September 19, 2015

LaRouche Manhattan Project Dialogue

Creating the Harmony of Nations

Editor’s Note: This article was first published in EIR, Vol. 42, No. 38, Sept. 25, 2015.

Here are edited excerpts of Lyndon LaRouche’s Dialogue with the Manhattan Project on Sept 19, 2015. Video of the entire dialogue is available.

Dennis Speed: I want to welcome everybody here today. My name is Dennis Speed. We’re going to go into our dialogue with Lyndon LaRouche immediately.

As people know, we’ve now begun the extraordinary session of the United Nations, and Mr. LaRouche has said several things about that session, and about what its implications can be. I want one thing to be clear: Certainly what we want done with respect to that session, is that Barack Obama, the erstwhile President of the United States, be removed through the actions that we intend to take, including as they impact that session, and as that session impacts the United States.

….

Q: Hello. I’m from Turkey, and I’m a student. I am learning English. If you can’t understand me, you can tell me. It’s okay? My name is S—.

I have a question, one question. We have so many problems. One of them is ISIS. Second one, economic problems: What are the economic problems in Turkey? So many factors turn up, so many factors to try to correct now. And also young people cannot find jobs in Turkey. Other problems: our government killed 200 Kurdish people in the last four months, and also some fascist Turkish people are killing Kurdish people, too. And governments have suffered [allowed] them. Also, Kurdish people killed so many soldiers, and these soldiers’ ages are like 21, 22 years old.

What is the question? I need peace in Turkey. Also in the Middle East. Some countries tried communism in Europe. It didn’t work. And also, capitalism, it doesn’t work for us. I need new systems, new economic systems for my country, meaning Arab countries also.

The question: What new economic system is available for me? Also, what is the way? Got it?

Harmony in Culture

LaRouche: Okay, you’ve got quite a list of things implicitly, as your concern in this matter. I understand what the variegation is in the expression, because it’s valid.

The point is, we’re living in a dissonant world. That’s the first thing. The United States is dissonant. It’s a terrible place, not because it’s the United States, but because we have Obama in it. And we had some Bushes in it, and they weren’t burning—maybe they should have been burning—but the Bush family is not very good. It never was.

And we’ve had many bad Presidents as well, back in our history.

The problem is this: We’re trying to get some kind of harmony within society. Now, obviously, I know the Turkish situation. I’m not an expert in experience in Turkey, but I know what the problem is. We see the ISIS problem cuts into there. We see the whole thing. We see what happened in Africa, northern Africa—same thing.

So, we are now at a point of a very evil condition of mankind. However, there are certain movements which are coming into shape, which can bring about a kind of harmony among different parts of human culture, and that I think is what the objective has to be. Because each part of society does have its own characteristics. But the characteristics we’re looking for are those which are harmonious, harmonious for that population.

And it’s a moral question. It’s a question of satisfaction. It’s not just that you want to have your own language and speak it. You want the ideas that that language conveys to be harmonious with other parts of humanity.

Now we’re not doing too well right now on that, on this basis. But we can focus on the intention that we shall come to that kind of harmonious relationship among different qualities of human population. And that’s our best shot. It’s the idea of going for the harmonious expression, among different languages, different particular cultures, different experiences. But we can bring about the harmonious interrelationship within and among those nations, and their cultures.

Q: [follow-up] It sounds very good, but the problem is our government, also our system. How can I do that? I am a student. I have some contacts. I have some friends. I am socialist, actually, and we have a party actually. And what can I do?

Everything has Changed

LaRouche: Now you’ve got this case already there, and Putin, [Russian] President Putin, has moved from where people thought he was going to stay, and he moved in to try to clean up the ISIS problem [in Syria] and so forth, in order to bring about harmony. Because we know that there is a disharmony in that part of the world, but we also know that with some corrections, we can bring about a relatively harmonious relationship.

….

But the tendency, the attempt to form a harmonious relationship among different cultures, which have different characteristics—that is in process. And I think the question is: Are we going to be able to carry out what we know we have as a potential? Do we have the ability to bring about that kind of potential when the nations come together?

I think the ultimate result is the fact that mankind is going to have to change. Mankind will change. We see it in South America. We see it in India. We see it in other nations there. And I think we’re on the verge of such a change. Putin has played a very key role in this, because he upset everything. And by upsetting it, he created an opportunity to bring about harmony—it doesn’t exist yet—but we see it coming. We saw that Putin moved into a direction that people thought he was not going to move into. And by moving into that, in that sector there, what he did has now broken out and created an impetus for grave reforms in that whole region of nations.

Prospects for General Peace

Now I think the options are good. They’re not guaranteed, but we have enough good options, to know that it is possible to pull something off like this now. It may take a little time, but we know we’re on a different package.

….

So, it means there’s a change in the winds of progress. And so, I think all nations will have an opportunity.

For example, we have the Kra Canal progress—just take that as an example of a reference, now, right now, I was involved in pushing what was called the Kra Canal. And this reform which we worked on, was not carried out. Japan was working to support this thing, and it could have worked. It would move the transport of goods in the southern region of the world, and bring that about in such a way that we could actually make a great improvement in terms of maritime traffic and in relations among nations. We have things like that underway now as possibilities, and in some degree, partly acceptable. But it’s there: The options now for man, are options which go beyond anything that mankind has had for a very long time. It’s still a tough time; it’s still dangerous, but there is the sign of something which is good. We just have to work with it and hope we can win.

Q: [follow-up] All right, we’ll see everything, everything will change in Europe and Asia and everywhere; it doesn’t matter. But every day people are dying. It’s the government’s problem. I have to focus first of all on my country. After that I can focus on global problems. Of course, I have to think about global problems because we are living on the world, and—

We Can Do It

LaRouche: Look, the best thing is—you’ve got to bring people into—or some people at least—you’ve got to bring them into harmony. And therefore, while they may retain different particular characteristics in their behavior, the point is that there must be a harmonious relationship. And that’s what we’re seeing right now with Russia’s intrusion [into Syria], in trying to save part of this whole area, which includes Turkey. We have to do that. It’s an obligation. It’s a moral one. And my view is, we have the potential in the fairly short term, of possibly bringing about a general peace throughout the planet. That is now possible. It doesn’t mean it’s guaranteed, but it means the winds are blowing in that direction. The question is whether we can keep the windstorm going up.

Q: [follow-up] Yeah. We have to, actually, we must do that. I know that. But— We have to; we must do it. OK, but I’m not government, I’m not God, I’m not anyone, I’m just a student; I have just some ideas, that’s all. But if I don’t do anything, who’s going to do something? I have to do something as a student. What can I do?

LaRouche: We can do it! We are trying to do this on a global basis. We are trying to change the whole situation of the planet right now, the human occupation of the planet. In China, in India, in many other nations there is a very important development. What we all have to do is bring a certain harmony among those nations which are trying to converge on harmony as such, on a general harmony.

And you’re a student? All right, you know exactly what you want. You know the kind of life you want to have in your head, and your neighbor’s. And you can achieve that. It’s been done before in society; it can be done right now.

Q: [follow-up] All right. I’ll try. Thank you. [applause]

Q: I have been involved most of my life with music, although I’m not a musician. That’s harmony I’m talking about. So when we have harmony, from the beginning, then we should have harmony going forward. I know the technology of today is wonderful. But why have we removed harmony from our lives by removing beautiful music, the Classics, all the instruments that were quite beautiful: the violins, the violas, the cellos, all of these things—and we go to beating drums? Which I always thought was for making war. [LaRouche laughs] I don’t know if I’m right or wrong. At my age, I’m beginning to think maybe I learned the wrong thing growing up. I’m 80 plus. I won’t tell you what the plus is, but it’s plus.

So, explain to me where we’ve gone wrong, because I remember the Classics—Shakespeare. I remember the music Classics, including the later ones of Brahms. So where are we now, where we beat drums for war? Explain it; I don’t know.

Only One Real Scientist

LaRouche: Well, I think you should be more optimistic. Or at least I think there are grounds for you to be more optimistic on this subject.

First, you have two problems. We had a progressive movement on the part of the United States, in parts of the experience of the United States, during the 1800s. At the end of that period, what we had was the introduction of a fairly evil influence in terms of the government of the United States. And Bertrand Russell jumped in on that, and Bertrand Russell created evil, pure evil, throughout his entire life. And what happened is, we used to have science, but Bertrand Russell came along and virtually destroyed science.

And there was one man in the whole kit and caboodle who was really loyal to the principle of science—Einstein. He was the only person in the whole century, who manifested a really true appreciation of what the meaning of his objectives were. And he died, but in the meantime we have gone through a destruction of the moral and intellectual development of the citizens of the United States, both in the Twentieth Century and in the Twenty First Century now. We are destroying our children, our young people; we are destroying our aging people. We are reducing them to bitterness and fear.

So that we’ve come to a time when a great change has to occur. And I believe that what we’re trying to do now, with the new agreement which is coming in the next week, this coming week—this turn can be the opening which forces the opening of a new view of the planet.

….

We don’t know how much we can count on a certain success, but we know that success is possible now. And everything that’s beautiful, for people who know that was beautiful, and always wanted that beautiful kind of thing to come knocking on the door, I think we are approaching a possibility with that question. I don’t think—you know, I’m 93 years of age, [laughs] so maybe I’m senior to you, and therefore, I think maybe I can say something about that.

….

Q: [Megan Beets of the LaRouche Basement Science Team] Hi Lyn. You saw the opening of our [music] session today, when we were doing some work on Kepler and the issue of harmony and the origination of harmony in the human mind. So, I was just wondering if you could maybe say a few more things about that, but I wanted to put it in the context of what you had brought up in a discussion that we had had earlier this week on Tuesday, where you were insistent that man’s not a creature of the senses; he doesn’t live from the present into the future, but the creative impulses of the human mind are in the future. They make and create the future. So, I was wondering if you could say a few things about that in the context of what we were discussing today?

LaRouche: Yes, I understand exactly. No, the issue here is: what is the nature of mankind, and how does mankind’s nature differ from that of animals? That’s the issue. And it’s a very important one. Because only mankind is capable of being mankind; others are just animals. Now that doesn’t mean the animals are bad creatures, but it means they’re not human. They don’t have the essential qualities of humanity. And so, this defines the concern on that account.

Human Immortality

I’ll keep it short: The point is, do you believe that there’s a meaning to the death of a human being? Do you think that there’s a positive meaning in the death of what had been a living human being? Because there’s no animal that can meet that standard; no animal, no species of animal. Only the human species has a reason for existing in the future.

In other words, you live a life which comes to a point of death, and is there a future of that person? Or is there some continuity of the presence of that person? In a good human society, a real human society, there is an immortal principle: that the dead, when they’ve lived an appropriate life, will bring about the discovery of creativity, the discovery of creativities, which give mankind a higher standard of achievement than mankind has ever achieved before, in that circle.

And therefore, you have a quality of immortality of the dead human beings, which can be achieved, because they live a life, and when they die, they are able to have supplied a contribution to the future of mankind,—and only human beings can do that. And the shame is, when human beings don’t do that, when the human beings think they can’t do that. And the point is, they should all be developed to be able to make that kind of contribution to the future.

Mankind is essentially, virtually, the immortal species. And even death of the individual does not end the meaning of their life, if they give a meaning to their life. If they’re creative, if they make discoveries that mankind has not known before, they make steps in progress in that direction. All of these things are that virtue which is specific to the human being’s opportunities. Mankind is the only immortal species of which we know.