|This transcript appears in the April 15, 2016 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
LYNDON LAROUCHE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:
creative commons/Paul Wiesinger
Question: I’ve been a full-time member for five years. Based on what the organization has accomplished in terms of bringing people together in different parts of the world, bringing governments together—there was mention of the LaRouche Youth Movement, which to my knowledge was started in the year 2000. We’ve obviously observed that we’re not getting younger, and the LaRouche Youth Movement has gotten older, but there’s always a new generation. There’s always a new set of younger people. The idea of who will be the next LaRouche Youth Movement generation, or whatever metamorphosis that takes; if you could say something about that—with the idea that although we’re organizing people, it’s as important to see the people we’re organizing as organizers. Rather than us organizing them, we are a tool, we’re a resource that they can come to, to help them organize in the schools, etc. So, if you could say something on that.
LaRouche: It’s wrong. There are aspects to that thing that are relevant, but the principle that you present is wrong. The character of the humanity of mankind is that the human individual, who has a voluntary creative power, in order to understand processes, is the individual, who actually efficiently defines the destiny of the human species, not just in one person, but in terms of the practice of mankind among persons. The usual interpretation of cause and effect in human behavior is wrong; it is the human mind’s creative powers, and the human mind has a very specific kind of creative power. The creative powers of mankind are the source of the discovery of the principles of discovery, in themselves.Otherwise, no; it doesn’t work. You get all kinds of recipes, all kinds of stories, but none of them really work when you go down and test the matter in detail.
Question: I’d just like to bring up the subject of global warming and climate change. I wonder if you, Mr. LaRouche, would agree that fossil fuels are comparatively a very primitive form of energy generation, and that as the population of the Earth increases, it’s hardly better than burning wood. We will simply not be able to sustain an advancing scientific civilization based on burning fossil fuels. I think maybe you might agree with that, and that instead we have to look at the energy flux density and move on to something more advanced, such as nuclear fission, fusion, etc. Pollution really is a big problem. They are using coal fuels over in Beijing, and the smog is so horrible people can hardly live. So, we do need to move on to something more advanced. But my other question is, can we avoid conflating that with this bizarre theory of global warming? In other words, even if global warming is false—which I believe it is—nevertheless, don’t we need to progress to higher forms of energy generation?
LaRouche: No, that’s not the way it works. Take the case of human behavior, first of all, and that simplifies what the issues are, possibly. First of all, all creativity of mankind is generated from the primary source of the creative powers of the human individual, not from some external source. See, that’s what the difference is; what we call creativity in human behavior is the basis for the idea of what the principle of the human mind is. The human mind is driven by a noetic power; that is, a creative power which is independent of the individual per se—but which some individuals are capable of discovering and using to develop new things.
For example, Einstein. Now, Einstein is the only man who has succeeded so far in the past one hundred years in really understanding what is the basis of human behavior. Einstein was unique in this respect. In the recent one hundred years it has become obvious that he was right, and the others were wrong. You see, the way society is organized, mankind is organized by mankind’s own actions; it is mankind’s generated actions that create the failures or successes of human behavior. It is not something which you accept and experience by something that flew by you. Very few people understand this; most people are wrong. They don’t understand how the human mind works. The human mind is a creative process which is unique, and it is the human mind’s insight into principles, the discoveries of principles by the human mind, which creates the progress of mankind.
Speed: Very good. That’s what I like to see; a man who’s been completely confused by the right answer. We have another question over here.
Question: Mr. LaRouche, I come from Queens. My question is, what is the future of magnetic energy?
LaRouche: This is not the way to look at it. Look at everything that mankind does, accomplishes—everything that mankind as a species does, which no animal does. See, no animal can replicate the role of the human mind; no animal can do that if the animal is functional. In fact, all of the greatest creative forces in the history of mankind are governed by those principles. But the idea that you’re getting a practical approach to solutions is a mistake. For example, the other kind works; it bounces. You have people who are, intrinsically, themselves creative people; they discover principles. They discover the experience of a principle, which may be their own achievement. They will become more excited about what they have discovered; they will then turn around and try to lead an audience to recognize what they have discovered as a creative principle. Now it’s the people who think creatively, successfully, who actually make everything good about the human species; the others tend to be not so good.
Question: Hi, Lyn. This is Ian Brinkley, from Boston. I was thinking about how you’ve been responding to some of the questions here this afternoon, and it made me think of a particular problem which everybody who tries to engage in effective political organizing runs into—which is a certain kind of fear and anxiety which blocks the intention to convey a truthful idea when you see that you’re encountering an individual or a group of people who don’t understand something which they really need to understand.
LaRouche: Most people have that problem; and when you want to find out where the solution comes from, you have to look at the one case which is the most brilliant case of all: Einstein. Every physicist except Einstein was wrong on the crucial issues, and only recently have people begun to admit that Einstein was right on the question of gravity. So therefore, what you are talking about is a principle of gravity, and it’s a principle of gravity whose characteristic is that it’s peculiar to mankind. Einstein made discoveries which changed the course of the human species and changed the course of history. His mind did it. It is the human mind, when it is capable, which generates all of the great achievements of humanity—and it’s often a minority of the human species which has the power to do that.
Question: Hello, Lyndon. We all know that there’s a strong anti-growth movement, and they’re scared that if we use up all our material, we will gradually die. Jason Ross gave us a great presentation on how our creativity can actually create new resources, like before nuclear power was not readily available. We discovered that. But this anti-growth movement will tell us, “Well, maybe our creativity will fail at one point. Is there a limit to our creativity? Is there one point where we will not be able to discover new things to replace our new technologies?” To that, I usually answer, “I prefer to believe that we will continue to discover, and I prefer not abandoning [our path].” I wanted to know what would you say? Do you have a better answer to that?
LaRouche: I would say the point is, the truth of the matter is collectively, individually, all useful developments—expressions of the human mind—are peculiar to the human mind. Anything that’s valid belongs to that category of human mind. Now what happens is that this is not a perfect process, because you have a lot of people who make a lot of mistakes. Therefore, the answer is, the effective result, the competent result of the human mind’s work is to inspire a creativity which can be generated only by the human individual mind.
Speed: Let me just take a moment and ask if there’s anyone from the panel who has anything that they want to add or say.
Jason Ross: I can say something. One specific thing about whether we’re going to finish discovering things or not: I think that this goes to a theme that Mr. LaRouche has been bringing up a lot over the past couple of years, which is the approach of Bertrand Russell, and the 1900 shift in science; where, away from discovering totally new things, the practice of science increasingly became, at least officially, put in terms of “Can you derive your new thought in terms of what we already know?” What Russell tried to do in mathematics, to turn mathematics into logic, got also applied to science in general. And the opportunity to say, “Hey, we just don’t know everything yet; there is more to know,” got put aside. Bertrand Russell had said in the 1890s, implicitly, that space couldn’t possibly be curved, and that properties of matter couldn’t be any different when you get into the very small. In the 1890s he said that the big discoveries of the 1900s would never happen; he said that there couldn’t be a quantum, and that there couldn’t be relativity.
So, in terms of the example of Einstein as having made a major discovery that overthrew what existed before, that didn’t add to it, but overthrew what had currently existed—I think what he did as a personality was very important for thinking through what should science be.
Kesha Rogers: I think what is important to think about in this discussion that we’re having right now is that we are not dealing with a practical political debate. It’s not about up and down votes, and opinions, and whether or not you agree or disagree on a political view. You have to understand that this conference, and this panel in particular, is so important. There are very dividing issues on this panel, because Mr. LaRouche had something much more fundamental on these questions. This is a human debate! I just think about the fact that you take Krafft Ehricke—and I mentioned him earlier—he had a very profound concept of this idea of a closed world system versus an open world system. Right now we’re still debating and living in a closed world system that cannot achieve the type of creative goals and breakthroughs which are necessary for mankind to foster its true creative potential. That’s what you have to get at. So if you don’t think your questions are being answered, it’s because you are still stuck in that closed system, and you have to get out of it!
When I called for a space—and I hope to accomplish this—an international space panel, I wanted to take up this very fight, this very question that doesn’t exist in our political arena right now! I ask the scientists, where are the politicians? They are not responding to real science; that’s why I’m up here. That’s why Mr. LaRouche and I are collaborating and working on this fight.
Mr. LaRouche is bringing up the genius of Einstein, and he more recently talked about the creative genius of Brunelleschi, and I’d like for him to expound on that a little bit more. When we are talking about the process of creating these new cities, beautiful cities, creating a commitment to space, I think that’s the example we have to use. Mr. LaRouche is talking about fostering a conception which most people don’t think of; most people don’t think of themselves as having genius, being geniuses, creating genius, having your children become geniuses. You can’t do that in this society! It doesn’t foster it. We have to do that here, today.
Tom Wysmuller: I could piggyback on something Jason talked about. He talked about Bertrand Russell saying that basically most of the science is behind us. When Einstein applied for a job at the patent office, and he worked as a patent clerk for a while, his boss told him, “there’s no future here, because everything that’s going to be invented already has.” [laughter] So—that’s the truth.
Now, these days, you’re hearing a lot of stuff on the climate, and I want to address one of the questioners, that “the science is settled”! Well, guess what? It’s not settled! We’re getting new data every day about climate! We’re learning things, we’re learning relationships that we didn’t know, and you need to look at the data. And that’s one of the things that NASA’s been pretty helpful in, in provided the data. It’s the people who are interpreting it, and saying that there are no questions left to ask, that are on the wrong side of that issue.
So, keep your minds open, keep your target toward Mars.
Question: I feel very honored to be here. I’m from Brooklyn. Something that I do want to say, that’s always stuck very close to me, was, an instructor once said to me, while studying Buddhism, “to a beginner, there are many possibilities, but to an expert there are few.”
Now I’m a beginner, and I’d like to keep a beginner’s mind. I know nothing, but something I did come to understand from NASA’s data, is that there is space junk. For the past 60 years, we have been throwing manmade junk into space. Is there a way to pick up where we left off and make use of and harness this space junk?
LaRouche: Science. Actual, efficient science! You may not be able to get a perfect correction of what the scientific principle is, but you can get closer and closer to it by experiencing your own errors in judgment.
The point is, nonetheless, that it is the human individual mind which is the only competent authority for solving these problems. Now, some people are not as efficient in making these discoveries or developments, but nonetheless, the human being is not an animal. And the usual interpretation of human behavior is based on the presumption that mankind is an animal. That is when the mistakes are made.
Question: I completely agree with Lyndon LaRouche about the human mind, but for the same reason, I don’t understand why such names as Tesla, for example—who is at least, maybe in my eyes, at the same level as Einstein—the great inventor of free energy. Nobody spoke about numerous free energies, carry energy; we never hear about it. The latest has to do with cold fusion; it’s a major breakthrough, but nobody mentioned it. And I don’t know why, because, although it’s not very widely publicized, it’s accessible. The majority of these guys—same destiny. . . .
Speed: Excuse me. I think we’re going to have to have your question repeated so we can all understand it.
Sare: He is asking about many inventions that have been made but have not been made available because there’s a kind of Gestapo that prevents them from being allowed to be known.
Question: [follow-up] And among them are Tesla’s inventions. . .
LaRouche: This is not a proper question. However, there are cases where the individual who’s trying to follow something may not be able to make the efficient connection between the two facts of relationship.
But all creativity of mankind, that is of mankind as a social process, is based on a principle which is unique to the human individual mind. Now some people don’t have an adequate development of the human mind, but if they are educated properly they can. The case of Einstein is clear. Einstein—as you know, an entire century has passed—Einstein has proven that on the basis of his way of thinking, not on the basis of some design, but on the basis of his way of thinking, he has made a discovery which has upset everybody.
So the point is, you have to understand that the source of creative powers of the human individual lies within the human individual, not within that nature.
Question: Mr. LaRouche, I was really overwhelmed by the Egyptian Consul who spoke in the morning panel, Mr. Farouk, and the way that Egypt handled getting into the Land-Bridge. Why can’t we do that as Americans? Start our own fund, instead of waiting for the United States to turn around and say, “let’s get on board”? Why can’t we do this like Egypt did in financing the New Suez Canal, and tell the United States government to let us just take it on ourselves?
LaRouche: Well, you know the problem is, most of the members of the establishment in the United States today are crooks. They have strong opinions! And they believe in those opinions, or they pretend to believe in those opinions. And they do it, and they’re scattered all over the place.
So you will need something a little bit better than that. You’ve got to understand one thing: The question is the mind of a scientist, specifically a scientist—or an especially good scientist, is his or her opinion, is it or is it not the source of the discovery of a principle which is otherwise not discovered? That’s the issue.
Now, some people are better at that business and others are less good at that principle, but that is the principle. The entirety of mankind’s success, as mankind, depends upon the creative powers, specific to some specific individual human beings—or else they’re wrong! That’s your alternative.
The medicine that is presented, is it correct or is it not? All the important things in science, all the important things in human individual knowledge, depend upon the validity of these kinds of discoveries. Without that, maybe we will get accidentally lucky or something—that does happen; but the question is, when it comes to an actual principle, the creative principle, an efficiently creative principle is actually generated uniquely by the mind of a human individual. Now that individual may make mistakes, but the question of that individual’s ability to make a discovery of that type, is what’s crucial. And some people are good at it; some of them are not perfect at it. But the whole basis of the human process of human progress depends upon that principle. Otherwise, you’ve got nothing but animals!
Question: We have many enemies to genius, and you’ve come up against your share in your lifetime, so I guess this is more of a social science question in terms of, do you have any insight or a principle we might use to overcome this fear-based life that we were brought up in? I mean, where we’ve seen genius thwarted time again. We’re here to bring something home where we can begin to instigate change. Any insights on that?
LaRouche: The only insight is, that the educational system of the United States is lousy. It could be improved!
Question: Mr. LaRouche, I totally agree with your creative moment and the individual. What is your position on synchronization of individual creative effort in terms of a mastermind community?
LaRouche: Oh, the problem is what happens is, often we’ll find that we don’t know which end starts first sometimes. You sometimes get a child who turns out to be a genius, and that’s a discovery. And then you find somebody who is supposedly a leading scientist who’s a bum! So therefore, you have to understand that there are categories that you have to learn to be familiar with, in order to discern which person is probably likely right, or at least right to have an opinion.
The important thing: It’s very important for all mankind to have access to human minds which are able to deliver, maybe not just from the start, but from somewhere in the process; who are able to actually understand something which is tantamount to an original, human principled discovery. That is what the whole thing is based upon. That’s what every scientist does who’s competent. The scientist will work and sweat and do all these kinds of things they do, in order to achieve something which is truth. And what they’re trying to do is understand what the truth is of the matter.
And the whole system, of success of society and cultures as such, depends upon the ability of some people to make progress in discovery of human principles, absolute human principles, which are uniquely human. In other words, you cannot fake it; you cannot fake that. You cannot fake any kind of principle; you have to actually work, and fight your way through and find out what the truth is.
And Einstein, for example, is an ideal example of the kind of person in society who is capable of making those kinds of discovered things.
Question: Mr. LaRouche, I just want to address some things that this gentleman said and a couple other people said, in regard to what’s going on out there in the world. There is a Gestapo-like organization, there are these banks, there is this stuff going on, and I disagree that we shouldn’t be focusing on it, because I think it’s possible, and not just possible, I think it’s probable that the fire out there, that these people, these greedy, corrupt people will eat us alive, and burn us alive before we have the chance to go out to Mars and do these things. I think we need to really focus on that. So my question is, why would we not focus on that? Why would we not get down to the bottom of that and really address these criminals and these thugs?
LaRouche: Because the influence of the society’s culture destroys the ability of the human being, the individual in many cases, to be responsible.
We should educate our people better and treat them more kindly.
Question: It’s an honor to be here, and Mr. LaRouche, it’s an honor to get a chance to ask you a question. I’m from Boston, Mass., and my question is that it seems like all around the world people are stuck in a comfort zone with things that they know work, and don’t necessarily make the leap to newer technologies because of the lack of understanding and the lack of reliability being that it’s new technology.
LaRouche: Your reference to a lazy mind, not coming up to a standard, is really the appropriate thing. People will say, “I feel more comfortable with what I think and the smell I exude, than I would with anything else.” And therefore they like to smell themselves and feel that that smell is the good smell; and they will just walk away from everything with that, without considering what the proper smell of the animal should have been. And if it runs into a skunk, well, that’s what the result is.
Speed: OK, let me ask, are there any summary remarks? Is there anybody from the panel, first of all, who wants to say anything, and then we’ll go to Lyn.
Wysmuller: In answer to the young lady who said that when she was young, everything was possible, and then as she got older she found it wasn’t. Well, the truth is, as you get wiser, you find out again that there is much more to find out in the universe than you’ve ever dreamed of.
We have a lot more to learn. We have a lot more to learn.
Speed: OK, Jason!
Ross: To be honest, I had a lot of specific thoughts on some of the specific questions. The only general conclusion is that it’s just really important to develop a culture in this way.
This evening we’re going have a panel on music, what we typically call “culture.” Music, poetry. There’s also a culture to science, and it’s very easy to look at the fruits of science, or its effects, or what it does for you, and neglect the fact that there’s a whole culture to the practice of science: How did a discovery get made? What were the people like who figured things out? How did they think?
And I think that there is as much—no, I won’t compare—there’s a great deal of beauty and insight that we can gather from that, just like we do with typical “culture.” We need to have both of them, culturally, living in us.
Rogers: Well, I think I will end by saying that most of you came here today because you know that our society is in grave danger, and we’re facing a grave threat to our existence as human beings, and you want to do something about it. I think if you take the discussion that we’ve had here today, and will continue to have—this idea of fostering a Renaissance for mankind—what is the requirement of mind, to truly bring that about? As we look at what is necessary to inspire beauty in our society, we have to actually rid ourselves of this—as Jason said—of this culture of degeneracy, of ugliness. Mr. LaRouche brings up Einstein—Einstein knew that the fostering of his creative mind also required participation in the beauty of great art, of great Classical music.
The way that you dumb down a society is to take away that potential for what makes us human, what makes us beautiful. That’s what you should take from this conference. Be inspired to go out there and organize your communities. We have people represented here, of all different backgrounds, that in other countries, wouldn’t be sitting together at all! We have a responsibility, here in the United States, to foster something that is what the United States was actually organized and created around in the first place—what our Founding Fathers had intended.
It’s up to you! What about the United States? What are we going to do? How are we going to make the United States represent the greatness of who we are?
And so the United States has to join in this new mission, as I said, in fostering this new Renaissance, and this has to be taken as something real in all of our minds.
Speed: Lyn do you have any final remarks?
LaRouche: Just that I’ve learned a little bit from what people have as opinions, again from this experience here, which is highly variegated, of course, in terms of the composition of the whole. But some people get really fretful about protecting their something-or-other, and that is a little bit problematic at times. But I think it will clear its way out.