ICLC BRIEFING INTERNATIONAL VERSION
>
> TITLE:[BRIEFING MONDAY OCTOBER 22 2007 ] 1 of Pages
>
> SYNOPSIS:
>
> TO: ALL POINTS BY: JEFFREY STEINBERG/DAVID CHERRY
> RE: MORNING BRIEFING, MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2007.
>
> +---------------------------------------------------------------+
> | |
> | |
> | MORNING BRIEFING |
> | |
> | Monday, October 22, 2007 |
> | |
> | |
> +---------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> BE-DUNKING AL GORE
>
> By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
>
> LPAC 10/21 GORE SCORES AGAIN!
>
> Future historians will say that Al Gore was never more than
> a hole desperately seeking to disguise himself as a doughnut.
>
> Savants speak of Al Gore as a man with a 54" toxic waist.
>
> 30-30-30
>
>
>
> Lyn to Houston and Los Angeles Cadre Schools:
>
> THE LIFE OF OUR NATION, OF OUR WORLD, DEPENDS ON GETTING
> THE HOMEOWNERS AND BANK PROTECTION ACT RAMMED THROUGH--NOW!
>
> {Lyndon LaRouche addressed the Houston and Los Angeles cadre
> schools on Oct. 21 and fielded questions for a little over an
> hour.}
>
> LYNDON LAROUCHE: Okay. As you know, we had a meeting
> yesterday, here, of the National Committee. There were a couple
> of people who weren't able to make it, or make it completely, but
> that was it, and it was very useful. You see some reflection of
> it, in the Morning Briefing today, that the time had come to
> reorganize a few things, to clean up from the messes, which had
> been accumulated, and to get the National Committee functioning.
> Now, one of the key problems here, first of all, formally,
> is the fact that of course a lot of the Boomers had not accepted
> the Youth Movement from the beginning. They had accepted the
> idea of a few youth hanging around, but they didn't want to feed
> them, and they didn't want them interfering with established
> habits. This was true in Europe. We cleaned the mess up in
> Europe by getting rid of the people who wanted to be gotten rid
> of. They were going anyway. They'd been gone for a long time,
> they were actually working for enemy agencies, or under the
> influence of enemy agencies, so we didn't lose anything in
> Europe, we just simply acknowledged the fact that they were
> already long gone and lost. That happens. The enemy had taken
> them over.
> I mean, remember, particularly since about 1986-87, we had
> been, as an organization, ravaged by certain sections of British
> intelligence, operating in the United States, but operating
> chiefly--concentrating on our organization in Europe. And some
> German organizations in particular which were tied to right-wing
> and similar kinds of groups, which took over part of the German
> organization, the right-wing Catholics.
> And then we had, of course, the operation in the United
> States, which was run largely run through various agencies, but
> most notably the private agency was Mellon Scaife, who was
> funding the operation against us from 1983, oh about I would say
> about March 1983 on, and in conjunction with John Train: Who is
> actually an Anglo-American agent, more than just an American
> agent, who runs a private company who specializes in this. And
> the most recent thing, with people like Molly, for example, was
> being controlled by those circuits, and had been controlled by
> them for some time. Although her husband, Ken, who had committed
> suicide recently, was quite loyal to the organization, she was an
> enemy, actually. So, there wasn't much loss.
> But nonetheless, this mess had to be cleaned up. And the
> other thing had to be, of course, formally, that the fact of the
> youth organization had to be accepted, as a functioning
> organization, not as something which was somehow different.
> Now, I think the time has come to straighten that out.
> Also, the other problem has been, which is recently, the
> United States, and the world, are now on the verge--or in the
> process--of actually disintegrating. This is not a situation in
> which we can respond to a situation with the idea that we have
> any options in this thing. There's no option to say, we're going
> to do it, or not do it. We either do it, or we go to Hell! You
> have no option.
> Now, for example, recently, some people are saying, "Well,
> we don't have enough money, therefore we've got to tone down
> somewhat this effort around the housing and bank protection,
> because we don't have enough money, we have problems and so
> forth." We have problems in California, in particular. The
> whole state organization is corrupt as hell! 'Cause you have the
> Kennedy faction, or a majority of the Kennedy faction, with the
> Schwarzenegger operation, which is operating under George Shultz.
> And George Shultz also controls the Democratic Party in
> California, and much more, through the operation of people like
> Rohatyn. Now, Rohatyn, as you know, controls Feinstein in
> California, and controls, also through the same thing, through
> Pelosi. So, Pelosi is an outright agent of Rohatyn: He's
> practically sitting in her office running the Congress right now,
> which is now officially down to a 10.7% acceptance by the U.S.
> population! The U.S. citizens, only less than the 11% of the
> U.S. population accepts the Congress! And has contempt for them
> otherwise--and the Congress is saying, they don't want to listen
> to me! [laughs] What a situation, huh?
> Okay, California is a mess, because the Kennedy machine, or
> the majority of the Kennedy machine, through its relationship to
> the Governor, who is controlled by Shultz, who is behind the war
> --he's the war faction--in alliance in control over the
> Democratic Party on the one side, by this fascist Rohatyn, and on
> the other side, by this British agent, Soros!
> So, in California, there's a bit of a mess. The problem is,
> is that our members in California tend to believe that there's
> some reality in the California political system. You've have to
> realize you've got some good people in the Democratic Party, but
> presently they're intimidated from the top-down, by the fact that
> both parties, the Democratic and Republican Party from the top
> down, are controlled by a couple of fascists: George Shultz,
> who's an all-purpose fascist, and his ally, Felix Rohatyn! And
> Felix Rohatyn controls the top people in the Democratic Congress
> section, in California, that is, through Pelosi. Pelosi is {run}
> by Rohatyn, who's a fascist! And then, you have also, Dianne
> Feinstein, the Senator, who is also under the same influence.
> So, we have that problem there in California, and that has
> been conspicuous, since of course, the process of the first
> election, so-called, of the present Governor. And then the
> second election and other things that have gone on since.
> So that, California has not been functioning too well, because,
> in a sense, it has taken the effects on the California Democratic
> Party and the population out there, and taken that as a symptom
> of a natural popular reaction to politics. That is not true!
> What you have is a Democratic Party, in particular, in
> California, which is {demoralized} by the fact, that it is slave
> of these two characters, Shultz and Rohatyn. And that the
> Democratic Party at the top, in the Congress, through things such
> as the influence on Feinstein, by Rohatyn and Shultz--especially
> Rohatyn--and the control over Pelosi, the Democratic House,
> controlled by Rohatyn, directly.
> So, the {failures} to recognize that that's the problem,
> {not us}, not the California people as such, not the Democrats in
> California, as such, that {that} is the problem! The problem is
> to get rid of the control of the control of the Democratic Party
> in California, and also the Republicans to some degree, by our
> enemies, and by the {enemies of the United States}, George Shultz
> and Felix Rohatyn: {That's} the problem.
> And don't assume that it's our problem. We didn't create
> the problem. Our problem is that we tend to bend to the
> assumption that this problem in California is {our} reality. It
> is not our reality! It is the reality of the {demoralization} of
> the Democratic Party, and the fact that politicians in the United
> States tend to behave like prostitutes--they think that's their
> profession, I guess--and that's a problem.
> Now, in other parts of the country, it's somewhat different,
> but again, we get this idea that somehow we have to adjust to the
> "realities of our environment" and so forth and so on, and tone
> down or build up our policies accordingly. In the meantime,
> we've had the problem that when the Youth Movement has
> functioned, large sections of the Boomer part of the organization
> {have not yet really accepted the reality} of the Youth Movement.
> We saw that before, we saw it in Boston, in the Boston events of
> the summer of 2004: That the Boomer part of the organization,
> near the top down, had not accepted the reality of the Youth
> Movement.
> Now, if you look at the Youth Movement, it's largely
> dominated by people who are between the age of 25 and 35, at this
> point. Now, by what time do we start to recognize that this part
> of our organization are adults? [laughs] And that, as a matter
> of fact, they are of the same age-group as most of the people
> that joined the organization back in the end of the 1960s and the
> early 1970s. So, some people have just lost sight of reality on
> this thing.
> So, anyway. Going through the recent mess, we've come to a
> point, where as of yesterday, I was convinced we can change all
> this, much for the better--and we're doing it.
> Now, the first thing I've done, as of yesterday, was to make
> it official, that the National Committee of the organization is
> the National Committee, and will function as a National
> Committee: As the accountable national political organization,
> and it will not go off and do other things. And it's not going
> to be a few people, two or three people, deciding how the
> organization is run. There's going to be--the members of the
> National Committee are going to be whipped into shape, to
> assemble as a body, and to make decisions--political, responsible
> decisions, as a body. One or two people may be off elsewhere
> doing something and so forth, but the National Committee is going
> to function as an {active} committee, not as a chowder marching
> society which meets occasionally, but a National Committee which
> actually functions and takes responsibility for the political
> leadership of the entire organization, in conjunction with our
> people in Europe and so forth.
> The other thing we've got to do, is to end this dichotomy of
> accountability between the youth organization and the rest of the
> organization. What's happened, is, by the Boomers rejecting the
> legitimacy of the Youth Movement, or accepting it with
> reluctance, we have a situation, in which the Youth Movement
> tends to make decisions, or it has an impulse to make decisions,
> which are contrary to responsible policy of the organization as a
> whole. This came up, it came through on this thing with, our
> little, loving Senator, Hillary Clinton. It was a mistake. It
> just came through the youth, on an impulse, and it came as a
> typical rage reaction by some of the leading youth, who were
> saying, "What the Hell is she doing?" And we should realize that
> our problem is not Hillary Clinton: Hillary Clinton has a
> problem! She is not the problem, she is the victim of a problem.
> It's a problem of the Democratic Party leadership, it's a problem
> of the fact there's not a single candidate for President, from
> either party, currently running as a candidate for that office,
> who's fit to govern! {That's our problem}--#1!
> Problem #2, is we have to provide that leadership, which is
> lacking in those Presidential candidates, as a roster,
> {ourselves}. We have a bill, which is now in existence, which I
> crafted. It was crafted very carefully. It's the only thing
> that {will} work. {Nothing else is worth trying!} If you're not
> doing that every day, {you're wasting your time!}
> We are going to ram through a bill, which reestablishes the
> Constitutional character of the U.S. government. It does that,
> by taking the issue of the moment, that the recent policies of
> the U.S. government, since 1968, since the riots of '68, the U.S.
> government has been increasingly on the wrong track: It was the
> crazies from some places in California and elsewhere--as in
> Europe--of the youth ferment of '68, which destroyed the
> political system of the United States and got us into this mess.
> A rage factor in the streets, where you had a youth movement
> which called itself the "left," which was actually fascist.
> Well, there is such a thing as a fascist left, and that was part
> of it. That divided the population of the Democratic Party, and
> generally the population, between the blue-collar categories and
> the industrial operatives, and science, on the one side; and a
> {liberal}, white-collar orientation of the 68ers on the other
> side.
> This split the Democratic Party. By splitting the
> Democratic Party along these so-called class lines, you created
> the administration of Dick Nixon. And the Nixon Administration
> was the first attempt at establishing a fascist government in the
> United States, in the post-war period, or since the days of
> Truman and McCarthy.
> So, under those conditions, the British, the international
> British Empire, represented through these corrupt Democratic and
> Republican in the United States, among others, and people like
> Mellon Scaife, who is probably our resident leading fascist in
> this in the United States, today, together with John Train, these
> guys moved to destroy the U.S. Constitution, and our system of
> government, and our policy. And what they did, is they went with
> policies, like the so-called environmentalist policies, which
> were used to destroy the U.S. economy. And the purpose was to
> destroy the U.S. economy and to destroy the United States,
> chiefly.
> And they've done a fair job of it over the years. Every
> administration we've had, since that time, every Federal
> government, has acted, in the main, to destroy the U.S. economy,
> and in that sense, to destroy the world. Now, some of them have
> not intended to do that. Bill Clinton is a man of good
> intentions. You've had other people who were men of good
> intentions, who were misguided! And who contributed, or
> submitted to this process of wrecking the U.S. economy and the
> U.S. nation and the world, all in the favor of the advantage of
> the British Empire: that has been the policy.
> And that's what we've been fighting about. That's why I ran
> for President in the 1970s and afterward: Because {somebody} had
> to be a voice {for} the American Constitution, for our nation and
> our republic, and what it represents. And nobody else did. {No
> person running for President, except me, during that entire
> period, represented the actual interests, and the vital
> interests, of the United States government, in terms of long-term
> policy.} And that's why I ran.
> Now, I was {hated} for that reason, and because I was
> effective, I was feared. For example, you have people who won't
> talk to me directly, in high levels in our institutions of
> government and similar places. They won't talk to me
> directly--not any more! But they are eager to talk to me
> {in}directly! Through some of my associates. I have regular
> contact with leading people in many parts of the world, including
> in the United States. But they won't talk to me directly. But
> they will insist on discussing, at second or third remove, with
> one of my people. And I'm engaged {constantly} in this kind of
> relationship, to high-ranking organizations and institutions of
> the United States and other countries, at all times.
> So, I'm still the leader, in the United States, of the
> struggle to save our republic. There {is} no other leader.
> There is no other qualified leader, in the position of
> leadership, now. Just me.
> And that's our situation. So, now, we've come to this
> question of this act. Without the act, which a lot of technical
> people in politics agree is the only thing that would work, I
> already had that understanding before I made that proposal: {It's
> the only thing that will work, to save the United States and the
> people in it!} It's not the only thing to be done, but it's the
> one thing that {must} be done, otherwise nothing {else} can be
> done. So therefore, the only thing worth doing, is to mobilize,
> first of all, around the housing and banking protection act.
> {There is nothing else worth doing in the United States,
> politically, today, except that!} Because if you don't do that,
> you're not going to do anything useful. You're not going to save
> this nation! If you get that act through, you can kiss the
> United States goodbye in the short term: And kissing the United
> States goodbye, means kissing your own life goodbye, essentially.
> That sense of reality is what is lacking among many in our
> organization, including many of the youth. They don't get that
> sense of urgency. This is the {one and only thing!}, on which
> the fate of this nation and the fate of the people of this
> nation, right now, depends. Yes, there are other things that
> have to be done. But these other things are not important,
> {unless} we do this first! It doesn't mean it has to happen
> first, but we have to {do} this first.
> And that's what we {weren't} doing, and people were saying,
> "Well, we don't get enough money, therefore maybe we've got to
> back down a little bit and be more modest, and not so ambitious,"
> that sort of thing. That crap has to stop.
> And that's why we had this meeting yesterday, here, was to
> deal with all those problems together, but to look at it from the
> standpoint of the functioning--our function in the world at
> large, but especially our function inside the United States.
> Which means, there's nothing worth doing, unless we are ramming
> through, as a popular movement, the Homeowners and Bank
> Protection Act: {Nothing else will be of any value, unless that
> is done.}
> Because: What that represents, is #1, a return to the
> principle of the U.S. Constitution. Otherwise, no U.S.
> Constitution. Otherwise, no country. This is like the case of
> the horse that lost the horseshoe nail, and therefore the rider
> and the horse were lost, and therefore the nation was lost,
> because the job wasn't done: That's the horseshoe nail. The
> Homeowners and Bank Protection Act: That will decide whether the
> nation is going to exist, or not. Not in the distant future {but
> now}: Get it through!
> Now: The opposition is coming from where? Well, Rohatyn
> and Shultz and Soros and Co. are operating to prevent the
> Congress from doing this, and the Congress, being a corrupt
> institution, agrees to not do it; or to talk about it and not do
> it. And say, "Well, the Banking Committees will have to make the
> decision. If the Banking Committees won't accept it, we won't do
> it." BUNK! A lynch mob can take care of the Banking Committees.
> Because, would you look at the reality, as a result: Compare
> the popularity of the Democratic Party, when our dear friend
> failed to win the Presidency in 2004, despite our support for
> him. And you see why he didn't win the Presidency, when you see
> his softness on the Greenies. It shows you! He really has a
> little thing wrong up there, that needs to be fixed--badly.
> But anyway, so the Democratic Party had the popularity to
> win the Presidential election, the failure of the party
> leadership and especially of the candidate, prevented that
> victory. Since that time, since the beginning of about February
> 2006, the Democratic Party under the influence of the people who
> control Nancy Pelosi and so forth, has gone totally corrupt. As
> a result of that corruption, despite the popularity of the
> freshmen who moved into the House of Representatives with the
> 2006 election, they have been so discredited, that the popularity
> of the members of Congress and of the Congress itself, with the
> people, with the voters out there, {has fallen below 11%
> popularity!} Lower than Cheney! Lower than Bush!
> Why? Because of what they haven't done.
> Now, you're going to go up there and kiss the butt of the
> members of Congress, who are running around with 11% popularity
> --below Bush and below Cheney? Is that what you're going to do?
> Well, you can thank Pelosi for that; you can thank Shultz for
> that; you can thank Soros for that, you can thank Felix Rohatyn
> for that. Or, more especially, the idiots who support that!
> So therefore, it should come to you, that the fate of the
> nation depends on not having a general panic, through mass
> foreclosures which are about in the process of occurring, and to
> keep from demoralizing the people into the state they're ready
> for fascism, and to do that, now. And the issue about that,
> there are two issues here, two social issues: We must prevent
> evictions, categorically. Not some evictions, but {all}
> evictions, categorically. Hmm? We can have foreclosures, but
> the foreclosures will be frozen in a proceeding. We also must
> not allow the crises of the banks, caused largely by the real
> estate crisis, to shut down the banks. Because, if you don't
> have functioning banks, in communities, you have chaos. And if
> you have the combination of mass evictions, and the collapse of
> banks because of the housing crisis--then you don't have a
> nation.
> And we're not talking about something "down the road."
> We're talking about something {now, today}! Therefore, we have
> one instrument, one issue, which is foremost: That issue is the
> Homeowners and Bank Protection Act.
> {That must rammed through.}
> We have the base for that, in the population. But some of
> our people, get romantic, and say, "But our members of the State
> Assembly, our members of the Congress, don't agree. How're we
> going to do it?" We can always lynch them--I don't mean
> physically lynch them, but we can {politically} lynch them! We
> can terrify them, politically, into going along with it! And
> that's precisely what we have do.
> How do you do that? Very simply: Mobilize the masses.
> Mobilize the mass population, and say, "Your ass is on the line.
> Your survival is on the line. If you don't get this act through,
> {you}, personally, are finished." And that will get a response.
> But you also say, "Our problem is that the Congress has
> earned, including our Democrats, has earned a popularity of {less
> than 11%}! Below the popularity of this idiot, the President,
> and this fascist, the Vice President. And {you} want sit back,
> and accept leadership from politicians who are controlled, by
> George Shultz, George Soros, and Felix Rohatyn? You are
> accepting that? {You should be ashamed of yourselves!}"
> Our policy, I think, probably should be, not to say "Hillary
> is an idiot," but they're {all} idiots! Why single her out?
> There isn't a non-idiot among the crowd! That's reality.
> So therefore, the answer is, is to say: Please cease being
> an idiot, Mr. Congressman! [laughs] And "we don't want you
> lynched, sir. We don't want you lynched. We don't want you
> lynched."
> "Aw, that Pelosi, she's got the wrong thread controlling her
> jaw. She's got this guy Rohatyn sitting in her office in
> Washington. What the hell? You got a {fascist} up there? The
> guy, the Revolution in Military Affairs, the guy who's
> responsible, together with Shultz and brags about it, for this
> policy in Iraq and elsewhere? You want to give in to that? You
> say you're against the war: Then why are you supporting Pelosi?
> Why are you supporting Cheney through supporting Pelosi? Why're
> you doing that? Why're you supporting Republicans who do similar
> things? You're listening to {them}? Do you think they have any
> moral authority, rightly? When they're running around with a
> popularity of less than 11% with the people? Hey, c'mon fellas:
> We have the cause that has popularity. We just have to go out
> and collect on it."
> So therefore, at the point that we have to have an
> organization, the National Committee will come into shape now, as
> a result of what we had at the meeting.
> #2) We will build up, and regularize to some degree, so it's
> a more efficient organization, the leadership of the youth, of
> the LYM.
> #3) We will go ahead fully, with the Homeowners and Bank
> Protection Act, as the {main} issue, the leading issue at all
> moments, and we will go ahead, laughing our butts off about
> Congressmen who think they're the Kings of Shit, and who are
> running around with a less than 11% political popularity.
> Okay: Have fun, that's it.
>
> - DIALOGUE -
>
> MODERATOR: Okay, Lyn, do you have time for questions?
> LAROUCHE: Let's see what you got.
> MODERATOR: Okay, we got one coming now.
> LAROUCHE: What's this, California?
> MODERATOR: Yeah.
>
> Q: Hi LaRouche, this Hector from L.A.
> LAROUCHE: Good!
> Q: I noticed that that, and in particular, you've been
> giving this series of instances on Rohatyn and Shultz, and
> clearly they're a big problem in California, 'cause of the major
> control here through Pelosi, and to find mostly Pelosi, just from
> talking to some political contacts, whether in state and local
> levels.
> So--what exactly do we have to do to take this guy down? I
> mean, what is it really going to... what do we have to do at this
> point? What's going to really destroy Rohatyn? 'Cause I know we
> had the campaign beforehand with the Nazi pamphlet, but--what're
> you... what're you hinting at?
> LAROUCHE: You're not looking at a popularity contest.
> You're not looking at a simple propaganda popularity contest.
> You're not looking at a so-called "issue," the way most Democrats
> and others talk about "issues." This is not an issue: This is a
> matter of survival.
> Unless we get this through, the people of California are not
> going to survive! {That's} the way to look at it. Don't look at
> it--don't listen to these bullshit artists who tell you you have
> to win a certain amount of support from these guys and acceptance
> of these guys in the Congress to get this through. You don't
> need it. All you have to do, is give them the impression that a
> lynch mob may be coming for them. Now, how do you do that? Not
> by threatening to lynch them. Not by insulting them in just
> plain insults. You do that by {organizing, by mass organizing.}
> That's how you do it.
> And the problem is, that too many of our people have been
> discussing "what's the effective way of maneuvering and
> persuading these members of Congress to change their ways, the
> members of the Democratic Party to change their ways?" Very
> simply: {Organize out from under them!} Independent organizing!
> Organize the people! Don't waste your time on the members of the
> Congress. They are a waste of time! Organize the people!
> The people want an advocate, who want to hear from us, "What
> can we do to save our lives? What can we do to stop the
> evictions? What can we do to prevent the banks from being
> closed?" Hmm? That's what the people are concerned--don't try
> to get into a popularity contest with the Congressmen. The
> Congressmen have already told you: {Their opinion is not worth
> very much.}
> The members of Congress are running around with an average
> of less than 11% popularity with the people, you don't have to
> worry about convincing them: You have to put a bonfire under
> them. They will do what they're supposed when they're terrified
> by the fact that the mob's coming for them, politically. You
> have to concentrate on {mobilizing the people}, not arguing the
> Congressmen.
> Yeah, you'll argue with the Congressmen, but you'll argue
> from the standpoint of strength, of {mass support}. And what's
> happened is, our people have been debating, retreating, by
> saying, "How can we win these Congressmen over?" Very simply:
> Put a bonfire under them. Don't try to "convince" them; don't
> try to persuade them; lynch them. Or convince them that a
> political lynch mob is coming for their career. How do you do
> that? Mobilize the angry people to focus their anger on the
> problem, and do it in a constructive way.
> The {only thing worth doing, is this act}, which we're
> pushing now. Stick to that act. Do not debate side questions.
> Don't change the subject. The subject should be: {Getting the
> act through, now!} And the way you do that, is building up a mob
> spirit, which is ready to lynch the Congressmen if they don't
> change their ways and do it.
> That's the only way to do it.
> Otherwise, there's no reality: That's reality. Any
> contrary view is not in the real world.
>
> MODERATOR: Okay, Lyn, we've got another question here for
> you, and then we'll see if our friends in Texas got anything for
> you.
> LAROUCHE: I'm sure they do!
> Q: Hi Lyn, this is Lyn from Oakland. And in reading your
> most recent paper, "More on the Calculus," I couldn't help but
> being reminded of a question you have posed to the Youth Movement
> several months ago. I believe you titled it, "A Timely Essay
> Question for the Youth Movement," and it pertained to--if I
> remember correctly--you were asking, what is the significance
> that the Egyptians' and the Pythagoreans' work on spirits, how
> does that pertain to the Youth Movement's work, now, on Kepler's
> first Earth-Mars-Sun relationship, and then on the {Harmonies}.
> And it seemed that in this paper, you were somewhat answering
> your own question, but extending it to the Gauss work that we're
> now doing. And I'm just wondering if I'm on the right track, and
> if not, what you thought about that?
> LAROUCHE: Well, no, this whole thing is a one-part package.
> The history of science has a main track, which has two divisions:
> Division #1 is ancient science, and ancient science is really
> from a period from--or at least, from what we know, what we can
> deal with as concrete statements by various people, work by
> various people in ancient times, with the Pythagoreans and the
> Platonics. And some people who fit into the same category, for
> example, very important is Heraclitus, who is obviously earlier,
> but is, we know from the view of Heraclitus' work by Plato for
> example, that we understand Heraclitus, and he was right; he's
> very important.
> So, this is all one group. It's not a collection of people,
> it's a process.
> Now, this continues, despite the problems, it continues as
> an organizing thrust in science, up through about 200 B.C. And
> the significance of 200 B.C. is that, at that point, the Romans
> were becoming the Roman Empire, as the conclusion of the Second
> Peloponnesian War, and established their imperial power by the
> conquest of Syracuse, and their murder of Archimedes.
> So, with the death of Archimedes, and in the same period, of
> the greatest scientific mind of that period, Eratosthenes,
> science, despite Apollonius and so forth, science went down.
> Science went, under the Roman Empire, under the Byzantine Empire,
> under the influence of the Crusaders and so forth, went into a
> general dark age. There was a period of brightness typified by
> the work of Charlemagne, which is an upturn in civilization. But
> after the death of Charlemagne, the Crusades were launched, and
> the Crusades destroyed civilization, destroyed European
> civilization at large.
> So therefore, there's a gap in science, between about 200
> B.C. and the meeting of the great Council of Florence in 1439 in
> particular. Science was largely dead as far as European culture
> was concerned.
> So, now you have, with Nicholas of Cusa, and largely people
> who followed him, you have modern science, which is actually a
> continuation, a revival and continuation of the foundations of
> European science with the Pythagoreans and people like that. but
> there is a big gap, there's a gap from about 200 B.C. until about
> 1439, or about 1400 A.D., a big gap. And out of this, out of the
> work of Cusa, all modern science, and the principle of
> statecraft, come from the initiative of Cusa, with his
> {Concordantia Catholica}, which is the first prescription of the
> modern nation-state, even though it does echo in some respects
> the {De Monarchia} of Dante earlier, it is a completely new
> thing, which continues the effort of Dante Alighieri's {De
> Monarchia}, but it's not the same thing. And Cusa's {De Docta
> Ignorantia} foundation of science is also the foundation of all
> modern science. Cusa in particular is most significant for his
> influence on Kepler, who is the actual originator of modern
> physical science as experimental science.
> Now, from Kepler on, you have a very limited number of
> figures, who are actually the prominent, paramount figures of
> science. Typical, of course, Fermat, who reflects even the
> Pythagoreans in some of his work; things that mystify people
> actually come from his work on the work of the Pythagoreans. You
> have the follower of Fermat--Pascal is significant, of course,
> but after Fermat and Pascal, you have Leibniz.
> Leibniz is the essential organizer of modern science {after}
> Kepler. There is a dark age, largely in much of the 18th century
> in science, that is, on the fundamentals, and typified by Euler,
> who is a renegade from science, who became the chief organizer of
> the filth that came on later. But the revival of science comes
> in a very awkward way, around the leading influence of Gauss, who
> was, in a sense, a protégé of both Kaestner before, and that
> circle--the Leibniz tradition--and then also Alexander von
> Humboldt who was his chief patron.
> Out of this came the work of Riemann.
> When you follow that track, that I just outlined, from
> Thales, Heraclitus, the Pythagoreans, Plato, with the gap in
> between from about 200 B.C. to about 1430 A.D., and modern
> science since Cusa, {you've got all of the essence of science.}
> There were other things added, which I've noted and
> emphasized, but that's what you've got.
> So therefore, what we've done, is not picked on "some
> things" to study, like objects you could buy in a junk store.
> But rather to emphasize the importance of developing the
> continuity of the knowledge of science, as civilization depends
> upon it, as a continuity. So there's no "if, then, or but" about
> it. It's a continuous process. What we've tried to do, and
> which has so far been rather successful, with the bumps and
> grinds that it leads to, is to develop the continuity.
> Now, we started in California, largely with Phil's
> influence, in doing the work on the Pythagoreans, and some other
> things as well. And Phil was acting as a key mentor, with
> long-winded efforts at explanation and so forth, to get something
> going, which did get going and it worked. But that was not going
> to work over all. So, what I did, is to get the continuity of
> this things started, so we started the Kepler project, because
> all modern science depends upon Kepler. That is, the actual
> development of modern physical science, depends entirely on
> Kepler: If you don't know Kepler, if you don't understand
> Kepler, {you don't know modern science}. You may pretend you do,
> you may have degrees, you have Professor This, Professor That:
> But if you don't understand Kepler's revolution, you have no
> foundation in modern physical science. You're just not
> competent.
> So we concentrated on that.
> Now, that was--the prelude, not to Leibniz, because Leibniz
> is implicit in all this. Leibniz is the coordinator, in a sense,
> of this process. But then, the skip is the next great major
> thing, as the dark age had hit in the 18th century in science,
> was Gauss. And Gauss is a very complicated figure, because he
> has a habit of not telling the truth, and he doesn't tell the
> truth about some of his work, because he's afraid to do it,
> because he's in a period of persecution.
> So therefore, Gauss is tricky, in the sense that what he
> tells you, what he does, actually, is very truthful and very
> useful, there's nothing rotten about Gauss's work. {But!} He
> doesn't always tell you want the discovery is! Or how it was
> made. And therefore, our team, which is now still working on it,
> on the Gauss has been wrestling with this two-sidedness of Gauss:
> That Gauss does work which is legitimate, it's important, it's
> crucial. But he does not always tell you {why} it's crucial, or
> {how} he did it! And therefore, the problem of the team has
> been, to adduce how and why Gauss did some of the things he did,
> which are very important, but if you don't know that, don't
> investigate that, as a special problem, you really don't
> understand Gauss's work. So, that's what they're doing.
> They also are now at the point of their work that they are
> on the fringes, where the teams next have to deal with Riemann.
> And as you look back from current modern science, from the
> current achievements of the 20th century in science, you look to
> two prominent figures who are the keystones of scientific
> achievement in the 20th century: One is the Russian, our dear
> friend, Vernadsky. And the other is Einstein. These are the two
> celebrities of science, the outstanding celebrities of science in
> the 20th century.
> They are both Riemannians: That is, the significance of the
> central achievements of their work, lies ultimately, in Riemann.
> {Thus:} The range taking into account the Pythagoreans and Plato,
> and that work, then taking the span of that, and going, skipping
> ahead from about 200 B.C., skipping ahead now to the 15th
> century, where the work has really picked up again with Nicholas
> of Cusa and is implemented, partly by Leonardo da Vinci, but the
> follower of Cusa and Leonardo--Kepler--all modern science is
> Kepler through Riemann.
> And therefore, to know the background to and inside of the
> development of modern science from Kepler through Riemann, is the
> secret of all science. And that's what we're doing. There're no
> parts to this thing. This is all one coherent piece, with no
> side trips that are irrelevant. And it's working, it's working
> just fine. And I'm very proud of the guys who have done what
> they've done so far. They've all done a magnificent job.
> They've gone through a lot of problems, but the problems were all
> not only necessary, but they have been quite useful.
>
> MODERATOR: Does Houston have anything?
> Q: Yeah, Lyn? What is the difference... Is Kepler's method
> in the {Harmonies} and the {New Astronomy} both so apparent? Is
> that why you start with the {New Astronomy} or would there be a
> problem starting with the {Harmonies} first?
> LAROUCHE: No, you have to start with Kepler the way he did
> it. There really is--Kepler is about one of the most honest
> people in the world. There's nothing he does, that he doesn't
> make clear. For example, he doesn't change his works! He
> re-writes a book, interpolates some new paragraphs, and says what
> his mistake was in the previous version of the book--puts the
> previous version in there, and puts the correction in!
> So, what Kepler does, which is unique in a sense, is to put
> {you} through the experience of his methods of making the
> discoveries. Now that is rather unusual, if you know people who
> consider themselves scientists today. Most people who consider
> themselves scientists, you bring up what their mistakes were at
> an earlier period of their work, and instead of saying, "Yeah, I
> did that, that was a mistake. But here's how I recognized it was
> a mistake and here's how I corrected it." Which in a sense, is
> what Kepler does! [laughs]
> So, Kepler is an integral, and so, going through the phases
> of re-experiencing what {he} experienced in making his
> discoveries--. See, it's not getting the "right" answer. The
> problem with science today, is people think you've got to get the
> right answer, the objective is to pass the examination, by
> putting out a paper which has the "right answer" in it. Well,
> that's not science! That's something else.
> Science is the experience of {changing the way you think},
> to conform to the reality of the problem, as opposed to what you
> thought the reality was beforehand. And Kepler is an example of
> the guy who never cheats. He never tells you he came up with the
> perfect answer, at the first blow. He tells you, "Here's where
> my first mistake was, but the first mistake was important because
> it led me to overcome the second mistake--which led me to
> overcome the third mistake."
> Now, in the case of the question of gravitation: It's all
> been done, it's all there, and in Houston, you have Chris there
> who can belabor you with space on this one. On the question of
> the equant: You start out with this question--well, you don't
> want to start there, but you come into this question of the
> equant; and you go up with an elliptical orbit, which is not so
> easy to get to, to define that, rigorously. And when you do, you
> realize that the elliptical orbit is not an ellipse! That is,
> it's a physical ellipse, not a geometrical ellipse. Because, the
> rate of motion along the elliptical pathway, is not a regular
> elliptical motion, but is determined by equal areas/equal times.
> Now, that poses a question, which is the same question which
> Cusa dealt with, in pointing out the fallacy of Archimedes'
> quadrature of the circle and parabola: That there is no way, that
> you can proceed from the equivalent of a Euclidean geometry, to
> define a {physical} elliptical function, such as the
> gravitational pathway of the planet Earth. Now, this discovery,
> this first discovery of Kepler's in this regard, does not give
> you the answer. It gives you a question. And the question is
> posed, by jumping outside that, and say, "Wait a minute! Now,
> we've determined this about gravitation, but we don't know what
> gravitation {is}. We know what we have to mean by gravitation,
> but we don't know what it is."
> So, then he goes to the question of the concentric orbits,
> elliptical orbits, within the Solar System. And then he gets to
> the point that he realizes, that you can not, with a science
> based on the concept of vision, you can not discover how the
> planetary orbits are configured. But then he goes, he says:
> "Well, let's go beyond vision, and let's take hearing. Now what
> can we {hear} about the planetary orbits?" And then he comes up
> to one of the most fundamental principles of discovery in all
> modern science: The fact that {neither sight nor hearing is an
> adequate basis for judging what experience is}--especially with
> respect to science. As Kepler demonstrated, where he {did}
> develop a general formulation for gravitation in the Solar
> System, he was able to make that generalization by recognizing,
> that neither sight nor hearing creates a self-evident collection
> of evidence for science. The evidence for science treats sight
> and hearing, merely as fallacious, inherently fallacious
> sense-certainties. These are false. To find the truth, you must
> find what the truth is, that is {neither} sight nor hearing, but
> which is experimentally valid, on the basis of considering the
> evidence of both.
> So, instead of saying, "sense-certainty," you should say,
> "sense-uncertainty."
> So, the pathway from equal areas/equal times, the first
> phase, leads to a question, and without making that step of
> posing that question, and realizing the question exists, you
> don't get to the second step. Therefore, it is not Kepler
> himself who organizes the sequence of his studies: It is Kepler
> who is smart enough to recognize what the universe is telling him
> about the proper sequence of his studies.
>
> MODERATOR: We have a question from a guest here in L.A.
> Q: Hi... My question was, 'cause I'm planning to start a
> club at my school, so I was wondering what advice you could give
> me to get it started?
> LAROUCHE: There's a little breakup on the microphone, so
> you have to be probably a little bit slower and a little more
> emphatic.
> Q: I am planning on starting a club at the school that I go
> to, so I'm wondering if you had any advice to give me on how to
> organize it.
> LAROUCHE: Oh, a club? Well, the way to do it, very simply,
> is start a discussion group on the basis of some subject which is
> relevant. Say, "We're doing this thing," and indicate what we're
> doing, and say, "You, too, can do it."
> I mean, first of all, the first thing when you get into
> science, people get discouraged; they're frightened by it. They
> want a simple answer. They don't know what they're getting into,
> hmm? So therefore, you have to get some help, with people who
> can help you work out a curriculum, that is, you know, a program
> of discussion: What should be the sequence of discussion? And
> work it out, and it will work. It takes a lot of patience--and
> courage--but it will work. If you want to do something that's
> not too good, you can probably get--it's more easy to get
> success, and then failure. [laughs] If you want to do something
> that's successful and good, it takes a lot of patience on your
> part, but it will work. And you get help from people on this
> thing, how to do this. You get examples.
> If you understand it, first of all, if you understand the
> subject you're introducing, then it'll work. If you don't
> understand the subject you're introducing, it probably won't
> work! So, that's the rule of the game. And all I can say, is
> good luck!
>
> MODERATOR: Okay, do our friends in Texas have another
> question?
> Houston: Yep!
> LAROUCHE: Ah, longhorn question, huh?
> Q: Hello Lyn. My name's Jerome, I'm a former LYM
> organizer. I just had a quick question about, just trying to
> re-create myself into organizing again, now that we're in this
> point in history.
> LAROUCHE: Sure--what do you want me to say? I mean, I can
> say a lot on this subject, but what do you want me to say now?
> Q: I don't want you to say anything, I just--you know, I've
> been thinking about this, 'cause I read Schiller's {Aesthetical
> Education of Man}, and it provoked me in a way of how to re--just
> come back into that process again. I was just looking for some
> advice.
> LAROUCHE: Sure. But, the thing is just do it. It's like
> swimming: The first thing to do is jump in the water. If you
> forgot how to swim, jump in the water, again. It works!
> History is changing, there's evolution in the world around
> us. Things that seemed to be true in the past, are becoming
> increasingly evident are not true, and actually they never were!
> That's the way life goes.
> And I find that people who can take a relaxed view of this
> matter, will tend to succeed. If you get too tense about it, the
> tension itself gets in the way of succeeding.
> My general rule of thumb on this, in responding to people's
> question on this, is, a simple two words: Have fun. That's the
> secret of organizing, that's the secret of intellectual work:
> Have fun. My way! [laughs]
>
> Q: Hello. My name is Axel, I'm from a tiny little country
> in Europe, called the Principality of Liechtenstein. And I'm
> wondering, because five or seven years ago, we were on the
> blacklist for money laundering. And I know the country is bought
> by the Habsburgs, from the Roman Empire, that kind of weird. And
> also, in the time when Hitler was in power, he ran through the
> whole of Europe, but my country and Switzerland was spared, and
> you know why? And also, there is--[laughter] there is one, his
> name is Frid Kaiser [ph], and he's praising Al Gore, and he kind
> of made a club or something with him for the wealthy people so
> they can try to make what's going on in the world--kind of, yeah.
> And just wondering if you know something, how my country is
> involved in the whole thing what's going on right now.
> LAROUCHE: Well, you've got to watch out how you post a
> letter in Liechtenstein, if you know about the post office
> business. [laughs] The thing was used as a post office box for
> organizing a lot of things, and "a lot of things" [laughs] as you
> probably know!
> When you're dealing with something like Liechtenstein, you
> have to sort of say, "Well, I come from Liechtenstein, don't hold
> that against me. I'm a European at heart." And I think that's
> usually the best way to think about this whole matter. And look
> at the question of {European} civilization, rather than
> Liechtenstein civilization. After all, the territory is so small,
> it's difficult to think of a culture in a territory so small.
> But, be careful who you post a letter with, in
> Liechtenstein! You never know where the answer's going to come
> from. And that's been the history of the country.
> I don't think can be too embarrassed--one can make jokes
> about being from Liechtenstein, but I don't think there's any
> profit in being too much embarrassed about the fact. Well say,
> "I come from there. I could tell you something about it, but
> it's very small, because it's a small country and there's very
> little to say. But I could shock you a bit," and that sort of
> thing.
> So, I think the point is, is to think of being European, in
> terms of European culture, is probably the best way to cope with
> the problems of trying to explain Liechtenstein to people who
> don't have some experience with the place.
>
> MODERATOR: All right, Lyn. Do you have time for another
> question?
> LAROUCHE: I can take another question... Go ahead.
> Q: Hello LaRouche, this is Adrian Yule. I was wondering,
> at our common stomping ground of New England [laughter], I was
> wondering how Californication directly affected you, if you have
> any good jokes, how it affected the East Coast?
> LAROUCHE: Well, it created a lot of laughter in me. I've
> been ridiculing the place for a long time. So, I would miss all
> those jokes, if I hadn't met California. I actually passed
> through there a number of times, including a place, Riverside,
> where I was encamped very briefly in being shipped overseas
> during World War II, and had very little experience with the
> place. But here I was, in there, the sort of Liechtenstein of
> California! And of course, I made jokes about it, particularly
> Hollywood, which sort of disgusted me.
> But also, you had a lot of people in California who were
> part of a very important culture during World War II, for
> example, in the development of our aircraft industries and other
> things out there, the shipbuilding industry. So that, you had
> the participation of the people of California in a very
> optimistic and uplifting experience, which was the development of
> industry, and many of these people came from places like
> Oklahoma, Arkansas, and so forth, were poor areas, and were
> absorbed into these industries, and despite the jokes about the
> thing, made something of themselves, and made something of the
> country through this effort.
> So, California--the problem of California, it probably never
> escaped fully the corruption associated with the name of Mark
> Twain. You know, Mark Twain is the guy who invented, I think,
> Californication.
> But that's my thoughts about California. You organize in
> the place, you have to think as an American, not as a
> Californian. And if you think as an American, not a Californian,
> you get along with California quite well, I think.
>
> MODERATOR: All right! So, that's what we have here.
> Thank you very much, Lyn, from all of us.
> LAROUCHE: Oh, good. And as I always say: "HAVE FUN!"
> [applause]
> MODERATOR: We will!
> LAROUCHE: Okay, good.
>