|This article appears in the May 13, 2016 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
MANHATTAN PROJECT DIALOGUE
To Present a Solution of Something
Question: We are close to the anniversary of Alan Shepard going into space, and about a month ago we had the anniversary of Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin orbiting the planet. Now, 55 years later, in some sense progress has been suspended. When it comes to the human species, you either progress, or you head for annihilation. And we have the threat of nuclear war, but also the extinction of the sense of progress and development, in the species.
You’ve called for a space program; Kesha Rogers has been organizing for this. I think in some ways the deep importance of it, in the sense that this is the evolution of the human species, it would have to be a crucial part of a Renaissance. Not only should Americans recognize this, but this is something that is at the core of our ability to succeed.
I want to ask you if you have more? And also this idea that we should be recognizing that this was the end of progress. Obama, of course, has had the role of finishing it off, or trying to. So, I want to see what thoughts you have.
LaRouche: What mankind is going to be able to do, is to discover the meaning of the birth of human beings. Now, the problem today is that most human beings have no mark of distinction. They’re simply things that were dropped into the case, and therefore, you just simply went along; to sing along, as if to sing along. And that is not what you need.
What you need is to understand that the human individual is not an animal. Now, most people treat human beings as animals; they believe they are animals. The fact that they talk does not detract from that. So therefore, they don’t understand the meaning of “human.” Most human beings, today, do not know the meaning of human. The difference of human from monkey, for example; they don’t really know the difference. They recognize there is a distinction, but they don’t know what the distinction means.
So therefore, their problem is: What is the source of human existence?
Human existence lies in the Solar System and beyond the Solar System. And, it’s in those areas that mankind is able to reach a voice, which reaches into a more creative form of existence. In other words, the baby is not just born, but the baby is given an ability to develop the baby’s own abilities and futures.
In other words, a great scientist will actually create the idea of the subject matter. And so therefore, the point is to get human beings to be able to think in terms that normal human beings cannot; and one way is going into space, going into service in space. That’s one way to do it. The skill to do that, on command, is very important.
And therefore, when you really get at this thing—You want to get at it? Get at the future! And, that’s the way you have to do it. You say, “What is this? I’m not a baby. But I have a future, and I’m going to express a future, and I’m going to find a way to do that. So I will do something so that a parent is astonished, because the child knows better than the parent.”
Question: Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche. R— from Brooklyn. In reading EIR, I see why you dislike Bertrand Russell. His writings and ideas through the Truman administration and the FBI dealt a death-blow to this republic, especially our educational system. Would you care to put more gasoline on the fire?
LaRouche: [Laughs] Well, I don’t like to throw gasoline on fire all over the place. That is not one of my intentions.
I would say, no, the point is we have to understand exactly how people become stupid enough to make those mistakes. And we have to chide them and remind them, “Where did you go to school?” or “Where didn’t you go to school?” and that’s the way to approach it or to reply to that.
Question: [follow-up] The way the current universities are teaching history, I doubt if most people even know that Bertrand Russell existed, and what his effect on this society has been.
LaRouche: I’m afraid that all too many people remember Bertrand Russell. They should never have remembered him at all! [Laughter] So anyway, there’s no hope for anything about Bertrand Russell—nothing! There’s nothing good about him and never will be, and he’s still rotting in his grave. It’s not really something that we want to waste our time on. He’s waste matter.
Question: I want to ask you your take on why Einstein had an approach to the composition of the universe, that gave him the ability to hypothesize gravitational waves. I wanted to offer two other ideas on this: One is that it’s amazing to me that for 100 years there was an attempt to demonstrate whether that was true or not, because that’s a long time to concentrate on this hypothesis. But now we have this verification and you have the idea that Einstein had this concept 100 years ago, basically, and his idea of the composition of the universe.
So I want to ask you what you thought about Einstein’s approach that gave him this concept of the structure of the universe itself, that we’re now seeing demonstrated in this way?
LaRouche: What happened is that, in his life, there are a number of things which he did that were rejected by the majority of the scientific community. And what has happened in the intervening hundred years, is that he was right and they were wrong. The question is, why did they do the thing that was wrong? Why? Because they were suckers, and it’s an all-day sucker or something like that. That’s what they were, they were suckers.
See, the point is, people are always trying to get a deductive approach to things which are important, important enough to attract attention. And that he had a correct understanding of the way to approach developments in space. He was right. They were wrong. In other words, it wasn’t a case of people being out there, making a sudden discovery innocently. Everything that was charged against him in this respect, was a fraud against him. And finally the fraud got to squeaking so loud that nobody could deny it after a century.
And what happened is, a century later, they had a fraud on their hands, not a croaking fraud but a different kind of fraud. It was always a fraud. He made the discovery; he defined the discovery. He laid out the characteristics of the discovery. Then, a century later they say, “I dunno how this happened,” or something like that.
Einstein was unique, and what you find is that most people in science, in physical science, do not understand physical science. Why? Because they do not want to offend the people who are making up the bad stories.
Question: [follow-up] I want to ask about your proposal that Kesha and the organization launch a big fight to revive the space program, and about the way this would impact people’s ability to understand the universe, to make breakthroughs—the average citizen. That is what you saw in the early stages of the space program and how important that is in reviving a culture, a commitment to production and scientific advancement among average people.
The Chinese are talking now about going to the far side of the Moon and what can be discovered by doing so, and how that would be transmitted to the population at large. It was pointed out to me that Gene Kranz, one of the famous NASA administrators, in 1972, in his book he talks about a big discussion among scientists about what to do with the shutdown of the later Apollo missions. And in 1972, Gene Kranz said, “Well, we’ve got to grab the imagination of the American population for space. Why don’t we go to the far side of the Moon?” And Kranz said in his book, we had the capability to do it in 1972.
U.S. Air Force/Melanie Rodgers Cox
So now the Chinese are doing it, or they’re proposing to do it, again, to achieve it, but also to grab the imagination of people. It seems that this idea that you have to grab the imagination of the people, to move the program, is critical, and it relates to what Einstein did, because what do we now know about the universe that we didn’t know before, and can that be communicated to inspire the average American?
LaRouche: That’s a difficult thing to spin that way. Yes, that happens; things like that happen. But what’s the authority on which to define the success of such a program? That’s the question. And this means—what has happened along the way? It’s not a question of discovery in the ordinary, silly sense of discovery—not that sense at all. The point is that there’s a recognition that there is something missing in the process. Something is already missing. Now people having found themselves holding something up, which is missing, and looking for it; now they make a discovery. But the discovery is that while they’re sitting out there, they suddenly—“Oh, I’m a genius, I just had some kind of a sexual experience or something which made me very happy.” Something like that.
No, this is not anything of that type. The point is, mankind is ignorant of his own knowledge! And these people who go out there and say these things and say this is my discovery, my discovery, it’s not their discovery. They don’t know what they’re talking about. And even the people who are doing this thing, on the so-called “discovery” of Einstein’s gravitational waves, that’s nonsense, absolute nonsense! It’s a way of trying to cover up what they were trying to hide.
Dennis Speed: Lyn, I remember you telling me a story—this was in 1973, about how you used to go up to Malcolm X’s talks—I don’t know if it was at the Audubon Ballroom or where it was—and you heard him in Harlem, and what he would do in the individual talks . . . And he would imitate the pimps, the prostitutes, the various other characters, the drunks; and what would happen is, people would at first be uncomfortable and then they would begin to laugh, uproariously, and then he would turn to them and say, “You see what you’re like?!”
“You see what you’re like?”—that is the core of real intelligence. That’s what made Malcolm important, and that’s what’s missing from this issue, when people talk about things like Einstein and the gravitational waves. Now, you have attacked Bertrand Russell continually as the most evil man of the 20th Century. People then say, “Oh, what does that mean? Do we have to look at this Four Essays on Philosophy, do we have to look at what he said about Riemann? Do we. . .?” And you just said: Look, the whole way that people are talking about discovery, about thought—all of this is a game, it’s a fraud. It doesn’t work this way. You’re being, as Malcolm used to say, “You been took, you’ve been bamboozled, you’ve been baffled.”
And what I’m reminded of, and what you’re laying out here now, is you see, last week when you spoke here, and you laid out this whole thing about the FBI, there was real, real awe —meaning terror, as well as admiration—but like, “Yeah, well, maybe he can do that, but I don’t know, I mean, is this really what we’re all supposed to do?”
And I’m saying this, because this issue of our actions in Manhattan and the way in which you understand how ideas and intelligence work—to me, I think, that is what I’m hearing from you.
LaRouche: Well, I always have been very opposed to my parents, and to almost everybody else that I was associated with, because I had known very quickly that they were wrong. So, when you go through life knowing that the people who are trying to teach you something are wrong, that has an effect. And I found that I had some things that I had discovered, and these other guys didn’t know what they were talking about. But I did.
If you want to be educated in schools, by and large, with some exceptional cases, people will not be able to recognize what the truth is. Most of the population does not have the ability to distinguish the truth from fraud. But when somebody helps them and comes along and gives them an explanation, and they go through it and begin to re-examine their notions, that is when you get that kind of an effect.
Speed: You were able, in the period 1970, 1971, 1972, to pull a bunch of us out of campuses, in which this sort of fraud was not only practiced, it had been nearly perfected. And it was sort of nonstop fraud. And we used to like watching you deal with these people, which I think is how a certain disposition was passed on to some of us; because it was fun, it was great to do . . . Now, here’s what I want to know from you: How do we go about creating that disposition, where people like the idea of actually beating up, destroying fraud?
LaRouche: Well, Manhattan was a very peculiar kind of environment in those days, but you would have people who would actually do that, as I would do it, and did it in schools earlier—recognize the thing is a fraud. In other words, they were laying out a solemn foundation for a great discovery, or something like that. And you turn around, and you look around and you say, “where’d this damned idiot come from?”
And so we would have people in a community, Manhattan in part, other places, and internationally also, and we would succeed in making discoveries. And we made the discoveries by rejecting the opinions of foolish people.