DENNIS SPEED: On behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee I’d like to welcome everybody here today. My name is Dennis Speed, and we’re here on Aug. 20th, for our Saturday dialogue with Lyndon LaRouche. Lyn will not be with us today. We’re going to begin with the same thing that some of you may have seen last night, if you watched the webcast. [https://larouchepac.com/20160819/friday-webcast-august-19-2016] This is an excerpt from a [May 10] 1997 speech that Lyn gave in Washington, D.C., on the occasion of our release of the 1997 special report “The Eurasian Land-Bridge: The `New Silk Road’ Locomotive for Worldwide Economic Development” report. We’re going to play that, and that will be followed by an opening statement from Diane, and then we’ll go from there to questions and answers.
LYNDON LAROUCHE: There are only two nations which are respectable left on this planet, that is, nations of respectable power: that is the United States, particularly the United States not as represented by the Congress, but by the President. It is the identity of the United States which is a political power, not some concatenation of its parts. The United States is represented today only by its President, as a political institution. The Congress does not represent the United States; they’re not quite sure who they do represent, these days, since they haven’t visited their voters recently.
The President is institutionally the embodiment of the United States in international relations. The State Department can’t do that; the Justice Department can’t do it; no other Department can do it; only the President of the United States, under our Constitution can represent the United States as an entity — its entire personality, its true interest, its whole people.
Now, there’s only one other power on this planet which can be so insolent as that toward other powers, and that’s the [People’s] Republic of China. China is engaged, presently, in a great infrastructure-building project, in which my wife and others have had an ongoing engagement over some years. There’s a great reform in China, which is a “trouble reform.” They’re trying to solve a problem. That doesn’t mean there is no problem. But they’re trying to solve it.
Therefore, if the United States, or the President of the United States, and China, participate in fostering that project, sometimes called the Silk Road project, sometimes the Land-Bridge project, if that project of developing development corridors across Eurasia into Africa, into North America, is extended, that project is enough work to put this whole planet into an economic revival. I’ll get into just a bit of that, to make it more sensuously concrete.
China has had cooperation with the government of Iran for some time. Iran has actually been completing a number of rail links which are an extension of China’s Land-Bridge program or Silk Road project. More recently, we’ve had, on the side of India, from Indian leadership which has met with the representatives of China, to engage in an initial route, among the land routes, for the Land-Bridge program. One goes into Kunming in China. I was in that area, in Myitkyina, during part of World War II. Out of Myitkyina we had planes flying into Kunming, “over The Hump,” as they used to say in those days. I’m quite familiar with that area.
But if you have water connections, canal connections, and rail connections from Kunming through Myitkyina, that area; across Bangladesh into India, through Pakistan into Iran, up to the area just above Tehran, south of the Caspian, you have linked to the Middle East; you have linked to Central Asia; you have linked to Turkey; you have linked to Europe.
Then you have a northern route, which is pretty much the route of the Trans-Siberian Railroad, which was built under American influence and American advice, by Russia. You have a middle route, which is being developed, in Central Asia, with China and Iran.
India is working on a plan which involves only a few hundreds of kilometers of rail to be added, there were a lot of other improvements along the right-of-way; which would link the area north of Tehran through Pakistan, through India, through Bangladesh, through Myanmar, into Kunming, into Thailand, into Vietnam, down through Malaysia and Singapore, across the Straits by a great bridge, into Indonesia.
There’s a plan, also, for the development of a rail link through what was northern Siberia, across the Bering Straits into Alaska, and down into the United States. There’s a Middle East link, several links, from Europe, as well as from China, but from China a Middle East link into Egypt, into all of Africa.
So, what we have here, is a set of projects ,which are not just transportation projects, like the trans-continental railroads in the United States, which was the precedent for this idea, back in the late 1860s and 1870s. You have “development corridors,” where you develop, on an area of 50-70 km on either side of your rail link, your pipeline, and so forth. You develop this area with industry, with mining, with all these kinds of things. Which is the way you pay for a transportation link. Because of all the rich economic activity: Every few kilometers of distance along this link, there’s something going on, some economic activity. People working, people building things, people doing things.
To transform this planet, in great projects of infrastructure-building, which will give you the great industries, the new industries, the new agriculture, and the other things we desperately need. There is no need for anybody on this planet, who is able to work, to be out of work. That simple. And that project is the means.
If the nations which agree with China — which now includes Russia, Iran, India, other nations — if they engage in a commitment to that project which they’re building every day; if the United States — that is, the President of the United States, Clinton — continues to support that effort, as he’s been doing, at least politically, then what do you have? You have the United States and China and a bunch of other countries ganged up together, against the greatest power on this planet, which is the British Empire, called the British Commonwealth. That’s the enemy!
If on one bright day, say a Sunday morning, after a weekend meeting, the President of the United States, the President of China, and a few other people say, “We have determined this weekend, that based on our advisors and the facts, that the international financial and monetary system is hopelessly bankrupt, and we in our responsibility as heads of state, must put these bankrupt institutions into bankruptcy reorganization, in the public interest. And it is in our interest to cooperate as nations in doing this, to avoid creating chaos on this planet.”
The result, then, is that such an announcement, on a bright Sunday morning, will certainly spin the “talking heads” on Washington TV. [laughter] But otherwise it means that the entire system, as of that moment, has been put through the guillotine, and the head is rolling down the street. Alan Greenspan’s head, perhaps.
That means we have at that point the impetus for building, immediately, a new financial and monetary system. Now, in putting a corporation which is bankrupt, into viable form, what do you do? You’ve got to find the business that it’s going to do, which is the basis for creating the new credit to get that firm going again.
The Land-Bridge program, with its implications on a global scale, is the great project which spins off directly and indirectly enough business, so to speak, for every part of this world, to get this world back on a sound basis again. [applause]
SPEED: I would just suggest that everyone that has various forms of access to contacts, via internet, whatever that form may be, should post this; post this and begin or initiate a discussion with everyone you know, now, about that conception. Because as we enter the period of September, it will be the drive for that conception which is going to inform everything that we’re going to be doing. And that’ll become, I think relatively evident, as we get into both the discussion now and some of the discussion at the conclusion of today’s dialogue.
So, to give us our opening statement, let me present Diane Sare, from the Policy Committee of the LaRouche Political Action Committee.
DIANE SARE: Good afternoon. So, since that, nearly 20 years ago, in the last two weeks, two extraordinary new corridors of the land-bridge have been opened. And unfortunately, most Americans are not even aware that this was occurring: That is, that the world that Lyndon LaRouche was talking about 20 years ago, is at our doorstep. One is the Dalian, China to Moscow route, which is the route that takes 11.5 hours by airplane, so, it’s rather long, has just been opened, and it’s 10 days; they sent the first refrigerated freight train which can carry fruit and vegetables, since it’s refrigerated, form Dalian, China, which is way far out on the eastern side of China, to Moscow. And then the other corridor, is another major Chinese city into Warsaw, Poland, the first freight train left for there about two days ago. So these corridors that are shown on the map are being completed. It’s not even that they’re just being done, they’re actually being completed as we sit here in the United States wondering if you can get across the Cross-Bronx without losing half your car in a pothole! It’s worth thinking about.
The other thing I wanted to just express, is we’re getting a very interesting shift reported across the country, which is that Americans are waking up to the idea that the election is a complete fraud and they’re not interested in it any more. And if you do meet that rare individual who is supporting either of the two candidate — at least the current candidates, you should definitely, simply laugh. “Oh, you’re supporting Hillary Clinton? Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!” “Oh, you’re supporting Donald Trump? Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!” It’s a joke! No need to take it seriously; it means nothing!
China, Russia, India, these nations combined, and the hundred or so nations that have been swept into the One Belt, One Road initiative, vastly outweigh the United States in terms of population, in terms of resources, etc.
So our job here is, as Alexander Hamilton had his job from the center point of Manhattan, is to bring the United States into partnership with this new paradigm which Lyndon and Helga Zepp-LaRouche have been fighting for forty years. And it is absolutely possible, in spite of the fact that the so-called candidates are complete, criminal morons. For example, as people may know, Glass-Steagall, which is the first step in organizing a recovery and doing what Mr. LaRouche said here 20 years ago, in effect declaring this derivatives gigantic bubble, bankrupt, is in the platform of both Democratic and Republican Party.
That is not because the Presidential candidates are intelligent enough to know what it means or to support it. It’s because there is a sense in the population, which we have fought for, people in this room have been fighting for years, to get Glass-Steagall back, through state legislatures, their labor unions, etc. and it was simply impossible for them to keep it off the platform.
Similarly, we waged a fight starting several years ago, for the 28 pages in the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry. President Obama was forced to release those pages. How like was that? Is that because President Obama wants to implicate his friends in Saudi Arabia in 9/11? No! He has no intention of doing that, but he could not avoid releasing the pages, because of two factors: What we have done, and what President Vladimir Putin did almost exactly one year ago, when he first visited China on V-J Day, on the 70th anniversary of the victory in Asia, where they had a spectacular display of power in terms of the military technology which marched through the streets on that day. And then Putin came here to the United Nations General Assembly and called for a coalition to fight terrorism; precisely what he was calling for when the monument which is on the front of the posters advertising the series of 9/11 memorial Requiem concerts, was dedicated. He was saying the same thing; there should be a coalition to fight terrorism. And the fact that he intervened and he did so successfully in Syria, created a white backdrop for Obama’s criminal behavior in supporting and funding ISIS and al-Qaeda, and created the conditions where he could not but release the 28 pages.
So, in thinking and our acting in this period, it is crucial that Americans lift themselves above the slime and the garbage of our day-to-day culture. Friedrich Schiller said, “Live in your time, but be not of it.” That is, we in this room and those listening to this webcast on the LaRouche PAC site, have to present reality to our fellow Americans from above; because it is the dynamic that is shaping up in the New Paradigm which will actually give us the way to restore the United States to the principles intended by Alexander Hamilton. And the last thing that I just want to say is, if Ron Chernow’s biography can be believed, he says that Hamilton expressed the very grave concern that the Constitution which he created would work very well when the United States was young and when people were optimistic and future-oriented; but he worried what would happen to the republic if the population were to become corrupted and jaded. I think that is a concern for us as well, which is why we one, are producing this newspaper — The Hamiltonian in the tradition of Hamilton’s Federalist Papers — to mobilize and uplift the thinking of the population of New York City; and two, why the Schiller Institute Chorus has joined and is participating in a series of performances of the Mozart Requiem which at their completion, will have brought in 3-4,000 people or more from the New York metropolitan area. And dozens of people participating in the chorus, which will have a transformative effect on the culture of this area, which is required for us to actually secure the victory that is now very near to our reach.
So, that’s what I wanted to put on the table, and I imagine people have many thoughts on this.
SPEED: Just before we start our questions and answers — and people can line up for that — I’d just like to call attention, given Diane’s reference to Schiller, to something that Jason Ross said last night; because “Live in your time, but be not of it.” Jason said last night — and I think you should take a look at that webcast — “Leibniz had already shown that the Newtonian idea of space and time was wrong; it has the result that people think of facts, of things taking place in locations at certain times. But Einstein showed that this is actually not true; that there is no time that any event takes place. That the time an event occurs, depends upon who is looking at it; not in the way of uncertainties or anything like that, but the time itself doesn’t exist as one thing that’s independent of who’s doing the looking, or of their location. What he did was, he created a new concept that resolved the contradiction between two concepts that were actually mutually contradictory.”
OK, why don’t we go to the first question and answer.
Q: [ELLIOT GREENSPAN] I have two questions; one of which was just called in by Rick of Bergen County, who could not be here. Rick saw the webcast last night, and emphasized from what Lyndon said in his video that you’ve just shown, Lyn’s point that there’s no need for anyone to be without work, based on the unfolding of this program that Lyn was putting forward there. Rick said, in considering that and looking over LaRouche’s Four Laws, that when you look at the job market in the United States at this point — he said this is especially relevant to young people — that you’ve got millions of jobs which pay $12 an hour or thereabouts. Piece work, independent contractors; the employer has no obligation to the worker. He said the position of labor in the United States is very bad. So, these jobs are not adequate to live on. He said $12 is an insult; I know people living in these conditions. And his question on this was: Will people be able to get jobs and careers that will enable them to live, under the conditions of these Four Laws being implemented? Why don’t you take that; and then I’ll come to the second.
SPEED: Let me say something about that. Once upon a time there were Americans that implemented what Alexander Hamilton talked about; and I think if you think back to what we just saw from Lyn, both the energy, the clarity, and the mastery of the conception that he put forward there in 1997, are partially because he had invented the idea. That that is the standpoint from which we have to take up a question like this. Everything that is happening to the American workforce and has happened to the American workforce since August 15, 1971 has been an insult. There’s been 45 years with nonstop insults.
But the problem involved is related to something that I believe Kesha Rogers brought up last night; which is that if you think that you can only do what you already know to be possible, then you are not free. If you think you can only do what you now assume to be possible; you are not free. You have no idea what being free is; you don’t even have an idea of what being human is. This I think is important; because when people talk about this idea of labor, they have a very peculiar idea. They either think about physical manual labor, or they think about blue collars, or they have various kinds of notions about it. When, back in 1974 and 1975, LaRouche first developed his first International Development Bank proposal, and when he then ran for President in 1976 — 40 years ago — his first campaign; when people would talk to him about who he thought would vote for him, he said, “I already have 2 billion votes from around the planet.” That was always his conception; and back in those days, those campaign — as some people know — was run as the United States Labor Party. That campaign had a particular logo, which was a giant tractor; very advanced tractor. But the conception was that what Lyn was doing and what we were doing as an organization was we were redefining something which became more evident in the two years following; it was the work that we did on Henry Charles Cary’s ideas, and specifically the idea of the Harmony of Interests. That there is no necessary class war that must be fought between “labor” and “capital”. But the problem with addressing the situation from that standpoint is it would deflect completely from what I think Lyn has gotten at around Einstein. The problem with the question, is not the question; the problem is to understand the American people for 45 years walked away. There’s virtually nobody who’s productive in the United States. There are perhaps 13% or thereabouts of our people who are productive in any way. Everything else that is being done in our economy is non-productive; and non-productivity is now the legacy or the condition of two full generations of Americans, who barely know what productivity even means.
The issue of Einstein, as I understand what Lyn is trying to get at — this doesn’t mean this is what Lyn is saying; I’m just responding this way — is, as he keeps emphasizing, creativity does not come from babies as such. It comes from the idea of seeking to preserve conditions in which genius among young people supersedes the conditions of society and of their parents. And labor, as we actually understand it, is not a matter of a skill, or let’s say infrastructure development or any of those things. It’s not any of that. It’s a completely different idea; and there are ways in which we can implement it which are dramatic. What Lyn went through of course in his 1997 speech was very dramatic. I think the important thing for us to look at for the American people, is the Hamiltonian idea; a single America. Notice that what Lyn said is, only the President of the United States actually has the authority to deploy the United States on behalf of the American people. There is no other entity that can do that.
Well, we are talking about a new Presidency which does not include Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or frankly it would have also not included Bernie Sanders. It does not include Joe Stein; it does not include that guy Johnson — whatever his name is. It doesn’t include any of those people. It’s a new Presidency which we are campaigning for right now for November, that includes none of that. So, how is that real? How is that a real conception? I think you just saw it expressed in what Lyn said in 1997; and you see it expressed in Vladimir Putin, and you see it expressed in what the Chinese are doing. So, I would just try to make people clear that Lyn’s Manhattan is about exactly this question of establishing an entirely new basis for the human race to change its whole relationship to the creative process and therefore, to work as a whole. And the United States in specific has its destiny wrapped up in what these events are going to be in the next three weeks. What’s going to happen at the United States? It’s what we, as a Manhattan Project, can make happen.
GREENSPAN: Well, you’ve partly answered the 2nd question. I want to bring people’s attention — you may or may not have picked up at the table the announcement of the Schiller Institute conference Saturday, September 10. The conference invitation begins “The world today stands at a crossroads. Poet Friedrich Schiller referred to such an inflection point as a punctum saliens, a branching point.” What I think would be valuable would be to elaborate a bit how Lyn and Helga are thinking about the punctum saliens of this moment of history; and how we in the Manhattan Project are deploying to achieve an advance for civilization in this punctum saliens.
SARE: I want to say something that takes up both questions. This question of what Rick was asking that there’s no need for anyone to be unemployed, there is a question of evil; there is a question of intent to do harm. In other words, to enslave and inmiserate and murder billions of people, when in the physical universe there is no necessity of that; that the option for everyone to reach their full potential as a human being exists. The way that this comes about, if you think about why does Lyn keep talking about Bertrand Russell; how did Bertrand Russell become an evil man; why is Bertrand Russell the most evil man of the 20th Century? Because Bertrand Russell’s idea of deductive logic, that you cannot be creative; that you cannot have an idea; that the only things that are acceptable — and this is all over our academic institutions — is that you can’t say something is true unless you can start at this point and prove this and this and this. You get to your conclusion based on so-called “facts”; that’s what a computer does.
People may remember the class A Mercedes some years ago. They’re doing benchmarking; we can’t afford to do real tests and discover that perhaps there are things going on in the Universe that we have not yet apprehended. So, they had a car which they only tested on computer synthesized drive tests; and discovered once they produced the automobile, that when you tried to turn a corner going 35 miles or faster, the car overturned. The way that the human mind works is that we are capable of forming an hypothesis about the nature of the Universe; about the nature of God’s relationship to the Universe, and a creative principle which perhaps we have not discovered. So, if you take the work of Johannes Kepler, he was able to hypothesize a model for the relationships between the distances of the planetary orbits; both from the Sun and from each other, which corresponded to a model of harmonic proportions and necessitated something where the Asteroid Belt was discovered later. This was not based simply on observations taken by Tyco Brahe, but it was based on a conception of a principle of order in the Universe that was apprehendable to the human mind.
When you decide that that doesn’t exist, that we can only do — this is the nature of pragmatism — that you can only anything based on what’s been done before; as Kesha was saying as was just referenced. That is actually evil; that is an assault on what it means to be a human being as opposed to an animal. Everyone can think of animals, your favorite pet. As much as they might be delightful, they probably have not started doing new things; even if you have been an absolute genius in the way you have raised your puppy or your kitten. Chances are, they’re not cooking dinner; they’re not doing the dishes; they haven’t learned to drive. Although I did read that someone is trying to get dogs to drive, I don’t think it’s been very successful. They certainly haven’t designed space ships or figured out how to — dogs haven’t figured out how to produce their own cattle or anything like that. They’re living in the same mode that they have for thousands and hundreds of thousands of years.
Human beings, on the other hand, in spite of various dark ages that have come our way, have actually been able to hypothesize states of existence which are a leap beyond anything we did before; and you cannot construct a linear, step-wise motion as to how you got there. I think this is crucial when you talk about the divide between Zeus on the one hand and Prometheus on the other hand. Zeus and the gods of Olympus said that mankind is not to have knowledge. But it’s not knowledge of facts; it’s a knowledge of creativity, an ability to be creative. And Prometheus defeated Zeus; and I think part of what’s very important in the story which often gets left out, is various emissaries came to Prometheus and said, “Why don’t you apologize to Zeus? Why don’t you admit that you were out of line; maybe you can make a deal with Zeus and he will be merciful.” And Prometheus said No; that Zeus himself will be destroyed. Because the Universe functions in an ever-developing manner; which is why the human race survives. There is no such thing as sustainable development. We can only survive, which is a horrible of thinking of it, through growth.
What’s happened now is, you have a majority of the world’s population has decided to act according to natural law and to principles of the Universe and fight for growth. You have the bankrupt remnants of a British Empire, which is what Wall Street, the FBI, the Obama and Bush administrations, what we’ve seen here which is thoroughly bankrupt and is going to collapse. And all they can to is try and threaten war against Russia and China; against the nations that are leading this growth. They can’t even deliver; all they can maybe deliver is a nuclear weapon which is why it’s so dangerous. We do not have the economy to sustain a ground war; the Russians were correct when they pointed out that the NATO troops and exercises on the borders with Russia were only a bluff. They were a cover for a potential launch of a nuclear strike. We have no capability; we’re bankrupt, we’re done, we’re finished.
So, I think it’s very obvious in a sense which way to go. LaRouche is optimistic that we’re actually on the brink of a major victory. The challenge of what we’re doing in the United States is to bring this potential to the American people; which is what will become evident at the conference on September 10th. The people who will be speaking there are people who, in a sense, are speaking to us from the New Paradigm; but also to get us to wake up and become a little bit more vigorous. We cannot be complacent. When you’re confronted with something which has a commitment to evil, it is not acceptable to say, “Well, this is the new normal”; but to say, “This is going to be stopped. And we’re going to act so that evil does not dictate American policy.”
Q: Hello, my name’s M—S—; and I’m from London, which perhaps in this context requires a bit of explanation or apology. I can assure you that I haven’t been sent on some secret mission from Her Majesty; to my knowledge, at least. I’m really just passing through, and wanted to kind of show my interest in what you are doing here. I’m here doing some research, and I was at the Swarthmore Archive looking at the Peace Collection; and Margaret, who I was sitting next to there, who helped me stumble through Mozart’s Requiem, tells me that you, Dennis, are an alumnus of Swarthmore. So my question really is related to something I was reading on the LaRouche PAC website recently, when the Panama Papers came out. Mr. LaRouche identified that release of information as a British operation; a kind of strategy of some sort against Vladimir Putin. Then a few days later, I read a piece that was written by Clifford Gaddy of the Brookings Institution, arguing almost exactly the opposite really. In looking at that, I realized that he was a former member of this organization, who I think kind of looked after things in Sweden for you. So, my question is really just about trying to draw those two lines in thinking together, and why you think that contradiction is there. And perhaps you might say something about Mr. Gaddy’s views, and perhaps about him as well.
SPEED: Well, just on the latter part of that question, I happen to have been present in 1984 in March in Stockholm at a discussion that occurred between Cliff Gaddy and Bill Jones, who now directs our work in China. They were talking about their various family backgrounds; and they’d both come to Sweden during the anti-war movement. So, Cliff’s family is from Virginia, and Bill has a different background. They were going back and forth, and Bill had this to say about Cliff: “Well, Cliff, my family fought for the United States when it counted.” Cliff, when you bring that up and you bring up these other things, Lyn has been very clear; and over the years, our experience with British intelligence, when Lyn got out of jail, in fact, one of the things he had us do — several of us — was we had a panel called the “Palmerston Multi-Cultural Zoo”. What he had us do was describe to the American audience how Lord Palmerston designed a policy of empire during the 19th Century and particularly during the period of the 1850s; specifically that period around the Crimean War and so on. I just want to quote something that we pointed out that Palmerston said about Russia; two things, actually. “The best and most effectual security for the future peace of Russia, would be the severance of some of the frontier territories acquired by her in later times; Georgia, Circassia, the Crimea, Bessarabia, Poland, and Finland.” And he went on to say, “The policy and practice of the Russian government has always been to push forward its encroachments as far and as fast as the apathy or lack of firmness of other governments would allow it to go. But always to stop and retire when it was met with decided resistance.”
Now, the Chechen policy that we’ve seen, the terrorist policy coming out of Chechnya — particularly from the time of 1999, when Mr. LaRouche released a two-hour video called “Storm Over Asia”, beginning with Chechnya. From that point, Vladimir Putin’s emergence in Russia and his successful countering of that operation has marked a period from which LaRouche and Putin have been on a sort of parallel track. They have not met or had a discussion; but this issue of the deeper British roots — both culturally and specifically on the issue of terrorism. If you know our material, you know that we wrote something a long time ago, saying that London should be investigated as a center of world terrorism. It’s a long report we did.
So, we know about this, and we know about the way in which the issue of Russia and the issue of what Putin is doing now, this is the core threat to the British East India Company’s 1763 rule of the planet from then until now. The United States was an important process in countering that; but LaRouche and his organization were designed to finish that battle against the British Empire. What you see coming out of Russia, what you see coming out of China; these are policies that have been in discussion with those two nations. And many other nations as well, but those two nations adopted policies which LaRouche invented. These are anti-British imperial policies which should have been adopted by the people of the United States but weren’t. And LaRouche — not being one to wait for others to adopt the truth — successfully campaigned specifically through his wife Helga when he was in jail, to create a policy which has had various names. Eurasian Land-Bridge; many other names. So, the issue of Putin, the issue of Russia, the issue of China, the issue of what we are talking about about this; this is the revenge of Alexander Hamilton. And, we don’t automatically condemn you for your origins, but we would wish that you might think through the deeper importance of what is actually happening and what we are about to see happen, also, at the G20 summit and some of the other things that particularly Mrs. LaRouche has been involved in. That’s all available on the website, and the long report and other things you can get for that.
I gave a long answer there; maybe too long, but the reason I thought it was important is, the final death of the British Empire is about to occur. And we are going to be very happy about that, when we’re responsible for it. [applause]
Q: [alvin]: Good afternoon! Last week, Dennis asked Lyn a question on my behalf. And thinking about Lyn’s response, I wanted to — this is all staying on the topic of Einstein, I thought it would be good to continue that. I’ve not seen last night’s webcast, and I see the front cover of EIR, “The Einstein Era.” Also, we’ve got a conference coming up. So, between now and then I should, hopefully, learn some things, but I wanted to bring some more things up on this.
There were two things in Lyn’s response that I wanted to bring up again for discussion. The first was that “Einstein, step-by-step, increasingly understood what was wrong with the way the people of the world consider how the world works.” I see this young man going through this process into adulthood. It was a step-by-step process. I found that interesting, in terms of how he thinks.
But more importantly, that he dared to, which obviously then implies great courage, to make the charges that had to be made, in order to engineer what mankind can do, to save the development of the human species. This daring, this courage, this quality of mind that first understands, and then takes that charge forward, obviously going under great attack for much of his life, even today, from those that misunderstand him, who claim to be, as Lyn said, his so-called followers and admirers.
Those two things I wonder if we could discuss and elaborate on a little further.
SPEED: We’d like to bring Phil to the microphone, to say something about the Einstein question.
PHIL RUBINSTEIN: There’s no short answer to this. Lyn wants to provoke a certain kind of thought. I’m not saying that he’s just being provocative. He’s basically saying there’s a standard of creativity that he’s talking about, that we have to think in terms of what we’re doing politically today. What we want is the equivalent of a complete change in the conception of space-time. And that’s not just a phrase. There’s a perfect case. I’m not sure that we know the answer to. We’re looking for something for which we probably don’t have the vocabulary. It’s not in the language. Just like there’s all kinds of things that we’ve lost in language—the subjunctive mode, a lot of the peculiar characteristics of Greek, for example, the number of modes and modalities that have been lost. For example, in the idea that hip-hop is sort of creative, or something; if you’re really enraged, then you’re totally creative.
There’s nothing I can do briefly. But I can say that even though there are various things that have been said over time, Einstein does represent a truly creative person who fought, and part of the creativity was the fight. For example, it’s well known, that after the middle of the 1920s, beginning in the middle of the ’20s, Einstein completely opposed some of what Dennis was referring to: this indifferentism, the idea in science, that we can’t know, all we can do is have a mathematical model that might be useful to make predictions, and even technologically useful, but we can’t know that there is even a reality. Which is basically the outlook of most of modern physics, and certainly a lot of the well-known physicists, or scientists; people like [richard] Dawkins, on the biology-physics side. Most of the leading scientists will tell you that the Universe is essentially random, and that we’re here by a certain accidental outcome, and there’s no point in looking for a purpose in the Universe.
Einstein did not agree with that. He says, explicitly, “I think there’s an objective reality.” He said that in response to some of his closest personal friends, almost all of whom disagreed with him. His own peer group. Not just “popular opinion,” as we normally think of it, but even the people he himself thought of as experts of a certain kind, all disagreed with him. Many of them did come from a similar cultural background.
He fought that every step of the way. As Jason brought up last night, and there is going to be a discussion on Wednesday; they’re going to renew the Weekly Report, and they’re going to have a discussion of this Einstein Principle, so I would recommend people, besides catching up on certain things, tune into that.
Einstein fought that, and he fought politically. Einstein fought for a certain common benefit for mankind. He fought for some of the same things that FDR fought for, in terms of his conception of the United Nations. For example, he was a supporter of the founding of the State of Israel; but he was very concerned about the rise of nationalism, and the way the Palestinians were being treated, in 1948 and 1949. He had that from the very beginning.
There’s a famous story. He was asked to be the President of Israel, and he turned it down, supposedly, because he wasn’t that political. He turned it down, really, because he was not attuned to the nationalism that was rising under those conditions.
Lyn’s method, his view of the human mind, his view of what this means for our relationship to the Universe, is in certain ways, very much typified by what Einstein did, and one good example is this question of simultaneity. Because, at the core of, certainly, Special Relativity, and certainly it continues into his later work. And, it’s worth noting, Einstein was one of the founders of Quantum Theory. He wasn’t just a one-trick pony. He was Relativity Theory, he was one of the founders of Quantum Effect.
At any rate, the core of it is this issue of simultaneity. There is no universal time. There is no absolute time. Now that doesn’t mean there isn’t time, but there is no absolute time. Time is something that, itself, develops. It goes through changes. It doesn’t just depend on the observer. There is a universal principle that governs time as a whole. And it’s really that which leads to the problem of distances—there is no fixed distance, there is no fixed measuring rod.
I think his ability to come to that conception and use it, is very close to Lyn’s rejection of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the idea that there is such a thing as an “equilibrium state” in the Universe or, in particular, in human development. There is no equilibrium. There is no dissipation of the effects of what human beings can do, into a random universe, a universe that’s dissipating.
In fact, as Diane referred to it, human history is essentially the development of the human mind, increasingly creative grasps of the nature of the Universe that we live in, which changes the nature of the Universe. We do things that are not only discoveries, but that never occurred before in the Universe. We take the principles of the Universe, and cause effects that couldn’t happen without the human mind. For example, the effort to control fusion energy. That’s something that occurs in nature; it occurs in things like the Sun, which are immense—a volume about a million times the size of the Earth. We’re talking about fusion in, let’s say, a machine the size of this room, or maybe the length of a city block. So, these are things that never occur in the Universe without human intervention.
There is no equilibrium in human history, or in its relationship to the Universe. Just like there’s no simultaneity in the Universe. I think these are very similar questions, methodologically, and in terms of what it means. In a certain sense, when you look at the development of the human species, you have to look at a series of developments and how they interact, in terms of what we need to do for the further development of the planet. There is no single outlook. There’s the development of the human species. And one of the characteristics that Lyn has stressed, is the fact that the human species has the capability of being immortal, in the sense that the species needn’t ever become extinct. Every other species will, of necessity, go extinct. Whether it takes a million years, or half a billion years, it has a limit.
The human species doesn’t really have a limit. I think one of the things that’s happened recently gives us an idea. When Einstein and some others made the discoveries they did, roughly around 1900, and this is what Russell was deployed against, this was the culmination of things that were worked on: anti-Euclidean geometry, Riemann, Gauss, Leibniz, and so on and so forth. Einstein was attuned to that, — Kepler, Cusa, that there was a strand of thought that came with certain immense breakthroughs in 1900. We opened up an entirely new Universe that we had no idea existed: the nuclear world. We discovered the fact that there’s a power that existed in the Universe that we had absolutely no idea.
Now, the 20th century was pretty much a wreck, because that was deployed against. And so in a way, the whole question of time, Equilibrium, and the issue then becomes, there’s no difference between Einstein’s character and the development of his ideas. This is not to say that he’s right about everything. That’s not the point. He was right in the fundamentals. He was a civil rights activist. He was a single, integrated character. He was a proponent, as we’ve said, of Classical culture—music, and so on and so forth.
What Lyn is really posing, I think, with the Einstein issue—and I think it is important to know what Einstein did; I’m not saying leave aside all the details. But the essence of it, for the moment, is that he’s saying this is the standard of creative intervention into mankind’s relationship to the Universe. The individual, like Einstein, can change the entirety of humanity’s relationship to the Universe.
Look at where we stand. We’ve learned a lot about the Universe. I think there’s a tremendous amount that calls for us to go out into space, that would mean a whole huge difference. We know that there are super-massive objects at the center of most galaxies. We don’t know much about galaxies. We don’t know much about how galaxies formed, what the powers are that might be involved in galaxies. We don’t know that much about cosmic radiation.
At this point we need a new Kepler for the Solar System. Einstein has opened up some of those areas, much of those things were opened up by Einstein. Cosmology, as I said, the Quantum, and so on and so forth. But we now have a Solar System that has millions of asteroids, the Kuiper Belt, the Oort Cloud, a couple more planets, God knows how many more moons — the question of life. Life exists in places we never thought of, not even 100 years ago, but even 30 years ago. We didn’t know that life existed in the middle of sulfur flows in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, at 700 degrees Fahrenheit. We didn’t believe that life could exist there. So, how much life is there in the Solar System or out into the Galaxy? We now know that there’s probably billions of planets; 20 years ago we didn’t know that there were any, outside of this Solar System.
So there’s a huge amount to open up, by in fact going back to the kind of standard of creativity that Einstein represents and that Lyn has represented, epistemologically, as a physical economist, over these recent decades, and up to the present.
Q: On the question of creativity, I think a lot of people find it really challenging to think about how does one become a genius, and this whole idea of worth and value in our society and how Mr. LaRouche has spoken about the greatest value we have is the child who is yet to become, and the potential in that. So, the question is always, what is genius? What is required for genius? Are geniuses just born as a genius, or is culture necessary? I’ve seen examples of young people who have accomplished some great things; there’s lots of videos of four-year-olds who can play some of the most challenging piano pieces. There’s the 14-year-old Quebec kid who discovered the fifth Mayan ruin from just looking at the constellations; there was another 14-year-old that built a nuclear reactor, apparently in his basement.
And you wonder, well, wow, these people must have such a wonderful life ahead of them, but often what happens is it’s rather disappointing, they accomplish such great things, and then there’s nothing that goes at that level of creativity and it kind of dies out almost completely or it’s of a lower magnitude.
So this question is then, their genius is never fully realized; they accomplish something that is of a genius, but it was never fully realized within them, so there’s something else that we need for that, because they didn’t continue a life that was comparable to a Beethoven, a Leibniz or a Schiller.
So it comes down again, to what does it require to understand Einstein, which we’re constantly being asked to look into. Does that mean you have to have a degree in the field, or you have to put so many hours into these subjects? Or, is it really something that we have access to universally as a thought experiment or a future potential that everyone has access to, having a significant understanding in, even though it won’t be the same.
So thinking about it from this standpoint, it’s not a matter of going to university, so that you can acquire facts to a point where you’re kind of like in a state of knowledge now; you can say, “I’m officially knowledgeable in this field, now I can move on to something else,” because that’s not what creativity is. That’s not a fixed state; and I think that that’s the problem is that we’ve been robbed, actually. We don’t need to acquire something, but we’re born with something and we need to feed that.
I just wanted to say further, that because of how people are thinking, with how you acquire knowledge, genius becomes an entropic state, is what I wanted to end on.
SARE: Well, genius is not an entropic state.
I’ve been reading some, — unfortunately, they’re fragments of letters of Einstein, but one which was very interesting, but he says: Of course, you need empirical evidence in physics, but the more advanced your theory is, the less you depend on empirical evidence. Which means that it’s the quality of thought; it’s thought within your own mind.
He also wrote an extraordinary short paper on the relationship between society and the individual, because it is the case, and think I think gets to the question of how is genius taught; that if an infant were left to its own devices and didn’t die, probably that infant would not end up becoming a genius. They would be very concerned about where to get food, and maybe they’d learn how to sing or something, but it would be very primitive. If you think about how we live today, there’s absolutely nothing — our food, our clothing, our houses — that we did not depend on someone else to produce. So this is very paradoxical, but man, each individual is a product of society. However, it is the mind of the individual that a creative discovery is made.
And I think, what Mr. LaRouche said to us on the Policy Committee last week, on the question of the discovery that your parents are liars in a child, is very important. Because the idea of conforming, to what your parents think you should think, or society thinks you should think, that’s where genius is killed. And Mr. LaRouche always talks about the example of the child observing the parent having company and the company goes to leave and everybody says, “I’m so glad you came and we should do this again. It was wonderful to see you!” The doors close, and then they say, [nasty] “Did you see what she was wearing?!” And so, you have this insight of the fraud and the lying. And if you decide, you take a decision, to not do that, not be that way, and that is the way that you fight for genius.
Q: Hi. In the process up to the concerts in the Bronx, we have been getting a response which gives an indication of the political effect of our music work. In the Italian neighborhood, we’ve been getting an opening from people who are interested in studying up our Classical culture atmosphere; people who a long time ago, actually had Caruso sing in their back room.
The Spanish communities have been inviting us to their carnivals to announce our concerts; the Muslim community has committed themselves to bringing their youth; and we found out that different community leaders, when we came to them to tell them about the concert, they already knew about it or were committed to coming.
Furthermore, we have been going to offices of different politicians in the area, with “singing telegrams” singing the Alleluia, viva la musica canon, inviting these politicians to our concerts and asking them to circulate the concert invitations, which has inspired them to promote our concerts and participate; and we have even been invited to sing at an event.
The general response is that people see, they look at the situation with the street violence and the terrorism, and they acknowledge that the situation is desperate. And then when we come and present the idea of freedom through beauty they respond very immediately.
So my question is what do you think we will be able to harvest out of this process?
SPEED: When you began talking I was just reminded of something that once happened; I was once in a conversation with Mr. LaRouche, and we were talking about François Rabelais; and for people who know the books Gargantua and Pantagruel, they appear to be these very extended episodes which are very funny; and they seem to be very wild and obscene, and at the same time very insightful. And what he said to me was: Well, you have to understand that this is a book about tragedy. That people, that era of France with Rabelais, we’re talking about the early 16th century, was tragic. It was a society which was dead-ending. And that what he was doing was inventing a language, a capability, something like what Boccaccio and Petrarca did with Italian, and in a different way what Chaucer, and then later Shakespeare, did with English, — a way to allow people to remove themselves from a state of tragedy.
The United States is in a tragic circumstance which a lot of people believe to be predestined effectively now, or inevitable, it’s so closed you can’t do anything about it. The music gives people courage. It connects them to something deeper in their own nature, in which they resonate, because you are allowing them to find a way to place their own voice, you know the voice of their true selves. Now, this comes from some work that was done — John’s here and some others — who 30 years ago, did some work with LaRouche on a Manual on Tuning and Registration, in which the contention was that the performance of Classical music, and the access to Classical culture, had been completely destroyed, or at least had been distorted, because of the arbitrary raising of the pitch and the distortion of the effect and the unity of effect of Classical music.
And this is an essential political war, and what we’re doing in our performances of the Requiem, and the process, the choral process leading up to it, which is even more important, because people are actually involved in participating in trying to sing it and now, now organizing for it, what that does, is it returns people’s voice. Because they know, they can hear the braying and the gnawing and the gnashing of teeth that you get with a Trump or a Hillary or all this other stuff. People are aware of that … but they don’t have a voice!
So, the Manhattan Project is dedicated to this. And we have a few people here, who because of their work, for decades, have a capability that doesn’t exist anywhere, actually, maybe in the world, certainly not in the United States. So I think what’s going to come out of this, is that you’re going to have hundreds of people who will have gone through the process, thousands of people who will hear the performances; and some scores of people, young people in particular, that are going to want to do the same thing. And if you can get that, then you can get the basis to create genius.
Mozart, in particular, in this case, is excellent for this, and John or others may want to say something about it. And the Requiem is going to cause people to remember the crime of 9/11, but in a way which is elevated, they’re elevated above it. They don’t have to be drowned in despair by thinking about it. I think, we were told by one of our organizers in California, a violinist, that she’s coming to the performance; but she’s bringing with her the badge and the shield of a firefighter from California, and she will be wearing this during the performance. He can’t be there, but he wants his badge and his shield there, and he wants that given, to the Brooklyn fire department in particular which lost 23 firefighters.
But the concept is, that this is a Living Memorial, and that the people who are performing are performing not on behalf of the dead — no. They’re performing on behalf of this newly found voice of the American people. That’s what we’re trying to do. We’re introducing a new politics, a new political practice into America; it’s one that Lyn has always insisted on but we now know how to do it. and I think that’s what’s going to come out of this. And I think we’re going to find that manifest in hundreds, if not thousands of people joining our movement from this standpoint. And that’s the beginning of the basis of a cultural Renaissance.
Q: Again, it is good to see the LaRouche movement out in front, not afraid to align itself with the Chinese. For a number of years I engaged in an informal experiment of sorts, where I distributed this paper, the China Daily, some of you might have seen me at an event or a protest with this paper. And after five or six years, I was made to feel like a pariah by the so-called “left” who I began to understand: They’re agents, most of them of Soros. And like Pacifica, WBAI and so forth, and they hated me! They absolutely hated my guts, for distributing China Daily. I’m not trying to say that China’s perfect.
What is your orientation, in terms of the history of the Chinese Communist Party, obviously, there’s this legacy of Maoism, Stalinism, and so forth that the Chinese people themselves — it is not for me to dictate to them, right? But I am fascinated with the fact that you guys have this position. Thank you.
SARE: Well, I think with China, particularly right now, the important thing to look at is Confucius. And Leibniz, who was supposed to be civilizing China, as a missionary, discovered that Confucius had a great many similarities with Christianity, even though Confucius was before Christ. And at one point even said, that perhaps the Chinese should be coming to civilize Europe.
So what you have recently is a direction much more towards Confucianism, as opposed to these labels that people here like to put on things, of Communist and non-Communist and so on. I would also say that it’s an important lesson, because after the Cultural Revolution under Mao which really was devastating, and Helga Zepp-LaRouche was one of the first, if not the first Western journalists, actually during the Cultural Revolution; as she described it, she sneaked into China aboard a freight vessel; and had conversations with people, and it was really devastating.
And if people have seen the film “From Mao to Mozart,” one thing that sticks out in my mind is the interview with a violin teacher, who during the Cultural Revolution was locked in a cell underneath a stairway, where a leaky sewage pipe was dripping on him and he was only taken out to be beaten.
And then, Mao was out, and Deng Xiaoping came back and basically said to himself at the age of 70, “I have 20 years”: And made a commitment to transform the nation through Classical culture and science. I think it’s very important to look at what’s happened to China and I’m by far not the greatest expert in our organization on this., and there are people in this room who know more, but there was a decision made to reverse the depth of what was done to deprive people of the ability to think and be creative. And over two generations, what has occurred in China, in terms of the number of scientists, of Classical musicals, that they would make a decision to graduate 2,000 experts in nuclear fusion because they want to have a program for that.
The United States could turn on a dime. And I think partly why the hostility toward anyone discussing or sharing what’s actually happening in China is the obvious question for American, would be, if a nation that large that had had such an oppression as Mao, could transform itself to be leader, in science, in economics, in cultural optimism, then why in the United States could we not do the same thing, and exceed it, based on certain principles of the American Revolution here?
Q: I was recently pondering this capacity of truth, upon what standard do we use to measure what is true? And in looking at what LaRouche has done, what Einstein has done, what Riemann has done, who is the connection that both Einstein and LaRouche have in common in their ability to forecast the future, is just that: They’ve made the point that when you can both see the future, forecast the future state and then increase your power to act upon that future state, that determines whether your thoughts, your concepts that you generate have truth.
And recently I was reading the writings of Riemann and there was an unpublished note that he made, that early in his life he said that it was only when he read Leibniz’s New Essays on Human Understanding, which as he describes, devastatingly destroyed the theories of John Locke, on the nature of the blank slate between the soul, that he had the concept upon which he was able to then write his three core papers that provided the fruits for what Einstein, Planck, LaRouche did.
And I was wondering, that today, most economists, most scientists have to almost accept the idea that there is no God, there is no soul, upon embarking on their profession. How is it that we could just quickly reaffirm how that is actually a precondition if you’re going to make discoveries, is an idea of what Leibniz had in opposition to Locke, that in fact, we are not a blank slate as Locke contested, but rather that there’s something there to already be stimulated awake and that has something to do with the entirety of creation.
SPEED: Riemann’s four pages, his habilitation dissertation, are four of the most brilliant pages ever written in human history, and he makes it very clear you must, in order to have true science, destroy the domain of mathematics and enter the domain of what he calls physics. But it’s the physics that Einstein invented, and that Lyn has also advanced; of course Lyn talked about how in 1951-52, Lyn was a little bit older, had his own breakthroughs, largely because of his considerations of the work of Bernhard Riemann.
But you mentioned something about Locke and Leibniz, and I’ll only say this: the New Essays on Human Understanding is a very important work because it is one of the most important anti-slavery tracts ever written. Lock was the head of the Royal Africa Company; he was one of the founders of the Royal Africa Company, and was a major proponent and profiteer of the slave trade, which follows from his epistemology.
Leibniz, on the other hand, was one of the core founders of the United States, which follows from his epistemology. And the easiest or greatest direct access people can have, would be to take a look at the habilitation dissertation. Many people know that the youth movement of the LaRouche organization was largely based upon a reading of that, and other works of Kepler and others. This is something we can take up; I think it’s not a bad thing to do that people add this in, since they’re going to be reason Einstein anyway, to take a look at that paper, and people like Phil and others can help people through it. I think that’s enough for us to just reference here, and I think what’s important is to understand that the domain of politics, science and music, is one domain; and economics the effect of that unified domain.
SARE: I think that it doesn’t quite work the way that you’re saying, or thinking about it. and I think the question is the question of the future. And it would be good to re-think it and think from that standpoint. Because it’s not relationships between people who had opposing views. There’s a stronger question, which is the question of the future: Do you know the future? How does one know the future? I’ll leave it at that.
Q: My question is space and time. The point that space is time is wrong, but my opinion [inaudible] and time is exist because spaces are [inaudible] by the observation and time is unique how it can order.
SPEED: This is a musical question.
SARE: Well, actually, Dennis I have another idea. But, did you see the discussion last night from Jason Ross? OK, because he used the example, and this is where Einstein is saying there’s a certain amount of empirical evidence, but the more advanced your theory is, it’s not; Einstein’s experiment were in his mind. And the example used was a train that is struck by lightning at both ends: So the observer who’s looking at the train with lightning striking both ends, sees the lightning strikes as occurring at the same time. The passenger on the train which is moving at a very high speed in a particular direction, perceives that the lightning at the front of the train strikes a little bit before the lightning at the back of the train. So the question is: When? Can you pinpoint when the lightning struck? And I would say it is not absolute.
Q: [follow-up] But light is a different thing. It’s space and time, but light is a different…
SARE: Yeah, but let me ask you this? What time did the lightning strike?
Q: [inaudible] observation this time?
SARE: How do you explain that for one observer it occurred in one instant and for another observer it occurred at two different times?
Q: I observed this time, this is my unique time. And I saw the next one, and the observer next time. But I can’t explain, because of my English.
SARE: I think what Einstein was demonstrating is that the Universe doesn’t work in that way and there’s not such a thing as time that’s chopped up in little pieces and things occur at equidistant points or at points on this line of time. There is something related to cause. And in fact, your mind does not work in this way either. And you’ll see when you think about it.
And the musical — I have many different musical ideas, but I think I’ll leave it at that. But it’s worth reflecting on this example that Einstein used.
SPEED: I think it’s good to leave things at that moment of tension. [laughter] We have one thing more: Lynne?
LYNNE SPEED: On behalf of the Manhattan Project, and I think really the entire U.S. organization, I wish to extend a very, very happy 75th anniversary — not anniversary! — birthday, to our colleague Jacques Cheminade, who heads up the LaRouche movement in France, and is running for President of that country. [applause] There’s a very special connection, because Jacques was actually recruited here in Manhattan as a young diplomat, working at the French Mission, and we met him distributing the newspaper on the streets of Manhattan. And he came to our offices in Manhattan and got recruited to this movement, and went on to head up and really to build our organization in France and helped to build the organization in Europe as a whole.
And so, we want to extend this, really, also in the spirit we will be holding, of course, the concert, the Mozart Requiem memorial concerts very soon over the Sept. 11th four-day period and as you know, we have as the symbol that was chosen by the foundation on the poster for the concerts is the tear-drop 9/11 monument which was given to the United States by Russia, in dedication for the struggle against international terrorism. And this monument stands in parallel with the World Trade Center towers on the one side, and on the other side the Statue of Liberty. And the Statue of Liberty of course, was a donated to the United States by France in the aftermath of the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation. And the idea of that was very much the same idea: Breaking the chains of slavery.
So this is the spirit which we in the United States, in unity with you in France, are fighting today, to end the scourge of terrorism and mental slavery, which afflicts so much the world’s population. And we are fighting, of course, for a true, human creative identity of every person on this planet, and the yet-unborn generations.
So it is in that spirit, that we thank you, Jacques for your 75 years of a gift to us and to all of humanity. And we wish you a very, very happy birthday. [applause]