Open Discussion
with Lyndon LaRouche

At the Schiller Institute-International Caucus of Labor Committees annual Labor Day conference in Reston, Virginia on Sept. 1 and 2, Dr. Stojadin Naumovski, a leader of the Macedonia diaspora in North America, described the pressure being brought to bear on Macedonia, including the fact that it is being invaded by Kosovo Liberation Army terrorists and by NATO, and how NATO is attempting to force it to sign an agreement that would, among other things, impose changes in its Constitution. He asked Lyndon LaRouche what they should do. Mr. LaRouche's answer follows. Subheads have been added.

Question from Macedonian Diaspora

LaRouche: How To Defend Macedonia

The answer has to be a strategic question. Because what you have, is you have an imperial Anglo-American force, which Robertson represents, which is determined to use what remaining military capability exists, to destroy Macedonia, and to continue the bloodshed which has been conducted since 1992 in the Balkans. That's the point.

The purpose is to destroy the entire region. What they will probably do, is—the next thing that they will come up with, with the Simeon in Bulgaria—they will come up with a so-called Greater Bulgaria and Greater Albania, and then they will have a war between those two, now that they have the British royal family in office in Bulgaria. It's obvious. So, the point is, that we have to stop the whole game. And the only way that you can fight the issue is to go at the game.

The American, what used to be called the Special Warfare Division, is operating in the area and has been ever since the Yugoslav war, to build up, based on Albania, a bunch of drug-running, terrorist operations, who are trained as a military operation of the new style, of the special warfare type, which are being deployed! There is no such thing as an Albanian army! There is a U.S./British-backed operation. The United States is running the dirty part of the operation, inside the Albanian operation, and the British are running the cover operation from the standpoint of the overall operation inside Macedonia.

First, if you don't say that, if you don't describe the issue, which we try to do with our publications. And we should do more of this, because we are the only ones who are going to do it. Maybe some friends of Macedonia will do it, but we have to take the lead, and get this thing going. Because what we have to do, is to say: "This must stop!"

Now, Germany is very upset about this. You get this crazy thing with Rudolf Scharping—or Grau-Scharping, since he married. But, Germany is very divided on this issue, of putting German troops into that area, partly because it's a hopeless situtation, it's a worthless situation, and they don't want it. And they don't have any money to do it anyway.

As a joke, I told them in Europe, about Scharping: They turned around and said, "You've got to put German units into Macedonia." He said, "We don't have any money." So they came up with a solution. They got one naked Bundeswehr soldier, who was sent to infiltrate an Albanian nudist camp, where he picked up all the heavy weapons and uniforms that they needed—probably of U.S. manufacture!

Europe, Continental Europe, doesn't want this thing!

Now, you also have to take another element of the context into view: that we are now having in Washington, D.C. the fourth stage, or the fourth phase of new international terrorism.

The first phase was the 1960s, 1968, with the terrorist groups related to that, we had the crazy Weathermen group, which were not too serious, and other groups here in the United States. Europe was the center of it. You had the terrorism in Italy, and especially in Germany, with what became known as the Baader-Meinhof Gang. This stuff developed in the 1970s, and in the mid-1970s you had the second wave. It started from France, in about '74 or '75, in a big way in France around the so-called nuclear energy issue. This was the Baader Meinhof Gang, the second phase of that. This was spread into Italy, with the terrorist waves in Italy of the 1970s, which complemented those in France and in Germany. Then in the 1980s, you had the third wave of terrorism, especially concentrated in Germany, at Wackersdorf [nuclear reprocessing plan] and so forth, where you had full-scale irregular warfare, deployed as full-scale warfare. It was deployed there.

Now, in Seattle, we had a terrorist deployment, and this was a full-scale terrorist deployment. If you understand terrorism as special warfare, this was a terrorist, special warfare, full-scale deployment, based out of Canada into Seattle. Then they went through a second phase. The second phase was a meeting in Pôrto Alegre, Brazil, headed by Teddy Goldsmith, an old British intelligence hand. The third phase was a murderous riot in Genoa, Italy. The fourth phase is the biggest of all, so far, a planned terrorist upheaval in Washington, D.C., which is now being deployed from centers in Virginia and Maryland. In other words, they have groups of terrorists that are sitting in Virginia and Maryland, including Loudoun County, [Virginia], from which they are to be deployed into Washington, D.C. to do dirty work.

There is, visibly, no centralized capability of the type needed to deal with that kind of threat, from an intelligence standpoint, an organization. This group in Washington is tied to known terrorist organizations. These are not simply successor generations; there is an unbroken continuity of cadre connections among all successive generations. This interfaces the kind of Hell that is being stoked by the Israeli terror operations in the Middle East. This is being stoked and directed largely by the ETA, the Basque terrorist organization, which is one of the keys in the whole operation. And I could go through a long list of things that I know about this other stuff.

You have to look at what is being done in the Balkans, and what is being done in the Middle East in that context. Now, this is not a spontaneous terrorist organization. This is an international, strategic deployment of irregular warfare to destabilize civilization, with the intent of preventing the financial crisis from becoming the mobilization for a New Bretton Woods—which it would tend to be. Governments are bankrupt; they tend to want to survive. When nations agree and cooperate to survive, they will tend to go in that direction. That's what this is. This is what it was from the beginning.

Remember: Go back to 1989, when the Wall came down in Germany—even before the Wall came down—the Thatcher government in Britain said, "Kill 'em! Germany must never be reunified. Germany must be crushed, right now!" [President of France François] Mitterrand agreed. He said, "We will crush Germany, provided that you let us steal from the corpse." [U.S. Ambassador to Germany] Vernon Walters said no, and the U.S. government agreed, so they made a compromise, as I have described before.

As I've said before, Desert Storm and the Balkan War were organized, to do what? To prevent the reunification of Continental Europe in economic development, based on the collapse of the Wall. That operation has continued until the present day, and the same operation is now being escalated, as in Macedonia, as a continuation of that process. Who runs this? NATO. This is strategic warfare!

You hear this insane stuff about Donald Rumsfeld and the U.S. military. What is Rumsfeld doing? He is shutting down the U.S. military. Why is he shutting it down? Because the kind of warfare that they intend to use, is of a different variety: It is irregular warfare. Now look, we know, and I know from 1967 at least, that the deployment of terrorism into Italy, by what became the 1970s terrorism, the so-called Compass Plot, the bombing of the Bologna [railway] station, all of these other things in Rome that happened there as terrorist operations, these were run through NATO.

They were run through an operation that was originally set up with the United States government, as a "stay-behind operation," in case of a Communist takeover of Italy. The stay-behind operation, which had been sitting in place for a period of approximately 20 years, was suddenly activated, to become an active operation. The resources of this stay-behind network, suddenly reactivated from sitting in the scenes, was the basis for organizing the terrorist movement in Italy. And it was run out of NATO! As this new type of warfare. And that's the way that this thing functions.

Now, if we are not able to say that, you don't have a chance of winning the war. You have to be able to tell the truth! You can't say, "Resist evil." As I said yesterday, in terms of strategic defense, the principle of strategy—in terms of military, or quasi-military conflict, the principle of strategy is strategic defense, as strategic defense was devised by Vauban, for military policy. As strategic defense was defined by Lazare Carnot, for French policy, on the basis of the work of Vauban—because of a change in artillery, which changed the rules of the game, relative to Vauban's period. As it was defined by Scharnhorst in Germany, and so forth; the principle of strategic defense.

Now, to have strategic defense, you have to get the enemy coming at you where you want him. To do that, you have to have a plan, as all plans of strategic defense, based on the truth. You cannot say, we have a problem with [NATO Secretary General Lord George] Robertson, that's not the problem. The problem is that the active forces are coming from the United States, in part, through the Special Forces type of operation, running behind what was set up in Albania. This is where the attack comes from. So, now the British come in and say with the Americans, "Okay, you've got to concede to these invaders." Yes, you have some people of Albanian extraction living in Macedonia, but that's normal, that's been going on for a long time. Why make a war about it now? These are invading forces who are stirring the whole thing up, by well-known methods.

So, therefore, we have to have a policy in which we trap them. How? By catching them and exposing them for what they are. The game is to bring down some governments. By exposing them in such a way as to bring them down. To create crises in the governments which are responsible for this. That's how you deal with that kind of invasion. You don't have the military forces to stop them. You may find that you have to fight anyway. But if you don't have the military forces to win, you've got to outflank them, with strategic defense. You've got to aim to create the pressure on the governments, which are complicit in the operation, to make this thing so painful to them that they withdraw. It is the only chance we have. And the financial crisis, the economic crisis, is an integral part of the operation.

That's my general strategic approach to the thing. There are, of course, other details, that are not necessary to discuss, but that's the point.

[Note: The bulk of the following is not edited or proofed.]

ABE CRISTY [ph]: I'm Abe Cristy [ph] from Crabtree, Oregon, and, for one thing, I left you a book, up there, with the Schiller bookstore, out in the hall. I'd like you to look at it, and see if there's some way you can help us promote that. It's about people losing their children and their property in Oregon, due to crooked courts, in Oregon. I'm not asking you to endorse it; just look at it, and see if you can get the Ben Franklin bookstore, or whatever, to carry it....

What I wanted to discuss here, if somebody wants to meet me later today, and brainstorm about some ideas to put on tee-shirts, and stuff. What I'd like to do, is see more people put this stuff on tee-shirts and sweatshirts, be a billboard for the LaRouche cause, here. Because this works, and you want to say something that will bait the public, and get them to ask you a question. Once they take the hook, well, then you got 'em. You can start discussing something. And, another technique would be to use personal ads, something like: "Unemployed? Survivors will join the real economy"; or, "Would you save 1 billion innocent lives?" Kinda catchy.

Then, another thing that's been working for me—I've been to the Lin County [ph] Democratic Central Committee several times now, and told them why Al Gore lost the election. Because he's thief. And I think I'm making some believers there. Also, let's get together and brainstorm. I gave you the nine tee-shirts, which the Schiller bookstore sold for $20 each; so, that's my donation for this month.

Thank you for your attention.

WESLEY ERWIN [ph]: Hi Lyn, I'm Wesley Erwin [ph] from Seattle. My question is: True spirituality communicating with God can only be achieve through a centeredness in self, an inner peace, an inner security. And, I feel the greatest hindrance in our becoming great organizers and leaders is in this area. I mean, that if one does not have a personal, spiritual awareness where they stand with God in the universe, then real mental clarity is not possible. And, if you're not centered within yourself, and do not have clarity in your own mind, you can not possibly accurately read what is going on in someone else's—thus making your organizing ineffective and leadership skills obsolete.

So, I'm wondering what your method for finding you spiritual clarity—you know, how you get in touch with the Divine—is? And also, what method you would suggest in transforming our organizers into spiritual leaders?

LAROUCHE: Actually, I should clarify, perhaps, but I've answered the question many times. There is no such thing as a distinctly religious way of approaching that question. The only reason it comes up, is because we live in a society, which is backward, petty, and where people are so occupied with the here and now—so occupied with the opinions of their neighbors, and things like that—that they can't think clearly, and they lack the motivation of a great leader. The term "Divine" can not be separated from the proper understanding of the term "Sublime," as Helga, I'm sure, referred to it today. It's the same thing.

The Sublime is simply this. It's what we were talking about this afternoon, with a group of young people, who are working. You have a society as systemically sick, as this society is. The sickness is not only in the economic system, it's a system, which is self-doomed, in its present form. Nothing can protect or save this system in its present form. It just can't be done. This is not only true of economic policy, this is also true of personal policy. People live terrible lives. They live in the here and now. They live in small: They talk about "my community"; they talk about "my family interests"; they talk about "my experience"; they talk about "my interests." They're not sublime. That's a systemically sick society.

The true Sublime, the true personality is known by the great heroes of history, as the example. The hero is a person, who, faced with a systemic crisis of his society, in the first instance, is capable of putting his life, and much more, at personal risk, not for the pleasure of putting his life at risk, but to give his life meaning.

See, if you go through life, and you get a lot of money, you have a lot of pleasure, you have all these other gratifications, you never violate the single-issue commandments, you are, as the Apostlel Paul says in I Corinthians 13, "nothing." And, when you die, nothing ends. [applause] However, if you, in your own way, with your own sense of what the mission is, that is given to you, because of what position you occupy, who you are, and the problems before you; if you are capable of acting in that way, and in proportion, as Paul describes this as agape in I Corinthians 13—as also is described by Plato, as agape out of the mouth of Socrates, in The Republic, especially the second book—this conception of man, this is what the Sublime is; this is what the Divine is.

Anything else is not!

The problem we have in this country is, religious nuts running around being inspired. Inspired by the idea that if the Battle of Armageddon should break out tomorrow, they won't have to pay next month's rent. That's their religiosity. That of Pat Robertson, or Falwell, or the current Attorney General of the United States. That's their passion! That's their religion! It's a cult, an evil cult. And, often, in the United States, little people, in order to avoid facing the reality of the worthlessness of the lives they're living!—where nothing ends, at the end—invent religions, to conform to the delusion of the corrupt way in which they're living. They say, "Therefore, you gotta get with Jesus." Well, that's not Christianity. That's the Jonathan Edwards school, on which you'll hear something tonight, from Stanley Ezrol.

See, we are human, as I said yesterday. We are human. What does it mean to be human? We are distinct from the animals. Why? How? How do we know that? Through cognition. We are capable, as no animal can, of re-enacting in our own mind, discoveries of principle, such as those of Archimedes, 2,300 years ago, now. We're capable of reliving that thought, not as something, words, learned. Not as a formula, learned. But, reliving the experience—from paradox to solution and verification—the mental experience that transpired in the cognitive processes of Archimedes 2,300 years ago. That's what makes us human. When we have a memory—if you really study, rather than learning—if you have a memory of the actual thoughts which passed through the mind of somebody who died centuries, or longer ago, then that person lives in your mind. That is, the living process that is your mind, is capable of reawakening and bringing forth, exactly what occurred in the mind of that discoverer, of a great principle a long time ago.

In the same way, the great dramatist, the great Classical dramatists present real history, or legendary history, on a stage, with precise, accurate, historical specificity. For example, in military training, the senior officers are trained by doing what? By reliving, in the specificity of the times they occurred, the great events of military history, and history in general. Therefore, they are, in a sense, reliving and recapturing, the qualities of the mind—as, for example, Lazare Carnot captured the mind of Vauban. And, if you go to the parts in France, such as, I went to Neuf-Presac [ph], and you can stand there, and with the help of Lazare Carnot's work, you can understand exactly what you're looking at. You can see the thoughts passing though the mind of Vauban, as he designed this fortress, which the Austro-Hungarians never dared try to pass.

So, in many ways: On the Classical stage, in history, military history—other ways—science, we are capable of reliving the actual ideas, that developed in the mind of someone who is long deceased. Thus, their mind, in that degree and in that form, lives within ours. The educated, cultivated mind, is a person who has many such personalities, living presently, resident, in his mind. In the same sense, as I've described it often, that Raphael Sanzio, in his School of Athens mural, portrays actual characters (including himself), in that portait, in that image. These are people, most of whom had lived in somewhat different chronological times, but who interacted in terms of ideas.

Therefore, if you are an educated person, you have the minds of many historical figures, and others, living in your mind. If you have a great teacher, in school (that's a very rare experience these days, but we did have a few of these around, when I was younger), then the image of the great teacher, teaching, if it's cognitive, lives in your mind, with that teacher. Your relationship to Archimedes, is like that of a relationship to a teacher, who has put you through the experience of acting out the act of discovery, which they are presenting to you.

Therefore, in this way, what? What is divinity? What is the Sublime? If our relationship to humanity, is in those terms: If we see humanity, in terms of a sea of faces, of cognitive discoveries, of children learning, in the sense of cognition, developing: If we see the history of man, unfolding in these terms; if we see the ideas, on which we depend today, that we've acquired in that fashion; and, if we look forward to the future, and, first of all, we're concerned that the future shall exist—we're concerned that we do for the future, what the best of the past have done for us; then, you look at your life as a brief passage, between birth and death. A very brief time. The processes of history unfold over generations, sometimes over centuries. If you want to understand history, you have to think in terms of centuries. If you want to understand European civilization, you have to think of it in its globally extended form. You have to think of its development, from its foundation and roots in ancient Classical Greece. You have to think of the planet, historically, in the sam way. You think of mankind—you're a part of mankind—you absorb mankind, in what you re-create in yourself.

You act with that as your conscience. You look to the present, and the future, that comes out of the present, and you say, "Therefore, with the task before me, I must act so."

Now, this has a very precise theological significance. In the realm of idea, chronological clock time does not exist. Sequence exists. The sequence is the sequence of cognitive ideas, that is, ideas of universal principle. The only thing that happens is, one principle is essential, as the prelude to the discovery of another. That is the sense of time. For example, a great composer and a great performer, in music, composes a poem, or a piece of Classical music, as if at an instant. No performer performs notes by notes, as I would have wanted to warn our dear friend, Leah, last night: Always, before you perform a score of music, make sure there are no mouse tracks on the score, which you play as notes. You don't play note by note: You play the composition from beginning to end, with a certain attack, knowing the end before you get to the beginning; and neither the end, nor the beginning, are the composition. It's the process, which unites the one, as if in a single act of thought. You don't know a musical composition, unless you know it as a single act of thought. For example, the Brahms Fourth Symphony: You don't know it, unless you know it, as a single act of thought. Otherwise, you shouldn't try to conduct: You'll create a disaster.

The same thing is true with great Classical poetry: Single act of thought. And the function of great Classical art, is to help your mind understand that about history. You have to think about history, in terms of single acts of thought, the processes unfolding; and think about what you're doing, to shape that process. Find your indispensable role in that process, and play it out, at whatever risk it takes. Because, if you die in the process of fulfilling your mission, you shall live in history. If you avoid your mission, for the sake of perpetuating your life, you will lose it. To save your life, you could lose. Not that you should die: I don't recommend it to anyone (a few people, I might be tempted. [laughter] Maybe they should just go away, and hide. Don't imprison them. Just tell them to go away and hide.)

So, that's the point. It's the sense of that, that leads to something else: Is the Christians, in particular, think of the individual, think of the idea of immortality, as it was defined, for example, by Socrates in the Phaedo; as it was described, in the treatment of that, under the Phaedon title, in German, by Moses Mendelssohn—the immortality of the soul, as taken up by Plato and Socrates; as taken up again, the same, exact subject, by Moses Mendelssohn—the immortality of the soul. What is the immortality of the soul? If I act now, as a cognitive being, I represent the history before me, embodied in me, when I represent what I transmit from that, with my contributions to the future; therefore, wherever man exists—past, present, future—I exist, and that is the immortality of the soul.

That is the divinity sense of divinity. That is the sense of the Sublime.

But, to do that, to get that sense of the Sublime, you have to do a certain amount of work. You have to develop that view of mankind in yourself. If you think of man as the Empiricists teach, or otherwise, you'll never get it. All great people in history, sometimes flawed people, have some sense of that. All of the true great heroes of history, have precisely that sense. And, what is needed, right now, is a few big heroes, of course, but a lot of little ones.

BILL FERGUSON: I've been running this campaign for Congress up in the Boston area, and it's the most fun I've had in a long time—going along with what you said yesterday, about having fun. I have three things, I wanted to bring up.

Number one: I think, following what Helga said this morning, somebody should get me the lyrics to Que Sera Sera, so we can put that together as a song. [laughter]

Second: I've been in about 11 public debates, as a candidate, and in the next three days, or four days, there's going to be about 14 more. It's been a big opportunity to get the LaRouche program out, and freak out a lot of people in the media. Just keep repeating, "LaRouche was right, and you don't know what you're talking about," over and over again, and hammering away at the issue of the Depression.

I wanted to get your authorization, though, for a certain answer, because the first set of debates that didn't include me, were televised. And, these ones—they're terrible, because the questioners don't want any bit of reality to come out, and they ask really stupid questions, like about gay rights, and abortion, and nothing about the economy, whatsoever. In one of these debates, they asked a question: Since the organizers of the St. Patrick's Day parade in South Boston don't allow homosexuals to march, would you, as Congressman, march in that parade, if you were invited, or would you stay out, in protest. Now, I think this is going to come up, or something in this realm, 'cause there's a lot of nice people in Boston, who are into this sort of thing. My response to that would be, that, certainly I would march in the St. Patrick's Day parade. In fact, I would ride upon a very large float, wearing a bright green kilt and the float would say, "LaRouche Says: 'The only Queen you should beat up, is the Queen of England."' [laughter, applause] Do I have authorization for that? Will that work?

LAROUCHE: Well, I don't—that's kind of interesting. Let me think about that. I think there are certain circumstances, in which it's appropriate. But under some circumstances, you will not get any reaction you'd want at all. What you want to do, is: Probably a little more insidious, would be more effective. Like, you know, "Well, you know, the only Queen I would think of beating up offhand—but she's already dead—Victoria."

FERGUSON: Okay. Now, the third thing, I wanted to bring up, and others may have comments on this: I think that, to expand the outreach, and rebuild the newspaper, and get the campaign into high gear, is that we should have candidates for every single Congressional race next year, and any other races that we should get into. I don't know what you think about that. Now, there are some other people that want to talk on this. I want to respectfully yield the floor, to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, who may have more to say about it!

ELLIOT GREENSPAN: It was a gubernatorial campaign! [Ferguson: No, Senator!]

Well, that may be next! We'll see what Lyn says.

No, also, on the serious theme, from yesterday, the most fun I've had since the New Jersey region made quota [laughter], was my campaign. But, you said, Lyn, I think recently, that we're closer to winning, in your estimation, than we were in '83. That I'd like you to elaborate a bit on. But, one character of the '83 period, was a mass candidates movement in the United States. And, it seems to me, apropos to your theme of yesterday, that all these fun people here, should have the opportunity to have a lot of fun in the Congressional races of next year. So, again, on that question: What your thoughts are about such a mass candidates movement.

LAROUCHE: First of all, this situation can not be dealt with as the '83 situation. What you're faced with, in the United States, in particular, and also in Western Europe—this is going to be a bit long, in the answer—but, it's a very important question of policy, and involves some concepts which have to be clarified, right now.

I do not believe in running candidates en masse, in order to run individual campaigns, each with their own issues. I don't believe in it. It's totally counterproductive. I'm running a campaign. Bill is doing exactly the right thing, in Boston. I think some of the other proposed campaigns, either by intention or practice, have the wrong focus. They are parallel candidacy campaigns, which are tied to mine, but they don't have the right focus.

Why?

You have to recognize the reality of the psychological situation, globally: We are in the worst systemic crisis of all modern history. There's nothing to compare, in European experience, with the present crisis, as it's now in the process of unfolding, in all modern history since the Fourteenth Century New Dark Age. If we do not succeed, in our mission, the population of this planet would very rapidly drop to less than 1 billion people. It's inevitable. If you look at the actual figures, if you look at what it takes to sustain populations, if you look at the collapse of infrastructure; if you look at all the inevitable things, that are out there, that are cranking out, if present policies are continued: We are on the verge of, first of all, if there's not a New Bretton Woods exactly as I prescribe it, you can forget this planet! Suppose that the ideas of Volcker, and Rohaytn, and other pigs—they're not edible, but they're pigs—if they were to prevail, with their fake new Bretton Woods, with their compromise; and, if we go into the crisis that is going to occur, under those conditions in which their hegemony is considered the only alternative, then I can guarantee you: The chain reaction of financial and other collapse, around this planet, will plunge the planet, very soon, into a prolonged New Dark Age. Mass death, in the United States, and elsewhere, simply because of so-called environmental conditions, caused by the collapse.

We no longer have the conditions, we had in the 1930s! We had farmers out there! We had shops, that still existed, that were on the verge of bankrtupcy. We had some infrastructure. We have lost that in the past thirty-five years.

We no longer have the ability to feed our own people! We switched, you know? to so-called emerging markets, didn't we? which are now collapsing. We no longer produce our own products. We switched to NAFTA and outsourcing. We no longer have engineering departments. The idea of the United States making a new missile is ridiculous. Who's going to build it? What idiot is going to try to put it together? We've substituted design engineering with "benchmarking," at-the-blackboard incompetence. We don't have the competence, under the present structure, to salvage a mechanism of survival, of the kind of crisis we face, unfolding at this point. It's in the process—exactly what date, when it's be reached is irrelevant! It's going to happen—unless we change it.

So, therefore, we have also, some other conditions: You have only three governments and cultures on this planet, which are capable of addressing a global problem of this type. I'm talking about cultures, national cultures: The British monarchy thinks it runs the world, or should. And in the British establishment, there are people they should run the world. They're wrong, but they think that. The United States has never been conquered or defeated in its own [self-image?inaudible] We're an unconquered people. We think we're top dog in the world. We think globally. We think about how everybody, in every nook and cranny, in every corner of the world, ought to live and behave! And modern Russia, since the Fifteenth Century, does not consider itself a crushed nation. It has become a Eurasian nation; it has a sense of national identity, which is capable of making global decisions, about global matters.

You have powerful nations, like China—powerful as nations, not necessarily the richest in the world, per capita—which also have a sense of mission, but their mission is not how the world should be run, it's how the world should treat and cooperate with China. So, they don't think in terms of moral, global responsibility, for everybody on the planet; they think about China should be treated.

Of course, there are people in China who think globally: But it's not the nature of the Chinese cultural system.

India does not think globally: It's not the nature of the system.

Only three cultures on this planet think globally—and one of them is damn evil: the British monarchy.

So, therefore, if something is going to happen, what's the problem? Well, Europeans have been many times, occupied. Wars—there's not a single country in Western or Central Europe which thinks itself capable of making a global decision. The only qualified exception to that in Western Europe, is Italy! And, Italy, partly because of the Vatican—Italian politicians, you will find, on the record, are much more thoughtful than politicians in the rest of Europe, or the United States, combined! Myself excepted. That's the situation.

Now, if we're going to change a global system, which is what we have to do—otherwise, New Dark Age; we're already there. Don't say, "Well, couldn't we get by, with...?" You've already spent your reserves. You either make the decision now, or you go under! It's that simple.

Therefore, a few other nations, such as those of Europe; the people of Africa have no power whatsoever, on a planetary basis; the people of South and Central America have no power, on a planetary basis—they couldn't save themselves, no matter what policy they adopted! So, don't look for something from there. It won't happen. Don't look for solutions from Africa: The Egyptians are very smart, but Africa is not a continent with resources to make global decisions-and, it does not think globally! It thinks, it's Africa in the world. Not globally.

Where's the solution going to come from? As I proposed, with this three-way operation, which was carried out initially by Primakov—among Russia, China, and India: Around that combination, you could pull together a large group of nations, which, then, together would be capable of doing what most of them could never do individually, or in small groups. That is, actually make global decisions.

Now, the decisions they would make, would have to be fairly elementary ones. If you know the mental condition of the politicians and the populations of Western Europe, the United States, and so forth, as I know them, I would never give them excessively challenging intellectual problems to resolve. They're not capable emotionally or intellectually of doing it. You must reduce this to some very elementary questions:

Question number one: The system that the U.S. was operating under, as an international monetary system, between 1945 and 1963, and slightly beyond, worked! It was successful. It maintained net economic growth, and net improvement in the conditions of life of people—physical conditions of life. Intellectual conditions, that's another question.

The system which has existed, since 1966-67, especially since 1971, is not capable or fit to survive.

Therefore, the first, simple decision, is that: We have to go back to what worked, in place of what didn't work. Only this time, we have to do what Roosevelt intended, not what Truman and his successors intended. That means, we have to bring the world together, as a group of nation-states, in the sense of a community of principle, as John Quincy Adams defined a community of principle. And, say, "Okay, everybody has their sovereignty. We, as sovereign nations, can not function individually, as sovereign, without certain agreements among us. So, let us make these agreements."

This is a New Bretton Woods: We go back to what worked, and say, "This worked. Wouldn't it be better, if we had all done it, together, from the start—and stuck to it—rather than the mess we have now?" A simple decision: Either people can make that decision, and accept that, or this planet is not going to make it! It's take or leave it; and leave it, is bad—believe me—very bad.

Secondly: How are we going to get a recovery organized, on this basis, of such a system—. I mean, you have a system that works: You've got the machinery, but what's going to power it? What's going to turn the wheels? Well, we have to have a big investment program. Ah! Where's the money going to come from? We don't need money—we can print it; we don't even do it; we don't need it. All the money's going to go out anyway—most of it. Most of the money, people think they have, is going to become pretty much worthless very soon. And, nothing can be done about that. We're going to write hundreds of trillions of dollars of claims—of financial claims—on this planet from the books! They've got to be wiped out: They can never be paid. So, we're not going to pay them! We're going to cancel them—in order to have a viable system, that works. But, how're we going to power it? How are we going to get the credit? Well, we do it through governments. "Ah! Governments?! Does that mean, you're gonna repeal George W. Bush?" Of course! And, also Al Gore, too. Remember?

So, therefore, what you have to do, is, you simply have to say, "We're going back to, again, a proven principle! What made the United States powerful?" What made the United States powerful, was the idea of national banking. Sometimes, we had national banking, and, at other times, when we succeeded, we used an approximation of national banking. That is, the government, itself, under its sovereign capacity, set up national banking, in one form or another. The government, with its sovereign powers, created credit, some of which it monetized, in the form of a currency. The credit was like store credit—the credit to buy on credit, not the loan of money, but the credit to buy. Then, you extend this credit, for what are considered legitimate projects, and viable projects, on the long term. Most of your investment, will go, immediately, into long-term infrastructure developments. This will be accompanied by, a general promotion of scientific and technological progress. And, as rapidly as possible, the development of industries, not so much of a stock-corporation form, as of an entrepreneurial form—which I'll just explain. This all goes together in one thing, on the question of the election campaign.

On that basis, we, then, will take the areas of the world, within countries and among countries, which can generate high technology for infrastructure and for other purposes. We will get a main flow, of capital goods—technology—from countries which can produce it, to countries which need it. Now, in terms of infrastructure, your investment cycle, for extension of credit, is approximately a quarter-century, twenty-five years—otherwise, it doesn't work—to rebuild what we call the Eurasian Land-Bridge: Even to get it functioning, is a twenty-five-year investment. (You've got that [slide], Claude, of the Land-Bridge, which I was going to do, yesterday?)

To get this project going, is basically a twenty-five-year capitalization of credit, before it could become self-paying. So, therefore, you have to have the extension of—. All right [EALB map is shown], to build this system, with all these lines, as indicated, to do the large-scale water projects—take the area, particularly, of Central and North Asia; going from Central Asia, up to the tundra area of Russia. Include such projects as the rail line project, going through the Alaska straits, the Bering Straits, into the American hemisphere. Include the thing that's noted on there, into Sakhalin—the Russian-Japan project, which integrates Japan, that way. Look at the transformation, across the Land-Bridge: A fundamental change, in the nature of world trade, from a domination by maritime trade, to a domination by transport and development through the interior of continental land-masses.

So, through that mechanism, we have to build that infrastructure. To get that working, before it can begin to carry itself, is going to take us about twenty-five years, in terms of long-term credit extension, capitalized at 1%,2%, or less, over a twenty-five-year period.

Who can can do that? What bank, what private investor are you going to go to, to do that? You're talking about the biggest infrastructure project ever conceived by man! as a unified project. What private investor, in this bankrupt age, is even going to begin to think about that? None!

So, therefore, if you're not dealing—as you can see the point I'm getting to—if you're not dealing with that issue, in particular, you're getting no place!

So, therefore, you require two things: You require, first, (three things, actually); but, first: You require a New Bretton Woods agreement. That, simple-minded people, today, can understand. Go back to something that worked, instead of something that has been a terrible failure. Second: We must have a program, which is going to revive the world physical economy, to get people back to work, to get things going again. Third: Give the level of the world population, running towards 6 billion people on this planet, we can not maintain that population indefinitely, on the basis of present technology. The Land-Bridge project will help greatly; will increase greatly the area of usable land-area and resources available to support people. It will probably increase the potential to 20 to 30, or 40%—just by that alone. That will solve a big problem; but, temporarily.

We've got to go beyond that. We've got to go to new technologies, beyond that—new physical principles, beyond what are presently in use, or even known. But, we know they exist, and we know we can develop them.

So, therefore, as I said yesterday, we have to transform the economies of the world, to science-driver economies, which are centered upon a new conception of the role of the university as a science-driver for economies. These three things: For man to master nature, man must master to new technologies. Therefore, you require a science-driver program, which the education of people, going up to the universities, into the research functions, must be coordinated with the machine-tool functions, and with the industrial production. On that basis, we can make the transformation in man's potential population-density, which can solve the problems, to be faced for the remainder of this century! Of this young century!

Those are the three things, we must do.

Now, if you're going to run a campaign, in East Podunk, or anyplace else, and if you're not going to say that—don't run!

On the other hand, don't be a practical politician. Practical politicians are dead politicians—not because they're dead in a biological sense, but they're dead from the neck on up. The politicians, whom you try to placate, and influence, are the ones who created the mess! Don't go back to the prostitute that gave you the syphilis!

You have to revolutionize the way they think! You have to make a true revolution! By revolutionizing the way the people of the United States, in particular, think! You have to challenge and nullify their false assumptions, not try to find debaters' points on which you can win them over. Don't try to win them over: Transform them! It can be done: Bill was doing it, in Boston, with his campaign. What Elliot did, with the gubernatorial campaign—he was very honest with the voters. We discussed it—he was honest. He didn't promise or plead for anything, in any kind of impotent way. He said, "I'm not going to win, but this is a terrible situation, and I've got to step in, as a candidate, to put some life in this process. Otherwise, we're doomed." It was very successful, as these things go, with what he had to work with. It was a good campaign. I would repeat that kind of thing, anywhere.

But, even better, is what Bill has done in Boston: Bill has done, what some of our people are unwilling to do. And, when people are talking about campaigns, they're not talking about the kind of campaign that Bill is running, which makes sense, and which corresponds and dovetails with exactly what I've said, just now. So, I wouldn't want to run any of those campaigns: It's a waste of money and efforts, that we need to put into something else. However, at the same time, I would say, we need the broadest amount of campaigning, we can get.

So, there's the problem: You've got to turn our semi-deadheads, among us, who would like to run a campaign, which is a so-called traditional oppositional campaign, to try to break in, into giving orders to these damn parties! And, to the people behind them.

You see, we're in a period—one final point on this thing: You have to understand the period we're in, psychologically. We're in the period of the great denial. This system is finished. Those who thought I was exaggerated, are really embarrassed, today. But, some of them will still deny it. They'll still insist on that. The system is finished. People are denying it: Why? Because they're intellectually cowards. A person, who denies that this is a depression, is either a fanatic, or an intellectual coward, who's afraid—. "Look, people have jobs! Don't tell me—. I can not accept the idea—."

"This system is going to go down!"

"Look, I got a family to worry about. I've got a business. If that goes under, I lose my job! My family'll be in trouble. Don't tell me this thing—. I refuse—. I deny that this is going—. You are exaggerating! No! It's not going to happen! You're wrong! It's not going to happen! It's not going to happen! You're wrong! You're wrong!!"

Because, they're not rational. They're saying it, because they're in a state of denial. They can not face the reality, that it's staring at them.

It's like in military science, you have two problems, in the field: You have the guy who immediately goes into a comfortable fox-hole, in which his suffering ends, when somebody drops a hand grenade in the fox-hole. The other guy, who runs to safety, by flight-forward—get it over with! Well, he goes the way he goes. So, your tendency now, is to get, either the fox-hole mentality, or the flight-foward mentality, among people who are in a state of denial.

You're at a point, which interesects this Washington demonstration, coming up this month. At a point, extremely dangerous point—you're at a point which is ripe for international terrorism, the fourth generation since the 1960s, beyond anything you've imagined. You're at a point, that a demonstration of that type in Washington, if not controlled, can bring the United States government into a state of disintegration. And, you don't want that; even a Bush government. The implications are beyond belief. If the United States government is so humiliated, in its own mind, that it can't function, the spectacle of a Bush Administration, cowering in terror, in front of terrorists running in the street—or else going beserk, and getting some people in to do some mass killing. That's the kind of problem we face.

So, in this state of affairs, you don't try to educate people, slowly. When you have a mob of people in a theater, which is suddenly on fire—what do you do? Do you try to educate them? Do you pass out pamphlets? Do you announce that you're going to run an election campaign? Or, do you simply give them, a clear, comprehensible instruction, "Calm down. Here's the way. Walk slowly out. We'll get out this way." And lead them! You're in that kind of situation with the U.S. population. Don't just shout, "Fire!" They'll go beserk. Don't say, "Sit. It'll be all right." "No—this smoke is just exaggerating." Don't do that.

So, at this point, what people in this kind of crisis require—as in a combat situation—what they require is: very clear, accurate, reliable leadership. Make sure that you know that what you're about to say, is right. Make sure, you can back it up, if challenged. And, say it; and say it, clearly; and act, in accordance with what you're saying.

To deal with the population in the psychotic state, or quasi-psychotic state, this U.S. population, in particular, is sliding into—you must lead it that way. So, don't be afraid of my name. Bring it up, everwhere! Somebody doesn't like it, that's good.

I can tell you that, because I know what I'm doing! And, therefore, let's do it! And, that's what I mean, by the campaign. Either do it that way, or don't waste your time on a campaign. A campaign that is not going to do that, should be forgotten, and discontinued.

TYRONE HARRIS: I would like to present, one of the piece of the Constitution of the United States: the 13th Amendment. I should have it on screen, may I? A lot of people read this, and a lot of them didn't understand it very well—I question myself—I'm going to read it. "The Constitution of the United States, Amendment 13: Section 1: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, wherefore a body shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or anyplace subject to their jurisdictions. Section 2: Congress shall have powers to enforce this article, by appropriate legislation."

What this tells me, is that, slavery is still on the books, and it still exists. Where they're saying that it exists within the prison system. And, from what I've seen, that the people in the prison are suffering more than we free people may care to know. They're being arbitrarily governed in the prison, and they're being violated by their human rights. They're being locked up in isolation, for not cutting their hair; because the officer don't like them. Things like that. That should be—we should publish more about that, and we should check it out.

The job of slavery has not been finished, if it's still on the books? You all agree with that? I'm asking the audience. It's still on the books. I'm not a speaker, or anything, but I have people to back up what I'm saying, to further represent this paperwork. What it is, it's a Constitutional law, and it goes to the police department, or the police acting as slave-masters, and treating the citizens as their slaves.

I'm from Newport News, and recently one of the women, she was shot down, and she didn't have no gun, and they say that she used a car as a weapon, because they say, when the police approached the car, they had already shot her in the head. But, they say, when the police approached the car, he opened the door, and she had backed the car up. If you're shot in the head, where do you think your foot's going to go? On the brake? On the gas? It might go anywhere. The police officer should know the procedure in approaching an automobile, and that was wrong, the way that he made that approach. But, however, she was shot six more times. And, in Norfolk, there was a 16-year-old boy, he was shot dead, and he didn't have a gun. I don't know the situation, how it happened. But, I know that he didn't have no gun, and the police didn't have to shoot him, but they shot him dead.

So, this is a slave-master mentality, being displayed on citizens, as though they are slaves. So, through that system, slavery still exists. And people are using the word "slavery"; they're just acting out the part. And, this needs to be put in check.

I'm going to let somebody to come forth and clarify what I said—Mr. Michael—.

MICHAEL BILLINGTON: He asked me to clarify, before he came up. I think the reason is, because it turns out, he and I, as they say, "did time in the same joint." [laughter] But, I think he was very clear. He's concerned that the continued existence, in the Constitution, of the tolerance of slavery, in prisons, has ramifications both in the prisons, and outside. And, I think he was very—.

HARRIS: And I want it off the books.

LAROUCHE: The problem is not the 13th Amendment. You misinterpret the 13th Amendment. The 13th Amendment does not authorize the continuation of slavery, but precisely the opposite. The 13th Amendment should have been mandatory law, under which all this other stuff would have been cancelled. So, therefore, the problem lies elsewhere, not with the Constitution.

The problem lies with the political party system in the United States. Look, the history is this: Lincoln led a movement, which was deeply embedded in the United States, against slavery. As a result of the Civil War, slavery was abolished, by law, and the 13th Amendment is the law which abolishes practices, which allow slavery. However, not only was Lincoln shot, by British intelligence—Booth was a British agent. But, at the same time, the United States was undermined intensely, by British influences, including inside the United States. The 1877, the Tilden-Hayes process, had a reversal of the civil rights movement of the government, in restoring the slaveholders back to a position of influence.

Now, what's happened, is: In this century, with Grover Cleveland, the great Democrat, who brought Jim Crow into the U.S. government; and then, with Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, who were both pro-slavery—Woodrow Wilson was the guy who reorganized the Ku Klux Klan in the United States! These guys, in the tradition of Grover Cleveland, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Nixon, and Carter, who dominate the Republican Party today, and also dominate the Gore faction of the Democratic Party. These guys are pure racists. You have a racist court majority, the Supreme Court majority; you have a racist majority in the Justice Department's Criminal Division, and the FBI—racist departments.

The problem is, to get the political power to do what needs to be done. What needs to be done, is not a change in the law, in the Constitutional law. What is needed, is a political movement, which takes power, which enforces that law!

All right, now. The prison system is another system—two problems: First of all, the justice system and prison system, in the United States, in the Federal system, and in most states, is racist. Plain racist. It's a part of this. That should not be. How do you get rid of it, when you've got a Justice Department, under John Ashcroft? How do you get rid of it, when you have a Supreme Court, dominated by Scalia? The answer is: These are issues, which can not be resolved, except by taking power, to resolve them.

It's like the same thing I said, about the world situation: Sometimes the only remedy, for a problem, is to take power. You fight on the issue, for whatever benefit you can get for fighting on the issue. You seek amelioration wherever you can. You always seek justice, no matter how desperate the situation is. You defend the victims, as much as you can. But, you know you're not going to eliminate the problem, until you get an institution with the power and will to do so.

We don't need any change in the Constitution of the United States, to solve this problem. All we need is a decent government.

MARK ROSS, SR.: Thanks for the opportunity to speak, and I feel somewhat like a fish out of water. And, the main reason for that is, because I am a fish out of water. Like everyone else in this room—I should say, unlike everyone else in this room, or at least the majority of the people, I haven't been a long-term advocate of this organization. I have very little familiarity with the organization. The reason I'm here, is, my son has become immersed in the movement, and asked me to come to this meeting, so I could see what it was all about. Because his phone conversations with me haven't been sufficient, for me to buy into it.

Now, I found a lot of the discussions over the last couple of days interesting. I found you a very engaging speaker. And you mix satire, sarcasm, wit, irony, and all that in your conversation, such that sometimes it's difficult for me to tell if I was really getting the meaning of what you were saying. That's why I want to clarify an item or two.

Also, yesterday, somebody described, kind of painted a picture of a discussion, in which you had a question and answer session, and the floor was littered with paradoxes, that you had put to rest. And I was hoping that you could slay one more paradox, here, for me, that I've encountered over the last couple of days.

Some of the discussions, from yourself and from others, I've picked up some subtle nuances that suggest that higher education in the United States—you know the formal university setting—is not held in high esteem, and sometimes, even mocked a bit. And, I wasn't sure if I'd understood that properly. And, if so, my question would be: What would be the alternative to it? And, one of the main reasons that I'm concerned, and here, is, my son's a college student—and, of course, like most parents, I would say, a very brilliant student—has one semester left, and he'll be a college graduate. But, he's taken upon himself, to interpret what he's learned from the organization, that there's a cataclysmic crisis, so close, and so dangerous, that he needs to stop, not graduate college, and immediately join up, and help the organization any way, to derail this train that's headed toward a brick wall. [laughter]

Now, here's the paradox. It doesn't take much to get a lot of claps from this audience. The paradox is: On the one hand, you talk about all these fantastic new projects that are needed in the future—these magnetic trains, this oasis desalination thing—and these aren't going to come from people who just graduate high school, and go out and design these things and engineer them. It seems like, some people are needed, to go through the university programs, and get the skills that are necessary to do these things. And, to me, I consider it outrageous, that an organization would condone, let alone encourage, a student who's 85% done with college, to drop out and to join the organization 100%—I don't have any problem whatsoever, that he supports these notions, wants to work in his spare time, instead of listening to music or doing other things college students do. But, to me, it just seems, he'll have more doorways open to him, if he completes college. More people will take him seriously, and, once again, I don't want to suggest that you have to be a college graduate to have someone listen to you, but, in today's world, that happens to be a bit of reality.

Now, unfortunately, everyone here supports certain things, and would like to think everybody else does. The fact of the matter, is, although a lot of you may think that the rest of the world disagrees with you—the truth is, most of the world, at least, the world that I've encountered, doesn't even know you exist. I told people my heartache, that my son's considering dropping out of college, and they say, "Why?" I tell them about the LaRouche organization, the Schiller Institute—they don't even know what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to downplay what you're doing. I lot of what I've seen here, I really endorse wholeheartedly. But, as a parent, I'm heartbroken that my son's considering dropping out of college, so close to being at the end. [breaks down weeping] Would you tell him—.

LAROUCHE: You should relax about this. You should not have anxiety over this question. First of all, obviously, you have not studied this economic situation, the political situation, in the way some of us have. Don't assume that we're unknown: If people say they don't know who I am, most people, who are, shall we say, 30 years or older, are liars, because they do. The campaign that has been run against me, by the news media and other people, globally—not just in the United States—exceeds, as Ramsey Clark described it, and others have described it; the operations against me, by the mass news media, by the Justice Department and other agencies in the United States, exceeds the targetting of any other individual in recent history. I am the most notorious person in the United States, by virtue of that.

So, if somebody told you, they don't know anything about me, or don't even know I exist, they lied to you.

But, that's what people do. They do it all the time. I've seen that, all through my life, that parents and others, when they have company, they usually lie to each other, in the name of being polite. Then, as I said yesterday, then, the guests leave and when the guests are safely out of the way, the parents gossip about their visitors, and so forth; and, having said, "Let's do this again."

So, Americans lie most of the time. They lie when they consider it expedient to lie, in order to solve a problem, such as getting somebody off their back, or trying to be pleasant to someone, or conciliate them. This is common. Americans lie—most of the time, on nearly every issue. So, don't believe what you hear, from an American: They lie. You have to get them to tell the truth. That can be done, but you have to desire to do that, in order to accomplish that fact. You have to have a smell: They're lying; okay, typical American lying. Popular opinion and so forth.

Now, on the substance of the matter. First of all, the system is coming down immediately; it's already coming down. It is not something that might happen. It is something that has happened. It is something that I forecast, repeatedly. I've made a great number of forecasts—not too many—in the course of my life. Every forecast I've ever published has been confirmed. I'm the most successful economic forecaster in existence, today, on this planet! So, if it comes from me, you should stop and think about it. I'm right—number one.

Secondly, on education: You miss the significance of today's education. Most of the today's higher education is bunk! It is not higher education, as some of us knew it, back in the 1930s or 1940s, or even the 1950s and 1960s. Higher education has been destroyed.

For example: Did you hear of a university saying you had a policy, it will not compel any student to study the works of Dead White European Males, as qualification for graduating from the university? Would you send a son, to that university? Would you have somebody study the sociology or history courses, or other things, or economics courses, which are taught in universities today? Do you know the number of universities, which are qualifying people in the name of science, for "benchmarking," which is complete quackery? And disqualifies them for work in the real world? Are you considering the number of places of employment, an opportunity which will cease to exist, within weeks and months? Have you looked at the collapse of the New Economy, which was a complete farce and fraud, cooked up in 1995, which was kept alive, until the non-election of Nov. 7, of last year? Which has now collapsed? They couldn't sustain it any more. Have you looked at Greenspin's lies lately?

So, therefore, the more important question, considering such facts, or not ignoring any such facts that I just referred to, what should a person do? What should a young person do? The first thing a young person has to do, is to defend their integrity. The integrity is, not to respond to expediency, but to make the decisions, they're prepared to live with, on the basis of their convictions of a sense of mission. If the facts, which cause them to make that decision are accurate, and if the decision is a reasonable one—don't interfere.

Parents have always had their own offspring, particularly talented ones. But, they have raised that child, and if the child has certain semi-maturity, or maturity, at that point, you have to have some respect, for the desire of that person to make a decision. The proper thing to do, in any such situation, is to give support, especially moral and intellectual support, to the child, the son. Do not try to direct, do not try to impose, on an adult or semi-adult offspring, your desire. Even though it's very precious to you, as a desire. Don't impose it! You want people to make decisions, on their own. You want them to take responsibility for their decisions. Don't exaggerate the importance of a college education. Don't underestimate the possibility of getting an education that's worth anything, but I can tell you: What most college graduates are getting, as they approach graduation today, is bunk. Absolute bunk.

[lady disrupts from floor]

ROSS: I apologize if I got things riled up and I'll leave before you boo me off.

LAROUCHE: Oh, c'mon! C'mon, c'mon! Don't do that. Look, you have my personal sympathy. But, I'm giving you my personal advice, to you, as a friend. I'm saying, "Don't push it." Don't push it. Work with it. Work with it.

ROSS: He's taken off one semester, to do this. He only needs one semester to graduate. He's so far advanced in credits, he only needs one of the next two semesters. This current semester, he is working with the organization, as he has all Summer. But, he said, "Let me do that, and then I'll go back and finish my last semester." Now, he's talking about the idea of not doing that. Like I said, I'm walking out, because I don't think I have anything more to learn here. And, I don't want to cast insults, but actually, I'm embarrased that he's involved in this, because the last few things that you've said—.

LAROUCHE: Look at me as a friend. Relax.

[lady disrupts again, chair takes next questioner]

BILL ROBERTS: I was a college student—not going back: I've seen the intellectual wasteland. [applause] But, however, I do look at the Schiller Institute as an organization, similar to—along the lines of something like the Franklin Institute, or the American Philosophical Institute that he set up to look at such problems as, how to develop new sciences, look at new ways of developing the human mind. I'm a full-time organizer with the Schiller Institute, since the beginning of this Summer. One of the concepts that immediately jumped out at me, is the question Vernadsky seemed to pose to us all. Much in the same way that good scientists pose paradoxes, that future generations can look at and improve upon. He posed the question, how do we use our cognitive ability, the creativity of the human mind, to create a change in the biosphere, noticeably increases the energy-flux density, and the relative population density. And, this allows us to create new processes, which let man see the way the universe operates, through his own mind.

As the human race takes moves to develop the arid regions, increase the population of the inner areas of Eurasia, and the vast, northern, colder regions of the tundra and Siberia and so forth, can we change the climate of the areas, making them more temperate and idea for human life? To what degree do you see the human race being able to, in the next couple of decades, transform the surface of the Earth, building even mountains, rivers, creating weather conditions, and regulating heat, and generally, just the weather patterns over the face of the Earth? How far would we go with this? Would there ever be a purpose, or a possibility of creating such things as man-made mountain ranges, or thunderclouds?

LAROUCHE: Much of this, that you address as possibilities, obviously, exist as questions. One of the problems is, in meteorology, we really don't know very much about it, for various reasons. The question of Vernadsky is quite pertinent, in all this; it's a good example.

Let me just repeat—I've said it before, so I'll say it as quickly as possible on this question: One of the key problems—and the problem of energy is also a problem; I had this discussion, again, several times in Moscow, with people who are working in that area. That, as I've defined it, you have three kinds of universal physical principles, in the area of what we call, normally, physical relations. One: You have what they call, the abiotic area. Abiotic processes, experimentally, have certain universal characteristics, which is what people general think of when they talk about universal physical principles—is the abiotic domain. Now, some people, who are not thinking clearly, have tried to explain life, and even human thought in terms of the so-called abiotic principles—that is, principles which you think about systems that are not living systems; and say that if something is a living process, it must have been derived by means of principles which are peculiar to non-living processes. Not true.

Secondly, and this is where Vernadsky made his contribution: If you study the biological processes, you discover that the behavior of man, in his relationship to the biosphere, is such that man does something that no animal can do inside the biosphere. That is, to willfully change the characteristics of the biosphere. This change occurs only through the process of cognition. Vernadsky calls it noetic action, which is otherwise, what I call cognition. He does not take into account, the social side of the effective principal action of cognition in transforming the biosphere. He addresses only one thing, quite validly, is the relationship of a discovery by an individual discoverer to the practice of society on the abiotic and biosphere combined.

So, you have three sets of principles, all defined experimentally—universal principles: One called, abiotic, what people are usually taught of in physics manuals, or so forth. Second, you have living processes, which are distinct in principle from non-living principle from non-living processes. You can never explain a living process, from the standpoint of non-living processes. Third, you have something which occurs in a living species, but can not be explained by principles otherwise characteristic of living species: cognition. Human cognition, the power to change man's control over the universe.

The questions you ask, pertain in part, to these areas. We obviously know, as a mission, and we've addressed this repeatedly in terms of Central and North Asia: That we are capable of transforming the characteristics of these areas, to make them habitable. For example, Siberia has certain similarities in part, to areas of Africa, in terms of the mineral characteristics of the area—gold, so forth and so on, non-ferrous metals, and whatnot. Much of the resources of North and Central Asia are not presently efficiently accessible to economic development or habitation, because they are not properly developed.

Can we develop these areas, in degrees that we can actually make these natural resources exploitable economically by man? Can we increase the area of potential human habitation in these areas? Yes! Will this have effects on the weather system? Obviously. If you change the way in which the water throughput is functioning through the atmosphere, you're going to change a lot of things. If you increase the amount of greenery on the soil, you're going to change a lot of things, in terms of weather systems. All this things are known. Exactly what effects those will have in the extreme? We don't know. We have not done the experimental investigations that are required to do this.

So, that's the point. What we require, therefore, is a mission-orientation based on a combination of things we do know, with tasks which we think exist, but for which we do not have the solutions, at present.

So, the way to approach this thing, is not to make a list of things we can do, in terms of, as a final list; but to recognize the things we can and must do, and must do now. And, then, also, how do we provide the mechanisms of research, development, to be able to discover answers to these things. For example: Light is extremely important, as such, for medicine. Not enough work is being done on what are called biophotonic reactions. Things that pertain to living processes. We don't know enough about this! Not enough work has been done. We know the processes exist: We don't know enough about it, to know how to solve—. Why don't we do the research? We're not doing the research! Or very little. So, why don't we do more? Why don't we open up universities and research laboratories, and spend more effort on that? Why don't we save D.C. General Hospital, and all other general hospitals, like public ones, which are the areas in which, things pertaining to the medical application of these things are dealt with?

As I said before, a general hospital—in the discussion we had yesterday—a general public hospital is a university! What does it do? It deals with all kinds of medical problem—that's why it's called "general," or "general hospital." With all the facilities, including the research facilities. It's a place where physicians are trained, where nurses are trained. Where others are trained. It is a university! You need such universities. You couple these with all other kinds of research—clinics, and so forth—and this gives you the ability to make progress in knowledge of how living processes function. You start from man as a living process, you work out from there.

So, yes. The answer is—divide it in two things. There are things we can do now. We know what they are. We have a pretty good idea of how we should organize research. And then, we should have a research orientation which goes beyond.

HIAM DAOURMA [ph]: Hello. I had a question: I went through a recent period, where I was ill, so, since I joined full-time, this was the first time that I had a gap, where I wasn't deploying at all. I had about ten days, where I was out of the field. Needless to say, this was a psychologically nerve-wracking experience, because I found that I was limited to my resources in my house. I was too hoarse to speak, so I couldn't call people up and organize. It got to a point, where I felt like I was in a cell. It got to a certain point, where I thought: "God, I'm freaking out over ten. Lyn and Mike Billington were in jail for years!" So, what I was wondering what effect that experience of being in prison, and not knowing at that time whether you were going to come out alive, whether you were going to be killed; whether you would die within the terms of your sentence, or what? What effect that had on your perspective, on your control of the world situation, and the organization. Also, seeing as, that your ability to interact with the other leadership of the organization was severely hindered by your incarceration, I was wondering if you could shed some light on that?

LAROUCHE: Simple: When you're a political prisoner, I observed this among political prisoners. The day they walk out of prison, it's as if they were never there. [applause] It just happened to you, as if you had been hit by a truck, and you were in the hospital; you get out of the hospital, it's as if you were never there. You don't forget the experience, but it didn't change you.

It was disastrous for the organization. Because I have certain unique situation, psychologically. I'm one of the few people—the only person in my generation—who's capable of doing what I can do. And, therefore, when the organization is cut off from me, that's bad for the organization, and it was very bad. Certain sections of the organization degenerated, as a result of that, that I was not able to intervene effectively, as I used to. That was a problem.

The same thing was done with security threats we. We had a security threat against me from 1973 on. It got worse and worse and worse. There were several attempts to kill me. Other kinds of problems always threatened. So, that was as bad as prison, in some respects. On that side. The effect on the organization of my being incarcerated was the worst effect.

But, I tell you, people who are in prison, because they did something, even if they were injustly incarcerated—that is, in the sense of the way they were incarcerated; the way they were treated: I looked at a lot of paperwork among prisoners, and I found that, even when they were guilty as the devil, they weren't convicted of what they were guilty of. They were convicted of what somebody decided to charge them with. They'd say, "We're going to get this guy," and they would decide they were going to get him! And they would get him by charging him with something, which may have had no relevance to what he actually did; but, they figured it was the cheapest and quickest way to get him in the jug. That's the way they'd work.

But, people who actually had done something—drug deals, so forth, things of that type—they suffered. Because, in and of themselves, they knew they did it! Or, did something. They would sometimes take satisfaction that they were convicted of what they didn't do, when they weren't convicted of what they did do! And, they would take a certain kind of pleasure out of that: "Well, they convicted me, but they didn't get me for what I did!" A lot of that! A lot of that! As a result of the system.

So, the system is terrible. It had terrible effects on people. But, people who came out of prison, who were political prisoners, or generally, who were unjustly convicted, generally had—but, especially political prisoners—you find in a history of the phenomenon, they actually are not weakened at all, in a moral sense, by having been a political prisoner. They're strengthened.

Now, the point is, I was supposed to crawl, that was the idea. And you had a bunch of rotten lawyers, who were not necessarily rotten people, but they were rotten, because they were typical lawyers. That, in a sense, as a lawyer says: "You cut a deal. Cut a deal! Cut a deal! Look, you're in trouble. If you cut a deal—yes! you will confess to something you didn't do—but then you can make a deal, and then, you can live to work another day."

"But, I say, it's not true. I won't say something that's not true."

"Oh. Well, that's a mistake."

So, what the lawyers would advise my co-defendants, and others, "Well, this guy's crazy. You take care of yourself. You make the deal." And, they woudl say, "No"; except in a couple of cases. And, what the lawyer would then say, "Well, look: His idea of a defense, is not very smart. We've got a smarter idea for you, for how to defend yourself—to minimize your damage." Some took it; took that advice. And, we all suffered, because we had bum lawyers, who influenced the other lawyers, to do that lousy defense policy.

For example, I had two trials. One was a trial against NBC, and others. And, one, a trial against me: We had one in Boston that the government lost. A big one. But in neither trial, because of lawyers, was I able to testify in my own defense. The thing was rigged, by the lead attorney in 1984, with the judge. It was rigged: I was never able to testify in my own case, in a civil case prosecution—never! They put me on the stand; they didn't let me testify. The lead attorney did not allow any relevant questions to be asked of me, when I did appear on the stand. So, my own organization, in a sense, under the advice of a corrupt attorney, ruined a case I should have won. My own people. That hurt.

Then, in the case in Alexandria, I was never allowed to testify! Because some of the other lawyers persuaded some of the defendants to go along with the idea that I would not testify. Then, they tried to set up Will, in matters he couldn't handle, because the questions, the charges that were being made, were not being made really against him; they were being made against me. It was actually a kind of a RICO case, where everybody was charged on something, that nobody actually did! But I was the one who was supposedly the kingpin, and therefore, they whole thing came back—if I couldn't testify, there was no defense! They put one a totally lying case, and nobody got up there to testify, essentially, who was among the defendants—nobody got up there to testify to the lies that were made about what they did personally!

And, so, the biggest problem we had with the legal cases, as in 1984 and 1988—. In the Boston case, the legal team worked well, and did a good job—though they started off bad. It took time to get them in shape. They were doubtful, as they went into the process, but then, they came out quite successfully—more successfully than the Justice Department liked. But, in Alexandria, we never had a prayer. And the reason we never had a prayer, in part, was because some of my own co-defendants were influenced to suggest that I should not testify. And, that, was the reason we really lost the case.

My view is, if I look back at it, we would not have not lost the case, if I had been able to testify.

But, that's the kind thing that was the problem.

DAVE LUDY: I've been following the former Yugoslavia for quite a while, since before the break-up — well, before the war, when the break-up was first happpening. And I could never really understand why they broke it up, and why Bush recognized Bosnia right off the bat. And it seems like it's been nothing but trouble ever since. Was there a good reason to break up Yugoslavia? That's my question.

LAROUCHE: You had a process, a complicated process, in which, in the course of the First World War, there was an agreement to put this South Slav area into a Yugoslavia, which is a synthetic nation, created under the umbrella of the Versailles Treaty.

The control over Yugoslavia, until World War II, was entirely controlled by Anglo-French intelligence services: French and British intelligence controlled Yugoslavia; they controlled the monarchy.

In the course of the Second World War, you had a mixed deal, in which Tito became the leader, effectively, of Yugoslavia in the course of the war, and at the end—was playing a game in between the Soviet government and the British and French governments.

In the postwar period, the problem in Yugoslavia was primarily British, through the Bertrand Russell group and similar kinds of people, intelligence-wise. The second part was French: French military intelligence.

In 1989, in order to prevent Europe from being united, effectively, with the break-up of the Comecon, Thatcher—the British—supported by the French President Mitterrand, and with the complicity of George Bush, set up agreements under the heading of, "Keep the Germans Down and the Russians Out"; in which the Anglo-Americans, with their French lackeys, decided that the Anglo-Americans were going to set up a world empire. This is the process leading to what's called globalization. And these powers rigged the currencies of the world, control the IMF, and so forth, looted everything in sight with financial swindles, and generallly became the predator living upon the rest of the world, as the prey.

Other measures were taken. Measure number one: The war against Iraq, which was organized by Anglo-American intelligence, especially by the British, and George Bush did as Thatcher ordered, though she left before the war was quite completed, in 1990. As soon as Desert Storm was slowed down to a perpetual ulcer, the Anglo-French crowd organized the Balkan wars! And that's how they were organized.

In a more recent period, with the H.G. Wells phenomenon of various people, including Madeleine Half-bright—Albright, No-bright, whatever—and the British, they organized a new phase which became known as the Yugoslav problem. At that point, the United States took over a bigger position there, and, from what I can see, th British and the United States government, through their military arms, are running a new phase of the war, involving Macedonia, Albania, and so forth, as a result of the KLA setup. And other wars are possible in that region.

So, the whole history, which has a much deeper history in terms of the history of—. This goes back to the Emperor Diocletian, before they founded Constantinople. When Diocletian, in Illyria, was running the Roman Empire. And then, he set the process of breaking the Roman Empire up into parts, and created a code. And his protege, Constantine, became the head of the new Byzantine Empire, established on a division between Eastern and Western part of the Roman Empire, set up by Diocletian.

And since that time, the entire history of the Balkans has always been to play the Balkans as an East-West conflict and North-South conflict, always orchestrated by whoever was the world imperial power dominating the Mediterranean at that time. That's been the consistent history of the area.

So, yes, there were problems. There were issues. There were ethnic issues. There were ethnic divisions, there were religious divisions, and so forth. These issues existed. These issues did not cause the war. The war, as opposed to the issues, was caused by the Anglo-French operations, assisted by increasing complicity by U.S. forces.

FREDDY CORINEL [ph]: Hello, Lyn. My name is Freddy and I'm from Los Angeles. My question was, it had to deal with the organization, and especially the time period we're in right now, in terms of the crash already being here: I see this especially, not only in our office, but I'm sure this happens throughout the whole United States region—selfishness in image. You know, we all have a tendency to put this image on ourselves, and this whole question of agape. And we all have to function as a unit to be more effective in the organizing, and to actually bring upon a stronger change than we have now.

And, not only in our office, but I'm sure all over the United States, is that we've been lacking in that. I mean, you know, we can talk the talk. We go out there and we say, "You know, we have to function as a unit, we have to love people," and all this. And yet, they really haven't developed in themselves. So they have that block right there, that limit within themselves. And, in a sense, I don't know if it's now, but how do we get rid of that? How do we work towards to get rid of this image? And how do we get rid of feeling selfish or feeling threatened by another person's development — stop being spoiled, basically? How do we just get rid of all these little materialistic things, that have really no relevance to the universe and what we have to do right now,but actually, feel it totally. Not just—. I mean, like, I myself am pretty much working towards that, right? And I'm sure others are as well. But, in doing that, it's like Plato talks about — I forget what dialogue it was—but about nailing your soul to feel a certain way. Right? And especially when we're trying to reach this kind of love. When it feels like, when I'm nailing my soul to feel that love, it's, like, "Why am I nailing my soul, if there should be some kind of thing that should automatically be there? And I wouldn't have to question it."

And, with all these people, I mean, I think if they'd actually try to achieve that, then we'd actually function more as a unit, and be more effective out in the field. Not only that, but bring upon a change that's needed all over the world right now.

And especially with your leadership. I mean, I see — yesterday, when I heard you speak, it was just more of a change than I had in the past—more of a change in my way of viewing you and this whole organization, and your leadership and your power. And, I mean, if you're taking leadership right now, we are pretty much not only an army, not only a family, but jus—the whole world pretty much lies on us and what we're going to do. And you're already doing it, but we have to be more effective. But just how? I mean, how do we just go about bringing that?

LAROUCHE: First of all, under all conditions, at all times, no matter whether it's the threat to society or not, a human being should, if they wish to enjoy being themselves, should care for the whole human race; at all times, under all conditions. Because, it's what I said earlier on this question of, the question of identity: If you want to be fully yourself, knowing that we're all going to die, how can you become fully yourself, unless you fulfill yourself in a way that is not destroyed by your death? How can you go to the grave in peace and joy, just accepting it as an inevitable, not as something you desire to do tomorrow morning—actually, you should try to live as long as possibl. I don't care what pain you have, what suffering you have: Live as long as possible! It's important.

But, that war we're going to lose, eventually. But there's another war we need not lose: The war of our identity as human beings, our cognitive identity, our relationship to people, minds of the past, and our relationshiop to the future. So, what is most important to you as you walk through life each day? It's the future! It's doing justice for the past. Someone made a great discovery in the past—you know it. The discovery was never really fully utilized by mankind. You act, to cause that discovery made by a person long dead, to finally come into use and benefit for humanity. You have changed the past. You've changed past history, by changing its outcome. You live for the outcome of the future.

So, therefore, if you wish to develop, as you express this desire to perfect oneself as a human being, then you wish to be, primarily, a person, an individual, who is in some way indispensable to all other human beings. And how do you make yourself indispensable? By making yourself useful. How do you make yourself useful? BY doing something for others. Not just gifts as material gifts, but giving themsomething which helps them to realize their own, personal identity, in the same way you want an identity, an identity which is still important to humanity after you're dead.

So, therefore, when you're dealing with a person, in organizaing, you make a misktake, if you do not consider the objective, the mission of your intervention with that person, to make them a better person. To make them a better person, by touching upon them a potentiality to increase their capacity to realize themself, which is not merely somethin—you take a diploma and walk away: I've realized this, I've realized that. The capacity, essentially, is: They see a mission, or a role in a mission, which is required, because of what they are, or what they wish to be. That's how they perfect themselves. I mean, for example, what does a good teacher do? A good teacher in a classroom, what does it do with the students? A good teacher, in a classroom, with the students, engages the students in doing something they may have some difficulty in doing: to compel the students to actually reexperience a discovery of principle. So, they are organizing that student, or that group of students. They're organizing them, by getting them to develop in themselves a power which they lack, through to a potential which they have.

Now, mission means: Well, either you should do that, because that's your mission, or it's someting we must coooperate to do together. When you say, organizing is: I'm trying to get somebody to do something, the words are not wrong, but they're a little bit tricky. Are you trying to get your personal satisfaction in success in organizing? Or are you trying to create some benefit in which these will participate? In other words, you're doing something for them. So, your motiviation in organizing, which will overcome the kind of problem which you refer to—which does arise in people—is to get beyond selfishness, by not being selfish. Not being selfish, is not just giving things to people, or withholding things from people, or taking things from people. Being not selfish means, that you're concerned about their soul. Not the soul in the abstract way that some idiot like "Diamond Pat" Robertson would talk about it. But in the sense of: They are a person, who is going to die. What is going to be important about their life? And what's improtant about the life, is the mission which stands immediately before them, the most important thing.

You have this thing in tragedy, of the man who is given a challenge. And he turns away from it. And his life is spoiled, because he turned away from something, which is an opportunity to do good. It's a thing of shame that hangs around his neck, that he turned away, when he could have done some good. And this is what — see, you have to be concerned about the inside, the soul of the other person in that sense. And then you don't have a problem. Even if you do't know what the answer is, the very fact that you're willing to work and dedicate yourself, to try to bring that result about—that's good. And, as long as you're trying to do good in that sense, you're not wrong.

You know, you have this Cotton Mather, one of the great founders of this nation, wrote a book, or a paper, on To Do Good. And a student of Mather's work, Benjamin Franklin, wrote on the subject of To Do Good. The principle of life, is to do good. And, if you are committed to do good, and coooperate with somebody else, so that you, together, can do good, that you might not be able to do separately—that's real organizing. And you have nothing to worry about, about selfishness.

CONSTANCE ROPER [ph]: Mr. LaRouche, Helga: I'm proud to be hear today, again. And want to say how much I admire you and I empathize with you, in the sense that, at one point in my life, I called myself a revolutionary. And, I set out change things. I did well, I thought—until the powers that be came along and bought off all my friends around me. And that's not hard in the black community, when you start out with nothing, and somebody dangles the money under your nose, you know. You can't blame them for taking it, because they had nothing, and they were not dedicated to anything or anybody. Why I bring this up, is that I am sitting here, learning from you. I mean life is an everlasting learning process. I am 65 years old, and I am interested in what you're saying and what you're doing, and I admire you to the utmost. So, if that puts a feather in your cap, put a couple more there!

But, I came before this mike to tell you that we have problems abroad, and in this country. I'm going to address the one that's here in this country, because I live with it: In the town in which I come from, there is a move afoot, to try and remove all of the senior citizens out of their properties, into the nursing homes, and leave them impoverished with nothing.

And, I think that that's the worst thing that you could do to an older American, who has spent their lives trying to build this country. In my city, they have people, who perhaps owe about $300-$500 in back taxes. They put the collection process into a collection agency, which, in turn, puts a lien on that individual's property, without giving them time to pay. So what inevitably happens, is, that the collection agency takes the house away from the individual. And puts them in the street. I hope that everyone in here would look into the matter in their town, and across this country, because it is happening everywhere. They're gulping up every piece of property that is available—that means on the tax rolls. And they don't care whose property it is: I was a victim, and fortunately, I caught it in time. I owed $365, and they put a lien on me, okay? But, if I was not politically aware, or had friends in the White House, I would never have known about it.

Now, the other question I want to address, is, the educational system. The educational system across this country is appalling. We are hiring people daily from all walks of life to come into the system and teach our children. I have a lot of misgivings with that, because, if you don't know me or where I came from, you don't know my culture, how will you teach me? I mean, I know everyone is a human being, but you know nothing about me, so what do you teach me? And that's what's happening in the school systems across the country. I'm not saying that there isn't good teachers amongst them. But I'm very leary about what's happening across this country, importing teachers to teach someone who, they themsleves—the teachers come from areas, where they know, darn well, they hate that little black child; they hate that little Indian child; they hate that little Puerto Rican child; and, they hate that little, poor white child.

So how can you teach me, if you hate me? I have problems with that. And I hope and pray that the folks here who are teachers: Be a darn good teacher. Because these kids are our future, and if we don't help them, Lord help what they are going to do for us, when we get too old to take care of ourselves. Thank you.

CHRISTINE SAYRE: Mr. LaRouche, I'm from Belleville, Michigan. My question, that I thought I'd worked on and developed, you know, from meeting with people back home, and then talking with people here, is about education. And I think, my question has been answered, by all the different questions that have been asked today! You've answered my question ten times over, and expounded every time!

So I'm just here to say thank you!

DR. STOJADIN NAUMOVSKI: Mr. LaRouche, Helga, everyone in this room: It is a special pleasure to address this audience that gave us such a warm welcome yesterday, as the Macedonian delegation, and I would start with a big thank you. However, it doesn't make it any easier to talk to you after my Professor Oginar's speech yesterday that got your standing ovation. I was his student, so it is kind of hard to address you all. However, I will do my best. There are so many issues that we would like to discuss, but the time is of essence so I will just narrow it to a couple of things.

We enjoyed Helga's presentation this morning and I greatly appreciate all of the facts that were laid out. And I have heard that she is a great fan of Alexander the Great and we can recognize throughout the presentation, with all of the Silk Road and Oasis and all that, so thank you for that, too.

However, the question remains that Macedonia, as you all know, has been invaded by not only terrorists from Kosovo and Albania, but by NATO, and it is in imminent danger of invasion: taking over not just a country, not just the territory, but the very Macedonian democracy and free will of the people.

As you all know, the stability of a country is not just the integrity of the territory or the boundaries, or lack or absence of military invasion; but yet, it is a condition where all of the institutions of the country are performing, such as the President, the Prime Minister, the President of the Parliament, the military, the health care, the education, because institutions without integrity, in a word, you can trust, cannot lead a country anywhere, and that is applicable all over the world, including the United States. So we are facing a situation where all of those institutions are under the thumb of the European Union, NATO, and all of the thugs and terrorists in Macedonia. The question arises: What should we do about it?

We have heard all of the statements by Mr. Robertson, Sir Lord Whatever Robertson, who is the head of NATO, that, either you sign that agreement, or there will be a war. But what is this agreement? Have any of you read it? You can see it on papova_shopka.com or any other website: It is a shameful change of the entire Constitution that will take place eventually, if it is signed. It changes so many paragraphs and amendments, that we could never allow in this country. So we breach one thing, we impose another, so Robertson's statement was that either this will be signed, or there will be a war. No one has a "Plan B." However, we, the Macedonians and the Macedonian diaspora, the leaders of whom are here, have a, b, c—the whole alphabet....

However, what I would like to hear from you, Mr. LaRouche, with all of your knowledge and experience in international affairs, and Macedonian affairs I believe: What is your personal opinion of what we should do? As the Macedonian diaspora, as Macedonians, and as the international community, if you want to save Macedonia, the motherland and fatherland of myself, Professor Oginar, and our delegation, but of Alexander the Great as well. And I would appreciate your answer to that question. Thank you.

LAROUCHE: The answer has to be a strategic question. Because what you have, is you have an imperial Anglo-American force, which Robertson represents, which is determined to use what remaining military capability exists, to destroy Macedonia, and to continue the bloodshed which has been conducted since 1992 in the Balkans. That's the point.

The purpose is to destroy the entire region. What they will probably do, is—the next thing that they will come up with, with the Simeon in Bulgaria—they will come up with a so-called Greater Bulgaria and Greater Albania, and then they will have a war between those two, now that they have the British royal family in office in Bulgaria. It's obvious. So, the point is, that we have to stop the whole game. And the only way that you can fight the issue is to go at the game.

The American, what used to be called the Special Warfare Division, is operating in the area and has been ever since the Yugoslav war, to build up, based on Albania, a bunch of drug-running, terrorist operations, who are trained as a military operation of the new style, of the special warfare type, which are being deployed! There is no such thing as an Albanian army! There is a U.S./British-backed operation. The United States is running the dirty part of the operation, inside the Albanian operation, and the British are running the cover operation from the standpoint of the overall operation inside Macedonia.

First, if you don't say that, if you don't describe the issue, which we try to do with our publications. And we should do more of this, because we are the only ones who are going to do it. Maybe some friends of Macedonia will do it, but we have to take the lead, and get this thing going. Because what we have to do, is to say: "This must stop!"

Now, Germany is very upset about this. You get this crazy thing with Rudolf Scharping—or Grau-Scharping, since he married. But, Germany is very divided on this issue, of putting German troops into that area, partly because it's a hopeless situtation, it's a worthless situation, and they don't want it. And they don't have any money to do it anyway.

As a joke, I told them in Europe, about Scharping: They turned around and said, "You've got to put German units into Macedonia." He said, "We don't have any money." So they came up with a solution. They got one naked Bundeswehr soldier, who was sent to infiltrate an Albanian nudist camp, where he picked up all the heavy weapons and uniforms that they needed—probably of U.S. manufacture!

Europe, Continental Europe, doesn't want this thing!

Now, you also have to take another element of the context into view: that we are now having in Washington, D.C. the fourth stage, or the fourth phase of new international terrorism.

The first phase was the 1960s, 1968, with the terrorist groups related to that, we had the crazy Weathermen group, which were not too serious, and other groups here in the United States. Europe was the center of it. You had the terrorism in Italy, and especially in Germany, with what became known as the Baader-Meinhof Gang. This stuff developed in the 1970s, and in the mid-1970s you had the second wave. It started from France, in about '74 or '75, in a big way in France around the so-called nuclear energy issue. This was the Baader Meinhof Gang, the second phase of that. This was spread into Italy, with the terrorist waves in Italy of the 1970s, which complemented those in France and in Germany. Then in the 1980s, you had the third wave of terrorism, especially concentrated in Germany, at Wackersdorf [nuclear reprocessing plan] and so forth, where you had full-scale irregular warfare, deployed as full-scale warfare. It was deployed there.

Now, in Seattle, we had a terrorist deployment, and this was a full-scale terrorist deployment. If you understand terrorism as special warfare, this was a terrorist, special warfare, full-scale deployment, based out of Canada into Seattle. Then they went through a second phase. The second phase was a meeting in Pôrto Alegre, Brazil, headed by Teddy Goldsmith, an old British intelligence hand. The third phase was a murderous riot in Genoa, Italy. The fourth phase is the biggest of all, so far, a planned terrorist upheaval in Washington, D.C., which is now being deployed from centers in Virginia and Maryland. In other words, they have groups of terrorists that are sitting in Virginia and Maryland, including Loudoun County, [Virginia], from which they are to be deployed into Washington, D.C. to do dirty work.

There is, visibly, no centralized capability of the type needed to deal with that kind of threat, from an intelligence standpoint, an organization. This group in Washington is tied to known terrorist organizations. These are not simply successor generations; there is an unbroken continuity of cadre connections among all successive generations. This interfaces the kind of Hell that is being stoked by the Israeli terror operations in the Middle East. This is being stoked and directed largely by the ETA, the Basque terrorist organization, which is one of the keys in the whole operation. And I could go through a long list of things that I know about this other stuff.

You have to look at what is being done in the Balkans, and what is being done in the Middle East in that context. Now, this is not a spontaneous terrorist organization. This is an international, strategic deployment of irregular warfare to destabilize civilization, with the intent of preventing the financial crisis from becoming the mobilization for a New Bretton Woods—which it would tend to be. Governments are bankrupt; they tend to want to survive. When nations agree and cooperate to survive, they will tend to go in that direction. That's what this is. This is what it was from the beginning.

Remember: Go back to 1989, when the Wall came down in Germany—even before the Wall came down—the Thatcher government in Britain said, "Kill 'em! Germany must never be reunified. Germany must be crushed, right now!" [President of France François] Mitterrand agreed. He said, "We will crush Germany, provided that you let us steal from the corpse." [U.S. Ambassador to Germany] Vernon Walters said no, and the U.S. government agreed, so they made a compromise, as I have described before.

As I've said before, Desert Storm and the Balkan War were organized, to do what? To prevent the reunification of Continental Europe in economic development, based on the collapse of the Wall. That operation has continued until the present day, and the same operation is now being escalated, as in Macedonia, as a continuation of that process. Who runs this? NATO. This is strategic warfare!

You hear this insane stuff about Donald Rumsfeld and the U.S. military. What is Rumsfeld doing? He is shutting down the U.S. military. Why is he shutting it down? Because the kind of warfare that they intend to use, is of a different variety: It is irregular warfare. Now look, we know, and I know from 1967 at least, that the deployment of terrorism into Italy, by what became the 1970s terrorism, the so-called Compass Plot, the bombing of the Bologna [railway] station, all of these other things in Rome that happened there as terrorist operations, these were run through NATO.

They were run through an operation that was originally set up with the United States government, as a "stay-behind operation," in case of a Communist takeover of Italy. The stay-behind operation, which had been sitting in place for a period of approximately 20 years, was suddenly activated, to become an active operation. The resources of this stay-behind network, suddenly reactivated from sitting in the scenes, was the basis for organizing the terrorist movement in Italy. And it was run out of NATO! As this new type of warfare. And that's the way that this thing functions.

Now, if we are not able to say that, you don't have a chance of winning the war. You have to be able to tell the truth! You can't say, "Resist evil." As I said yesterday, in terms of strategic defense, the principle of strategy—in terms of military, or quasi-military conflict, the principle of strategy is strategic defense, as strategic defense was devised by Vauban, for military policy. As strategic defense was defined by Lazare Carnot, for French policy, on the basis of the work of Vauban—because of a change in artillery, which changed the rules of the game, relative to Vauban's period. As it was defined by Scharnhorst in Germany, and so forth; the principle of strategic defense.

Now, to have strategic defense, you have to get the enemy coming at you where you want him. To do that, you have to have a plan, as all plans of strategic defense, based on the truth. You cannot say, we have a problem with [NATO Secretary General Lord George] Robertson, that's not the problem. The problem is that the active forces are coming from the United States, in part, through the Special Forces type of operation, running behind what was set up in Albania. This is where the attack comes from. So, now the British come in and say with the Americans, "Okay, you've got to concede to these invaders." Yes, you have some people of Albanian extraction living in Macedonia, but that's normal, that's been going on for a long time. Why make a war about it now? These are invading forces who are stirring the whole thing up, by well-known methods.

So, therefore, we have to have a policy in which we trap them. How? By catching them and exposing them for what they are. The game is to bring down some governments. By exposing them in such a way as to bring them down. To create crises in the governments which are responsible for this. That's how you deal with that kind of invasion. You don't have the military forces to stop them. You may find that you have to fight anyway. But if you don't have the military forces to win, you've got to outflank them, with strategic defense. You've got to aim to create the pressure on the governments, which are complicit in the operation, to make this thing so painful to them that they withdraw. It is the only chance we have. And the financial crisis, the economic crisis, is an integral part of the operation.

That's my general strategic approach to the thing. There are, of course, other details, that are not necessary to discuss, but that's the point.

[Statement by Victor Lopez Renazio[ph] of the Philippines not transcribed]

NATHAN WRIGHT [ph]: I'm from Los Angeles, where a couple of us, we've been going over your economics texts. We've been having classes. I was thinking through some of the things, and I came across a paradox: If you think about how a principle of science is transmitted to a society, in terms of improving that society's power over nature, I think—from what I can tell—your view is that, that comes from the crucial experiment that proves the principle. That, you have an experiment, that becomes a technology that's transmitted to the society. But, then, I was thinking about the examples that you use, in your writings a lot: the one of Kepler, discovering gravitation, and the one of Fermat, where he discovers the principle of least time, in terms of the path of light. And, I was trying to figure out—I mean, I can see the principle. What's the technology that's transmitted to society, from those things?And, also, it gets even more tricky, when you think about something like music, which you can have truthful principles; but, you know, it's hard to—what is the technology that's transmitted by that, that actually, you know, proves the relevance of that, and improves your power over nature? [applause]

LAROUCHE: In the first case, take the case of Kepler, because Fermat is obvious from the standpoint of Kepler. In the case of Kepler, Kepler was the first to define modern mathematical physics, in a comprehensive way. Even though there were all kinds of things, that contributed into that, including the work of Plato, and from that period on. But, what Kepler discovered, was essentially the founding principle on which all competent mathematical physics was subsequently developed. A competent form of comprehensive mathematical physics, did not exist prior to that time. So, that's the essential discovery.

What did he do? His discovery, as we've outlined it, demonstrated the principle of what is properly called non-linearity, although the term is much-misused today. Because, you could not predict, by Aristotelian or blackboard methods, why—how, why, and what—a planet, such as the Earth or Mars, should assume a certain observable position, after a certain lapse of time. You couldn't. The reason was, you couldn't derive it from mathematics, as such; or from geometry, as such. Therefore, you had to, in effect, invent a new mathematics, to be able to deal with that problem. And, the equal areas/equal time was an approximation of what led to the discovery of that principle. This, then, led—though it was proven, immediately—I mean, because the experiment, that proved Kepler, lay in the evidence itself. The more conclusive proof was later provided, on Kepler's model as a whole, was provided by Gauss, in the prediction of the location of Ceres, one of the asteroids. Which proves that the Kepler-Gauss conception of the organization of the Solar System, is correct, and the alternatives, including the Newtonian, are relatively absurd, scientifically.

So, these kinds of demonstrations, as in the case of Fermat, demonstrated the principle. And, the principle at issue, was the discovery, not of gravitation, but of the discovery of the underlying principle of all competent, modern, comprehensive mathematical physics. This was, then, developed further, with the work of Fermat, by Huygens and Leibniz. And from that, you got the concept of the monadology, which becomes clearer, when you look at this from the standpoint of the work of Gauss and Riemann.

So, what you have, is, not an individual discovery, which stands by itself, like a single star in a blank universe—an otherwise blank universe. What you have, is, a process of discovery, so that Kepler's work opened the door and began the process, of this specific quality of development, of mathematical physics, in its competent form. The antecedents, of course, are immediately, Leonardo da Vinci, who posed many similar problems, like the discovery of the finiteness of the speed of light! Which was implicitly defined, before then, by Leonardo da Vinci. You have the first measurement, of the actual estimated speed of light, as a result of the work of Huygens, on the basis of the influence of the earlier work by Kepler and Fermat—that is, in the middle of the 17th Century.

Now, on music: This is where people really have their problems. The physical science, as such, so-called, is easier for them to deal with in some sense; and they give explanations, which are all-too-plausible, but not true; too unrigorous, superficial, sleight-of-hand kind of thing. But, music is interesting. Because, now, modern knowledge of music starts in Italy. That is, explicit knowledge of music. It starts with the discovery of the Florentine bel canto organization, and development, of the human singing voice. Now, there are other programs, like the "grunt-and-groan," and "strain-your-buttocks" methods of singing. But, this is the one that's good.

This led, through a generalization of this, by a work, which only partly survives, to our knowledge today—the work by Leonardo da Vinci on De Musica. The same thing.

Then, comes Bach, with some intervening things. Now, Bach made a discovery, which is revolutionary, in very explicit features, like the discoveries of Kepler and Leibniz. Based on the same thing: It's the principle of counterpoint. Not what is usually taught—and certainly not Fux, and certainly not Rameau, and similar types of people; and not Hugo Riemann [?], and so forth. The principle is, inversion; how to use inversion, so that you develop a notion of counterpoint based on singing! That Bach counterpoint, makes no sense, on the basis of reading notes on a score. It makes a sense, but the core of the thing isn't there. You have to sing it! Or sing it in the head, as if the singers. And, you have to think of taking a statement, and singing it—the exact same notes—but in two different voices, voice species. That is, when you change from one voice species to another, you actually change the significance of that thing. And that's what most performers miss. When you see a defective performance, they miss that.

When a statement is repeated, in Classical composition, it is never repeated! It's a change of voice: a switch from soprano to alto; a substitution of baritone for alto—so forth. And, you have to think the voice in soprano, think the voice in alto, whatever—you have to think that voice. It's a change of voice. Can't two different voices of different voice species sing the same note of the scale? Of course, they can! Is there a difference? Yes!! There's a fundamental difference!

So, now, if I repeat the note—the same expression twice, with exactly the same notes, but in a different choice of species of singing voice, I have a different statement. The most elementary principle of composition! Now, if I combine that principle, with the principle of inversion, I get with two lines, an inversion of a primary line, I get an inversion. Now, by using that, I double that—and I get Bach counterpoint!

Now, this all depends on singing it! You can't look at it on a screen: You must sing! And you must sing bel canto. The instrumentalists must teach their instruments to sing. All decent musical instruments were designed to imitate the human, bel canto, singing voice. They must do that. Now, how does it work? Well, in wind instruments, the singer sings into the instrument. That's how the sound is produced—Mindy might do it for you, if you're good to her. How you change, and how you sing, by singing into the instrument—that's the way you control it. The same thing is true with the horns, the brass horns, and so forth. With the violin, it's done with the arm! With the 'cello, it's done largely with the arm! The arm is your passion; it's your emotion, if you're a string-player. Your arm—that's where the passion lies. You shape the tone.

All these things come together. Now, what happens as a result, is, a piece of poetry, in which you create in the composition, by using all these elements, a paradox. You resolve the paradox. And, from the statement of the paradox, or implicit paradox, to its development and resolution, is a single idea.

And, the Monadology is perfect for that: Because, you have certain principles, which have variable values, but you also have existences. For example: A thorough-Classical-composition is a unique piece of work, even when it's quoted in another composer's composition. The most famous case, of course, is Bach's quotation and development from the Bach's Well-Tempered Offering, the resolution. This is the most-imitated piece in all Classical music composition. But it always is different. Even by Mozart, in every case; in every other case—by Beethoven, by Brahms, and so forth. Always different. So, the composition is unique. Any composition of a Classical composer, a great one, is an absolutely unique work. One idea, not confused with another, it has relationships to other works; it quotes, it's like a dialogue among works, all based on the same principles. It's the same thing I described earlier, in terms of Classical tragedy, Classical dram—same principle. So, art—Classical art, which means art, which is committed to this idea of rationality, and reason, is always the same. It has the same characteristics as physical science, properly practices. And, the only way you can know this stuff, is not by a blackboard proof. Yes, you can do the blackboard work, and so forth. But that doesn't work, unless you actually experience the act of discovery in yourself, in your own cognitive processes. And, the basic function of performing music, is to communicate an intention by performing it. By forcing the cognitive processes of the performer and the hearer, to replicate the idea, as it was generated by the composer.