EIR - May 9, 2003
The Schiller Institute and International Caucus of Labor Committees (ICLC) met at Bad Schwalbach, Germany, on March 21-23, for a conference on "How To Reconstruct a Bankrupt World. " Representatives attended from 4 5 nations, including 120 LaRouche Youth Movement activists from across Europe, and from the United States. What follows is a transcript of the panel given by youth organizers on March 23; plus two speeches on education, delivered at the panel on financial reform earlier on the same day. Some of the discussion has been translated from German. For transcripts of the other conference panels, see EIR, April 4, 11, and 18.
The Historic Mission of Joan of Arc
Joan of Arc is a well known symbol used by French nationalists, racists and fascists. Here is National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen in front of Joan Of Arc statue at their annual May rally in Paris. (Note from laroucheplanet)
Erin Regan: The time to build a new worldwide Renaissance—it's here!
Now, the fact that all of us are gathered up here together at the same time, is very promising. Because if you asked us what time it was, most of us probably couldn't tell you, because we don't wear watches! One of the many flaws our generation has, is the problem of not wearing watches. It is a big characteristic we had to deal with in many offices throughout the United States. One example is that our NC [National Committee member] in Los Angeles had to go to the store and had to buy about 15 watches for all of us, so that we would be in on time.
So I would like to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the comment that [ICLC Executive Committee member] Will Wertz made the other day, that I've never been more proud to be an American, and I've never been more proud to be a human being. This weekend has demonstrated that justice must prevail, that Lyndon LaRouche's campaign will not take shape just in the streets and institutions in America, but all over the world. Joan of Arc was handed the helmet in Schiller's play as a metaphor of the historic mission that she must will, and the courage that
[Photo caption: Members of the LaRouche Youth Movement perform an aria from Bach's "St. John's Passion. " Left to right: Jessica Tremblay, Matthew Ogden, and Megan Beets.]
she must accept. Lyndon LaRouche has handed us all that same helmet. It is dedicated to create a revolution to change the spirit of all of mankind.
How do we, in a sense, get out of the failure of the present moment? How do we move the world beyond the current dark hour? What would be the basis of a new Renaissance? That is what was in the minds and in the hearts of all the great republican thinkers for thousands of years, and this is what did come to blossom in the American Revolution. We are calling now and forever, for this tradition to become a reality in every part of the world. And this is what Lyndon LaRouche's movement represents. And we are gathered here at this panel, representatives of the future of what the universe must look like and what shape society must take.
Once again, the fear of Lyn [Lyndon LaRouche] and his ideas has the oligarchy quaking in their seats. They are terrified. And I think they are consulting with those little green men beneath the floorboards that Lyn refers to. And the biggest question ringing in their ears is: How does Lyndon LaRouche get all of these young people? Why can't we recruit the youth? Where did they come from?
Unfortunately, where we came from is why they are not recruiting us. Now, "What's wrong with where we came from?" some of you might ask. We are the Baby Boomers' kids, "GenerationX," the "lost generation" or, as we all know, the "no-future generation." Any way you say it, it is not very uplifting. I am sure when our parents were young, they did not envision this as their legacy, but when they were challenged, they did very little in the face of corruption. Now LaRouche says that we have the potential to become the new Renaissance generation. And we were never told by anybody but Lyn, that we should do something good for humanity, that humanity needs us, and that we would be a part of humanity forever. What we were told instead was never to stand out: "Be part of the crowd!". . .
We were always told, "Don't get political!" "Join the Army!" But then our parents said, "Preferably in a time when there is not a war." As you see on this man's T-shirt [indicating a transparency being shown], the new fashion is: "Be scared."
Lyn often refers to the "patchwork family" that we come from. I can tell you from personal experience, being in this organization for four years, that the amount of divorces, the divorce rate that you have in the United States in particular, is extremely high. In Los Angeles, almost everybody has been a part of the counterculture, where the most planning you have is the plan for the next "rave" that you go to. Not making a meeting in time or going to school. Most people are dropping out of school. Right now is the dark age. This culture might not be feeding Christians to the lions, probably because they taste like John Ashcroft. . . .
But this culture is crumbling. And the missing principle was Lyn. The people that haven't met Lyn yet will be introduced to him, when we take over the United States and every country in the world. I would like to introduce to you and give you a visual idea of the LaRouche Youth Movement. We are inviting you — not checking your ID — and we want everybody to join this movement, because we need you, and you need us. Thank you.
[Photo caption: Performance by Jessica Tremblay (soprano), Matthew Ogden (bassoon), and Megan Beets (Bute) of the aria from J.S.Bach'sSt. John's Passion, "Ichfblgedirgleichfalls. ..."]
[Megan Beets reads the beginning of Friedrich Schiller's play, The Virgin of Orleans].
Yes, beloved neighbors! To this day are we
Still Frenchmen, still free citizens and masters
0' th' ancient soil, the which our fathers plowed;
Who knows, who over us commands tomorrow!
For everywhere the Englishman doth let
His victory-laden banner fly, his steeds
Are trampling on the blooming fields of France.
Paris hath him as victor now received,
And with the ancient crown of Dagobert
Adorns the offspring of a foreign stem.
The grandchild of our King must wander round
In flight and dispossessed through his own realm,
And 'gainst him fights i' th' army of the foe
Around burn hamlets, cities.
Nearer still And nearer rolls the smoke of devastation
Into these valleys, which still rest in peace.
And it is actually from this valley, that Friedrich Schiller has his Johanna go; and she chooses to leave this valley and to go to these burning cities, and she chooses, as a young shepherdess, to become a warrior for the fate of her country. So the question is at that point: What is the king doing? What is this disposessed king doing?
The first encounter we have with Friedrich Schiller's King Charles, he is sitting in his court, surrounded by jugglers and troubadours, and he has just received the news that his field commander of his army has just quit. And that his soldiers, his mercenaries, are about to disperse because they have not been paid, and the whole treasury is empty. So it is a pretty desperate situation.
that the Duke of Burgundy, who was referred to as his closest cousin, his foremost peer, who was fighting on the side of the English, has actually refused King Charles's offer to reconcile.
So here come three councilman of the city of Orleans. They come and fall on their knees at the foot of the King, and they beg him at the last moment to come in. To send his army in and to not let this jewel of France fall, to give them his protection. And in complete despair what Charles said to them is: “God shelter you, I can do no more.” And he prepares to withdraw across the river and completely give up.
[Photo caption: Erin Regan- "Joan of Arc was handed the helmet in Schiller's play as a metaphor of the historic mission that she must will andthe courage that she must accept Lyndon LaRouche has handed us all that same helmet. It is dedicated to create a revolution to change the spirit oral! or mankind "]
Now, it is at this point that we actually receive news that the French forces have prevailed at Orleans and it's a virgin that led them. This is something worth mentioning, to perhaps encourage you to take up Schiller's challenge in the development of this play: That in a moment of death, at the end of this play, the last line that Johanna gives to us as a challenge is: "Kurzist der Schmerz, ewigist die Freude," "Brief is the pain, the joy shall be eternal."
Tina Rank: Moreover, the question is now, why have Joan, and Schiller—as he represents Joan—why have these two, over generations, won their battle again and again? And how canl assert that? The first time I had that play, The Virgin of Orleans, in my hands, I thoroughly devoured it! I come from eastern Germany. We had a revolution in 1989. Our parents fought—but for what? What does one fight for, when he has no route, and no destination? And what still remains from it? We have embraced a system in which this generation—without prospects—is floating in a certain hopelessness. It's not only like that just in eastern Germany, but really in the whole world. We have to face the question, what is there for our generation? Should we be stupefied, because of the intentions of our parents, and because of this counterculture? We' 11 leave this an open question for now.
What was it like in Joan's time? It really didn't look a lot different. The people then also had little hope, they had almost a hundred years of war between nations, a total dead-end society, where people bankrupted themselves or nursed their egos. People are born and die. Then came a girl, a woman, who said, "Something has run off the path here!" She realized that what people were doing in this dead-end society was not something to live or die for. Joan recognized this. She stepped outside the situation, with this understanding, and she fought, she fought for France. But the difference from today was, she wasn't only fighting for the security or freedom of her country; rather, she was fighting for principles. One of her missions—beyond the liberation of Orleans—was to make the true king into a real king. How are we to understand that? Friedrich Schiller put these beautiful words on her lips:
No more shall we have monarchs of our own,
Nor shall we have a master native born—
The King, who never dies, shall vanish from
The world—he who protects the holy plow,
Who the flock protects and fruitful makes the earth,
Who the bonded serf leads to his liberty,
Who the cities joyfully puts round his throne,
Who standeth by the feeble and the evil scares,
Who of envy nought doth know—for he's the greatest—
Who a man is and an angel of compassion
Upon this earth so hostile.— For the throne
Of monarchs, which with gold doth shimmer, is
The lodging of th' abandoned ones—here stand
Both might and heartfelt charity—here quakes
The guilty one, with trust the righteous one comes near
And jesteth with the lions round the throne!
The foreign monarch, who comes from abroad,
Whose Fathers' holy bones do not repose
In this ancestral land, can he it love?
He who was never young among our youth,
Unto whose heart our words will never ring,
Can he a father be to his offspring?
(The Virgin of Orleans, Prologue, Scene iii)
What Joan really meant by this, is, in principle, nothing other than what Lyn is doing today. Joan intended to give a person the strength—a king, a man, who truly approaches the matter of taking responsibility for his people, with principles; to lay the foundation stone so that man can develop himself further, can strive for that which is higher—and not have to worry himself all day about where he can get something to eat; to establish the economic and educational foundation for this.
It is a natural law, that man is born in order to strive for something higher. Joan realized, that it doesn't work any other way, and Schiller lets her say that.
The Virgin of Orleans was one of the first plays that I read, when I first became familiar with the organization. Schiller allowed me to see something—me, and I am sure, others also, who have read it—a brief moment of joy. He gave me an insight, and proved to me, that there are grounds for hope: For there is something higher! He gave me the strength, and the power, and the incentive to continue to fight. Schiller understands how to stimulate this potential of man: "Joy, joy, beautiful divine sparks" ["Freude, Freude schone Gotterfunken"], is the best example. He means, the spark which every man carries in himself. Schiller and Joan, precisely, were people who manifest that again and again—right up until today, since there are so many people here. Therefore, they have won their battle. They took these sparks, and struck and puffed on them so long, that they kindled a fire. But best, discover for yourself what Joan and Schiller wanted to say. For that purpose, we have just a little incitement for you, from the Prologue, of Schiller's Virgin of Orleans:
[Megan Beets reads Prologue, Scene iv:
"Farewell you mountains ... all the trumpets sound."
Tina Rank recites the same passage in German.]
How Do We Find the Truth?
Jason Ross: I'm Jason from California, and I'11 introduce a new theme here, which is: How do you know what to do— once you have the will?
As everybody knows, LaRouche has been hitting constantly on Gauss's 1799 report on his proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. Now, Gauss wrote this paper for today, to stop this war. Because what he goes through is exactly what Lyn went through on Friday [in his opening speech to the conference]: How do you get out of a tragedy? How do you solve, with a truthful method, a tragedy, to get yourself out of it? The way we got into this crisis is through many years of bad thinking.
We'll go back to the Greeks, to Plato: the Meno dialogue of Socrates with the slave-boy Meno. Socrates asks the slave-boy a simple question: "You have never been trained in geometry, have you?" And the boy says, "No." And Socrates: "Okay, here is a square. I want you to double that square, to make it twice as big" (Figure 1). Has anybody an idea, what the slave-boy's first guess is? [Someone in the audience replies.]
Okay, let's double the size of this side and that side. The thing is, if you do that, you get a square that consists of four of the original squares (Figure 2). So, it is a little bit too big.
Next, he says, maybe let's just make the side one and a half as long as the first one (Figure 3). And if you do that, look what we've got here: You've got the original square on the lower left, and these two rectangles above and to the right of it. Each of those is half a square, so with the square and those two you already have doubled the area.
And this "little guy" here is also there—you are too big. So you are off again.
But Socrates gives him a hint: "Look at the square. It is made up of four triangles, that the original square had two of. Great, it is twice as big. The question is, though, how long is that line, the length of the side, to make the square twice as big? Does anyone know how long that line is? I heard: 1.4, or 1.4 and something. I don't know whether that would cut it with Plato. Is anyone going to say: "The square root of 2"? Okay, but this just means: The side of a square of 2 is the square root of 2. That's not an answer, that's just another question.
Now, we take the diagonal of the square: Let's look at its length in terms of the original line that we had (Figures 4-5). How are we going to get it? It wasn't twice as big, it wasn't one and a half times as big. And the square of 2, does anyone know how big it is? Wow, it is somewhere between 1 and 2, and there is a whole infinity of numbers between those. You get one and one-half, one and one-third, one and one-fifth, one and two-fifths, one and three-eighths, there is an endless supply of numbers there. But nobody in here, with a whole infinity of numbers, can say what it is? Even though it is right there, plain as day in front of us, it's just the size of a square right there, the diagonal?
Something interesting. Maybe we just found something that was beyond the infinite. Maybe our idea of what is possible to do is not going to cut it, to solve the problem represented?
So, let's investigate whether we can figure it out or not (Figure 6). To find out if two numbers can be looked at in terms of each other—I forget who came up with this—there is this process: See the black line onto the thick line on top, on the left and the right. It's two quantities. See if you can compare these two with each other. Take the shorter one and remove it from the longer one. And you see if you can put the longer into the short one again. Here it works. This new shorter length goes into the length on the left twice. A relationship of 2:3 or 1 1/2. Maybe we have to keep trying and spend our whole life, looking for the size of the side of the square (Figure 7).
You kept trying it out, getting smaller and smaller pieces. But it never quite goes away. There is something there you just don't get.
Let's say we did figure it out, we got some fraction N over D (N is the numerator on the top, D is the denominator at the bottom). So we take that fraction, make a square out of it and have an area of two. The top part square is twice the bottom part square. Numbers are even or odd, right? Let's say the top part is odd (Figure 8).
The odd part square on the top is twice something else, and if you've got twice something, it is going to be even. So you can divide it into two parts. Has anybody seen an odd number squared that became even? Does that ever happen? So we failed. Maybe the numerator is even, maybe that is the trick. And if the denominator is also even, then you can divide both of them by 2, and again and again, until you get one of them to be odd. So, let's say the denominator is odd. An even number times itself is twice an odd number times itself. The thing is, if you get rid of this 2 in front of the two odd numbers, you cut it in half, it's still even on the left. And an even number can't be an odd number. So, we really have found something that we honestly can't express with our numbers. We can find things that we can't solve by analyzing with what we already know.
So this points us in the direction of discoveries. Now, with these squares and lengths you could look at relations between them. This is where algebra came from; it came from a fellow called al-Kharizmi who was looking at squares, cubes, lengths, and asking, what is the relationship between these areas? So you could pose a question, like people are tortured with in math classes, like: x2+10x=24. Look at it in terms of a square. It's x on each side, a rectangle, 10 by x in an area of 24. They could pose a question which they couldn't answer. What if I had a negative area? x2+1 = nothing? Can you have a negative area? Can you get paid to live in an apartment with a negative floor-area? No, you can't. So, they were stuck. They ran into something they couldn't solve. And they said: I guess there are questions that shouldn't be asked, because we can't answer. Too bad.
Then mathematicians came up with something absolutely shocking (Figure 9). They said, wait, instead of saying this is something that's not real, let's say we can use it. Let's say, we have the square root of -1, let's admit that. With that we can solve tons more equations. We can do all sorts of things now. It was an incredible discovery. It worked great. But what is it? Does it have an "is"? Is it just an effect? If somebody asked you how a car works and you say, well you push the gas pedal and it goes forward, is that an answer? No, you are just telling what it does.
This is where the difference between Gauss, and Euler and Lagrange, comes in. Euler and Lagrange were perfectly contented to say, well it works, doesn't it? What more do you want? It is a discovery, sure. We can use it to solve a number of equations. But for one thing, Gauss showed that it doesn't work. And it doesn’t give you a new principle to impact the Noosphere with.
It is like another great discovery in the same vein: derivatives. Let’s say you are running out of money. Your financial system is collapsing. So you just invent some derivatives, you sell weather. Enron did it, and it worked great, right?
Wait a minute, no, it didn't work. If you try to fake it, the universe is going to know. If you go into your own domain in math and try to prove something that doesn't exist, the universe is going to tell you, it doesn't exist. It is going to present you with a paradox, which is good. Because it gives you something new to find out. So, when you get this feeling in your head: "I don't really get this, I don't know what is going on," that's good, be happy about it. What Gauss did in elaborating what -I was (I'm not going into the details here, we could do that tonight or as homework), he found another, an even higher idea of number, than this one with the diagonal of the square. And, this is important forus today. He said: If you want to know the truth, youhave to dump your ego that wants to say it knows everything, and find out why the universe is telling you that you are wrong.
This is what LaRouche said all science is about. That's what he said at the Lebedev Institute. He said what we call modem physical science is based on taking what people believe is the organization of the universe, and proving, it's wrong. So I want to let Jeanne d' Arc take up that theme.
Ending a Dark Age: Joan's Triumph
Elodle Viennot: Hello, my name is Elodie from France. I am going to come back to Jeanne d'Arc indeed, because she was in a situationat her time very similar to what we are faced with today—which is, the fate of civilization was threatened. France was actually doomed. Everywhere villages were being burned. You had bandits running the countryside. It was desperate. The king was not doing anything to save the nation, and the British had already invaded most of the northern part of France.
[She shows a map of the British conquest of France.] In 1429, specifically, the war has been going on for 92 years. And the French have been into a pattern of losing those battles in most of the recent decades. And it's getting very dangerous — just as today. We have a war that could punch us into the most violent dark age we have ever seen. At her time there was one city left, called Orleans, that was holding the British from spreading into [all of] France, spreading all over Europe, provoking the same type of violent dark age as the type of danger we are faced with today. So, the question, when you are faced with such a crisis, obviously, there is something wrong with the way your civilization is operating.
When Axioms Fail
So what Jeanne looked at: You have to find the failure. You have to find where we failed, that produced such a danger and such horror, which is not just about what you feel, it's about succeeding and accomplishing the change. And that's where Lyn has been talking all the time about the question of axiomatics. Because you cannot go with fixed measures in those situations. You can go into Iraq right now, if you want, but that is not going do anything. You can go and sell all your jewels; in Jeanne's time, you could have sold all your jewels and given the money to the King for him to feed the troops. That would not have changed anything, because there was an axiomatic error in the way people were thinking.
Now, what happened with the city of Orleans, is, there was one hope. The British have their supplies coming: the food, the ammunitions, some more soldiers, coming to help the siege. The British have been besieging Orleans for seven months. The inhabitants of Orleans are starting to be a little bit too desperate. They are running out of ammunition, out of food, and out of people. So this is really an extremely dangerous time. The British are coming with supplies for the siege. This caravan, the French army knows what road it will take. So this is the hope. This is the hope, to break the supply line and make sure the siege will not be able to hold much longer. So they go in. The French have more soldiers than the British, they have cannon, artillery, while the British only have archers. But they lose, again and again and again. No matter how much force they have. So there is an axiomatic problem, it is pretty clear.
What happens afterwards is, Jeanne d'Arc comes in. She arrives in the city of Orleans on a white horse with a white banner saying "Jesus—Maria." That's a little bit different idea of war than what we have seen before. We have feudal lords who, besides fighting amongst each other, fought against the British by sending their subsidized cannon fodder onto the battlefield. Jeanne d'Arc comes in. She had just sent a letter to the British on her way to the city, which I am going to quote right here because you need to understand that she was not operating on any fancy idea here. She sent to the British a warning of her coming:
"Jesus, Maria! King of England and you Duke of Bedford, you call yourself regent of the Kingdom of France; you, William de la Pole, Sir Talbot, and you, Sir Thomas Skills, who call yourself lieutenant of the aforesaid Duke of Bedford; render your count to the King of Heaven. Surrender to the Maid who was sent from God, the King of Heaven, the keys to all the good cities you have taken and violated in France. She has come here from God to proclaim the blood royal. She is entirely ready to make peace if you are willing to settle accounts with her, provided that you give up France and pay for having occupied her. If you do not do so, I am commander of the armies and in whatever place I shall meet your French allies, I shall make them leave it. Whether they wish it or not. And if they will not obey, I shall have them all killed. I am sent from God, the King of Heaven, to test you out of all friends, body for body. And if they wish to obey, I shall have mercy on them. And believe firmly, that the King of Heaven will send the Maid more force than you will ever know how to achieve with all of your souls on her and on her good men-at-arms. And in the exchange of blows we shall see who has the better right from the King of Heaven."
And she has not received any answer, meaning that she is going to attack them. So before the battle starts, she gets everybody to swear that they are going to be profoundly moral, that they are not going to fight out of revenge. They are not going in and kill like monsters. They are not going in and rape the women. She also gets them to swear that they are not going to have sexual fantasies about her, because she is dealing with an army of men who are not exactly the most humanist people.
This is very important to have a moral quality to the army. Look at today. If we had a youth movement without the pedagogical work, without keeping track of Lyn's thinking all the time, forget it. People are brought up in a completely amoral society. And you cannot win any battle like that.
So Jeanne d'Arc gets them to swear all this. And she is still fighting against the people in her army. The military commanders don't want to go and fight the siege of the British. They really don't. They have even ordered the mayor of the town not to open the drawbridges, so that Jeanne d'Arc can't go out and fight. So when she goes to the mayor and he explains this to her, she draws her sword out and says, I will cut your head off, if you do not let me out. So he opens the bridge. And the old generals, the old aristocratic commanders, scramble behind to catch up with her. And she leads the charge.
The first day of battle is a hard and bloody day. She is wounded. But she goes back the next day anyway. And when she goes back, by the end of the day, she is about clear that the British are ready to be defeated. Remember, the siege has been going on for seven months. The next day, the third day of the battle, is very challenging. The British have maneuvered themselves into their most advantageous formation. They have the best archers in all of Europe. They have all their archers and longbowmen, which is another type of archers, lined up together, facing the French Army, which is armed to the teeth, ready to fight. And the British archers are hiding behind wooden poles stuck into the ground, sharpened and pointing towards the French, meaning you can't attack the British. They are going to kill the entire army, if Jeanne launches the charge. Because the sharpened poles will kill the horses, the archers will kill the men.
So what can she do? She cannot surrender. She cannot just turn away and say, "You won." No, because Europe is going to hell if she does this. So what does she do? What can she do?
If you look at the universe as a fixed world, you cannot get out of your system, "Oh, this is so horrible," and then you surrender and you give humanity what is not a big favor. She just decides to stay there and look into eyes of the British. She just stays there. Imagine, it is early in the morning. The two armies are facing each other, and the French just stay there. The British are ready for the French to attack. And they stay there. For quite some time the British look at this completely confused, completely shocked. And they are so shocked, that they end up turning around and they give the victory to Jeanne.
This is what you call an axiomatic change. This is called the Socratic method—in case you hadn't understood that Plato's dialogues in fact apply to warfare. This is called the Socratic method. You find the axiom that your failure depends on, and you take it out. That is what she did.
'Take the Responsibility!'
Then she wants the Dauphin crowned King of France, which was very important, because nine years before that the King had signed a treaty with the enemy, that any King of England would be also be King of France. He had abdicated the national sovereignty, abdicated his mission to the nation. So she gets him crowned again. As Lyn always says, she went to see the King, and said, 'You have to stop being a stupid king. You have to honor the nation. You have people on your hands. Take the responsibility!" She had to fight very hard to get him to want to be crowned. He did not want to take leadership at all.
Then she says, "We are attacking Paris." That is where the King betrayed her. He refused. He signed another treaty with the enemy. He gave the British the authorization to be able to fortify Paris. And he refused to give the army to Jeanne. She did not really understand what was going on, but she kept on. She had about 200 mercenaries with her. They went to attack this little strategic city called Compiegne where a lot of logistics, information, weapons, food, etc., were going through to the British troops in Paris, and she happened to be boxed in. She was too weak, and the others knew that she was going to do this, and she got caught as a war prisoner.
The British end up after months of negotiations, they buy her for about 10,000 golden coins. They really want her, because they think they will never win this war if she is alive.
So they put her on trial for five months. Every day, for eight to nine hours, she is interrogated nonstop. Would you hold up? If for eight or nine hours, right now, you were taken to Guantanamo in Cuba, and you were questioned and questioned and questioned, because you are associated with Lyndon LaRouche? And they try to break you, by all psychological means they can. How would you do? Would you have the moral fitness to hold out in this fight as the meaning of your life—and that they cannot touch you, because it is a a meaning that is just not in the physical realm? They can't kill it.
[Photo caption: Without Joan of Arc, said Elodie Viennot, "we wouldn't be here today. Without her we wouldn't be 6 billion on the planet. Without her we wouldn't have had the American Revolution. "]
She had this sense. And when they said, we are going to burn you, she got a little scared. And she signed a short paper, saying she was guilty. But she signed it with a cross. And when she was at war, any time she would want to send a fake message, she would sign it with a cross. Soon after that she withdrew from this position, called for the judges to come back, saying, "I am not signing this paper, give this back to me, rip it up. I am not signing this paper, I am not guilty of heresy, I am fighting for the God-given mission of the general welfare. I have to save this nation, I have to save the Kingdom. Give me back this paper. I am not guilty." And they burned her alive. They burned her alive, and she didn't flinch at all.
So the consequences of this were very big. Louis XI, the next King to follow after this one who had betrayed her, built the first nation-state. Without her we wouldn't be here today. Without her we wouldn't be 6 billion on the planet. Without her we wouldn't have had the American Revolution. Lots of things would not have happened. We wouldn't have had the 15th-Century Renaissance. Can you imagine the 21st Century without the 15th-Century Renaissance? We would be in a feudal system. So she fought. She gave her life for us. To be able to really create real humanity, dignified humanity. And she succeeded. One of the things that happened is, the Church was unified. Without that, you would have had the Black Plague going on, bodies lying there because no priests are going to bury the body, since the priests wouldn't know what Pope to choose.
So on all levels, there was a dark age. And she intervened and succeeded. Her death gota lot of people to think. One of the British persons who was right there when she was burnt, decided, as soon as he saw her burning and looking up at the sky and yelling "Jesus," he said: "This woman is a saint." He was in big psycho logical trouble for quite some time, because before he had really wanted her dead.
So this is what a real leader is. With Lyn, who tried to convey to us on Friday night, are you willing to put your life on the line? Because your life might actually never die if you accomplish those matters.
Gauss and Joan
There are some people who don't understand this, like Euler, or Lagrange, or d'Alembert, some of these mathematicians Jason was referring to. They see the worldas something fixed and very boring. Lagrange actually said that he couldput all of physics into mathematical analysis, just manipulating symbols. You could try as hard as you want to manipulate symbols to save France or save the world today—it won't work. But he said it anyway. And they tried to take the square root of -1 and said: "Oh, we can't really give it a physical meaning. Well, it doesn't matter, we just try to make the universe bend to the way we think, because we really want to think this way." But the biggest mistake they made, and a lot of people make when they discriminate themselves—also Euler discriminated himself. He denied that he had the power to find another hypothesis, another idea that would explain the generation of another kind of number. He denied this to himself, he refused to see the power of the human mind.
And if you don't see that, do you really want to keep people alive? So, that's the big question you should wonder about, because Gauss looked at those numbers and he showed they are not fixed things. You have 1, 0, -1, you go from 1 to -1? What is -1? Is it just a dot, a point, a thing, a counting object? I never saw just counting objects. "Oh, how nice"— what a boring world. The point is, -1 is when you make a reflection to 1. It is like a minor. So he said: "That's a transformation process from that standpoint, if numbers are just like codewords, reflections for a real action process, then when you are looking for the square root, you are just looking at the middle point, the halfway into a process of squaring, and what's the halfway between that, from a specific distance? The one in the middle. So, your number line is right here, and
[Photo caption: Elodie Viennot: "You don't have to worry about dying, you don't have to worry about this 'being not considered good,' because if you know you are fighting for the good, nobody can touch you. "]
there is something outside the number line."
I'm just giving you a very, very brief idea of what Gauss is talking about, and obviously we can't go through this right now. But the point is, if you think about numbers as fixed counting objects—you look at the world, as through the universe as a whole, and even at the human mind as a fixed counting object, and the people in the French Army, the people from our parents' generation, and also people of our generation, they still think that way. And you don't see the power of the human mind, and that's why we are in such a big crisis right now—at least one of the reasons.
Truth is not what you see. Look at the trial against Jeanne, how she was burnt. She was sanctified in the beginning of the 20th Century, that's pretty late. How can you look at something? Look at Lyn, "conspiracy against the IRS"—did you believe it? When he was put on trial, did you believe it? Or did you make the hypothesis, that his fight was an eternal fight for the common welfare of all people? This is the question of hypothesis—you hypothesize on the intention. Kepler used this word "intention" for universal physical principals. And you should think: If the principles are not in what you can see, what about your life? Is the principle of your life in what you can see of your life? Is there a higher principle? Something akin to the question of immortality? Because those principles don't die. So if you operate on that level, maybe that's something different than saying: "I'm alive, because I'm alive, and that's what my purpose is—to have as much pleasure as I can."
The reality is higher than that. So you don' t have to worry about dying, you don't have to worry about this "being not considered good," because if you know you are fighting for the good, nobody can touch you. They can't get you to flicker.
To get the point about life, because that is the paradox: We die, that is the paradox of our life. I'm going to die, you are going to die, so what do we live for? . . .
But before that I just want to remind you of something that Lyn said: "The sense organs of the human individual are part of the mortal human being's animal-like biological organism. Sense perception does not present our mind with direct images of the world outside our skins, but rather, as Plato and the Christian Apostle Paul (I Corinthians: 13) warn, our senses show us only shadows of that reality which has tickled the human individual biological mental sense-perceptual apparatus. So Plato compares the experience of sense perception to shadows caused by unseen real objects, as if upon the walls of a dimly firelit cave. Human beings are nonetheless capable of discovering the real, essentially unseeable, immortal universe, whose included non-substantial effects are those shadows called "sense-perceptions."
The Bankruptcy of 'Classroom Economies
Daniel Buchmann: My name is Daniel; I am from Berlin in Germany. In February, I was in America organizing and we were driving in a car back from Richmond, where we were organizing in Virginia, to Baltimore, and the people were asking me, "Hey Danny, what's wrong with the Germans? I mean you have all this great tradition of Schiller, you have Brahm, Gauss, Kepler, so what's wrong with the Germans?" So, it does not make any sense, that there are 7-8 million unemployed in Germany, that's the country where much Classical work comes from. Ja, I told those people in America— and in school I learned, you know, Hobbes, Lockes, Adam Smith, that's what we learn in our universities and schools on philosophy and economics, and that's the reason for the crisis. So obviously, it is another paradox, and we are here to solve it.
If you really want to understand the nature of this crisis, just go to one of the university classrooms on economics, that is the best way to understand the crisis. Nowhere else in this country do you see a bigger amount of dangerous foolishness per capita and per square meter. You see professors and students, they are talking economics on the level of the Wall Street Journal and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. That's where those people quote from. From an empiricist standpoint, I mean if you just walk in this country and you visit different places, you could say from an empiricist standpoint, that everybody is just too limited to solve the problems we are in right now.
But can this satisfy us? It does not satisfy me, so that is the reason why I am standing here and doing this work, and that is why I joined this movement of Lyndon LaRouche.
What Lyn said—I mean, look at the state of our education system as I just described. What has to happen: Young people have to emerge as true leaders, as true thinkers. And in order to do that, to become true leaders, we have to relive original discoveries. We have to study the great thinkers of the past, and what those leaders contributed to humanity—and those contributions last forever. We just have to study them.
One of the very interesting characters in history is Fried-rich List. And this man has been mentioned quite often during this conference. Why is Friedrich List so important? What was so original in his life? How did he use his life to become immortal and to contribute to our work today, to have peace on this Earth and development?
I began to study List with this book Outlines of American Political Economy, and I had not been reading many pages, maybe the first 20 pages, and it was like, "Wow!": Globalization, free trade, that has been proven wrong in the 1820s, maybe earlier. So why are we in this mess today? And this was quite a shock, andl decided to work more on this. I mean, it is just ridiculous. We have to get out of this and create a new Renaissance.
Friedrich List was born in 1789 in Reutlingen, that is in Wurttemberg So, he grew up in the aftermath of the French Revolution, he saw Napoleon conquering Europe and Germany. He saw the so-called continental blockade that was under the Napoleon regime, when all British influence, for example British goods, were not allowed to be imported to continental Europe. So, the continental European economy was isolated from Britain. That was one thing that happened in that time, and then Napoleon was defeated and we had the Congress of Vienna in 1815, and through this Congress the Hapsburg oligarchy was restored in Europe.
And renewed British influence came to continental Europe. And this meant influence especially on the economy; the economy was floodedby the English dump ing cheap imports. And ironically, by that time Friedrich List was studying Adam Smith — Adam Smith's work. And when you read this book, at that time you see the public opinion and the opinion of all the academics is with Adam Smith, and his book seems to be just great and everything is right—and on the other side, Friedrich List saw the economy collapsing in Germany, factories were shut down, farmers went bankrupt, people didn't have enough food to eat.
What Is Real Wealth?
So, what List did: He said, there has to be something wrong the theory, there has to be something wrong with the axioms. What List asked Adam Smith, not personally, but what his question was to Adam Smith, was: What is wealth? What is true wealth? Is it just money on an account, or is it having gold and diamonds somewhere in your palace, is it raw materials, maybe military power? Friedrich List said: That is not true, none of them is true wealth. And he said: True wealth is our ability to produce, to produce wealth. That is the true wealth, to be able to produce it.
So, this was a big change in the axioms. You may have goods to trade with, but you use them up. So, therefore you have to produce. And as afirst approximation, List said: Well, we can say, we have to produce more than we consume. And in his 1841 book, The National System of Political Economy, he said: The very fact that we human beings can produce more than we have to consume for ourselves means there is something in the universe, which says human beings want to goto new lands, let's say new continents, let's say to some places where we have not been before, we want to do new things, we want to—I mean to us it seems like common sense, it seems like it is very clear, but it was not clear to Adam Smith and it was not clear to the professors at the universities then. And it is not clear today to many so-called elites.
Friedrich List had this idea—around 1820, that's when he developed those ideas, and people were saying, "Look, this man is completely crazy, he is so enthusiastic about the future, what we can do?” and later, some years later, they said, "He is crazy, he wants to build railroads, this is something new, how can he do that?" So this is what people thought about Friedrich List, and he said to the dukes and kings in Germany: “We have to have reforms, we have to save our
country, and therefore we have to have reforms in the economy." But people just didn't listen, they slandered him. They even tried to throw him in jail, around 1821.
So what could he do? In his situation the best thing to do was: He escaped At first to other European countries, like France, Switzerland—and he met, for example, Lafayette— and later he went to America to work on his economics. He studied the so-called American System of Political Economy—that means Mathew Carey, Alexander Hamilton, and this scientific environment of those people. So he did not meet Alexander Hamilton personally, but he could read his books, so he could be in a dialogue with him. In America he found the right environment to work on his economics, and he said in his Outlines of Political Economy, almost at the beginning:
"In consequence of this exposition I believe it to be a duty of the General Convention in Harrisburg, (that is in Pennsylvania), not only to support the interest of the wool growers and wool manufacturers but to lay the axe to the root of the tree by declaring the system of Adam Smith and Co. to be erroneous, by declaring war against it on the part of the American System, by inviting literary men to uncover its errors, and to write popular lectures on the American System, and lastly by requesting the governments of the different states as well as the general government to support the study of the American System at the different colleges, universities, and literary institutions under their auspices. ..."
So again, List just changed the axioms and this unleashed a process of discoveries, and he could develop a brand-new system of political economy. And what really struck me in this book The National System of Political Economy was thai he said: Look, maybe in the future we could figure out a way to produce heat without using one of the known materials to make fire with. So we could say he hypothesized nuclear energy. He did not know anything about it, but he said: Look, maybe we will find something else, we will find something new. This is just great!
Who talks like that today? Who talks about production and investment in the future and having science-driver projects? It is Lyndon LaRouche and his movement. Here we find optimism and people who say: Look, let's produce, let's get things done, let's develop.
So, as I told you earlier, look at Germany, look at the universities, we have Locke, Hobbes, we have Adam Smith, we have people talking about the Wall Street Journal and some crazy stuff like that. So, if you look at that, you see the great importance of the work we are doing here, and I personally don't see anything but this movement to create a new Renaissance, and it is our duty to do it. We have the means, we have the intellectual means, and we just have to do it. So, I would ask everybody here to join the movement, to do the work, to create a Renaissance. In the end, the universe will give it back to you.
LaRouche's Unique Contribution
Limari Navarrette: Hello, my name is Limari and I am from Los Angeles. All of you might have a question right in your head, what exactly are we out to accomplish? Perhaps there are scholars around the world who have read numerous books on List, on Joan of Arc, who know a lot, who are very knowledgeable. Although there are millions of people out there on the street who are as passionate as we are about stopping this war, who realize that economic development is something needed in the world—what is the difference between everyone else and what we are doing?
The difference is something that Lyndon LaRouche has been doing for most of his life, and that is confronting his own immortality. He saw the situation that the world was in, he knew where it was headed, that this civilization would not survive, and so, instead of running from the work that had to be done, he confronted his own immortality to actually intervene on the course that history was taking.
So, how do you actually have the confidence to do that? How do you actually know that it is worthwhile to even bother intervening on history? We have just presented it to you today. It is what Joan of Arc has done, it's what Gauss did in disproving Euler and Lagrange, it is also what Lyndon LaRouche has been doing now for decades, and to actually have a confidence of mind to go out there and to confront people in your country who are supposed to be leading your country and ensuring that you are going to have a future and say: "Look, this is what you need to do! The Eurasian continent must be united, we are in an economic collapse, and you must listen to Lyndon LaRouche!"
So, we are confronting our peers with this. This is why people are joining this movement, because they realize that for their entire lives, they have been lied to. The generation that has come before us, has told us: "Well, all you gonna have to do is go to school, sit down, shut up, listen, do as you are told; and you should have a nice car and a nice house, you know, once you hit the age of 25." But more and more of us are realizing, that this is not the case.
There is an economic collapse happening and you see a religious war being started. You look back in history and you realize that a religious war has always created a dark age, in which civilization went backwards. And so we hear LaRouche and we hear a complete breath of fresh air. The very first time I was actually hearing what a real leader sounds like. And so he has actually brought these ideas back to life, that we presented to you. In making the connection between the immortality of the soul and what these ideas mean—because you can just read as many books as you want; you can hold up a sign "No blood for oil!"; you can do all these things, but unless you have an idea of using your life, which is a short life, to do something to ensure that the generation after you is going to be able to have running water, to have a comfortable life and work on the same idea, that you are able to work on right now. Then you must confront that question. So, we are coming together, young people are joining this movement from all over the world to create the first global Renaissance in history.
Those of you who want to create Eurasian Land-Bridge must understand that although you may feel a bit pessimistic, you see a very corrupt culture today, we are your allies, to create the Eurasian Land-Bridge. And this is not a social club where people are getting together and talking about nice ideas. We want to give you a sense of action, that right now we are confronting the leadership of the United States with LaRouche's ideas, we are changing history, and that is what we are going to give you a sense of injust a moment.
'LaRouche's Campaign Doesn't Tap-Dance'
Timothy Vance: My name is Timothy from the West Coast, and I am with LaRouche in 2004. I have a question for the audience, and I ask you to be truthful: Honestly, how many of you guys looking up here thought you were watching a panel on the Youth Movement? Come on, raise your hand! [After awhile, some hands timidly go up.] Okay, you are being deceived! You have to realize, if you thought you were looking here at some nice kids, you are blocked! I really have to be honest here, what is up here is not the youth per se, it is not about us—it is about LaRouche, and if you think about it, it is really about you. The policymakers are in need of your help. Before I start my presentation, I want to personally thank Mr. LaRouche and let him and the youth in this room know, that LaRouche's Presidential campaign doesn't tap-dance.
In dealing with questions of immortality, and economics as well, it is always good to refer to our modern-day Socrates, Mr. LaRouche. But perhaps pedagogically to illustrate our political method for intervening in the strategic global situation, I might add that the Democratic Party without the leadership of LaRouche and those who are associated with him, those Democrats who are working with him, the party has no more moral authority to exist or to play any role in making national policy.
So, to introduce how LaRouche's mobilized youth are actually taking over the Democratic Party and putting LaRouche in a position of executive authority, I am going to refer to the development of a youth movement in 399 B.C. around Athens in ancient Greece. A hell of a world, wrecked by cultural degeneration and a self-destructive military conflict known as the Peloponnesian War. I chose for this Plato's Apology of Socrates, in which Socrates makes his defense against accusations brought against him in court in the form of a jury of 501 Athenians. He is an old man, and at the age of 70 he has been indicted on charges of corrupting the youth and of offending the gods officially recognized by the state.
But in good fashion, of course, like Mr. LaRouche and like his youth movement, Socrates was neither defensive nor apologetic. What do I like about this particular dialogue?
Well, it is the way Socrates handles political corruption, not only within ourselves, but also in organized political form. Also look at the way he actually holds people—not just the jury, but the reader as well—look at how he holds them to the question of immortality. If you read the dialogue, it is about 20 pages, and he holds you to this question; not throwing out an aphorism, not some nice little one-liner—he holds you to this question for a long time.
And this is actually what makes up a majority of the political work we do. See, LaRouche has actually created an organization, an effective political instrument, in which we dwell on this question for most of the time—I must say like righteous gadflies, we go out there and we hold other people to this question of immortality. We go to the college campuses, we go into the offices of government, and we go on to the streets, globally. And we try to get people to think, what are they going to be.
We make people double the square in front of local supermarkets. That is actually how we are going to get a new Renaissance. That's the way we are going to get a new economic system. You have to recognize this and to recognize this within yourself, because this is crucial. And hopefully the video that I am about to show, will give you a sense of it.
[Tim showed a video about the intervention into the Young Democrats event in Sacramento, commenting on it. Faced with the dilemma of either giving up in the face of screaming Democrats, or trying to scream louder, senselessly escalating the situation, the LaRouche Youth came up with a third option—singing the spiritual "Oh Freedom!"]
Let's go back to ancient Greece now. I would like to read to you a quote from Socrates after he has been convicted and given a sentence of death; Socrates says to the jury: "Now, I want to prophesy to those who convicted me, for I am at the point where men prophesy most, when they are about to die. I say, gentlemen, to those who voted to kill me, that vengeance will come upon you immediately after my death. A vengeance much harder to bear than that which you took in killing me.
"You did this in the belief that you would avoid giving an account of your life. But I maintain that quite the opposite will happen to you. There will be more people to test you whom I now held back, but you did not notice it. They will be more difficult to deal with, as they will be younger, and you will resent them more."
That is why I want to use, to show the end result of rejecting the warnings of Mr. LaRouche, the warnings he has made in his previous Presidential campaigns, a rejection of LaRouche and his Democratic supporters within the Democratic Parry up till now.. . . We have been thrown out of these meetings, right? This kind of insane reaction coming from the Democratic Party has only successfully divided the party and united LaRouche's supporters in an even more determined effort.
[Photo caption: A LaRouche Youth Movement rally at the Capitol in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Jan. 27, 2003.]
And that quote of Socrates can also be applied to the global strategic situation. Look at this crazy Utopian faction, this war party, who thinks that they can stop Eurasian economic development by launching a war in Iraq. Well look, what they did to themselves, poor guys; I have to feel sorry for them, because what did they do? They destroyed their alliances, and the nations of Europe and Asia are now cooperating more with each other than ever before. That's the role of justice. This is what we are talking about.
You have to look at the way Socrates actually describes the question of death in his Apology. The opportunity and responsibility we have been blessed with is indeed easy to avoid. He goes on to say, that there are many ways to avoid death, in every kind of danger. There are many ways to avoid getting a new economic system, there are many ways to avoid stopping this insane push for perpetual warfare.
But guess what? History will hardly have the time to record the particular ways in which we may choose to avoid taking responsibility for the crisis in the coming days and weeks before us.
Like anyone who has ever worked on any of these so-called impossible problems that the Greeks put forward, we do a lot of pedagogical work on these impossible problems, doubling the square, for instance; also the trisecting of an arbitrary angle—I have not even talked about doubling the cube. There is a lot that goes into it. So, these problems might seem impossible, but the solutions do indeed exist. It is just that many of you don't know the solutions yet. And I can assure you that LaRouche knows what to do, and that the youth working with him have a good sense of it.
And so the only remaining question I would like to raise with the audience would be: "What will I do, given a case of what I now know to be true?" But of course, for the answer to that question I let you be the jury.
"Oh, Freedom " is sung, and Erin Regan calls Lyndon LaRouche up to the podium.
There is something I did not include in my address on Friday evening—because I had to shorten certain things in order to get it within the physical capacity and concentration span of the whole audience—and that is, that in this matter of axiomatics, I refer to some questions of axiomatics, but there is another side to it and that is, to have a deep understanding of how the human mind works. The human mind works on the basis, not of opinions. Pigs have opinions. The human mind is capable of rising above the level of mere opinions. When you quote opinion, you are down there fighting for a place in the trough. What is a human being capable of? The human being is distinguished from the animals by the ability to make discoveries of universal principle. That is the nature of the human mind. And it is only on the level of knowledge of principle and use of this knowledge, that you are behaving like a human being as opposed to a poor imitation of a monkey.
[Photo caption: Lyndon LaRouche: "We need leadership, qualified leadership, to force the people to come to their senses. . . .As Socrates said, the chances of changing society will come from the mobilization of the youth, who will then lead the general process of transforming the society, so that society can recover its survival. "]
The problem is this: The principal of hypothesis, of course, is, we generate conceptions of what possibly are the principles beyond the scope of our senses, which control the world which is reflected on the minor of our senses.
But that same process of hypothesis exists in a distorted form also, where people substitute beliefs in the existence of principles that don't exist. And they adopt these as axioms. For example, let's take the case I have mentioned, of free trade. There is no basis for free trade, but it is the hypothetical assumption made by Galileo, one of the founders of empiricism; made by Hobbes, made by John Locke, made by Bernard Mandeville, made by Hume, made by Adam Smith, made by Quesnay—a principle called free trade. The principle was copied from the Cathars and other earlier types, the belief that outside the universe, underneath the floorboards, there is something that controls the role of the dice, and that is God—or that is the Invisible Hand. So there is the belief in something outside the universe, which controls the sense of the universe, but it is not an hypothesis, it is not a proven principle, it is something like the belief in free trade, or the equivalent, the Invisible Hand. Society is dominated by all kinds of things like that.
How a Society Destroys Itself
Shibboleths, the assumption of a Cartesian geometry or a Euclidean geometry, are frauds. These are assumptions which are made—and asserting them as principles, as governing principles of the universe, which they are not.
So therefore, the human mind is composed of an array of things, of different kinds of hypotheses and quasi-hypotheses. One, is things that are true, principles that are proven. Others, are principles that are not true. Now, this is the nature of insanity. For example, a man who knows how to get home to have dinner, but then beats his wife, because he has to make her behave—a typical bipolar personality. There is a mind that is insane. On the one hand, he is capable of forming sane actions, but in the totality of life, he is insane. You have the same thing in society in general; in politicians, they say, you can't do that, this is inevitable, you can't control this, you can't change that, you must accept this. These are accepted as hypotheses. No, you can not attack Euler. Why not? Because you can't. Because you are thrown out of university if you do. You can not attack Lagrange; you will not be considered credible if you do. And therefore, that is the problem.
The human mind is made up largely, predominantly, of these two types of elements. Now, from a Riemannian standpoint, the only true reality, the only true physical geometry, is one which is based on no definitions, no axioms, no postulates, nothing Cartesian, it's based on only principles — or false principles. And therefore, the problem in life is twofold, generally, in trying to progress — first of all, we are struggling against ignorance. The principles we know are insufficient to enable us to master the problem before us. And we must make a new discovery. On the other side, there are the false principles, which we have adopted, which have never been proven, which are generally accepted or accepted by some group of people. This is insanity.
This is the way a society destroys itself. That is the nature of tragedy: A society is destroyed because of the circumstances in which it has developed. A society is ruled by many different kinds of principles, some true, some fraudulent. And to the extent the society clings to the fraudulent principles, sooner or later, those beliefs will cause that society as a whole to destroy itself. As we see today in what is unfolding in a never-ending war, which is now ongoing in Iraq. There is no "after the Iraq war." There is only a crushing and an ending of that war by our intervention.
It will never end. Don't ask what you are going to do after the war has ended. There is no end after the war. You have to stop it, before it ends. Otherwise, there is no solution. So the inability of people to recognize that they must act, according to principles to stop this, shows the insanity. And every part of society that refuses to take that action, is functionally insane, and is demonstrating the principle of tragedy. The whole society will be doomed by its failure to act. Because it has adopted a false principle, superimposed on what it does know, which leads it toward self-destruction. It is for that reason that two factors in history are crucial. One, fundamentally universal, is the principle of leadership. Mankind has not developed to the point that you can trust popular opinion, or democratic opinion. Because people will always tend to have an accumulation of resistance to knowledge of things they could learn, that they must learn, and on the other side, the persistence of adoption of the false principles by which they are destroying themselves. Therefore, it is always popular opinion that leads any culture to its self-destruction.
Generations and Leadership
Thus, you need a leader who will induce the society, in a time of crisis, to act to purge itself of those beliefs which prevent it from acting appropriately. And to force them to discover the new principles they have not previously known, which are required as keys to solve the crisis. That is the first principle.
The second principle is that youth, particularly in our modern society, between the ages of 18 and 25, is the most sensitive to the task of changing society. There are two aspects to it. The group of between 18 and 25 have passed out of the state which we would call insanity, except we call it adolescence. When a person is 25 and behaves like a 15-year-old, you say, well, he's insane. When a person is 15 years old and behaves like a 25-year-old, you worry.
This is life. It is normal for human beings, in the process of maturation, in reaching what is called adulthood, which is a disease, or something which strikes you at about the age of 17 or 18, in a normal society. That is the time when you are most open. Those are the years of life which we assign, in modern society, to university education. The years of 18-25 are the period in which young people assume professional responsibility for society, or the foundations for assuming professional responsibility. Therefore, it is when that generation acts, that it bestirs the younger ones and the older ones. The older ones to come to life again, to recover some echo of their happier youth and to behave like they were 25 again. Maybe not in dancing all night, but at least mentally dancing a few hours of the day. And solving problems and being happy about it. And that is the point I want to make. We are dealing with an insane society with two problems. Generally, we have resistance to discovering the things which must be discovered to solve our problems; and the tenaciousness with which absurd principles are adopted, the kinds of principles by which we destroy ourselves and society.
We need leadership, qualified leadership, to force the people to come to their senses. As Solon argued, in the case of Athens, you have to understand, as Socrates said, that the chances of changing society will come from the mobilization of the youth, who will then lead the general process of transforming the society, so that society can recover its survival.
And I am very happy to be with you today. Thank you.
A Congolese man: I would like to ask our young people what they understand under the term, "youth." Is it, as Mr. LaRouche says, to be between 18 and 25 years of age? In Africa, we all live together, with parents, grandparents. . . . What should African or Latin American youth get from the Eurasian Land-Bridge?
From the panel: We plan to do it all together. We are making a revolution, and will not forget Africa or Latin America. We think of all of humanity, everywhere on Earth, and we will also go to the Moon. We want to do it all at the same time.
Congolese man: That is important, but we must first satisfy elementary needs in Africa and Latin America. The African youth first need something to eat, and an education, in order to go further.
Ludwig Garcia: Ijustwanted to say something. I'mfrom South America, from Venezuela. Right now, as we are talking here, my country is disintegrating as a nation-state. I do not know if I will be able to go back to my country, as a nation. As we are gathered here, many people from Africa and Latin America do not know if, next year, they will still be alive, or if their nation will exist. So, why am I here? I could say, well I want to help my people, and then I would start up some kind of NGO in Caracas or something. So, why am I here?
I came here, to Europe, because if we want to save Africa, if we want to save the beautiful, indigenous children in Argentina who are dying every day, if we want to save the beautiful children in Africa who are dying every day, unnecessarily,
[Photo caption: In reply to a question about how the Eurasian Land-Bridge would benefit Africa, a panelist replied: " We think of all of humanity, everywhere on Earth, and we will also go to the Moon. We want to do it all at the same time. " Here, an artist's rendition of a Moon colony.]
we must understand that, as a flanking operation, we must start from Eurasia. Period. If we understand this, we will win. If we understand the importance of the U.S. Presidency as a flanking operation, we can win. But any flight forward, driven by desperation, will network. We have to, calmly, understand what the situation is, why it is happening. And I tell you, I refuse to go back to my country, until I can get there by maglev, through the Eurasian Land-Bridge. Thank you.
Timothy Vance: We are going to have, after this seminar, a week of action in Berlin. I would like to invite our friend from Berlin, and everyone else in this room, to join us there, to go onto the streets. And in the United States, the primaries will be held in about eight months, so you should save up some money, and fly there, to help organize with us. That's the way to solve these problems. Everyone is invited.
Professor Aluko: I am Sam Aluko, from Nigeria. I would like to ask something of our youth, particularly in America. I am a good friend of LaRouche, I share many of his motivations, I was one of those who signed for his rehabilitation, because his imprisonment was not just. But, I want to ask, what effort you are making to mobilize the American voters to support him in the 2004 election? I am a student of American history, I know that gangsters control American politics. What effort are you making as youth? In my country, the young men do not vote, they lose interest in the system. So how are you educating American public opinion to put LaRouche in power in 2004?
From the panel: We are doing a whole lot. Not addressing issues, but teaching people on the street how to think. We show them how important it is, not only to vote, but to change the way they are thinking. They have a responsibility, which is what we have to get across to these people. Then, we don't just send off some literature, but we actually work with these people, we call them, and have evening sessions to read Gauss, and so on. And this is what will get people to break out of the pessimism, and public opinion, and force people to fight for the truth. We have to give them the confidence to do that, because most people are unpolitical, they have no confidence and think that nothing will change. But we are changing that.
Jean Gahururu: I am Jean Gahururu. I would like to intervene to respond to my friend from the Congo, so that you do not only have the idea of Africans who are only preoccupied with eating, and with basic needs. We should not forget that there are immaterial needs which are important: scientific, Socratic, spiritual, intellectual abilities are also needs, and we should not only talk about eating and so on; some needs are even more important than food. Please do not take Africans as only materially minded. We need, as LaRouche has said, for Africans to select certain areas of scientific research, in which we, Africans, will become world leaders. Why shouldn't Congo be a world leader in a specific scientific or intellectual area?
Among the many things LaRouche has said, he said we were never so desperate that, in spite of being so poor, we could not emerge as world leaders, be significant elements of the development of the world. This includes scientific contributions, and mobilizing the youth and the universities so that our countries become world leaders in some field. So please, don't take Africans as only eaters; we are also, of course, people of ideas. And the revolution we want, is a Socratic revolution, before a material revolution.
Timothy Vance: I would say on this, that the universe is helping us out. Because we have to go with ideas and we need more than our basic essentials. But first, this war has to be stopped. It is not only going to be stopped in the United States, it is not going to be stopped only in the United Nations, but it will come from uniting Eurasia and uniting the whole world around a higher idea of man. Right now, the way we are recruiting, the way we are organizing in the United States, is not to say, "Okay, let's build some water projects," and things like that. Sure, that is a huge part of it, but it is more about, "What is it to be a human being?" What is it they were fighting for right now? What are we reuniting? Why do we bother about this war? Who cares if human beings are dying? What are they? Why are we in the image of God? What does that mean? And that is where you get to this principle of discovery.
That's why you go with LaRouche, because he just is showing you that you didn't get it, on music, on science, on politics, and what your life means, on art, on everything. Any country in the world, any person in the world, has got the ability to be involved in the process of ideas, and that is what is going to reunite the world, but it has got to be offered, this Eurasian Land-Bridge has got to be put forward, to turn around this world.
Wilhelm Kaiser Lindemann: Hello, my name is Wilhelm Kaiser Lindemann, I am a German composer of Classical music. When I heard the first time about the ideas of LaRouche I said: absolutely impossible. The Silk Road bothers too many countries who have dictators, criminal governments. But now I have learned a lot of things—I am the first time here—that is the magic word: another axiom. That is the first time that I heard it, but I learned very much: thank you, Mr. LaRouche. And when I see what wonderful people, especially the young people, especially the young people in the United States, the soldiers on the front, what they do. Then—yesterday and today—I got my hope again. Thank you very much.
In the last years when I had studied many religions—I have been in India, I have been a Mormon, I was educated as a Catholic, as a son of an organ player—I had many views of life and religion. And I saw, what human beings are able to do. Then I got the opinion: The humans are really misconstrue ted designs. But it is indeed a question of the axioms and nothing else. The communistic propagandists in the ' 40s and the ' 60s, they always taught to their young people: you can change— everbody can change—the world with what you think. I always thought, it is a form of brainwashing. No, it is not. Everybody who came here and now thinks a little, can change the world.
And when I was young, full of revolutionary ideas, I was one day so desperate, I went to a priest, and asked him: What is that crazy life, always fighting, fighting, fighting? And then he said a very good sentence: "Only dead fish swim with the river." And we have a good captain, who can show us the other way. We have him here.
And for me the United States were and are such a wonderful nation, with so many possibilities, they have brought the form of democracy. When this country now is in the desolate situation, that—for example—80% of all adults in the United States have never read a book. And now all the newspapers in the United States are "gleichgeschaltet" and everybody who says any criticism against the war in Iraq, he is a traitor. And when I see, that the United States in the last 40 years were able to kill the best persons: Lincoln (this was long before), Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King. And Lyndon LaRouche was in prison: I hope the best for your health and a long, long, long life. And if you will not be the President of the United States, please be the Chancellor of Germany.
How Can We Get Out of This Crisis?
Andrei Kybykov: I also want to address this conference. My name is Andrei Kybykov and I come from Russia, where I teach students at two Moscow universities and also contribute to some journalistic work—I edit an economic analytical monthly, RusskyPredprinimatel. When we published the first issue of our magazine about a year and a half ago, we had a special feature on Lyndon LaRouche, with an extensive interview with him and an article about him titled "The Man Who Is a Titan,"1 in the Renaissance sense. And I am proud to have been the man who did this interview with LaRouche.
I didn't prepare a special presentation or speech for this occasion, but being an economist, certainly, I would like to discuss the financial and economic problems of the modern world. It would, of course, be good to do it with concrete figures; and I may, at some time, have an opportunity to do a presentation of the results of my analytical work and discuss it with you. But not today. You are all tired, and full of emotions, and of ideas that were overplenty during this conference.
What I want to share with you, are somewhat chaotic thoughts and emotions I had during the conference. First of all, we here come from very different countries, with very different styles of life, with very different levels, but during this conference, I have a very strong feeling that we have many common problems, and common aims. One of these problems is that of productive economy, as opposed to the so-called post-industrial economy, or the service economy. In reality, it is a kind of parasitical economy today. And, as Mr. LaRouche said, this is totally corrupt now. The crisis is only
1. See EIR, Nov. 9, 2001.
at the beginning, We had this stock market crash, but it is still in the process of further crashes.
We had the derivative problem. Some years ago, nobody wanted to know about it, even the professionals, who were over-ignorant. Now even the famous billionaire-investor Warren Buffett speaks about a "derivatives time-bomb." Then there is a real estate bubble, a mortgage-based securities bubble of huge proportions, in the United States and Britain especially. Now, even Alan Greenspan, and the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, William Poole, speak of a catastrophe ... as a result of this bubble. Some analysts speak of a so-called Japanese scenario taking place in the United States right now. But I think it will be even worse.
And the only adequate analogy that comes to my mind is the Great Depression. So, a new Great Depression is awaiting us, on a global scale. So we must do something to reconstruct this bankrupt world. . . .
This is a real bright spot, to see talented people, very skilled in many different fields—politics, economics, arts— getting together in an effort to do what they can to preserve our beautiful world, to preserve the creative powers of mankind. Because without this creative component, we are not creatures in the image of God. This youth movement is a great hope for all of us, and I want to say how very important this is. The hope that good has its chances in the struggle against evil.. . .
A reply from the panel: I would address that with Kepler. This is the fun thing about how to get beyond how we are currently looking at things, or how we get out of any crisis. If your crisis is like with the square root of two, and your idea of the infinite is based on generating things in one method, you are never going to get there. And that's why computers can't think. Because people get smart, and say that induction helps you make discoveries, or that by looking at a lot of data, you can learn something. But you don't.
You never learn anything from data. A good example is the case of Kepler. Copernicus gets credit for saying that the Sun revolves around the Earth, because, before him, Ptolemy said the Sun went around the Earth, which you could say by seeing see the Sun going around the Earth every day. And then Copernicus said, no, it's actually the Sun that is at the center, and the Earth revolves around it, and today we all know that. Except we don't—
I mean, why does the Earth go around the Sun? A principle is always outside the data. The way Kepler came up with gravity, was not by analyzing a bunch of data. It came from him always asking, "What is causing what I'm seeing?"
Now, how do we get out of this crisis? Some people think: How do I make money right now? Or, how do I help my country succeed within this bankrupt world? Or how can I live a life that gives me status in the society right now? And none of that works. That's why LaRouche works with the youth. This is a method for discovering truth, and that is what you absolutely need in times of crisis. Not just some principles that can fix the economy. It's: "Iknow how tocreate them.". . .
Olaf Sunneke: The problem is not the educational system which is so destructive, but the life that people live afterward. They are degraded into being machines, and they stop thinking. The point is to make a new beginning, and also to create an economic system that will have to function totally differently than the present one.
Helmut Bottiger: I was always wondering what the difference is, between an old man and ayoung one. Basically, at least there is no organic difference, there is no crazy change in the brain, or something. The difference is very simple, I think. If people grow up and work, they accumulate things and take them with them, which they think are important. Some have to care for their money, or their possessions, or duties which have to be done. Or they have a reputation to defend. And all these little businesses take away time. This is the difference, I think.
Every human being has 24 hours a day. What he does with his time, is what makes the difference. I think it's not based on the brain. We must not always look for scapegoats: The education system is to blame; the society is to blame; this one or that one is to blame; the reason why I am a bad person is always the others. That's not true.
It is how we spend our time, and what is important. I have a crazy example, which I use in these terms: Our society is running along, as on a street, and there is a traffic accident. The car is damaged, and a guy is lying on the street, bleeding, and along come some people with experience. One is a hairdresser and he sees that the hair of this poor victim is not tidy, so he corrects it. I think this is not appropriate! And what our friend from Congo says, of course: If I'm hungry, my senses are concerned withhow to getfood. It's important: Otherwise, nothing functions. But then I have to ask, what is the reason for this lack of food? If there is somebody who is stealing the food, then you have to take care of him. That'sis what we are discussing here. We have to do the important things first, and it's not always so easy to know what is important, and what not.
Erin Regan: So you'll be dancing in your mind, all day tomorrow. Something that absolutely uplifted me, after every speaker, was the sense of really working together. Because, since most of us arrived here, we have gone through one crisis or another, worrying about how we would sound, what we would look like. And Jonathan Tennenbaum brought up something interesting; he said, "You have to think about the audience." And this is a struggle, because I'm sure we know, we come from a horrible society, which puts much pressure on your inner self, instead of what goes on around you. . . .
The most joy you can possibly have, is not necessarily j ust making the discovery yourself. I was pushed by a collaborator in Rennes, to work on science and make a breakthrough. And the joy then comes from sitting down with somebody whom you hardly know, and re-creating that discovery in their mind. When you see the spark that is lit from the instant they make the discovery, it comes back to you, and you see
[-[Photo caption: Questioners asked about Martin Luther King's nonviolent struggle during the civil rights movement. Left: Civil rights marchers trying to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, were brutally attacked on Bloody Sunday, March 7, 1965. Right: The Schiller Institute honors Amelia Boynton Robinson, who was beaten and left for dead on Bloody Sunday, in a 1995 commemoration of the march in Selma.]]
what you have accomplished through them, and the joy that you gave them. That is priceless.
We should all work on that. I saw here a real collaboration, which takes really hard work.
[She then read the Declaration of Bad Schwalbach—see EIR, April 4.]
Jeanne d'Arc and the Issue of Nonviolence
Frank Surek: On the presentation on Jeanne d'Arc, I found a paradox. In 1989, there was a revolution without violence, and we have here a representative of the Martin Luther King movement—Amelia—which was a nonviolent movement. My question is: Jeanne d'Arc changed the world, but she also used violence and killed people. How can you explain this?
Jean-Gabriel (Mahéo, note laroucheplanet) from Paris: I want to add something about nonviolence. The real term to use is "active nonviolence." We have a minister from India, who knew Gandhi. If you look at the symbol of independence for India, it is a kind of spinning wheel. Gandhi said, we will not kill people, but we will destroy the economic system of the British Empire. To bring independence to India, one major weapon of Gandhi was to teach people how to make fabric, instead of importing it. This was very "violent," for the British.
Q: My name is Robin. A question about the peace movement: A girl gave a very good presentation about Joan of Orleans. I want to ask the question: Does this mean that you can kill a person, and if so, when?
LaRouche: These are not absolutes. When you try to reduce cultural morality to so-called single issues of precepts, you enter into fallacy. As in physical science, you often have a condition which does not correspond to other conditions. And therefore, the way the universe functions in that phase space is different than it functions in another phase space.
The issue here is that it was posed in modern times in various ways. First of all, we had the Treaty of Westphalia, in which the great Mazarin played his part, and others. And you see, the outcome of Mazarin was expressed by Jean Baptiste Colbert, in terms of the development of the economic foundation of the modern state. It was in that context that Leibniz went to France to work under the sponsorship of Colbert, to develop himself as a scientist. And from that came the conception of modern society. The first conception of modern society, in the modern age, was in the 15th Century, in the Renaissance, with the conception of the modern nation-state, where, for the first time, the Christian principle of agape was actually incorporated as a functioning principle of the state. That is, the sacredness of the human individual, and that the only legitimate function of government is to ensure, efficiently, the general welfare of all the people, for the present and future generations. That was a first step.
It was the idea of Louis XI, of the state being responsible and accountable for the welfare of all the people, which freed mankind from a condition in which the majority of humanity has been treated as human cattle, even today. You have the privileged few who say, "We run the world and the others will live under our reign, as in the United States under the law of Locke, as property, as shareholder value, as cattle. You will do as you are told, you will work when you are told. You are told when you are allowed to live, when to die." We were freed from this evil by Louis XI, and the Renaissance.
Then we had this great period of religious war, where the Hapsburgs and the Venetians organized religious war from 1511 to 1648. And Europe was in religious war, during all of this period, worsening at various times. Only Henri IV
[Photo caption: Civil rights heroine Amelia Boynton Robinson: When people attack you, "tell them the importance of your fighting for them, and for their children, and their children's children. "]
prevented it at one point. He was assassinated, and, very soon, the religious war was unleashed. Into this intervened Mazarin, who was the agent of the Pope, who was sent to France as an agent of the Pope. He first tried to deal with the way the Spanish were attacking the French, which was the chief war of that period. He went to France to take over from Richelieu, who was not the best, in order to solve this problem. And it was Mazarin who introduced that concept at that time.
From that process, we developed the idea of strategic defense. And the famous Lazare Carnot, in the 1770s, wrote his "Homage to Vauban." I had the privilege of going once to the place Neuf-Brissac, and saw this fortification, which is still a functioning city to this day. From the standpoint of early 18th-Century artillery capability, it is a very impressive thing. The Austrians never dared to attack France on that quarter, because of these fortifications. Then Colbert came up with this idea of strategic defense. You don't go to war. You have the capability to defend your nation against war. This same idea—under the influence, in part, of Moses Mendelssohn, who played a part in the education of Scharnhorst—was the concept of Scharnhorst in military science, and also, generally, by the German Prussian reformers. The principle was applied in the case of the defense of Russia against Napoleon and for the destruction of Napoleon's horde by the principle of strategic defense, which was introduced by Germans who were under the influence of Schiller, in order to defend Russia. And because of the organization of strategic defense of Germany, in these conditions, this led to the freeing of Europe from the bestiality of the first modern fascist, Napoleon Bonaparte.
But then you had the Council at the Congress of Vienna. All was betrayed, and we went back into the pit again. The French Revolution had already sent us back.
So, we still have this concept of strategic defense. Our objective is to eliminate war altogether. Our objective is not unleash any unnecessary violence, nor to provoke any avoidable violence, but to suffer much for the sake of avoiding war. As many people, like Martin Luther King, or Gandhi did. Martin Luther King was influenced by the precedent of Gandhi's work in India.
So our objective is to avoid war. Our objective is not to capitulate to the destruction of society, willfully, but to develop strategic defense, to know how to defend our society, when we have to. But never to undertake arms unless we absolutely have to, first; and, secondly, unless by undertaking arms, we have reason to believe that we can accomplish the necessary great good.
Otherwise, we have no right to kill. So it is not an absolute. The point is, we have to say, we want a certain order of mankind. We will fight only to defend that order; we will never do it foolishly, we will never do it as a demonstration of protest; we will do it only when it's necessary, and also, likely successful to secure humanity thereafter. Otherwise, never do it.
A Lesson From the Civil Rights Movement
Amelia Boynton Robinson: The one thing that we cannot give is life. That is one thing we cannot compensate, in the way that we bring a person back. Consequently, as Lyn has said, we do want to go into war, or anything else that will take the life of anybody.
For the young people who will be out there demonstrating. I would like to give them at least a point or two of the ways we demonstrated.
First of all, we learned to contain our rage. We never get angry and fight back verbally, when we are marching or demonstrating. It is important that we do that, because you would be surprised to know how, when we contain ourselves, our rage, and do not fight back verbally, we can tame the other fellow, who seemed to be in a rage when he began to curse us, and to be evil. We can tame them, like the lion tamer can tame a lion. And that is very important.
Another thing: Use wisdom when you go out to contact people, or when you have the opposite [side] who will march and demonstrate also. And if we stick together, not one person will go out when you know there is a vicious crowd: Go out in a group, or at least more than one. And when they begin to feud, and fuss, and curse you, you'll do more when you try to tell them the importance of your fighting for them, and for their children, and their children's children. Because you are trying to save them. Let them know that you are not out there on the battlefield for yourself, but you are out there for them. Finally, you'll find some of those same people will come in and ask, "Well, what can I do."
Jonathan Tennenbaum: We have a declaration here, which was read by Erin. The formulations may change a bit, but everybody understands the essence, the sense of the declaration. So I think we should have an approbation of the document, without discussing formulations. We can agree on the essence of that matter.
[The participants voted to support the declaration.]
I would say, from my experience, that we are in a situation right now, where this youth movement, and our movement internationally, can grow extremely fast. We see the potential growing faster than you can count. In California, at the point it was growing slowly, it was doubling every year. Now, it can double every month. It is an unlimited, an explosive social transformation that is occurring and must occur. And everyone here has a responsibility to take that potential that was demonstrated here, at the panel, and do it.
I once was very impressed with something Lyn said, or something that happened, and I said to Lyn, "Boy, Lyn, your method works!" And his answer was, "You have to make it work." And that is a conclusion now, after this conference, when we are going back into the world, an awful world, the most turbulent and dangerous situation, perhaps, that mankind has faced. So I think we should bring our thoughts together on that point. We are going out into that world now.
We have to transform the world. Each one of you. And we have to particularly throw off the baggage. You know we tend to carry, to various degrees, different kinds of baggage, like "I would like to, but" or "I have this and that doubt, but, . . . but,. . . but." You have to throw that away joyfully, realizing what the universe requires that you do right now.
Now, I would like to have Lyn and Helga address the conference.
Lyndon LaRouche: A Non-Linear Process
Helga has put me into position first. Jonathan has had a very important role in this youth organizing, also especially in threatening people that they will have to master a billion functions. He went on elliptical functions years go, back in the late 1970s, when he was trying to educate a certain gentleman on elliptical functions, and he continued that process. He's now assisting people on the significance of Riemann's work. This is the next order of magnitude for the mathematics and science work.
Anyway, so this is a turning point in history. It's a turning point, because the conference occurred under very special conditions. We are going to find that whatever seemed to be happening two or three days ago, very soon it'll be apparent, as Muriel [Mirak-Weissbach] indicated in her intervention on the subject, that it won't be the same over the coming days. This is what you call, crudely, a non-linear process. There is no war in Iraq, let me just emphasize that. This is a thematic point that is appropriate, as an impromptu point, to make at this point in the events.
What has happened, as I indicated, is that a certain force, deployed by, actually, the slime mold of financier interests which stand behind governments, and which intervene to destroy governments and create dictatorships, whenever the world becomes intolerable to the sensibilities of the slime mold-and the slime mold, using various instruments like the followers of Leo Strauss whom they created out of mud, out of Marburg mud, this force has now embarked the world on what it intends to be not only an imperialist campaign; not only the intent—as was the case with Lord Shelburne in the late 18th Century—to re-create an English-speaking version of the Roman Empire, which would never fall; but a new kind of Roman Empire. Not the British liberal kind of empire, of playing one nation against another to manipulate continents, peoples, but actually a permanent fascistic world empire, a world government according to the design and specifications of two of the most evil men of the last century, Herbert George Wells and Bertrand Russell. This is their design.
These two, Wells in 1913, in an introduction to a book, first laid out the proposal of using, then, what he considered radium weapons, as understood on the basis of the works of Rutherford, to use them as weapons to make war so horrible that nations would give up their sovereignty to avoid such a war, and would accept world government. At a later point, a collaborator of H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, organized people from Hungary and elsewhere, who were scientists cast on the waters of the world by the events of that period, such as Leo Szilard, Eugene Wigner, and so forth, and deployed them as the instruments for creating nuclear weapons.
The nuclear weapons program in the United States at that time, was instigated by Bertrand Russell. Now, the reaction to what Russell and others were doing, had reactions in Germany, among some people who thought they should develop nuclear weapons. They didn't, and it didn't happen, because Hitler was stupid, among other things (sometimes to have a dictator, you have to have a stupid man, like Hitler). Russia was also developing nuclear weapons. Vernadsky, who was the father of the nuclear policy of the Soviet Union—that started in 1925, approximately, when he first proposed the development of nuclear energy, as the principal power source of civilization, and of the Soviet Union in particular. His genius continued to the point that he created the institute which actually, later, developed Soviet nuclear weapons.
So Russell, in this process, was the man who directed the Anglo-American creation of nuclear weapons as weapons terrible enough to create a world empire, a permanent Roman Empire of the most hideous dimensions ever imagined. It was Russell and his crowd who dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with no military pretext for so doing. The military pretext was a future world empire. Not World War II; the Japanese were completely defeated, no invasion was ever required, or intended, of Japan. It was Russell who proposed preventive nuclear warfare in 1945, and proposed it publicly in 1946. It was Russell who was behind the orchestration of the Missiles Crisis of 1962. There are people in the United States and Great Britain, who have constantly had this obscene idea, centered around what is called the RAND Corporation. Centered around the friends of Russell, such as the Chicago University crowd, who spawned this fascist Leo Strauss, who is the spiritual father, or grandfather, of most of these clowns in the Bush Administration who are orchestrating the present war.
The policy behind these people is permanent war. A new kind of Roman Empire with nuclear weapons. They intend to use nuclear weapons. They will take the first occasion, if allowed, to use nuclear weapons. Not because the situation provokes them to do so, but because they intend to set a precedent for the use of nuclear weapons, which they will apply anywhere. They are out for the neck.
There is no war in Iraq. There is no "after the war" in Iraq. Anybody who talks about after the war in Iraq—there is no after the war in Iraq. You stop the war that is now ongoing, or you get permanent world war. It's obvious. Therefore, we have come to a point where it is put on our plate at this conference, to focus on this question. There is no way to sit back and tolerate this. It must be stopped. Otherwise, there is no civilization on any part of this planet.
During this period, I went again through some of the details of the Korean problem. The complexities of the North Korean administration, the problems that China and Russia and others have in dealing with the North Korean government. This is deadly, considering the intention of the idiots in Washington. This is deadly, considering the cowardice of the Democratic Party leadership. This is monstrous. There is no one, yet, on the scene, who has actually put into motion a process which would prevent a preventive nuclear attack on North Korea. We're looking at that possibility, and since these clowns want to have an attack on North Korea, they probably will do it. Now, the North Korean generals may think that they need the bomb, as a threat to negotiate terms with the United States. Then you have two sets of fools. The North Korean fools are the stubbornest. They won't listen. And because they have a special social character, which tends to make them impervious and nervous. I still think that if I could get in there, and we could find out what they want, we might be able to change their mind. But they are on a collision course with a monster. And the danger is, you can have nuclear war in Asia, within the weeks ahead. I don't say it will happen, but I say it can happen. All the ingredients are there for it, right now.
So there is no "after" Iraq. The Iraq war is already spreading. The Turkish incursion in Northern Iraq goes into the Kurdish conflict. The whole area, the entire Caucasus region, can go up into smoke. The Jordanian government can disappear. Other governments of the Middle East can disappear. The Israeli nuclear arsenal can be released under various conditions. That is possible right now. The issues will spread. We are in a world depression. There is no after the Iraq war. You stop it now, or you're worthless.
Anyone who says, we are going to deal with this after the war, is worse than a coward, he's a criminal, if he'sin power. It must be stopped now, with whatever it takes to stop it. That was put on our plate here, implicitly, at this conference, because it's the one place in the world where these things were deliberated, in the form I have just described.
So we have a special responsibility and a special mission. But also, because of the role of the youth movement in this, as an accompanying theme, a counterpoint to the crisis. We also are the most optimistic force in the world. We know how to change the world for the better. We just have to simply accelerate that effort considerably, under the present circumstances.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche: The Spirit of Jeanne D'Arc
I think it is no accident, or coincidence, that the theme of Jeanne d'Arc has been such a dominant one among the
[Photo caption: Helga Zepp-LaRouche (second from right): "I am absolutely, totally, convinced and optimistic that if anybody can intervene in this moment of severe crisis, and save the world, it is this organization. "]
young people. I had the fortune at one point, to talk to Indira Gandhi about Jeanne d'Arc. As she and her father say in their memoirs: When she was studying in France, dealing with Jeanne d'Arc was a determining idea in her life, and she drew a lot of her greatness, in her later life, from this earlier occupation with the example of Jeanne d'Arc. I want to encourage other people to do what Elodie, and Megan, Tina, Erin have done. And I want to encourage the men to do the same thing, because the image of Jeanne d'Arc is not a female occupation.
I think that if you read this drama, and you have certainly been motivated by the beautiful presentations to go home and read Jeanne d'Arc, and study it, and make it your own property. But you will find that the mission which Jeanne d'Arc adopts, that Tina and Megan read in the first monologue, it was like an innocent, "Yes, okay, I take the job." That was what the newer people among you have to do. I take the job and I save the world at a point when it is as dangerous, as Lyn was just saying. If you study the drama further, you will see there is a middle monologue by Jeanne d'Arc, when she has gone through an incredible fight, she has won France, she gave the King the crown, she saved the whole situation, but then she has self-doubts. And because of those self-doubts, she doesn't do what she should do, when she is accused, namely, to defend herself. Then, she is in chains, and when she sees that France is threatened again, she, with supernatural powers, she rips the chains apart, goes back to the battlefield and saves France once more. And then, in her final monologue, she resumes the idea of this original mission, but with a much deeper understanding of what it means, that you have to have the level of the sublime to do this job.
I think this is something you should think about. We, as an organization—small in number still, although that is changing rapidly, and with no fortunes—we are powerful because people respect especially Lyn, for what he stands for. He has taken a sublime life and that has inspired so many people all over the world. Therefore, I am absolutely, totally, convinced and optimistic that if anybody can intervene in this moment of severe crisis, and save the world, it is this organization.
I want to thank all of you for being here, I want to thank you for what you are doing, and ask you to take the next step, in case you haven't done it yet. Some of you are probably thinking about it. Take the next step, and make the level of the sublime, the beautiful soul of Friedrich Schiller, your daily experience. It is quite okay if, like Jeanne d'Arc, you have a little relapse in between. That happens, it's human, you are not a machine. But then go back and elevate yourself to the level where you do not locate your identity in your physical mortal existence. You make a holy, solemn commitment, like Jeanne d'Arc, to save this world at this point. This is a conscious decision and I can assure you, if you make it, you will be free.