Executive Intelligence Review
This presentation (without the questions and answers) appears in the June 28, 2002 issue of Executive Intelligence Review. For an overview of LaRouche's visit to Brazil, see "Lyndon LaRouche's Visit to Brazil, June 11-15, 2002."

Integration of Nations
Is Key in the Crisis

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
This is Lyndon LaRouche's presentation to the fifth "Argentina-Brazil, The Moment of Truth" meeting, held in São Paulo, Brazil on June 14, 2002. Subheads have been added. See also LaRouche's dialogue with Col. Mohamed Alí Seineldín and the question-and-answer session below.

On the subject of integration: The bringing together of people of different cultures and nations for a common enterprise, a strategic enterprise, is the most important and most challenging enterprise in all statecraft.

You can not use ordinary politics under such circumstances because—as in the Second World War, the United States was allied with Britain. Culturally, the British monarchy and the United States are historical and continuing enemies. But nonetheless, we were obliged to act as allies with our enemy Britain.

And General Eisenhower, later President, referred to this cooperation as "a most difficult alliance."

But the difficulty is, as in that case or in the present case, that you can not speak in the language of the press; you can not speak in the language of the formalists; because you must actually communicate ideas.

Integration Is an Idea

Ideas can not be communicated by simple deductive methods of speech. Actual ideas of human beings, as distinct from animals, can only be communicated by what is called irony, which is the distinction of great poetry, great classical poetry, for example.

The problem is that our senses are not reliable. Ideas can not be communicated in general by sense experience. The human mind doesn't work that way. Let me just—as a matter of introduction to the way in which to approach this question of integration—just qualify that particular problem.

We know in physical science, in particular, that what the senses show us is not reality. What the senses show us is a response of the mind to what is perceived. Plato used a representation of this, particularly and famously in his Republic.

The senses respond, if we learn to use them properly, more or less faithfully to the stimulation they have experienced. But then we discover—the mind discovers—that what we experience is not the substance of what is causing the experience.

Plato said that we see as if shadows, on the wall of a dimly lit cave. The function of science and great poetry is to enable us to discover the reality which causes the shadows. In physical science, we call this universal physical principles which can be experimentally demonstrated. In Classical poetry, we call this ideas.

The way we discover a scientific principle is, we discover a contradiction. Let me just identify one or two famous ones. How did Johannes Kepler discover, according to his own report in 1609, The New Astronomy, how did he discover a universal principle of gravitation?

If someone says they can see gravitation, or smell it, or touch it, we send them to a mental clinic. So what you see in the orbiting of the Solar System, you see a shadow. When you try to interpret the motion of these planets and so forth, in terms of the shadows, it doesn't work.

So Kepler ran into a wonderful contradiction, which enabled him to define gravitation. Kepler made some more precise measurements than had been made before, in the work of Tycho Brahe, and demonstrated two things by observation. The shadows told him something. Not the reality, the shadows.

The precise measurement of the shadows showed him that the orbit of Mars was not circular, but elliptical. He didn't know how to make an ellipse then, except he understood what it was. But he discovered that the Sun occupied the position of one of the foci of that elliptical orbit.

He also observed that there was a principle involved in the way the Earth and Mars orbited the Sun; that the area swept by the orbit was equal—equal areas, equal times.

He also discovered something else. He compared the two extremes of the orbit, and determined that there is an harmonic relationship between the two. He also determined that all of the planets each had a characteristic harmonic orbit, and that these orbits were ordered in terms of approximately the musical scale.

So from this, he said, there is an intention embedded in the universe which causes this to proceed in this way, which he then referred to as God's intention, which is not seen, is not smelled, is not touched, but which is visible to only one creature: the cognitive powers of the human mind.

How Do Societies Progress?

And thus we know, as Kepler concluded, that man is made in the image, the living image of the Creator, to discover and use these universal principles, and to change the universe by using them. And we are responsible for changing the universe. We are the gardener. We are the farmer that makes the land fertile. We have a mission.

And the important thing about this is not merely that we are individually able to discover these things, but how does culture progress? How do societies progress?

For example, you look at man, and you look at the universe. You look at Earth. Now we have a fair knowledge of the conditions of the Earth, changing conditions, over the past 2 million years. This is a period which corresponds to the point that the various continents had their present positions, approximately, and which a pattern of ice ages, recurring ice ages, has defined, for this planet over the entire period.

Now during this period, therefore, knowing the conditions on this planet over 2 million years, if man as you see him would be classed as an ape, the possible human population of this planet at any time, would never have exceeded several million individuals to the present day.

Every animal species has a more or less fixed potential relative population density. Then how does man reach a level of several billions of population on this planet? By changing his own behavior. Other species can only do this through a kind of evolutionary development of their genetic material. Man can do it as an act of will, as in the image of God.

How does this result in human progress? By transmission of these discoveries from one generation to another, typified by what an education should be. But only one kind of education: a Classical humanist education, of which there is very little going on in the world today. So we are educating people to be animals. We train people in school the way we train circus animals, and we wonder why the children sometimes behave in a bestial manner.

This is crucial; this is crucial for this question of integration, the strategic problem of bringing people with different cultures and different languages in different nations together to a common purpose, to the same effect as an integrated national military force.

How do you exert command over such a multifarious resource? By interpreting words? No. You have to reach inside the mind of the other people. How do you do that? Not by grammar, not with dictionaries. Not at the blackboard. You have to reach the soul. You have to resort to poetry, Classical poetry; to Classical science, as typified by the case of Kepler's discovery.

Empiricism and Idiocy

Or, for example, take another case of this, which is very important to mention, because it goes to another kind of problem. The failures of the astronomers of the 16th Century, such as the followers of Claudius Ptolemy, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, the common error: They all were students of Aristotle, even though each had a completely different scheme for the Solar System.

Actually, an accurate understanding of the Solar System existed prior to the Roman period. The Classical Greeks associated with Plato had an understanding of this—long before the Romans—as the case of Aristarchus, for example.

But the issue here was, that while Kepler exposed the fraud of the Aristotelean method, and he did that in great detail in, for example, his New Astronomy, one of his major works; you had a very strange gentleman from Venice by the name of Paolo Sarpi, who introduced a kind of castrated Aristotle as philosophy, by removing some of his predicates.

So this became known as empiricism or liberalism. It denied the existence of any principle of the universe. It was based on sensationalism, the interpretation of sensations. And this dominated much of European quasi-scientific thought.

For example, economics as taught in universities is a form of idiocy. Because, what do the university economists tell you? The university economist, in the name of statistics, plays a game called "connect the dots." He takes a group of points on his statistical scale of numbers of various kinds, especially financial numbers. And he draws a line between the dots. And he says, "Now this shows you what causes what in economics." And he never understands why a crash comes.

It's the same problem, because in economics, what actually causes growth is the action of the mind, in the form of physical actions directed by physical principles, discovered by people, which change the universe.

The Case of Brazil

Typical is technology. Or take the case of Brazil. Brazil is a very large country, with vast resources, mostly almost untouched. The fact that this city is the third-largest city in the world: We compare the population of São Paulo to the population of Brazil as a whole; compare the area of São Paulo to the area of Mexico as a whole. What a difference! What un-development!

So, how is the potential of Brazil to be achieved? There must be sources of power in various parts of the country; there must be efficient communications and transportation. So the profitability of the firm, the productivity of the firm, in some part of Brazil, is not typically based on the productivity, internally or financially, of that firm. But it is the "artificial environment," which the nation creates in the form of infrastructure, which the nation creates in the form of educational programs, which the nation creates in other ways, which then enables the people of Brazil to develop the various parts of the continent—to create new cities, to create new industries, to transform the Amazon region, to conquer the high plateau with its great potential: To change nature by the human will, by discovery.

The typical economist does not know that exists. And they will produce long reports to prove that's not true. The problem of empiricism, liberalism, and so forth, in this form, was the denial of the kind of universe which is identified by Kepler, in which there are underlying intentions—which have the form of physical intentions—they control the physical domain, which determines the way things work.

The way you understand an economy, or any other process, you have to understand it from the standpoint of the intentions of the Creator, as expressed in the discovery of universal physical principles, to transform one's environment. You transform the environment, you create the opportunity for people to apply other principles to the transformed environment.

Say the farmer in Brazil grows a vegetable. (Not one to be elected to high political office, but to be eaten.) So, what does the farmer do? We have a few experts in the audience, on that subject. You must first prepare the area. You must provide the conditions under which you can have fertile and fruitful growth. Then for each plot of land, you must prepare that area. You prepare it with fertilizers, irrigation, and in other ways. Now, you can plant the vegetable, and get it. This may take years of preparation, to bring that land to the condition under which it can fertilely produce a particular type of vegetable. To develop a herd of cows may take a dozen years to a quarter century, depending on the type of herd you're trying to develop.

So, there are long cycles in this process. We call them "capital cycles" in economics. The building of a great hydroelectric system, for example, which is a very expensive project: You can only do it, as a nation, if you allow yourself to pay off the project over a period of decades. But that can enrich the country.

Regulating the National Economy

So, these kinds of willful changes that we make in the environment, which involve long-term and medium-term cycles, are the foundation of economics. But your typical economist does not admit it: He's into neo-liberalism or liberalism. They ignore the reality. You see, economics is a physical science, it is not statistics. We create financial systems, which have no lawfulness in them. They're crazy. It's like having a crazy wild animal in a cage. Don't let it out of the cage.

What you do, is you regulate an economy, you regulate a financial system, to prevent it doing the criminal things it will tend to do, if you don't watch it closely.

For example: In order to have successful entrepreneurs, such as individual farmers; the individual farmer has an intellectual role in farming. The entrepreneur, as an individual, has an essential function in the economy, in managing that business. The individual farmer can not control the national territory. The individual entrepreneur can not control the economy in which he is working.

Therefore, intelligent governments set up rules and mechanisms, to ensure that the individual farmer and the individual entrepreneur is protected in performing his useful function for society.

We must provide the credit for the individual farmer. We must provide the infrastructure. We must do the same for the entrepreneur. We must enable him to perform his essential function for society.

But all of this involves physical principles. What happened was, that we had a development called empiricism, or liberalism, over the course of the 17th and 18th Centuries in Europe, in which the attempt was to crush science, as the case of Kepler typified science.

Then in 1799, a young, brilliant mathematician, Carl Gauss, produced a paper, called "The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra," which discredited all of the fundamental assumptions of empiricism or liberalism.

What he did, was he took the case of numbers, and proved that numbers are not based on the "counting numbers" system; that the number-field has certain modular characteristics, and these characteristics reveal geometric principles. So, the first thing he proved by that method—as in the Disquisitiones Arithmeticae—was that there is no arithmetic; there is only a mathematics which includes arithmetic and geometry.

Ah, but he didn't stop there. He defined what is called the complex domain. He demonstrated that the powers which underlie mathematics are universal physical principles, in the same sense as Kepler's discovery of gravitation.

All right. So therefore, at-the-blackboard mathematical proofs are worthless. What counts is knowing the physical principles involved. So therefore, the method by which we communicate the ideas of physical principles, by which we discover, generate, and prove physical principles, is the ultimate method of communication to reach the soul.

Now this involves my personal contribution to science. What is proven by Gauss, and by people like Riemann and others after him, for mathematical physics, is not only, I propose, in the domain of physics, but pertains to the realm of ideas, in the sense of Classical artistic composition; the way Classical poetry teaches us how to communicate with each other.

How To Build Integration

Now just let me summarize the point that I wanted to come to on this thing, on integration.

All of us who have been inspired by Johann Sebastian Bach's setting of the New Testament account of the Passion and crucifixion of Christ, have a sense of spirituality, not as ghosts above the ceiling, but in the universe. We think of these things, often, in terms of family. We think of these things in terms of mortality. It's a very important subject for military science: mortality and immortality.

For what would you sacrifice your life? Does that fulfill the purpose of your life, or does it, in some way, deny the purpose of your life? But, you're going to die anyway. So, therefore, what does all this life and death mean? Christianity is simply that. A Christian is a person who lives with the idea—as Bach presents this in the Passions, the musical Passions—the idea of the Passion and crucifixion of Christ. For what would Christ lay down his life? To achieve the meaning of it; to achieve its mission.

This is what inspires a Christian. This sense that there is a meaning, continuity, purpose in our mortal life, which transcends that mortal life. This is why education is so important to us. How do we transmit the ideas we have received from those before us, to those who come after us? How do we transmit the development of ideas on which the culture depends, from one generation to the next? How do we honor what we have received from those who went before us? How do we fulfill our obligations to those who come after us?

This is realistic to us only in one way. Only by those kinds of communication which pertain to the form of discoveries of universal physical principle. A monkey can learn. Many of them are qualified as politicians. They perform tricks. But only a human being can transmit ideas. And ideas are not sense-objects; they are not shadows. They are principles. Which is why art is so important to us, Classical art. Because we are exchanging—instead of simple talk, and silly talk, and simple words, baby talk—we are now communicating ideas from one to the other. And the artist who can do that for us, the performing artist, the composing artist, is the one who is precious to us.

For example, an adequate performance of the Bach Passion of St. Matthew, or Passion of St. John.

So, that's the key here. That we must speak to one another within the frame of reference I've just described today, here. We must see the nature of our identity. We must understand mortality and immortality in these terms. We must rejoice in what we are bringing into being, at a time beyond our life. We must be happy in that fulfillment of our existence. We must see one another in those terms. Nations must see one another in those terms.

We must look upon the bestiality to which man has been condemned so often; we must say, we must bring to an end the time when only a few leaders were qualified to guide an entire nation out of its self-destruction. We must develop our nation and its people, so that we have a nation, not of leaders and followers, but a nation composed entirely of present and future leaders.

That is the way we must think of integration.

We must also reach out. On one level, it's easy to reach out to Judaism, actual Judaism, and Islam, to actual Islam, because they all go by the same book. They all accept the concept that man was made in the image of the Creator.

Now we're engaged in a great potential war which involves Asia. In general, the populations of Asia do not accept the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic conception of man. This is the most populous part of the planet. How, then, do we, seeking on the one side to engage nations which call themselves Christian, with a great effort at integration, how do we reach out to the rest of the world?

I propose we can do it. Not as doctrinaires. Not inducing them to accept the catechism. But assuming them to accept the experience of their own nature, to recognize what that nature is. And to agree, strategically, to create a community of nations on this planet, which is fit for human beings to live in.

I thank you for the difficulties of doing this dialogue in this manner.

Questions and Answers

The Portuguese-language questions are here paraphrased.

Q: I'm from the University of São Paulo and I'm a member of the ADESG (Alumni Association of the Superior War College). I would like to know your views about the possible participation of Brazil, of the Brazilian state, in the Colombian internal conflict.

LaRouche: In this case, we have some friends in Colombia. Our problem here is that the control over the situation in the hemisphere as a whole, now lies chiefly with the United States and the IMF. So, in principle, yes, there can be a very positive role for Brazil, in any part of South America, in particular, because Brazil is the most significant nation in South America.

For example, let's take the example of the Mercosur phenomenon. We have the former President of Peru, came to the last meeting [of South American Presidents], before he was couped by orders of the United States. The best anti-terrorist fighters in the continent happen to be the Peruvian military, who were just discharged. They did not make the mistake that the Colombian military had made before. If you wanted to form a— and I've insisted that the United States should never have troops in any of these countries, on these issues. Equipment, intelligence assistance, yes, fine. But it doesn't work unless the people of the country are doing it themselves. The internal security of a nation must be its own responsibility.

But, there is a certain community in the hemisphere, especially between Mexico and South America. It's traditional. It goes with the 19th century emergence of the independence in these nations. The Peruvian military was an essential part of the combination of forces which, together, could meet and discuss the concerns of any one of the countries.

I laid down a policy on this — we did an experiment in Guatemala, where I advised the Guatemalan government on how to deal with terrorism, by demonstrating the intelligence methods which can isolate a problem of this type. And we presented that policy, which was much acclaimed by independents here, at a Mexico City conference after that. I think it's extremely important that these countries, including Brazil, of course, constantly improve their intelligence, and general staff quality of planning, on these kinds of problems, affecting any nation in the community.

I believe in the general staff principle, as a political principle, as well as a military one. We must always have the plans, anticipation of any problem which either might come into existence, or which is in existence, but we're not yet prepared to deal with. I think there has to be a sense of both the actively serving, and reserve, general staff officers, from junior officer grade up, involved in this kind of thinking—whatever they're doing the rest of their days, as reservists—involved in constant discussion of these kinds of problems. Then we shall be prepared.

I think the point is, the possibility of getting an effective action is extremely limited at this moment. The situation may change. Therefore I say, what I'm saying is, there should be a general staff quality of planning of potential operations, how they might be conducted, and so forth, to prepare to go into action at the proper time.

Q: My name is Gerardo Terán, of EIR in Argentina, and I wanted to add a brief comment about the issue of heroism which Mr. LaRouche referred to earlier. During the Argentine crisis last December, the Argentine political class had a final opportunity in the person of Rodriguez Saa, who called for a solution very similar to some of the things which we are promoting, and which Mr. LaRouche has defended: an inconvertible currency, a national credit system, non-payment of the debt until its legitimacy is determined.

Within a week, Mr. Rodriguez Saa was threatened, they threatened to kidnap his family, and he didn't have either the heroism or the courage to stick to his proposal and his leadership post. Instead, he resigned and left.

That is the kind of lack of heroism which we have in Argentina today, for example.

Q: I am a nuclear physicist. I work in the Nuclear Energy Research Institute of the National Nuclear Energy Commission. I can't conceive of humans without ethical principles. The human being has, in his own conscience, that search for ethical principles. But they only come to life with the ideas of beauty, of cultivating beauty, the beauty which is found in art, in artistic works, in poetry.

How can we think about that when, today, our schools, our high schools, our universities give far greater value to technological questions. Mind you, coming from the nuclear area, I both like and see the importance of technological developments. But in education today, today's generations are totally disconnected from the artistic area. As you stated today, at least here in Brazil—I know this as the mother of a child—arithmetic is viewed in a way that is totally disconnected from the beauty of mathematics.

So, I would like for you to talk about that a bit.

LaRouche: The problem here, I think is elementary, which doesn't mean it's simple. All fundamental physical principles are elementary, but discovering and proving them is never simple.

What is the problem, the general problem, under which this entire problem arises?

The problem is, is that, with the change in the policy of the United States, which took place over ... [tape break] ... under the current policy the United States, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and other English-speaking countries are seeking to establish the modern equivalent of a Roman Empire. You can only maintain a Roman Empire as a tyranny, with stupid people. So, what we've gone to, you cannot maintain a modern industry with stupid people; therefore you had to follow the Romans, who, following the Second Punic War, reduced the Roman citizens to stupid beasts. The bread and circuses masses going into mass television entertainment, or its equivalent. Or sex with the nearest animal. Of course, the kind of thing that goes on today.

So, there was a decision made to destroy technological progress. As a subsidiary feature, the decision was made that, in the southern part of this planet the people in the Southern part of the planet, should not be allowed to increase their populations, and should not be allowed to use up the natural resources which are abundant in places like Africa or South America. So, therefore, this was a policy which is set forth by Kissinger and others, repeatedly—not just by Kissinger, but by others—and it was U.S. policy: to crush technology; to impose methods of population control, including homosexuality, which is promoted, as a population control measure.

What happened then, is that the entire educational system, by a decree of the OECD in 1963, was to eliminate intelligent people. Today, in the United States, for example, and other countries, the tuition increases as the content of education goes toward zero. The characteristic feature which your question addresses specifically is, that even in the teaching of mathematics, they teach it in a radically positivist way, which is to separate exactly the point Gauss showed, as Riemann showed more clearly afterward, that there is no mathematics. Mathematics is not the king, but the queen of sciences. This was the famous statement of Gauss, that mathematics was the queen of sciences. Because it is physics that creates mathematics, not mathematics, physics, as Gauss showed with his famous theorem, the fundamental theorem of algebra.

Education today is designed to prove the opposite. So, the idea—the mathematicians do not understand mathematics. They are taught in a positivist way, radical logical positivism. Typical is information theory, which is a complete fraud. Or systems analysis, which is a complete fraud. Both were the products of the influence of Bertrand Russell, who had two clones: one was Norbert Wiener, the other was John von Neumann.

So that's the problem. It's a systematic kind of menticide operation against the intelligentsia of Brazil, among other countries.

Q: Dr. LaRouche, my question is about business mortality in the countries of the periphery. I am a businessman from Rio Grande do Sul, the president of the state commercial association, the body which keeps a registry of national and multinational companies.

In Brazil, the plans to control inflation, from the Cruzado Plan to the Real Plan, killed off 70% of Brazilian companies.... In our association we are re-surveying Brazil, to clean the records in light of business mortality.

The opening of the market, with the arrival of institutes of all kinds... has led to foreigners wanting national businesses. Our companies have a certain basis, they are sustained by a backbone, sustained by small and medium companies—not so large, and not so small.

Today, after the mortalities, 73% of existing companies are micro-businesses—individuals beginning their economic activity as our Italian grandparents did, here and in Rio Grande do Sul.

The backbone, small and medium businesses, especially the middle-sized ones, were sold or absorbed by the capital which entered Brazil. In less than 1% of the businesses of Brazil, we find 60% of the business wealth of the country. Economic concentration is violent. Unemployment, even of trained people, is making those micro-businesses, which in essence is the employment of that same person, at the beginning, easy prey for the big businessmen, who use them to escape especially from the social security tax and income tax. [Explains.]

The laws, the so-called economic law of supply and demand—I would like to know how you think they work, how they really work, and if, as you emphasized, we will have to restart the economic process locally. What other way is there for labor to create capital?

LaRouche: Well, I think the first thing to recognize is that, there's no such thing as supply and demand. Supply and demand in a modern nation state is created by government. It's created by government, and also by the collaboration between government and a banking system. And an auxiliary credit system, such as cooperatives, and so forth. In other words, no national economy can function, except by a decision of the State. That's not to replicate the Soviet blunder. The function of the State, in an economy, is to protect the economy as a whole, to promote progress of the economy as a whole, to improve the conditions of life, and to provide the basic economic infrastructure, without which agriculture and industry cannot exist.

The government uses its sovereign power to create certain boundary conditions, like fences. For example, we decide that a country needs a certain number of doctors; which requires a certain number of hospitals, of certain qualities as well; which requires an entire infrastructure, both of private individuals, and larger facilities, which is a health care system.

For example, in the 1940s, the United States adopted a law, called the Hill-Burton Act. And the Hill-Burton Act said that the objective of the act is that, every county in the United States should have access to a certain quality of hospital facility, for health care. The assumption is that if you have the right number of hospitals and clinics in any county, the number of beds of different types, then the normal relationship between the physician and the hospital, and also especially of teaching hospitals, the full-service teaching hospital, which trains doctors and nurses, as well as performing a service.

Under this system, until 1973, under the Hill-Burton Act, you had cases like New York City, which had an excellent health care system. In 1973, under the dictatorship of Henry Kissinger, who declared himself emperor of the world, the Hill-Burton Act was repealed; the so-called Health Maintenance Organization Act was passed. The health care system of the United States was destroyed, more and more and more. Doctors are no longer allowed to practice medicine. Finance offices of insurance companies practice medicine.

How many seconds a physician can be paid to talk to a patient, is prescribed by an accountant! How many minutes a physician can talk to a patient, on a particular kind of case, is prescribed by an accountant. What the physician can prescribe, is also set by an accountant. Under normal conditions, accountants would be put in prison for medical malpractice for this. For practicing medicine without a license!

So the point is not... the function of the state is to take every area, such as the area you describe, instead of debating this or that, they should be focussed on this kind of business. And say: What should be the supported composition of the labor force, in order to provide national economic security and progress? Then the state should set laws which encourage the flow of credit, and the flow of conditions to encourage that number of people to fill that opportunity. And what the IMF is imposing on nations today is mass murder, and it's deliberate mass murder.

What you are describing, in the particular case you referred to, is typical of what's happening around the world under so-called free trade and globalization. If I asked you just one question, which you don't even have to answer — you know the answer: How would you rebuild what has been lost, in terms of essential technological capabilities, and operations? What would it take to rebuild that capability, that has been destroyed?

What has to be done, is that people like you, in Brazil and other countries, have to begin to discuss questions of national security in these terms. You have to think of national security for the economy and the welfare of the people, as you think in terms of national security for military conflicts.

Q: I'm from the Agricultural Federation of Matto Grosso do Sul. Brazil in 1980 occupied an area of 37 million hectares to produce 80 million tons of grain. Now, in the year 2002, it occupies the same area of 37 million hectares and it produces 100 million tons of grain.

How do you see the European subsidies, and mainly if there is a possibility that the farm bill, the new U.S. law that protects farmers... And what are Brazil's opportunities? What is our potential for expansion?

LaRouche: Well, you have also the meeting just now, recently, in Rome, of the FAO. The report is that 800 million people on this planet go to bed hungry every night. So, why do they go to bed hungry at night? You implicitly have given the answer. Because Brazil has a tremendous agricultural potential — among other nations. Brazil can feed a good part of the world! Why should anybody be hungry?

Then you look at the other thing that was actually raised at the FAO conference. There is no assistance to countries to improve their own food production.

Now we know that, in the case of Africa, Africa has one of the largest concentrations of arable land in the world. It has more than enough farmers, with that land, to produce more than all its own needs. They have no infrastructure; very little crop control, safety control; no protection of harvested crops from diseases and rot; very little of the technology needed, to make their production effective.

Why? Because there's a population control policy running the world — genocide.

The second aspect is, there is no danger from the U.S. farm bill to any part of the world, per se. Every nation has a moral right to protectionism: steel, agriculture, anything. So that, if the United States becomes protectionist, why can't Brazil be protectionist? It's a matter of national security for Brazil to have the potential to meet its own food requirements. And to earn the foreign reserves to be able to pay the debt which has been imposed upon it. So, it's a political-strategic problem. So, more of us have to work together more carefully to win this fight.

Q [Dr. Enéas Carneiro]: Mr. LaRouche, I want to tell the audience that I have to leave because I have a meeting now. But, I have to say to all of you, that Mr. LaRouche received an honor, and he's a Brazilian citizen; since last Wednesday he's a Brazilian citizen! Dr. Havanir Nimtz, our representative in the City Council of São Paulo, presented this honor to Mr. LaRouche. Dr. Havanir received 87,000 votes, the second largest number of votes for City Council in São Paulo and in Brazil.

And we decided, against the system, to offer this honor to Mr. LaRouche because, in our view, he's the best fighter, the best man, the most educated in the world. H'es a thinker, he's a philosopher, he's a profound thinker in philosophy. And he knows, as no one, that the best solution is to rupture, to break with the international financial system. He knows that we are going to a crash, to a New Dark Age. If we don't fight against the monster, we are leading our people into slavery.

Mr. LaRouche, I my greetings to you.

Q: I'm an architect. This is the second time that I participate in a discussion period with you. The first time was on June 11 at the Latin American Parliament auditorium.

Today I will ask a question based on a historical precedent.

Returning to the first part of today's presentation. That historical precedent was Vladimir Illich Lenin, who emigrated, was exiled in Zurich, Switzerland. He established a school for professional revolutionaries. The problem of the socialist revolution. Lenin was very concerned and was fully successful in creating those professional revolutionaries. The great problem he had was when he told them that it was after midnight, and the time had come, those most unfortunate events occurred.

I would like, I am aware of the hour; but I hope to have a virtuous memory, a virtuous circle and not a vicious circle.

LaRouche: I can only say that Lenin did not create a school of successful revolutionaries. What he had in the Bolshevik party was a mess. Lenin is an ironical figure in history and, with one quality, one positive quality, which is important to know.

The failure of the Socialist movement in general, is essentially a moral failure. Remember, the socialist movement was created by British Intelligence. The first organization was created in France; it was called the Jacobin movement by Jeremy Bentham, who at that time was head of the secret committee of the British Foreign Office. The socialist movement, as such, in the 19th century, was created under the direction of Bentham—as Bolívar exposed this from Colombia—by Jeremy Bentham. The protegé of Jeremy Bentham was Lord Palmerston, who created Karl Marx, and created various radical movements in the Americas, as well. They were created around one idea, which is the fatal, moral error which pervaded among the Bolsheviks. The so-called school of historic objectivity, of materialist objectivity. The idea was that who makes popular opinion, rules the planet. And he divided the planet into classes. So the secretion of an opinon by a class was to be the ruling force. This is the theory of Project Democracy in the United States today.

Now, what it does, is it denies what it calls "voluntarism." It denies the fact that every human individual has the potential of making, or re-enacting, an original discovery of universal physical principles. Therefore, every individual has the potential of changing history, if in a lawful way.

This is the evil that has gripped the world civilization today. "You must accept the trend toward globalization! You must accept free trade! You must accept democracy! You must accept the IMF!" These are the ways you are ruled, as if you are animals. You put your own shackles on your arms, every night, until you get up in the morning. You breed when you're allowed to, you don't breed when you're forbidden to. You could try breeding with a different sex, or a different species, if it's alive.

So we are obedient to what are considered trends. We're now in a trend in which we're being destroyed. If we accept prevailing ideas, prevailing opinions, we're finished, because we've failed as human beings. When you behave like an animal, you fail as a human being.

Now, Lenin has to be understood in these terms. Lenin broke with the Social Democracy first, on this issue of voluntarism, that the individual can intervene and change history, for which he was denounced. Then he had a bunch of Bolsheviks who were no better. Then he's sitting in Switzerland, in the time that the peace conference effort had failed, and he laid down the following principle, which your question referred to. The principle is: the world is going into a great war. The Czar of Russia will be overthrown, because the fool will not get out of the war. There is no political party in Russia which is capable of pulling Russia out of the war. He said: "Therefore, we're going to take power, because we're going to be the only people who are on the scene, who will get us out of the war."

His party was no good; they wouldn't do it. So, you had a spontaneous organization developed in Russia, called the soldiers and farmers soviets organizations. He said, at a certain point: "Tell them to take power." They took power. They put Lenin into power, despite his party. The Bolshevik leaders tried to keep the war going, and he succeeded in stopping them from doing that. The British had him shot, and he was out of action, and then later died.

And then the Soviet Union had the same problem, because of the theory of the Social Democrats, who said we must have rule by the masses. The intellectuals, including the scientists, were treated like a sub-species.

So, therefore, you had the irony of the Soviet history, especially during World War II. Soviet science, done by intellectuals, including some of my friends, became the best in the world. The Soviet economy, run by the masses, became the worst in the world. Russia today, the hope of Russia's playing a role, a historic role, today, depends upon the very intelligentsia which were spat upon, by Marxist theory. But this happened because, as our friend referred to this thing, earlier, this question, they don't understand, as many people in government here and elsewhere don't understand, that the backbone of the economy, apart from the infrastructure, is the role of the private entrepreneur.

Q: I wanted to ask Mr. LaRouche if Brazil's Amazon region is still Brazilian. Because the Brazilian Amazon is today 60% of national territory, and there are 20 million people who survive there. But between environmental laws and the rights of minorities, such as indigenous minorities, you can't produce in the Amazon any more, because there's an army of NGOs, environmental laws that are imposed on us by the first world, which don't allow us to develop, to produce in the Amazon. So how are we going to develop the Amazon?

We have eighth world conditions there. How are we to develop, with all the potentialities that we have in the Amazon, if trees today have become a religion? We no longer have sovereignty in the Amazon. These NGOs are stronger than the Brazilian army is in that region.

How are we going to maintain national sovereignty in that region?

LaRouche: Now look, obviously we have a factor; it's a factor of utmost importance. During the middle of the 1960s, after the assassination of Kennedy, the persons who, to my knowledge, organized the circumstances of the Kennedy assassination, put through a policy which more than reversed Kennedy's Alliance for Progress.

Under the direction of the British Monarchy, the World Wildlife Fund was created, and the Club of Rome—Malthusian organizations, whose philosophy is the same as that as the racist philosophy of Adolf Hitler. These laws are a crime against humanity. They can be destroyed by the same method by which they were created. What we need is a political force that will do that, for the sake of all humanity. We have to create the political force, among nations, as a partnership, which has the power to do that. We can repeal the laws.

Q: I'm from the ADESG, too. The hegemonic group in U.S. society which killed John Kennedy, is the same group that can't manage to eliminate Bin Laden. What group within U.S. society is that? What interests does it represent?

LaRouche: Bin Laden is an Anglo-American agent. He was created by a process which was started under Kissinger and Brzezinski, which became infamous in the late 1980s as George Bush's Iran-contra operation. The core of this was an organization which was created out of Egypt originally, by British Intelligence. Then they decided to overthrow the Shah of Iran, because he was trying to develop his country, even though he had weaknesses on his own account. And later in the Iran-Contra operations, which included the Iraq-Iran war, and sucking the Soviet Union into a war in Afghanistan, George Bush, Jimmy Goldsmith, and others, this group, the utopian group, created this whole terrorist operation in the Middle East.

This is like the case in the police department which hires a criminal to do special dirty work for it, and then if the criminal is becoming an embarrassment, they kill him. My indications are that Osama bin Laden is still being used by the same people who created him.

The Kennedy assassination is not the same people, as such, but it does include a tradition of the same group of people.

Q: Which tradition? It's not clear. Is it the tradition of the American right?

LaRouche: The tradition is the utopian tradition, of the H.G. Wells Open Conspiracy, Bertrand Russell, the idea that nuclear weapons will force the world to give up its sovereignty through world government. This is the same crowd. They are called the "military utopians."

Moderator [Adauto Rochetto, president of the São Paulo Association of Superior War College Graduates]: I would only like to close by saying that Prof. Lyndon LaRouche was called a Brazilian citizen, a São Paulo citizen. But in the meeting at the Latin American Parliament I called him a world citizen. He truly represents the thoughts of the world.

Subscribe to EIR