LAROUCHE IN DIALOGUE:
‘Convey the Importance of the
Individual as a Creative Force!’
This is an edited transcript of Lyndon LaRouche’s April 9, 2016 Dialogue with the Manhattan Project.
Dennis Speed: We had a conference a couple of days ago which began the process which we are going to now amplify here and deepen here.
Those of you who were there know that there was a very lively second session. Mr. LaRouche was able, in his capacity as “Dialoguer in Chief,” to give some people a lesson in what it means to actually try to think about asking questions. So, Lyn, I’d like to first ask you if there’s anything you’d like to say at the beginning, and otherwise we’ll start the questions.
Lyndon LaRouche: I would say, simply, that there was a confusion there which was resolved, I think, in the process of presentation, to recognize exactly what the principles are, on which the human voice and mind are capable of understanding each other. I think that’s the key mission, is to get a recognition among people of what the truths are, as opposed to some of the jazzed up work, which does not actually amount to anything, in terms of art.
Speed: Maybe we’ll have a few questions in that regard. So let’s go right to questions. Let’s take our first question.
Question: Good afternoon! This is Jessica from Brooklyn, New York. I want to start by talking a little bit about what people have said to me about the conference, and how I’ve thought about the conference in response.
It was the question and answer period that really stuck out in my mind. After a barrage of statements and non questions from the audience, Kesha Rogers said something that I actually wrote down, and I’m going to repeat it right now: “It’s not all these little issues, it’s not all this stuff you’re talking about—climate change over here (which is ridiculous), and all these other things—that is important; what really is important, is that this is the threat to your humanity.” That’s what this was about: the threat to our humanity.
In thinking about that, the entire thing came together to me as “peace through development.” I think one of our EIR pamphlets said, “Development Is the New Name for Peace,” so the “peace through development” idea is there. I want the American people to respond in that way. How do we get the American people to respond to the idea that the Silk Road, and all these other concepts such as the space program represent peace through development? I’d like you to comment on that for us, please.
LaRouche: Okay. The crucial thing that I ran into, in the discussion process, where people were quarreling around this, and arguing this and arguing that, and I simply said, “No!” Because there are certain principles which do define the function of a human being, the true function of a true human being. That’s what you have to go for. You have to find out what the truth is and understand why it is the proper instruction to mankind, for the future of mankind.
The problems that arose in some people’s minds, were they wanted to bring in all kinds of explanations, other than the name of “human.” Our point is that everything is based on the “principle of human,” and that principle of human has to be defined correctly, as being the intention to bring mankind to a higher level of achievement for the future of mankind, and that that is the most important issue.
Question: At the conference, there was one thing that you said that really stuck with me, and I’ll paraphrase. You said something like, “Science is the process of moving what’s in the mind, into physical reality.” So, my question is, how do you define what science actually is? And then how can we think more scientifically in the way that Einstein, or a Kepler, or you do?
LaRouche: Well, there’s a certain principle there, which can be described summarily, but I don’t like to describe it summarily, because it’s much more complicated than that. The point is, we all are able, if we wish to—if we wish to—to recognize what the meaning of human life is, and people will know it, recognize it, from themselves. People who have any sensitivity at all will recognize this. This is something which is for man, by man, and for the future of mankind. Those principles, which I quoted during the course of that argument there, are the universal principles, as far as I know. These are the principles on which the foundation of mankind’s understanding of himself depends. Once they recognize this, they have no choice but to recognize the truth.
Question: Hello, Lyn. My name is A—, from Montreal, Canada. I’ve been following what this organization’s been doing for about a year now. How can we, as organizers when we go out and organize, stick to a certain tradition of beauty, and convey beauty while still trying to expose the ugliness within the culture?
How can we expose the ugliness within the culture, without falling into the ugliness within language? And how can we use certain language that respects the tradition of beauty and exposing beauty through truth?
LaRouche: Simply, you have to understand: You say, “What is Satanic?” Just ask the question, “What is actually Satanic in the common practice of mankind?” You say, “Acts of cruelty against other people.” Cheating. Lying. And so forth, as opposed to the simple idea of the desire to fulfill something which makes one’s life have meaning for the future of mankind. That means: What is the progress that we can contribute as individuals, toward the progress of mankind? This is the basis on which different nations, or nationalities, can come together with a common intention; is to get that common intention which creates the success of the human species among all participants in human perception. Every nation, every nationality, has a requirement to find in itself something which is truly universal to mankind.
Question: Hi. Thank you for having us here. My question is: Why, or why won’t, our expanding noösphere catch up with the expanding universe?
LaRouche: Well, actually, we are all part of the universe. All of us are. The meaning of our existence is of that nature. What do we contribute, by our existence, by our development, by our practice and development? What do we contribute to the totality of mankind? In the recent event we had on Thursday, we had a test of that on a large scale for China. We got involved deeply with some of what the Chinese development is.
So, the recognition of this thing which actually unifies humanity, in effect, as the demonstrations and the arguments and the proceedings showed—that is where mankind is. Mankind has to find its own identity, which means different kinds of inspections. But they all must come back to one thing, and that one thing is the power of mankind, the power of the human individual, when realized. That is the one thing which unifies all people: the ability to access a common progress for a better future for the totality of mankind, and mankind’s mission for the universe.
Contributing to the Future of Mankind
Question: Good afternoon, Lyn! I’m from the Detroit area. I’m a veteran. I belong to at least three veterans groups, and I was wondering why there aren’t more veterans gravitating toward the organization and what we do here? Because you’re working toward preventing a number of future wars. And what is it that you think we can do to persuade more veterans to be involved with what we are doing?
LaRouche: First of all, you can start with Franklin Roosevelt, because Franklin Roosevelt was treated like a bum in the closing period of his life. He was one of the greatest thinkers in the history of the United States, in terms of the effect of what he contributed to a mankind which had been going into desperation, and now was reconstructing itself, where people in the early 1930s were totally into despair. Just the ordinary citizen was usually in total despair, or was a thief otherwise. And what happened is, Franklin Roosevelt brought that citizen,— who was often demoralized by what he had been subjected to, to cause him to aspire, to accrete to something which is going to be greater for the purpose of mankind, generally. And what has happened since is that those in the system of government, certain people in the system, have become no damned good at all. So therefore, we had so many no-damned-good candidates for leadership, in the United States, that we are sometimes ashamed of ourselves without asking and finding out why!
But that’s it. We have to fight for that purpose. We have to understand what the meaning of that purpose is, of mankind. Not just for soldiers, because every one of us is going to die. And therefore the question is, what is the meaning of our living in the process which we know is going to end with dying. That means that you are looking at humanity, not as an object. You are looking at humanity as something which has an intrinsic continuity in terms of the contributions. For example, what happens, people talk about life and death. Well, everyone dies. Every human being dies. It’s unavoidable. Well then, what is the purpose of the person having lived? That is the question. It’s not how we die, it’s how we, in the process of our existing, have contributed, and are continuing to contribute, to the meaning of the future of mankind. And that is probably the simplest way of saying it.
Question: Hi Lyn, Alvin here. I did a fair amount of work leading into the conference, and what I was really inspired by, and at the same time embarrassed by as an American, was the international participation on the panel, and the excellent ideas and representations of where they see their nations leading to, and, of course, in essence, asking the United States to not wage war, but join them in that process.
But what I come out thinking today is, where do we go next? Where do we advance? What’s our next move here in Manhattan, as an extension of that process that was in three parts presented to us on Thursday? And my thinking here in New York is that we have the release of these documents called the Panama Papers; we also have what will obviously be a widely seen broadcast on “60 Minutes,” where the 28 pages will be gone through with many of the people that this organization has worked with and helped organize; and then later in the week we have “Fred and Ethel,” otherwise known as Bernie and Hillary, coming into town. I’d like to know from you how we should approach this week, since there is a lot for us to do around this, and the implications are vast.
LaRouche: I would say that, with some brief exceptions, relatively speaking, among Presidents and among others, even most people, they are not worth much, at all. You know, you have to look at the question, as I do, from the standpoint of what is the meaning of a newborn baby? One that is going to live, or that we expect to live. Why do we put a value on that child? Because it is supposed to be, not just living for a while, it is supposed to be able to develop, in its self development, through mankind. We bring the baby, the child, or the fortunate child at least, into a role which mankind has never achieved before. In other words, the idea is to bring the newborn baby to be not merely a continuation of the parent, as such. The question is, can this baby, this person, represent the future of mankind in the course of its own existence? That’s the important thing! Having a baby is not what’s important, as such. What’s important is creating a system which creates babies and makes babies into future geniuses!
Einstein, for example, typifies that model. And for many of us today who understood the history of Einstein, and his problems, Einstein has always meant that, for us who understood this. That Einstein’s role was a dedication to a discovery of the future, even when he would have died! Therefore, his existence is a permanent existence, because it represents something which has never been overturned. And others should learn from his example.
Question: Mr. LaRouche, this is R— from Bergen County, New Jersey. You’re talking about the issue of genius, and you mentioned Einstein. Einstein existed from the late 19th through middle 20th Century, and, as I see it, the objective conditions surrounding Einstein weren’t necessarily great. There was World War I, there was anti-Semitism, he had to move from Germany to New Jersey. And yet he was a genius, there’s no doubt the man was brilliant. And there have been many other cases of genius, people who have done their great work under adversity. We all know specific cases.
My question is, there seems to be a need for the cultivation of genius as a higher proportion of the population right now, and going forward. How do you visualize, how do you see a system, which would optimize or better grow this need for genius?
LaRouche: Take the history of genius in terms of the United States, and take the founding leadership of the United States as such. Then look at what happened afterward. We had Presidents; we had a whole string of Presidents who were really treasonous, in terms of their attitude about the nation.
Then you had other people who came back, a few of them, as leaders, in terms of the development of the United States. Beyond Lincoln, we had a few people who actually filled that kind of role, of being a person whose life is devoted to creating a future for mankind. Not just a future for mankind, but a future for the improvement of mankind.
White House Historical Association/The Peace Makers by George Peter Alexander Healy
Now, what happened was that you had an evil bastard, I use the term freely, who became Bertrand Russell. And what Bertrand Russell did, he succeeded in getting at most of the people who were then at that time considered scientists, and they all turned rotten, every one of them.
And Einstein was the only man who really furnished the policy of honesty, in the development of the future of mankind and mankind’s future. Some other people have made contributions, but we want to talk about a systemic approach to the improvement of mankind and mankind’s destiny.
This is not just a step of progress. We have turned back to evil, which was brought in by Bertrand Russell. And most people in the United States today are still worshippers of the policies of Bertrand Russell. They’re still following—the schoolteachers, university student teachers, in the United States today, are mostly Bertrand Russell followers. They believe in simple mechanics, in terms of science. They have no creativity whatsoever.
And therefore what we treasure is the idea of having children being born, and knowing that those children will become something new and great beyond what has existed now, to hope that mankind will accede to actual progress of the development of the individual member of society. And that has been very much in jeopardy, and that’s what is in jeopardy all the time. And that’s what I like to fight about.
A Child Is Born . . . and Becomes a Genius
Question: Hello, Lyn, This is M— from Montreal. I’ve been able to work here for three weeks to help with the second Handel Messiah concert and the conference. Something I’ve been struggling with, that I hope you can help out with, is that practicality has been something which we all tend to fall into, and there’s a lot of pressure to bring truth into practical terms, terms that people who don’t know anything can understand.
But the idea of actually winning, the intention to win, I realize that has not been something—for the years I have been doing this—that I have not had governing my world. And that, in general, the way I have been thinking, wrongly, has been that I have been trying to inoculate people against the evil of the culture, at best, but the idea that you can actually win has not been, until very recently, a living concept organizing my mind.
Now this is completely different, especially for me. Being a part of this conference is a paradigm-shifting process. I know that if practicality was governing the minds of a Benjamin Franklin or a Brunelleschi, not only would there never have been a dome, but there never would have been a Renaissance, and there never would have been a Declaration of Independence. So, I am hoping you can say a few words to help people like myself and others to not fall back into practical terms, and to keep their minds focused on self organizing processes.
LaRouche: I would say that’s commendable, I think it’s necessary. The thing to do is look at the idea of the concept of the baby, the human baby, and look at the meaning of what that human baby’s birth should mean to humanity. It means that that child, or some children like that, are going to become a legion of people, from whom a future of mankind will be newly created, beyond anything that mankind has achieved previously. Therefore, the idea of the existence of the new baby must be, in some degree, a sample of a future of mankind; where the future of mankind has been reached, in a certain touch, that someone becomes the genius. A child is born, and in due course becomes, for one reason or another, a kind of a genius, and contributes to mankind what mankind has never acceded to before. And that is the thing which we should call “happiness,” or “the meaning of life.”
Question: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. R— from Brooklyn here. I was at the conference this week and I was glad to see the progress the Egyptians have made in the Canal Zone. The United States Merchant Marine in the 1970s had a proposal for a two way system, and Egypt’s participation in the New Silk Road is key to North Africa and Southwest Asia and humanity at large. Do you feel humanity will be able to overcome the effects of the British Empire to stop the Silk Road project?
LaRouche: I think we are, some of us, at least, determined to make that improvement permanent. Not only possible, but permanent. Not everybody will do it, will achieve it, but a great part of mankind can achieve it, and that will be good enough for the rest of them.
Question: It’s me, Kesha. As I was sitting here listening, I was really struck by what you have defined as the necessity for the integrated, united, United States, and how that is being done with the representation of the Manhattan Project and New York as reviving the principle of Alexander Hamilton and what we’re doing in Texas. And what struck me about that is, that we are really defining right now the fight against the slavery and anti human conception that has dominated our United States. And I think about this idea of the Hamiltonian Principle which acted as an anti-slavery idea against what we’ve seen in the Confederate South, and you’ve talked about the Confederate South a lot.
But the interesting question is, Why was it necessary that the space program be put in those areas that were a part of what was known or accepted as the Confederate South? It was because you had to give those people, those poor and backward regions access to their humanity. When people think about the space program, they think about it as some happy go lucky people making some scientific experiments. But I think about it from the standpoint that we have a responsibility of integrating the entire United States, and giving them access to their own humanity.
And I want to get your sense of that, because I think there’s still a failed idea and conception, as to why it is so important that we integrate the United States and that this whole conception that has dominated the thinking and the population—the slavery that still exists! The South is still backward, and we’re actually organizing to restore the principle of a unified United States—something that no one else is thinking about—but this has to be the method by which we bring the United States and the world into one accord again. What do you think of that?
LaRouche: What do I think of that? I think you should probably just tell other people about things that you already know. At a certain point you participated in the program of the space program, and up to that point this was a fine experience. But suddenly Obama came along, and Obama shut down the space program.
Scan courtesy NASA/Johnson
Now today, you happen to be in a key position for fostering the revival of the space program. You’re a leader in the space program. And therefore you’re going to do more to try to reach out to get more people involved, in it. We’ll even allow people in California to participate in the space program. These are the nice things that we can probably offer.
But the point is, that place is there! The same area that you were working in, when the space program was shut down, is still there. And we’re now trying to struggle our way out from under the mud, to get into full and normal reaction to what the space program had meant in the beginning.
That was shut down by Obama. Now we’re bringing it back. And now we know that we’re capable of bringing it back and what we’re going to do it to bring it back, and we’re going to bring it back to the entirety of the people of the United States, among others, right now!
Question: Hello, Lyn. It’s E— from Montreal, Canada. It’s great to follow up Kesha. What I wanted to ask you: How does your concept of energy-flux density in the economy and progress upwards, translate into the moral domain of mankind? In other words, how does an individual in everyday life achieve better, more productive ways of contributing and participating in the universe?
LaRouche: I think it’s better not to think of oneself as living in that kind of context. I think it’s the idea of opportunity to get access, to create something for mankind, which is beyond what mankind has otherwise been able to get. And that’s the simple foundation of things, that makes work good from failure.
Zealous Defense of Degeneracy
Question: Hello, Lyn. It’s H— again from Montreal. I became involved with the organization about a year ago. Before that I was very much part of the degeneration and the ugliness of the culture, and finding myself here today, and the person I’ve become because of joining this organization and organizing myself, I struggle with fighting, as you say, with the Russell within myself and trying to find a way to inspire others to find the strength to fight that within themselves. And in particular, when it comes to youth, and the youth movement which you started for the future, as you mentioned, every week you’re only getting older, and we’re all only getting older, and the organization, a lot of the members are only getting older: So how can we, as an organization, find a way to fight, or to inspire young people, who are so zealous and adamant in defending the very system that is degenerating them?
And in particular, I know many young artists, very talented in terms of the technical aspects of art, but very depressed in why they do what they do and the reasons they do what they do. And for everyone watching this all over the world, and for here, how can we find a way to fight that zealousness within young people?
LaRouche: Fighting is a necessary occupation in these matters. For example, let’s take Western Canada. A whole area, there, have been becoming suicide cases, where they had been enriched and progressive.
The question is, how do you answer that question? How do you account for that?
Now throughout the United States you’ll find whole areas where people who were earlier progressively qualified people, suddenly become not only incompetent, but they become suicidal, en masse. They use drugs; they use other devices in order to get out of the experience of their life.
And this is true in much of the world. It’s not just in these two areas, the phenomenon in Canada, which is significant, or the United States. And you go into the South, the southern states of the Americas. You see how desperate the situation is.
There’s a force of evil, which I would locate as taking root, at the beginning of the 20th century, the Bertrand Russell influence. The Bertrand Russell legacy spread out throughout much of the world, throughout the trans Atlantic community and beyond, affecting, therefore, entire generations of people in these categories. We have to actually campaign, to bring people to understand the importance of the human individual as a creative force. And that’s the only thing that will do anything for mankind, the asserting of mankind’s role as a creative force, in the future.
Question: Hi Lyn, this is B— from New Jersey/New York and Los Angeles. I run into people just thinking on a lower level, object perceptions or sense perceptions. I think many of the qualities of this spiritual aspect of mankind [are found in Einstein]. For me, in just brief readings of Einstein’s work, it really does give a sense that he was not a sense perceptual person. He did not believe in sense perceptions. It seems that in music it works pretty much the same way, if you do not believe in the notes, that is. Why is it that people just have a difficult time with this question of the spirituality of the human race?
LaRouche: Well, I don’t find any problem in it. First of all, it’s simple: You have to have a perspective. And the perspective is that you are going to do something to promote the creation and development of new human beings, and that you will have a part in the development of these new human beings.
We were supposed to educate children. Well, I can say that since Bertrand Russell came into power, we don’t educate children any more, we downgrade children. We have had Presidents like Franklin Roosevelt and a couple of others who were creative, but most of our recent Presidents were trash or worse. Therefore, the struggle is to try to create an organization in society which gets rid of the trash problem; we call it the Bertrand Russell legacy. But most people have given in—most teachers have given in to this kind of thing, this treason against mankind. We don’t develop creative minds seriously. Or if they are creative, we stultify their ability to express creative powers of development.
So I think that latter issue is the point which we ought to focus on, because there are many people who are wasting their entire lives by getting rich, and making the poor richer. That sort of thing.
So therefore, we should actually demand of ourselves that we take into account this kind of issue. And look at yourself from the standpoint of that kind of issue. What can you do to resolve your relationship to that issue?
Classical Composition Defines Creativity
Question: Hi, it’s Diane. Yesterday at the conference, I was actually very struck by what happened in the Q&A period, because in the morning, we had Helga’s speech; the Chinese representative discussing the One Belt, One Road; the speaker from Korea who was talking about the per capita income in Korea having gone from whatever it was, $100 per person, to being a major economy; the presentation by the Egyptian Consul on the extraordinary transformation and potential of that country; and then Helga’s very distinct challenge to Americans to return to our Constitutional principles and the greatest identity of our nation.
Then when people got up to ask questions, it was as if this beautiful feast had been laid out before them, and they turned around to grab something out of the garbage can! It was like they stuck a banana peel on top of their heads and said, there’s so much evil and I’m so oppressed.”
So I was just very struck by this, and two things come to mind: One, a number of weeks ago, you emphasized the question of natural law, which I think is something that people don’t have that great of an understanding of; and then also, the question of why the music work is so important in terms of dealing with this kind of phenomenon. Do you have more to say about this?
LaRouche: I will say it, because it’s essential. This is essential. The composition of music, the way we are trying to bring it up to standard now, at this time, in this area, that is what’s crucial. Why? Well, people say they have all kinds of uses for what they call “music.” But we know today, since the 20th century, most of what was called music became immediately junk! There were no more great composers! None! They were crushed. They didn’t cease to exist, but they were crushed at every opportunity that institutions could crush them. Only a handful of people even approximated honest musical conceptions.
Société Wilhelm Furtwängler
And you cannot separate that issue or issues from themselves. These things are important, and in their Classical compositional form, are intrinsically essential, if you’re going to get a mind that is capable of understanding what music is. That’s the thing to put on the plate right now.
That’s the issue! You’ve got to be able to deliver Classical artistic composition, alive!
Question: [Renee Sigerson] Hello, Lyn. I was really struck yesterday when the professor on the final panel [Ben Wang] was showing the painting from China, and was discussing also the Chinese characters and the Chinese language—and that each character is monosyllabic, which really shocked me. It reminded me of the discussions we had had on Classical Greek with Tony Papert, because the thing that suddenly hits you, when you’re attempting to learn Greek, is that it’s a language which actually functioned in the Classical period with the assumption that the person that you were speaking to had a mind! When we would work on this, I would really be struck, and say “you know the way we use English, we always assume that the person we’re speaking to really doesn’t have a mind!”
In terms of the functioning of the organization, part of the answer to what we’re discussing here, is—and it’s related to the pedagogy of music or like when we were just listening to the Furtwängler—that people have to really challenge themselves to hear the inner voice of the other at all times, that kind of discipline, and really get rid of this traffic-light way of having dialogue with people.
Because it’s really not a question. I think what the Chinese example shows—because they have survived all these centuries, and discovered and rediscovered—is that what is metaphorical within language is something which is embedded in the process by which people live and work together. And there’s such a strong emphasis in China on multi-generational survival, that obviously this is somehow embedded in what they’re doing.
But maybe you can explain this better than I can.
LaRouche: There are several aspects of this question which you pose which I can deal with here; because some of it goes deeper, there. But I take it in terms of my own life. I succeeded several times in my life, and each time—coming out of military service, back into normal non military life was quite a difference—but I was then a victim of the evil forces that conjured this thing, and I battered around for a while, and I rose to a significance in the course of a generation; and I was put into prison. I got out of prison, and I got help in a sense, from Bill Clinton and others who sponsored my getting out of the prison system; and I went back into scientific work again, in Russia and other parts of the world.
So that’s the way life sometimes goes. So the question is, what underlies the difference between one kind of experience and another? And the main thing, which lies within the human being, or one who’s prompted to living, is that Classical artistic composition, true Classical artistic composition is the universal principle on which everything that’s important is based. And I know it comes in different forms of expression, but I can say Classical musical composition is a paragon defining creativity. It’s what the baby learns eventually, what the adult learns, and what somebody ends up producing.
Question: Hi Lyn. You mentioned a couple things that just resonated with me right now—the metaphor of the baby, and Classical composition. The first thing that went through my mind when you mentioned the baby was Plato’s Symposium and the idea that we all are pregnant, either in body or in mind. How can this organization help all of us refine our ability to give birth to that child, metaphorically speaking, using the Classical composition? Using the Classical ideas of what humanity is, and what the spirit of humanity is?
LaRouche: Well, when there’s been a cutoff of periods of creativity in the history of mankind, you find that there’s a cutoff. And then you look around and you find that eventually somebody comes back and brings something new which is also creative.
So the design of mankind to become creative, to live as a creative personality, that is a driving force in and of itself. And often people will discover that in themselves, rather than discovering it from some other source. They simply decide themselves that they want to think and talk in this way. They want to communicate in this way. They want to live in this kind of way! So sometimes, many people are successful, not the greatest number of people, but a great number of great people, are able to do that. And if they are influential and allowed to become influential, then it works.
If you get the kind of teachers that are trained under Bertrand Russell from the beginning of the Twentieth Century, then you get a stinking project! And a product to go with it.
That’s been the problem. That’s the problem we face when we talk about the question of the relationship of mankind to the future. There are people who are actually disgusting, they do not respect the principle of the future of mankind, that mankind must be motivated to find in himself and herself something of creativity, which gives them access to understanding something which is beautiful, and which they want to serve. And I think that’s the only easy way to get a description of it.
Speed: I think we’re at the end of the questions, Lyn. I think today’s dialogue has been notable for several reasons. One if that we actually have a dialogue with Lyn and the Policy Committee, because we have Diane and Kesha here, and you have an audience for that dialogue made up of organizers, who’ve actually been qualified to be in it. This is a higher level meeting, I think, than we’ve had.
So, if you have anything else to say to us, please go ahead.
LaRouche: I should say, we should be more creative than you’ve ever been before!