuals, to make a contribution to the advancement of mankind beyond anything that mankind has mastered previously. In other words, the creative powers of the human mind, the ability of the human mind to develop the discovery of things which had never been understood before; and thus, mankind is able to change the character of the Solar System; to change the elements of space and time. Mankind alone can do that; and no one else so far known, can. So therefore, the question here, is the idea of progress.
Now, what you have presented here in your report on the misconduct being against you, is just exactly that! Now, I know what you do; I have enough knowledge about what you do from various sources, particularly in these premises. And I know what you do. Now, I actually would like to introduce some additional considerations, but I’m not going to protest against what your considerations are so far; because I know that you’re doing very well. And you’re doing it in the location which generally are rare areas in terms of quality of education. Manhattan has produced some of the finest products of education of people; and this has been a characteristic which was introduced into Manhattan by the reforms of the educational system.
And so the problem here, is we assume that the death of a human individual is a finality. It should not be a finality; what it should be, is that every human being should be enabled, to develop a mastery of domains of mankind’s behavior, which mankind has never achieved before. And therefore, that’s the principle of mankind; and no other species that we know of has been able to do that, to meet that challenge. If you cannot create a better Solar System, then what are you doing being human? And that’s the point; is that everything about your life has to be a progressive process of development of the powers of thought and creativity of mankind. There’s no other species that I know of that can meet that challenge.
The Challenge in South America
And unfortunately, because of the educational systems, and because of the oligarchies and so forth that have been running around, the average person has no active comprehension of what it is to be a human being! Because they accept death as finality; when a true human being, who knows what I know at least, will say, “No, that’s not true.”
What’s true is the ability of the individual and society to create a state of progress in the condition of development of mankind, which has never been superseded before. And it’s the ability to supersede the past, all generations. So that a new baby, a new born person, is potentially, should be, a person who is going to create something by man, and for man, which has never been done before.
In other words, it is the creative process, where mankind creates in mankind, the ability to understand and master knowledge which mankind has never known before. And that is the issue. That’s the principle, that is the moral principle.
And therefore, like this young lady here, who just. . . the same thing. What’s a teacher doing, a good teacher doing? A good teacher is trying to, always, day after day after day after day, to take a bunch of children, of young people and these children, to inspire them to know something they didn’t know yesterday, which is necessary for them to progress in terms of their aptitudes.
And therefore, we just have to say that we know that experience of educating people, of educating in good schools, progress of mankind, that people become capable as society of what mankind have not been able to do before. But we have to take it further. We have to say mankind’s mission, is to create the power of creativity in that way. That the job is to, as any good teacher, like, you know,—you have to educate the people, the students, you have to educate people around you. And you do the best you can in order to advance these children and others, similar other people. You’re trying to get them to go a step further than mankind has gone before, or at least in that institution or in a similar location. The discovery of what is new, the discovery of the original, which is necessary.
And that’s the issue. We have to create in ourselves, among our species, we have to change everything we are doing so far. We have to change it. Not because we hate it, but we have to do it because we’ve got to know something we didn’t know up to now.
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. I’m P— from the Bronx, I was born in Guatemala. So today, I attended a meeting with Peruvian officials; they were talking about Peruvian issues. But I spoke privately and also during the event, and I raised questions about joining the BRICS, and the need to focus on the new frontiers in space research and scientific breakthroughs in nuclear energy and other technologies, such as magnetic levitated trains, in order to solve poverty problems. I told them about the developments in Bolivia, about science cities, education for young people, and their commitment to become a nuclear nation.
It was interesting, because there were all kinds of people in the event. There were the greenies, there were the British with British accents, asking about open markets, free markets, or—I don’t know! He was the CEO or something. Also there was a beauty queen, who was a former Miss Ghana. And also, a guy with a smart phone, who was all the time looking at the smart phone. So it was very interesting.
But the Peruvian officials, they were really impressed when I spoke to them about your ideas about the technology, and even talked to them about Classical music, and the relationship between Classical music and science, and even gave them some beautiful pictures from NASA, and how everything can be changed, and how to develop the human resources. They were really impressed with that. And then at the end, they asked me, “How can we join the BRICS?” And they praised the BRICS, and they praised what Evo Morales in Bolivia is doing. So it was very nice, it was fun. Thank you.
Mankind Must Grow Up
LaRouche: OK! What we have to understand is that you’re talking about a different part of the Americas, in terms of culture, the implications of that. Well, this is all valid, there’s no question about it; it’s all valid. The question is, are we making the kind of progress which mankind requires in society? How can we deal with these issues of progress, for example, like different parts of South America, and the culture is somewhat different? It’s not really different, however.
And our objective is that we intend that we should not have a reduction of the abilities of different parts of the nations of South America, for example; that there should be a common,—even though the language is different, and the use of the language may have differences; and the cultural history is somewhat different,—the important thing is to recognize mankind.
And therefore, the thing you have to turn to is not the success of some part of the culture of mankind, but of mankind as such. And now you take any of the parts of South America, for example, those that are respectable in terms of their progress,—what do you want to do? You want to bring about a conception of the mind, of the human mind, which fits all cases up to the point of current progress and development. It’s that simple.
We’re coming to the end of the national system, the idea of different nations. We’re coming to the end of that kind of culture. You will see that’s happening already; you see it’s happening in the effect of China; you see what’s happening now, again, with India, new developments in India; you’re seeing it throughout the process: Mankind is not divided by special cultures. It is not divided by mankind, it should not be divided by mankind! It should be a process of convergence of the human species as a whole, into the new and higher powers of creativity than mankind has ever accumulated before. And therefore, you want to see an agreement of mankind, as mankind, with no difference in terms of quality.
And our object is, is for mankind, when it comes to physical science, physical scientific discovery; well, physical scientific discovery does not have a language difference inherently, not when it’s creativity. And therefore, what we want to do is use the weak powers we have, by special languages, and develop the process of languages, so that mankind in general achieves a degree of creativity, as such, pure human creativity, without any division in anything in anything else. Yes, we recognize what the history of mankind is, the culture of mankind, we recognize all that. But where is it going? Is it going to be stagnant? Is it going to be fixed permanently? For life? No!
What we’re trying to do is create a society, on Earth,—ah! But not just on Earth. We’re already going into the Galaxy. We are intending to go to the Galaxy, where most of the water that mankind depends upon, will come from! And some people are working on this. Many other important discoveries are emerging in that way.
Mankind is converging on the unity of mankind. The childhood of mankind is changing. Mankind must, and can, grow up. [applause]
Q: [John Sigerson] Hello, Lyn, I think you know me!
LaRouche: I think so!
Q: [follow-up] This bears directly on what you just brought up in terms of unifying culture. But let me back up just a second, to say that over the next few months, we are going to be celebrating two pairs of great musical geniuses: The first pair is J.S. Bach and Handel, who are contemporaries. Tomorrow, we are going to be celebrating J.S. Bach in an extension of Manhattan, namely, Brooklyn; and with a performance of the Jesu, meine Freude. And then in December, we are going to be celebrating Handel with a doubleheader performance of the Handel Messiah.
But I want to focus in on the other pair that I have a question for you about. The first of those is Schubert, Franz Schubert. Just yesterday, we began the process of working through the famous Schubert Schwanengesang, The Swan Song—his incredible posthumous settings of two wonderful poets in German—and we will be presenting those next month at a Musikabend, with two tenors and one baritone; it’s unfortunately not three tenors. [laughter] But we will be presenting that.
Ideas vs. ‘Talk-Talk’
And then, something you may not know,—but in the late winter or early spring, we will have the opportunity to perform Verdi,—choral works by Verdi, in a church where the organ will have been tuned to the Verdi tuning, which is a real first in Manhattan; I think it’s probably a real first in the United States, maybe a real first in the world!
So my question bears on the two types of singing, and the two mindsets of singing Schubert and singing Verdi. These two ways of singing or ways of thinking, tend to be divergent in terms of their overall approach; and many singers specialize in the one and the other.
But thinking about what you just said, what I’m searching for, is a means of integrating the emotional intensity, intimate intensity, of the Schubert Lied, and the Lieder from other great Lieder composers, like Schumann and Brahms; with the grandeur, the dramatic grandeur of a Verdi. Which also bears on bridging the gap between and the remainders of the gap between the great Italian vocal culture, and the great German vocal culture. And I’m trying to find a way to go in the direction that you just said, in terms of one culture: How do we do that? How do we see that way?
LaRouche: I think it’s a natural thing to do, and I think the problem is that there’s been a division in opinion on these things, which should not be, there should be unification. And we’re doing it, we’re raising it right now. What we’re doing in this Manhattan and related areas, is exactly what we should be doing. Because we have to understand that there is no such thing as a language, per se. And when you get into the area of Classical musical composition and its performance, you get into that area: Suddenly, you are in an area where you’re no longer using speech as such, or what we use as speech. It becomes something—a different thing.
And I think that Verdi, of course, is typical of this, but there are other things, that are also the same thing from Bach on. Because Bach actually gained a great creative process, and then other people began to do things. And Schubert has very specific differences we can all know. If we know Schubert’s compositions at all, we know what the difference is! And we know what the importance of that difference is.
So, what we need is to understand, is that we’re not using simple talking language. Talk-talk language! That is not the way to understand the human mind. You should know that on every street corner; what do you get? Talk-talk-talk! Where’s your music? Where’s the beauty? Where’s the meaning of the idea? Where’s the meaning of ideas?
And what is the importance of Verdi, for example? Now Verdi is something which I had a lot of fun with, over much of my life. I had less experience with it in these years, than I had in my youthful years, but so be it. But nonetheless, the fact is that music, and the drama that goes with music and things that also correlate with the same thing, have the same thing: They are not the spoken language! The spoken language will get you almost nowhere. And often it will tend to do so more often than not.
Washington National Opera
The idea of what we call music, which has an extension into other expressions, is peculiar to what we call the artistic mode. And the artistic mode is the truest expression of the intention of mankind. And what we try to do, is we try not to go backward in terms of those kinds of conceptions and progress,—but we have to realize that we have to look forward to what we have not yet discovered in this direction. But the first thing to do, is to take the idea of music, as it’s properly performed and used, and that’s a point of reference,—but that’s not the end of it. We have to go to areas which we have not yet gone to. And it will be a consequence of what has been done with great music now. [applause]
Q: Hi, I’m D—, I currently come from Washington, D.C. area. This week in Washington, the biggest thing is of course the Benghazi hearings with Hillary Clinton, and Obama. From what I gathered, in working where I work, that of course there’s the [tussle] between the Democrats and the Republicans, like a showdown. My biggest question is how’s it going to impact Hillary and Obama at this point, and how soon can we expect Hillary to drop her Presidential campaign after all of this?
The Problem of Africa
LaRouche: I think the first thing, is Hillary has to be dumped. There’s no question about that. I mean, she lies too much, among other things, and that’s not a good thing. So she lies. And actually, she’s a stooge of Obama. She was intimidated by his presence; she was also pragmatic in terms of the way she behaved; and what she has done is she has destroyed anything which had been respectable about her! She has destroyed herself!
And we have some other people who are running for President, and they are also not fit for human beings, human usage. And therefore we have to consolidate ourselves on that.
And this all goes to the same thing; we just got through it, what John represented. You have to realize: what’s the importance, of Classical artistic composition? Why is it different than the spoken language in ordinary ways? What’s wrong with that? hmm? In other words, why is artistic composition absolutely essential? Why is it the fact that this does not match with ordinary spoken words? It doesn’t. Ordinary spoken words don’t mean much; they are simply a trash basket, that enable you to grunt and whine, and so forth, hmm?
What we call music, when we’re talking seriously about music,—we’re talking about mankind’s going into a deeper form of knowledge, quality of knowledge; of man’s knowledge which is the knowledge, of creativity. And the function of artistic composition, is that it is the standard which defines the meaning of human. And as human is not done in words, as such, it’s not done in so-called practice, popular practice; it’s done by the art of creativity, the creativity that goes with Classical artistic composition in all forms: in painting, different kinds of art,—all these things, why do they exist? Why should they exist? Because you have to go outside the common use of words and gestures, if you want to find out the meaning of human life. And that’s what it’s all about.
Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche, how are you today? I’m E—.
LaRouche: I am not in good condition, but I’m functioning.
Q: [follow-up] OK, wonderful. I went to Washington on Wednesday [for the Day of Action], and it was very good. I realize that we used charm and good humor, and some of the aides in the offices of the Representatives, they were very receptive. And we went to different offices, and left the literature, so I think we are making headway.
Now, yesterday, I went a little later than everyone else, to the function on 45th St., because I said, it’s best to deal with politicians after they have drunk [laughter]—alcohol. I spoke to a gentleman; he was from Local 79. So he said, “Oh! I know you, I know LaRouche. I hope he is not running for President again, because he’s splitting the votes. He wants the Republicans to win.” I said, “C’mon! that is not like that! He wants to promote Glass-Steagall, so you can have more for your men working.” So, we talked about different things.
However, I waited until Senator Schumer came out. I said, “Hello, Senator Schumer, thank you for responding to my letters, when they did not pass the extension.” So, I said, “Right now, I’m an activist in the LaRouche PAC, and we are pushing Glass-Steagall.” He said, to let you know that he is on your side. [laughter]
LaRouche: Well, that’s nice!
Q: [follow-up] Yes. So, I spoke to another lady; she is a Senator for New York State, so I let her know, “Listen: You need to develop a little bit more balls than the men, because they’re not really looking out for the women.” [laughter] I think she was embarrassed, but I said, “Listen, you know what? You have to be a pit bull; you cannot allow these men to really dictate to you, and they’re not doing anything much.” So she was happy to hear that, but I think she was nervous.
One other thing. I must say, I’ve been sending emails to different people. And I got a response from a friend of mine who doesn’t know much; in school, he was the biggest dunce, and I think right now, he still is, but he has money. He let me know he is not proud of me, because I am trying to unseat Obama. You know, I said, “thank you for your response,” but I will deal with him after he is like a little calmer. I think at least 90% of the people, they’re sleeping; they do not know what is really going on.
And certain things always bother me: in terms of Africa, three-quarters of the country is there for the protection of animals, where the people cannot plant. But I was reading certain information, and I said: “Oh, now I know why it is like this: because if people cannot plant, they have to rely on the government or some aid from America or some other country.” And I think the land should be given back to the people, so they can cultivate it, instead of having three-eighths of a country allocated to the animals, instead of the population. And that has been happening a lot in Africa, especially under the British rule.
So what do you think?
The CO2 Hoax
LaRouche: I think that Obama is a disaster for everybody, including himself. But he’s not curable, that’s the only difference; other people are able to cure themselves. Obama is not able to cure himself, and that’s his tragedy.
But the problem is,—the Africa thing? I know very well. Not completely, but I’ve had some experiences in that area, and I know what goes on in that area. And this is something that’s a saddening experience there. And nothing has been done, much, to solve this problem.
But this is evil; my view of it, is it’s purely evil, what’s happened. And you see what’s happened with Obama. Obama is typical of evil. He represents nothing but evil. And his stepfather was also evil, and the policy of the Obama administration is evil; it’s explicitly evil. And it’s not something which you can say is “also evil.” No. It is evil. And Obama’s evil. And what he’s doing in killing people all over the planet now, and so forth. We have to get rid of it! We have to have the law come in, and say, “No, you don’t do this any more.”
And everything that’s wrong with Africa, is a result of what was done against Africa! And that’s the point. And we should all be able, who know anything about anything, should know that that’s the case. The problem is the history of Africa is that it was one of the areas that was a target area, as much as anything else. And it has to be ended. And some people in Africa have tried to do that, and I think they’ve had some progress in it. But the problems we also know,—the thing that’s conspicuous to us, is the fact that we see the shame of what is done in Africa, inside Africa, and that angers me.
Speed: I want to bring somebody to the microphone now, who I want to do a little introduction of. Lyn, Tom Wysmuller has come. He is the gentleman who helped us do our a couple of weeks ago, back at the United Nations.
And as he comes to the microphone, let me just say, we are engaged in a war, thanks to Mr. LaRouche, not with words and the kind of weapons that are being used in this global warming hoax, but with a polemic to destroy the high priesthood of Newtonian science, so-called, pseudo-science; and Tom has been in the ranks doing that. So, Tom, why don’t you say what you got to say? [applause]
Tom Wysmuller: Thank you for having me here. I mean, in all honesty, you ought to applaud after I say what I’m saying. [laughter]
I think I can tie together the last three speakers and what I want to talk about, all in one wrap. I’m going to talk about sea level and CO2. Now, I’m in a room of humanists here, people who are embodying what we need to expand the human spirit. So, why are CO2 and sea level connected? Well, I’m going to try to explain it, and I’m going to try to do it as quickly as I can.
Most of you have this handout, looks like this, and I’m not going to read it, but I’m going to describe the gist of what’s in here. Because what’s happened in the last 130 years or so, CO2 has skyrocketed, from a level 280 parts per million [ppm] for 2,000 years, and all of a sudden, as the industrial age begins, it shoots up!
Well, something didn’t shoot up. And what didn’t shoot up, was sea level in those areas in the world which are, and I’m going to define this, tectonically inert. And “tectonically inert” means places that are neither rising nor falling. Nor, Norway had an enormous load of ice during the last Ice Age. When the ice melted the pressure was off, and Norway rose. On the other side, Holland and Belgium sunk, like a see-saw. In between the two is a place called Wismar, Germany: and Wismar doesn’t sink and doesn’t rise. And the sea level has a slow, steady rise, due to the thermal expansion of the oceans. The problem, is CO2 has skyrocketed—and there is no acceleration whatsoever, in those places on Earth that are tectonically inert. So that connection between sea level and CO2, just isn’t there.
Governor Jerry Brown
Now, how does this connect to all the other stuff? Well, in Paris in a few weeks, they’re going to try to talk and convince the nations of the world, to spend billions of dollars, and euros, and yen, and renminbi, to combat sea-level rise due to CO2. It is a fraud! Where you want to spend the money, and this is where I can tie into the other speakers: Africa can be electrified for a tenth of what you’re trying to spend, to quote “combat CO2,” which happens to be a life-giving gas for plants. The entire continent can be electrified! That means people don’t have to go into the forests and gather wood for a few hours a day, so they can boil the water, so they don’t get river blindness when they drink it.
And the children who do it, can be in school. They’re they ones who could be discovering cures for cancer, ways to connect the music of Schubert and Brahms, and all the other things that we talk about, the higher things that human beings can do. But if they’re on a subsistence economy, they cannot do it.
And if you keep them, and spend that money and waste it down a rat-hole, which is where they want to send it, those people will never see electricity; they’ll never be able to contribute to humanity,—and you can add South America, India, and Indonesia to that, too. And there’s enough money for all of it, if they don’t waste it on combatting CO2.
So that is my plea to you: If you can spread that word, and send this to every embassy, consulate of every Third World country, Second World country, and First World country, so they get it, before they go to Paris. [applause]
LaRouche: Oh, thank you, Tom. This was as energetic as you did before, in your earlier period before. But the point is, we have to recognize the fact that the whole thing that we are dealing with is one gigantic fraud. And I think you told that story in the earlier period, and I think it stands up today right now: that this whole thing is a fraud. And the whole policy is a fraud. It’s entirely a fraud!
We have the governor of California is a fraudster. He’s really one of the leading fraudsters on the planet. Others we’ll come across will also do something similar, but right now, he’s put himself out in front, as the biggest faker on the planet in terms of this science.
Wysmuller: Well, I’m energetic about it, because I really believe in this, and I want to get that message out as best as I can.
Mankind will Control the Solar System
Q: Good afternoon, Lyndon LaRouche! We’re calling Manhattan “the Land of Hamilton and LaRouche” these days, and we’re driving the British banksters out. We’ve had a terrific amount of fun doing that,
All this week, there have been squads of younger and older generations of your movement here, resonating against the British invasion, which you drew attention to immediately after that devastating debacle, the so-called Democratic Presidential debates there was suddenly an emergence of all kinds of British Barons and Tim Geithner himself dared to come out, under the guise of a Baruch College economics seminar; and it was absolutely disgraceful! There were almost 1,000 people who attended, but the only way they could get them there, was in the cloak of darkness. They turned out the lights, they had security better than O’Hare Airport; no one could get in that wasn’t vetted. You had to sign up online, and there could have been nothing but a bunch of spooks there; it was sort of a pre-Hallowe’en event.
But we broke it up by simply saying,—when Mr. Geithner was saying, “I knew of no model, there was nothing we could do, there was no model.” And so I had to protest: “There is a model, and you know it well, Mr. Geithner. FDR used this model and put millions of Americans to work, and put the bankers in jail. It’s called Glass-Steagall. And we’re going to get it through the House and the Senate, and you’re going to jail.” It was quite effective in breaking up the controlled environment.
So we’re going to keep that edge going, and the British will be gone, and Glass-Steagall will be implemented if we have anything to do about it.
LaRouche: Well, “begone,” is a good term. The term is “begone,” or “be gone.” It’s a good term to use.
Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. I have a question about the environment, about what our guest was talking about. In view of the amount of propaganda in the media, and even in commercial advertising about global warming, how can we best use what resources we have to fight this global warming and alleged CO2 buildup?
LaRouche: I think there is no such thing as this warming thing. I think it’s a fraud completely. The point is, mankind has to actually define ways in which to regulate the environment: Mankind must regulate the environment! Now we only hope that mankind will do it competently and not incompetently. That’s all there is to it.
The history of mankind,—look, mankind is a creative species, like no other species we know of. And all the peculiarities of mankind, those which are good, are man-made! Mankind is the source of creativity which enables mankind, to develop the planet. But it’s not just the planet. The Galactic System is there; and the Galactic System is not just one Galaxy, it’s a nest of galaxies. The water system on Earth depends upon the Galactic System; your water depends upon the Galactic System and the management of it. And its management is what’s important. And the management is provided by what? It’s provided chiefly by mankind.
Only mankind has the ability to create a change in its own existence, by making what are tantamount to improvements in mankind’s ability to deal with things. And this goes with the Galaxy; it goes with the Galactic System. It’s not just what happens on Earth. Mankind has an impact beyond Earth! That’s the essence. The development of mankind’s skills, the development of all the things that mankind developed, the achievements are all of that nature.
Now, people try to pick it out and say, “explain this, this is this, this guy did this,” but that’s not what happened. What happened was that mankind has been developed, and is developed, to create new forms of organization of the Solar System and beyond! And because we’re now getting close to the “beyond” question, much more than
So it wasn’t just a landing on Mars, but landing on Mars is a warning sign that mankind is going to control the Solar System, and mankind is also,—as we find when we look at the Galaxy, mankind is also a process characteristic of the whole system.
So therefore, these are the kinds of things which we can know, which are little discussed, which are little examined; but we know from what we know so far, that that’s the case. Mankind is not only what you call him to be, but mankind is the creative force. We will find out in the course of subsequent history, we’re going to find out how powerful mankind is, within and beyond the Solar System.
We have yet to understand the majesty of that conception. But somebody else will, hopefully, make that point clear. And what we just raised,—you know, what he raised on this thing is the same kind of thing. You have to have a very careful consideration of the processes on which mankind’s existence depends, and you have to understand how you can do something good, to help maintain those processes.
And keep all the screwballs out from making a mess of the thing! That’s the other side of the thing.
But you have to have, first of all, a conception of what the principle is; and secondly, we have to get rid of the screwballs who have these great recipes.
Speed: This will be our final question for today.
Q: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche, D—. I have a problem that people have their own lives, and [how] to go ahead and get them to think outside of their own lives, with the propaganda that’s been given out. Goebbels must have done a beautiful job here, even though he’s dead!
The idea is to go ahead and get people to get our ideas out and to accept them, when they have their own little lives to go ahead and organize within.
LaRouche: OK, good. I got the gist of that.
Speed: OK, Lyn, that’s everything for day. I just want to invite you now to conclude, and we’ll get to work.
LaRouche: Have some fun! [applause]