LYNDON LAROUCHE’S OCT. 29 FIRESIDE CHAT:
On Our Mission, Commitment, and Method
Here are excerpts from the LaRouche PAC nationwide Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche on October 29, 2015.
Host John Ascher: Good evening, everyone. This is John Ascher welcoming you back to the Fireside Chat with Lyndon LaRouche here on Oct. 29, 2015. I’m going to connect us with Lyndon LaRouche now.
Lyn, do you have any preliminary remarks you would like to make to the folks on the call here this evening?
Lyndon LaRouche: Yes. What we’re doing here is not something just to be repeating something or giving a different spin on it. What we’re actually involved in, is trying to understand what mankind’s real role must be; as otherwise people generally accept what they think is the popular interpretation of the role they should play. And that is often wrong. Because what it does, is it distracts people’s attention from what should be the thing they’re concerned about. But they don’t know that, because in terms of the practice today in public behavior, most people today do not know how to express themselves competently.
They do know how to make a lot of noises and things like that, and stamp their feet and all these kinds of things, but that does not touch [another]. And the best we can do, knowing this, is try to stimulate the people we’re discussing with, and hope that they catch on to what we’re trying to convey to them as the principle of presenting the arguments which are required for this kind of representation.
Question: Hello, Mr. LaRouche. It is truly an honor to meet you. Pretty much, I have a comment: You know, we are now on the threshold of a new Renaissance; I’m cautiously optimistic about that. We’re on the verge of a new Renaissance for all mankind. As a matter of fact, we’re probably entering into an era of human consciousness and development, that will prove to be as significant as when man first created fire. We’ve got a ways to go, and much work to do . . .
LaRouche: Yes! [chuckles]
Question continues: . . . but we’re making the transition, I believe, from simply a planetary species to an intergalactic species. But what is going on here on Earth resonates with the rest of the Universe, and way beyond that, and man is changing geopolitically, economically, morally, culturally, and spiritually, and this profound change in man’s way of thinking coincides with the change permeating throughout our Universe.
I just wanted your thoughts on that, sir.
No Understanding of the Meaning of Man
LaRouche: Well, the problem is we don’t have a population that is organized in its behavior to meet the challenge of the subject that you just presented. Very few people in the United States have any understanding, any comprehension, of what all this means. That is, what is there about mankind, such that an individual member of mankind knows what,—in a sense,—knows what track mankind must be on? And maybe it’s just that person who has that view; but what we want is an understanding of those kinds of reactions, where people are reacting to find the truth about what our mission is in society. We have to develop that capability.
The problem is based on the Twentieth Century, and I’m going to get a little heavy on this thing, because it’s very important,—you’ve raised the question and it has to be dealt with this way. Mankind went down, in a streak of degeneration, with the arrival of Bertrand Russell. We had only one competent scientist in the Twentieth Century. He was a great scientist, but he was the only one who had this quality: Einstein. Einstein was unique.
Since that time, we have people who are trying to struggle, to realize that kind of goal, but they’re handicapped by the society which surrounds them, because popular opinion does not recognize the truth,—almost on every situation. Popular opinion in the United States, and I can say fairly, at a good guess, in Europe, too,—that there has been a degeneration in the quality of the human mind, the human mind of individuals, since the beginning of the Twentieth Century. That’s a fact.
Now, if you’re going to be successful, you have to abandon that now-conventional system. For example, people will use mathematics, and say mathematics is science; well, mathematics is not science; mathematics is a fraud. And Einstein made that point very clear. So what people have done in schools, in their school education, in their other higher education relatively,—most people have been educated to believe in things that are actually stupid or worse than stupid.
So therefore, if you want to get mankind in the kind of direction that you and I have just exchanged, we have to realize that we have to change the way people think, because they’ve been conditioned, by schools, education schools, by trades, by gossip,—the people of the United States in particular, have generally no competent comprehension of the real meaning of the human species. And that’s been a distortion; and the use of mathematics has been the chief source of corruption, which prevents the minds of our citizens from understanding what the reality of economy is, and of society.
So therefore, my problem is, in terms of work, is that I know that most people, even people who are supposedly highly educated, shall we say,—you know, people who are teaching and so forth,—but in general, the so-called authorities in education really are not competent. They have a certain competence. That is, they can take a certain aspect of information and they know how to deal with it; but when it comes to the truth. . . For example, let’s take the case of Kepler, for an example.
Now Kepler was the first person to understand what the meaning of the Solar System was. Now his design was not then perfect. But now we’re working on the basis of a Galactic System. And the Galactic System means that everything that we depend upon as mankind, depends on the management of water; and the chief source of water for Earth, comes in the Galaxy. It does not come from local sources. The idea is that you have to understand the relationship of Earth in general, on the Kepler system’s work and on other things, including the Galactic System. If people don’t understand what the Galaxy means,—which very few people, even scientists, know competently. . .
And so therefore the problem is that we have a mission-orientation to undertake, to educate people who are presumably well-educated, but are actually at the same time incompetent, because the way they approach things is incompetent. And therefore our problem is, if we’re going to make sense of what our intention is, we have to think carefully about what the misdirection has been, for most people in the Twentieth Century, and now the Twenty-First Century. They become more and more ignorant, more and more incompetent. And this is generally true of most of the well-educated people.
What Happened with Bertrand Russell?
So we’re at a point now, where we actually have to get at the meat of the area; we have to understand what was wrong about the Twentieth Century, why the Twentieth Century was a betrayal of mankind. And we have to get into what that means, we have to understand it, and we have to apply our understanding, in order to get an access to what we have to do to correct the crazy errors which have gone on in the United States in particular, since the Twentieth Century as a whole, since the Twentieth Century now.
So the problem we have, is that it’s not enough to argue with people for policies; you have to know what the principle of policy should be. And in the school systems and so forth, very few people understand science, even people who specialize in the subject of science. And what we need is a system of education through discussion, to bring more and more people to understand what the issue is: What was wrong with the Twentieth Century? Why were certain people so evil, so stupid? Because we have to get at that thing, that stupidity is the ruling principle in popular opinion today. We have to free people of that stupidity, otherwise they will go back to the old system, which got them into the mire in the first place.
Question: Hi, Lyn, A— from Los Angeles. Iran surprised me by announcing that apparently they’re going to be joining the BRICS pretty soon, so that’s a nice development. I was looking at our Silk Road special report: It didn’t have much on Iran except a couple of footnotes on the projects we started back in 2000. Now, with the BRICS and the water crisis, and Iran’s also facing a major water crisis, I don’t know if—it would be cool if we could get some more info on it, if you guys think that would be prudent; I would be more than willing to help if possible. I just wanted to put that out there.
The second thing I was really curious about, Lyn, was that there’s people like you and Amelia Boynton Robinson, who really practice the principle of Plato’s golden soul. You know, you’ve been through it. And then, there’s people like others that I know, that play video games, and get high, and complain about feminists and immigrants. [LaRouche laughs.] I understand that there’s this innate quality of happiness, that Leibnizian happiness and other forms come in with actually doing the right thing; and there’s the concept that the good that you do continues to give back; and therefore, your quality of life can be measured in that regard, which is great.
What happens after all that, though, in your opinion? [crosstalk] I would love to know!
LaRouche: Well, I say this is the problem. This identifies the problem. First of all, what happened with Bertrand Russell? And Bertrand Russell would say that he was a substitute for Satan. I think that’s a fair term of reference. So what we have, is we have a Satanic policy which is a reflection, in particular, of Bertrand Russell’s existence. Now, he’s dead now, which is something of a blessing, but there’s no practical benefit supplied to get rid of him, get rid of his evil.
So the problem is that mankind in general, because of the influence of the Twentieth Century and what is now the extended version of the Twentieth Century today,—the problem is that people don’t have an efficient moral view of mankind.
The problem is, and I say this repeatedly at various occasions because it comes up so naturally: Mankind has the ability potentially, because of mankind, to create an arrangement under which living people are actually made to develop in a superior quality of work over their predecessors; that is, mankind is not something devoted simply to living people. Mankind is devoted to the effect of future living people in society, the development of those people with those qualities, in order to move society to have a passion for the development of mankind, a real development. And that does not function today.
And the Twentieth Century became, after Franklin Roosevelt’s death and some things related to that,—the United States in particular, as well as Europe, has degenerated in general, degenerated morally and intellectually. You see what’s happening in the school system, what’s happening in the education system, say in California; the situation there. There is no future for mankind under the policy of the followers of the governor of California; he’s a killer, he’s an inhuman killer. That is, he acts in violation of the principle of humanity.
And throughout society, evil is spread freely; and what is needed, as the good, as the inspiration, as the purpose to mankind, has a difficult time in making the way ahead.
Question: Hi, this is E— from Delaware. Well, how’re you doing?
My Work for President Reagan
LaRouche: Well, I’m old, as you may know, but the good part about it is the fact that I’m still alive and capable of doing things; not as much as I was before physically, but intellectually, I’ve scrapped a lot of things that I knew before, because I realized they weren’t much good for me to use, and I think now I’m operating on that basis. So I’m quite happy with what I’m doing. I’m sometimes dissatisfied, acutely dissatisfied even, by what is not being done, which should be done. I think that’s a fair summation of what I could say on that subject.
Question continues: All right, well, if I may ask a question: You brought up over the last week or two your role in the Reagan Administration, and you’ve just said a little bit already today. But my question is in regard to this: What is the most important thing that we need to communicate to people today about that previous history, that will enable us to awaken, to move people back to a resistance against this fascist policy? Which not only crushed you, but also crushed the Fusion Energy Foundation which you created, and this was a crime against humanity. And what’s the most important thing we need to communicate about that, in the period right now?
LaRouche: Okay, let’s take my role in this process. You know, at a certain point in the ’70s, I was running for election for President. Now, the time came that I obviously knew that I was not going to be allowed to win that vote.
What happened is that the last two years of that decade, in particular, I was recruited at the suggestion of persons who had been very close to Franklin Roosevelt. And by taking my affinity, personally, to Franklin Roosevelt, who was dead,—and I’ve had quite a history on Franklin Roosevelt. For example, I was landed in India on the same day that it was known he was dead. And so therefore I made a statement to military people in our military service in Asia; and I said simply that a great man has died, and therefore we have to commit ourselves as people still serving in the military and otherwise,—we had to pick up the thing, because the people who were replacing Franklin Roosevelt were not exactly the best people.
So therefore, I said this is what we have to do. We have to defend what Roosevelt had accomplished because we knew already at that point, even before he died, that the forces of evil, i.e., Wall Street, had regained control over the U.S. Presidency. We had an enemy to defeat.
So on that basis, I gladly accepted the proffer by a veteran of MacArthur and people like him. And so I was talked to, and advised to prepare myself to become a specialist for the incoming Reagan Administration. That occupied the last two years of the ’70s, and I came out of that fully trained; and I had people who were scientists who were also fully trained in what they needed to know.
U.S. Navy/National Archive
So I became actually the person who set up the core of the Reagan Administration. What happened was when the President, Reagan, was subjected to an assassination attack by a Bush family associate, then he was weakened. And the fact that he was weakened actually weakened my ability to continue my function on his behalf. But I actually laid it out, and it was arranged that way,—I wasn’t sneaking it through. It was arranged that I should do that, and provide a program to clean up what had happened with the attempted assassination of a President.
So I played that role. And because of the power I had, the intellectual power, in influence, they said, “Well, this guy’s got to go down.” And they wanted to set me down. But some people said, “No, we’re not going to let him be thrown down; we’ll let him go into prison for a while. It’s fake, he shouldn’t be there, it’s a fraud; it’s a Bush family fraud.” And everything evil that happened to me was a Bush family fraud, up to the present day more or less, until Obama came along.
So therefore, that’s what the problem was.
Now, what I’m doing, knowing that we’re in an emergency now,—I know what I had known before; I’m an expert in those areas, and even though my age is not recommended, shall we say, I can do it. And that means I have to do it; I have to get the job done. I’m not going to do it by myself, but I’m going to be very careful, as I am. I don’t want people making a mess of the cause for saving the United States from Bushes and from Obama. And that’s what my mission is right now.
And since I’m 93 years of age right now,—celebrated that recently,—I think I can say I’m really dedicated to that mission.
Question: Hi, it’s C— from Boston.
LaRouche: Your dialect identifies you.
How Can I Be Effective?
Question continues: OK, good. No, it’s good,—what you said before, though, was really inspiring. You know, these Fireside Chats are so enlightening and informative. And I guess I called in before, and there’s a rally tomorrow in Boston,—I got to make it there. And you know, 9/11 was the event that woke me up when I started to investigate that.
But actually, if I want to be honest, I saw the “JFK” movie by Oliver Stone, and he’s come out with a few movies, and back then, I sort of reacted, “How can this be? They didn’t teach us this in schools,—you know Oswald, so and so, and so forth.” I just want to read this quote, here, and it’s really moving to me, and I’ve been choked up when I watch this. So, it’s Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner), and he’s talking at the end of the movie. And just bear with me here:
“An American naturalist wrote, a patriot must always be ready to defend his country against its government. I’d hate to be in your shoes today. You have a lot to think about; you’ve seen much hidden evidence the American public has never seen. Going back to when we were children, I think most of us in this courtroom thought that justice came into being automatically, that virtue was its own reward, that good would triumph over evil. But as we get older, we know that this just isn’t true. Individual human beings have to create justice, and this is not easy, because the truth often poses a threat to power, and one often has to fight power at great risk to themselves. People like S.M. Harlan, Lee Bowers, Gene Hill, Willy O’Keefe,—they have all taken that risk, they have all come forward.
“I have here some $8,000 in these letters sent to my office from all over the country: quarters, dimes, dollar bills from housewives, plumbers, car salesmen, teachers, invalids; these are people who cannot afford to send money, but do. These are the ones who drive the cabs, who nurse in the hospitals, who see their kids go to Vietnam. Why? Because they care. Because they want to know the truth. Because they want their country back. Because it still belongs to us, as long as the people have the guts to fight for what they believe in. The truth is the most important value we have. Because if the truth does not endure, if the government murders truth, if we cannot respect the hearts of these people, then this is not the country in which I was born, and this is certainly not the country I want to die in.”
And that speech,—it just really brings everything into perspective, all the constituents, everybody in LaRouche PAC. I mean, they’re all patriots. And good will triumph over evil, if we,—and Oliver Stone, his movies, but I went to sleep. And the Iraq war thing. But I just wanted to read that, because I think everybody knows they did something wrong, certainly with Obama, and just going back to JFK and going back before that with Roosevelt. So I just wanted to read that; I don’t have a question. But I appreciate you, sir, Mr. LaRouche, for what you’ve done and what you continue to do. And thanks for taking my call. Take care.
LaRouche: Thank you!
Question: Hello, Mr. LaRouche. Thank you for being on the air this evening. My name is M—, and I’m in San Francisco. I’m a full-time student and I’m 49 years old. How can someone like me be effective,—I don’t want to say “fight,”—against this thing that’s happening in the world?
LaRouche: Well, the problem in this matter is simply, you get to the point where you realize,—and this happened in military service in World War II, for example. I know of it in World War I, but I wasn’t born until after that time. But I know the point was people gave their lives in warfare in great masses. Now if they were lucky, they served under the right people, like MacArthur. MacArthur saved more citizens than were killed, in a sense; and he always tried to win the war with a certain degree of honor, that is, actually doing a good job.
But the people who died as soldiers on the Western Front, for example, and so forth,—they died because they believed, in one way or degree or another,—they honored the fact that they put their lives in jeopardy for the sake of society and for the sake of their nation, and that’s very important.
Like a Soldier’s Mission in War
Now, I understand that probably better than most people do because I experienced,—I’ve been able to monitor this kind of thing and how it’s happened, because I’ve been in many parts of the world involved in serious kinds of undertakings. I spent most of my life until recently travelling all over the world on mission-orientations. And I see this; I see the devotion of the citizens of the United States at an earlier period; at a period of the Twentieth Century and after that, as in the period of World War II.
People died. They didn’t intend to die. It was not their intention to die,—a few, yes; they got mad and wanted to kill themselves in a sense to prove how brave they were; but the average soldier or person in service did not want that. They knew and regretted; and they would write letters to their family when they were going into combat areas, and they would say, “I’m here. I’m here; I hope I make it, but I’m going to fight this war to deal with this problem.” And that kind of thing doesn’t exist much any more. And people don’t understand it; they’ve lost it. They’ve lost that devotion.
But what we can do, and what I do, is you get people who have lost that business, and who understand what this business meant: The human being’s life is not the end-all and be-all of a human life. It is what mankind is able to do in society to build society up, to achieve things for mankind,—and by that kind of approach, that kind of devotion, you build a truly good society.
Now they may have made a lot of mistakes; a lot of soldiers in military service made a lot of mistakes. But the overall intention was they were going to serve, they were going to serve the nation; they were going to protect the nation; they were going to deal with evil, get the evil out of the way. And that attitude has been largely lost.
Now we have soldiers who will kill, but they don’t have that attitude any more. Oh, there are a few soldiers, a few key soldiers will have that; MacArthur had that idea; others had that idea and followed it. But in general now, we don’t have that kind of devotion. And what is that devotion? To realize that your existence is to create a better future for mankind than would have been available otherwise. And therefore, if you get killed in the process of conducting a mission like that, your life has not been wasted, because what you did was important. And mankind benefitted from what you did, and what you lost in the process of doing it.
That conception, that understanding which I and many other people understood, in military service in World War II—I was not really a shooting specialist; I did all kinds of things which weren’t very fun, but I was devoted to the mission. And I’m still devoted to the mission.
Question: Good evening, Lyn. This is G— in Minneapolis. Lyn, I’ve been a follower for more than 30 years, and some of the things that you’ve said, specifically with respect to creativity and mathematics, literally brought me to tears. I want you to know that; that was a fight that I was having with the University of Minnesota, and nobody seemed to understand.
LaRouche: [chuckles] I know.
Question continues: My question is, if we look at the need for the vitality of an economy, which we had,—sometimes it was overheated, other times it seemed to be running well. . . We have a situation where we need smart people to participate at the productive level, there is no question of this. They need to be born and they need to be educated. The situation of birth is a critical item; we’ve aborted 60 million children; we’ve probably eliminated three or four times that through birth control.
But clearly this damage to the Anglo-Dutch banking system is very deep, and they’re trying to recover with things like a tax on carbon emissions and a new tax on health care. But this is finished, and we’re going to consider going back to the credit system. How do we think of the vitality of the productive output under the credit system? Will it recover automatically? Or do we need to rethink this, to force it to recover?
LaRouche: Don’t take any risk. Make sure that you have an efficient approach to realizing that objective. I don’t think you—it won’t work by your just watching it. You have to make it move, and you have to know what you’re doing. And I think when people are well-educated, especially when people are well-educated and are using it for that purpose, it works! It always did work.
The Educational Process is a Social Process
What happens now,—you get the people are so demoralized! Under the reign of the Bushes and Obama, the demoralization of our citizens is a monstrous thing! And that’s what the problem is. I mean, we are no longer creating anything worthwhile; there may be something useful being created, but for the most part, everything that’s being done is waste.
You have a new Pope. He’s not really new. But he’s sucked into a Satanic cult, which says “No development of mankind.” It’s a Satanic cult! And somehow this Pope got sucked into supporting this stuff. I have no idea how; I worked closely with some Popes at a certain point in my life; my wife was also active in that. So I have some sense of what this means, and I can tell you the problem is, it ain’t Christianity any more! It’s just some kind of a cult.
And whereas when you look at Nicholas of Cusa and the whole legacy of Nicholas of Cusa, and what followed from that, you get a very clear sense of what the meaning of life is. It’s not just a Catholic doctrine, it’s a principle. It’s a principle which in and of itself fulfills that role.
Question: This is T—. I’m calling from Virginia. And I’m always inspired and excited to hear these calls, and earlier, Mr. LaRouche, you were mentioning how to get people’s minds focussed on the truth of what’s really happening, as well as mankind’s mission to leave behind greatness for future generations.
And my question is this: How can I convey these ideas to people? With my generation, that’s obviously degenerate,—and I think the biggest problem that I face is there’s no real concept of truth being absolute. And I’ve shared some of these calls on YouTube with people that I know, and they say they can understand it, but I know they can’t,—because for one, they don’t believe Classical music to be superior, for example. And plus the fact that it took me nearly two years to really get this. So, how can I overcome this hurdle in order that I can be an effective leader?
LaRouche: Well, first of all, you’ve got to have access to information of a certain type. In other words, the question is, you say, “Well, I’ve got an idea.” You say, I’m going to try to make this idea work, and you say “Well, how do I make this idea work?” I want to accomplish something; how do I do that? And the problem is, you need a system under which people who are working together, actually work on that subject. And work on the subject, not at the subject, but to win the subject: that is, to actually understand what the measures are that have to be done.
Now, what I do in general on this point,—I’m very fussy about this: that mankind has a creative power, which means that, in effect, every human being who comes under the influence of that power of insight, not only intends to do something good, but has come to understand the way in which that goodness can be achieved. And therefore the practical question, which is a certain kind of special practical thing,—many people want to do something good, but they don’t know how to do it. They say, “Yes, this would be good.—if it would work out.” But they don’t have any sense of how it would work out. And therefore, the important thing is to inform people, and give them an exposure of how this thing works; how mankind is able to achieve things that mankind had not been able to understand before.
And that’s an educational process, and the educational process is also a social process. Because you don’t learn things because somebody tells you something, or you say something and use that statement—that does not solve the problem. You have to have an insight into what will actually do the job. And that takes some work.
But then you catch on to it. And the idea is, you need people who are meeting together, who are working together; and in that process you’ll find that a group of people can come to an understanding of what they had not fully understood before. They see the errors of assumptions that they made about what they thought was going to be good, and then they realize that was not the right choice; that was not exactly what they should be doing.
But when you get people who are serious about realizing that, and when other people with them are stimulating them to understand what this means, what success means,—you’re on the way to the right course.
Ascher: I wanted to see if you have any final comments here, to close our Fireside Chat for this evening?
LaRouche: I think what we have to do is discuss among ourselves,—that is, those of us who have been meeting,—and come up and say, “We are going to organize among ourselves, to do for ourselves what is needed and to lay the laws down which must be applied to save this nation.” And I believe that devotion, serious devotion to mission, is the road which has been done in the past time,—is the road to get the American people back into control of their own government.
Ascher: Thank you very much, Lyn, and we’ll be back with you next week.
LaRouche: Thank you!