LaRouchePAC Policy Committee, October 6th, 2014, Transcript
October 7, 2014 • 10:46AM

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon. It's October 6th, 2014. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I'm happy to welcome all of you watching to our weekly discussion with our LaRouche PAC Policy Committee. We're broadcasting today over Google OnAir, and we're joined over video conference by the members of our Policy Committee, starting with Bill Roberts, joining us from Detroit, Michigan. Dave Christie, joining us from Seattle, Washington. Kasha Rogers, joining us from Houston, Texas. Michael Steger, joining us from San Francisco, California. And Rachel Brinkley, joining us from Boston, Massachusetts. And here in the studio I joined by Diane Sare, and as you can see, by Mr. LaRouche.

So, Lyn, I know you have something to start with.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: All right. In the course of the previous week, we and the Science Team, produced a set of presentations which represented scientific rather than ordinary kinds of talk-a-talk, you know, kind of things and so forth. Because the problem is that in our organization, in general, the way in which people argue is not worthy of honest speech. They simply try to imitate whatever they think will sound nicely in somebody else's ears, but maybe unpleasant in somebody else's.

So therefore, the point is, what we did, we made an experiment, and it was quite a successful experiment, in effect. It's what we did is we had our own people present a real presentation, a real scientific form of presentation of an argument, or series of arguments. That was done and that worked excellently. But it's never been done to our knowledge in terms of our broadcasting methods and so forth. And the point was, is that we want to get rid of the old hack kind of argument, and for science, we want to get into the proper scientific requirement, which presents the actually scientific approach, on which science is based. Not a mere babbling, or mumbling of something that's supposed to look like science.

But most of our discussion, in political discussion has been of this rather loose, sloppy kind of ordinary slang of some kind or other, rather than what's needed. What is needed an actual, creative insight, into the intention embarked within the ideas. And that what the team did, is excellent. As I think so far, almost at least, no member of our organization has actually done that before. And this would be the search to get to that point. I think would be a useful step to take, right now. Because people have had the experience that was done on the recent broadcast, and they can reconstruct it. But we want to get rid of the old hat kind of routine, which does not convey any actually scientific product, whatsoever. And we want to get rid of that noisy clatter of nonsense.

OGDEN: Well Lyn, the discussion that we had on Saturday reminded me of the scene from Shakespeare's Hamlet.


OGDEN: Where Hamlet is reading. Polonius says, "What do you read, my Lord?" And Hamlet says, "Words. Words. Words." And what Shakespeare understood, perhaps better than anybody else, is that the reality of human existence, and as Hamlet said, the reality of "something after death" does not lie in words, or sounds and symbols, or in human sense experience. Just as Kepler understood that the power which moves the planets does not lie within the planets themselves. And so the discussion we had on Saturday, as applied to political leadership today, as you've been mentioning about the power of what Modi has been able to do and represents, is to penetrate beyond normal everyday experience. And to penetrate behind this mask, which is this superficial representation of what in fact is, rather, the reality of human experience.

LAROUCHE: Yeah. But exactly that. And actually exactly use that form of expression, in order to convey these kinds of ideas. But the idea of the old babble, of using this code or that form, or this and so forth, and someone's opinion.... We should get rid of that crap! Because it's nothing. It's nonsense. It doesn't mean anything, really. Somebody thinks it means something, because they don't think what they're talking about. Whereas our whole team, as you've probably noticed most emphatically, our whole team did that. And did it on their own part. I simply proposed it, and they did it. And in general, in most of our organization, the members of our organization, even leaders, are not capable of doing that!

And therefore the stupidity of those many members of our organization, is really one of the great threats to our ability to realize our mission in life. We got to cancel that nonsense, and concentrate on the principles which actually determine the future. And we have people who do know how to do that. We have people who use that method. But they won't put it on view, because they want to be in line with popular opinion. What you have to do is get rid of popular opinion. Flush the toilet! Get rid of popular opinion. Then you will get some really interesting discussion. But you have flush afterwards. [laughter]

DIANE SARE: Well, we had a very provocative discussion with you last Thursday, the Policy Committee, on some organizing questions, and one thing you said is that, I forget how it was preceded, but that, in some moments, and when you are addressing people in this way, that even people who are not particularly good, nonetheless, get an insight, because they are human. And I was thinking about this case, which I mentioned to you before we got on, which was also the converse, I mean, really, this Satanic evil: this policy of assisted suicide, of euthanasia, which is part of Obamacare. And it's very advanced now in the Netherlands, where a year ago, they euthanized, killed, 14 people who were mentally ill. This year it is up to 42 people.

I mean this is an explicitly Nazi program. It's an attack on what it actually means to be human, which is not our physical so-called "quality of life." It's the quality of mind and creativity and a dynamic among human beings, which is a thing of great value of mankind. And the guy who was one of the instigators of this program, who was in fact regulating this so-called euthanasia, is now looking at it, and saying, "Oh, My Gosh! I was horribly mistaken, in what I did." But he didn't see that before, but he sees it now.

LAROUCHE: Somebody told him. [laughter] That's what happens! Because that's what we're dealing with. We're dealing with that kind of stuff in most society. We even have cases like that, where we were ashamed of some people in our organization, who behaved like that. And we don't say, "Cut it out! Don't do that anymore! This is not human. Stop inhuman behavior. And if you want to keep talking, get rid of the non-human behavior. And we'll listen to you." And that is not done often enough.

DAVE CHRISTIE: You know, just in contrast to what Diane had raised, because this close to home I know that we've similar cases of the euthanasia policy going on in Oregon, so this is not just simply off across the other side of the ocean in the Anglo-Dutch Empire, this is right here at home as well. But if you contrast that to what Modi is saying, where he made a very explicit statement on the question of the mentally and physically disabled, that these are not just a responsibility of the individual families, this is a responsibility for society. And on that idea and on the idea of what India has done under Modi's leadership, and frankly under the leadership that we're seeing, where you may not necessarily expect it. I know we've brought up the case of [Bolivian President] Evo Morales who was not always known to be some great advocate of the frontiers of science; he's now presently, in terms of the Bolivian nuclear program, he's making a very clear intervention which seemingly came out of nowhere. You know in other words, there was no step by step by step process that led up to this transformation in him.

And in some discussions here, we were discussing that. Because actually the Meno dialogue, somewhat gets at this, the idea of the square root of 2 as being incommensurate with the normal number line. In other words, you can't just get to it according to a sort of a step by step process, but rather it's a shadow of a higher power, and that's often what you see in the lower domain, is a shadow of something that is a projection, if you will, of a higher domain.

And it struck me as well, because in reviewing what, Lyn, you and Helga, have done over a 40-year process, you could say, "oh, well, now what we have going on with the Silk Road," well, of course, there was this conference and that conference and step by step by step, it led up to this as, now, a policy in China, this as a policy in India, this as a policy amongst the BRICS nations, but was that actually how it worked? No. It was, Lyn, your insistence and Helga's insistence, that this was the future, starting in 1975, when there was nothing to back it up, or nothing that implied that that would eventually would become a reality, you start with the future and let that unfold onto the present reality. You start, as that as the higher power that can unfold, such that at a certain point, it looks as if there's a miraculous transformation, but it was unfolded from something that was pushed in the future.

So, and that's very much this Euclid idea, as well. And I think the more we can be clear on that, that organizing is not just step by step by step; it's that you're shocking people from a future vantage point.

LAROUCHE: Mm-hmm. Sometimes I go back into achievements of that type. But it's less frequently now, and naturally with my age, as such, I will generally pick up and echo what I've known from before and added something new to that. But it's true, that what I did in those years, was actually the driving force, and without that driving force, what I've been able to do since then, would not have been possible. And the problem is, essentially, is not the fact that my functions are impaired in some way, they're not, they're just slowed down a bit. But the problem is, is that the absence of my role, leaves a room open for the idiots to run in, like mice or rats running in through the darkness of the day. And that's what the problem is, the participation which is what I was emphasizing and presenting this idea of this discussion.

The idea is to get people as a group of people, to raise the level of their own intellectual behavior, to a higher level than they have been doing presently. And in most cases, the need for that is extreme. Some people tend to edge into those kinds of capabilities. Most people are failures.

And what we have to do is by taking the people who are not the failures, the ones who are generally pushed aside because they're not popular, they don't conform to popular opinion, well, I would say, get rid of popular opinion; that's the first thing to do if you want to get ahead, a real head, that's worn by a real human being, hmm! [laughter]

So the point is, is that we have a kind of society which should be based, on the fact that people, as they grow up, as they become older, if they improve, and they must improve in some ways or others, that improvement must be an improvement to society as well. That's the point. And therefore, don't be a populist! Don't be popular! Popular people are stupid people, or they're even evil people! It's people who try to be popular who are stupid, or evil.

Everybody must progress. They may lose powers of making progress, but they must do it, they must share that with other people. They must have the kind of mass dialogue which forces that question. What're you going to do, if you don't turn the guy who's babbling like an idiot, but he's not an idiot but he's just babbling like one, probably a liberal or something like that; but the fact is, if you don't change that poor idiot, that liberal idiot or equivalent, if you don't do that, what you are doing, you are contributing to creating stupid people.

Because the greatest problem in the United States today is most of the human people in the United States today are stupid people. They weren't born to be stupid people, they were driven into being stupid people, by the circumstances of the life imposed upon them, like politics, dramas, all these kinds of things.

And therefore, the point is that the idea of the general sharing of the developmental, process, with its ebbs and flows, is the crucial thing, and that's why I pushed this issue, because if we induce people in society to concentrate themselves on making contributions to the development of the future of the human mind, and they all do it, some may become a little bit drift off the edge of genius or something, but they're still working. And it's the sharing of the experience which makes the human population function. The idea whether it's an individual or not, is not the relevant question.

I've gone through all the things I've gone through, and, look, don't believe that crap: Every human being has a period of life, where they could be at their best. Some people who would do that, begin to lose, with the ebb of the kind of things that they had done earlier, as I have done. But, if you share this process as a commitment, then you are sharing it as a part of the human species and nothing is lost! What was true for someone, say, 10 years ago, is also true today, that what they were capable of doing, was something they could have still then. They may have lost some of that in the process, but they can contribute, through the fact that they can echo what they recognize from previous experience. Which is what most people do, that is, most people of competence. They may lose the power to create in party, but they never lose, the drama, the satisfaction of having a relived a discovery.

And that's what I think we should make the emphasis on. We want to get the people of the United States, to think of themselves in those terms. Maybe they can't do as much as we would like to have them do; maybe they don't have the capability we wish they would have. But! Do they have some capability, and can we enhance it? And that's the point.

So, what can you do to drive your fellow person, your fellow citizen, to drive them over the edge a bit higher than before? Or to regain something they were about to lose, earlier? Hmmm? And we have to make a kind of religion of that, of man in love with mankind.


LAROUCHE: And that's what's lost. And that's what makes stupid people, evil people. And that's what corrupts so many members of our own organization, because they get into that kind of crap, and some parts or our organization as a whole do the same thing. And we salvage a few people out of that whole mess. And we could do better. And when we see what happened in Madison Square Garden, with Modi, what he did was a work of genius, which was conveyed to whole masses of people. And that's what we should be working to, is the conveyance and persistence of these kinds of capabilities which lie in the human mind.

OGDEN: Yeah.

LAROUCHE: And to maintain those capabilities, which can be maintained. Or they can be maintained generally only if society is devoting itself to maintaining those practices.

OGDEN: You can see that he's devoted to making his people better. That's his motivation.


Oh, I can still do some things and get some get some very important things done. But I'm slower on the torch than I was before. But that's lawful, that's inevitable and lawful.

RACHEL BRINKLEY: It's true right now that the population, they really barely believe words you say. It is funny: You start talking to people about politics, and they sort of like "zone out." And it is because they've just been thrown so many different words, of all different types of meanings, and none of it means anything any more, they've been lied to so consistently. So it is just this point you're bringing up about a different type of communication: Sometimes the truth is not just in the facts or the words you say, but you might have to totally change that, given a different context.

And now, we've reached such a point where words really don't have much meaning any more so it does take a different type of communication for people to get them to think. And the real thing is this question of the identity you're posing, that communicating to them that there is a reason why they're alive, that they can produce something new for the future. That's the fundamental thing that people have to think about now.

LAROUCHE: I get a good sense of that, in terms of assessing myself, and other people I know, because I do a lot of comparing of myself and my friends and others. And I can see that the cases of whether sometimes they slip behind, not necessarily because of physical causes, but often because of fatigue, or shall we say, moral fatigue. And I think moral fatigue is one of the worst dangers we can have. But that's what we should be concentrating on. And we should defy stupidity, and defy the stupidity which comes into our own organization, in the United States, right now! We have, you know, chronic stupidity and moral stupidity, in large parts of our own population. And we have a group of people inside the organization who are fighting, for what they know is the standard that should be, and they're fighting against the horror of what some other people, insist on having!

We had a case recently in the northern part of the territory, a very clear case, where the figure in question was actually a destructive force against the minds of most of the people in the organization. And we lightened that burden, and we got a benefit from it. But the fact is, that in the organization we have people who are of that quarter. They prey upon the creativity, or the possibility of the creativity of their fellow people. And they insist that they're the boss, they not only insist that they can lay everything out, they insist that they're the last word on what's the truth! And our own organization was filled, has been filled, with, you know, fakers! And they are fakers, like that!

And that has been the greatest problem to destroy us. You have seen recently in the northern part of our organization, we've seen a rejuvenation of the population and its capability, as opposed to what it was under the previous regime. It was the suppression of the evil regime, which brought spark to creativity among our own people. And that's happened in a number of areas. But this is the kind of thing we have to consider: We can not tolerate that kind of corruption! And what we had in that case, for a long period of time, and I lived through that long period of time, in part. And that was the destruction of the capability of much of that part of the organization, because of that corruption!

SARE: Well, I was very struck, just this morning, actually, I picked up a book which had writings of Gandhi. And he said, I'm just going to write down a few things that I have thought in the course of my experiments about life. And it might end up becoming an autobiography, but that's not really my intent. And the way he thinks about what he is thinking, is so striking. I mean, he describes his life as a series of experiments on his love of mankind. His love of mankind as being the driving factor for the experiments that he's conducting, many on himself and in his society, and really reminded me of Cusa, the question of Learned Ignorance, or Socrates always starting, "well, I don't really know the answer to this question, but let's investigate. Let 's see if we can come to an understanding."

And this quality of playfulness and knowing that truth exists, but you don't know what it is, and that — anyway, it's such a special quality which has imbued people who actually are geniuses.

OGDEN: I heard a speech that somebody sent me, by Martin Luther King, when he went to Indian in 1959, and they just found this recording; it was a long, lost recording, and they just found it in recent years. And it's a speech that he gives after touring Gandhi's home and touring the rest of the nation, and he says, in this speech — he says two things — he said, he, number one, compares him to Abraham Lincoln and saying, what Abraham Lincoln did to bring out the "better angels" of the entire country and to unite it, was what Gandhi's mission was. And then, number two, he said, this man embodied a moral principle as real and as efficient as the law of universal gravitation itself. And this is a universal principle.

LAROUCHE: It's not only a universal principle, it's all of us who are really effective in pursuing that intention. That's what we all do. Some are greater, some are more weighty, but all those people have the attitude that I share. And that's how you have to judge things. You have to judge yourself, you have to judge the people you're associated with. You have to judge their actions. Because you're passing judgment on society!

What right do you have, to pass judgment on society? Well, do you have a right to pass judgment on society? Well, as my case will show, often, that is the case. Often, people's opinions are not worthy of what they claim to be opinion. And their opinion is not equal. Most opinion is inferior. That's why we have the kind of society we have. It's those of us who fight, for what must be.

And everyone, I mean everyone at this table has the same thing. We know that we're up against a corrupt society, we know that most of the people in today's society, are, in some degree, largely corrupt. We know that most of the people we deal with, as people we have concert with, we know they've got serious problems, serious failures and moral failures and things like that. But what we do, is we concentrate, on how we can motivate the process needed. That's what I brought in today; you have to bring people in, stop being stupid. Don't use stupid methods! Don't be a practical person! Don't use practical methods! Because practical people are stupid people, inherently. It's in their nature!

So therefore, what you have to do, is avoid that disease, and do what you can do to contribute to eliminating it. And the place you'll often have to concentrate on, in getting rid of that pollution, is often yourself. And if you can do it for yourself, you can make it all the way. Maybe not perfectly, but you can make it all the way. It's the people who will not face the ugly truth, about their self-embarrassment, they're the ones with the real problems.

We've got to get people: "Improve yourself! Improve yourself! Don't wait for some occasion to improve yourself, improve yourself today!" And that's the only you're going to....

KESHA ROGERS: And Classical drama is how you do that. It's very profound, because your wife was speaking about this on yesterday, the power of Schiller, and what Schiller represented in this conception of a "pregnant moment." And I was thinking of that even further. You know, this idea of improving oneself, reflecting internally and really looking at, how do you actually get at the ridding of the degeneracy of the fogginess in your own mind, and taking up the challenges scientifically and the creative challenges necessary for mankind.

One of the things that really provoked me, just conceptualizing or thinking about what Helga was bringing up on yesterday, is, Schiller's Theater Considered as a Moral Institution.


ROGERS: And that's what Modi was in the midst of. When you saw him onstage, he was on the stage of history, performing at a level where it was beyond, as you were saying, just words. It was a conception that went into the future. That he said, "I have to respond to the call of the moment," and that's what he did. And we were discussing this earlier, where, you look at the plays of Classical drama, and you see the comparison between the difference of what, for instance, the way that Don Carlos responded, and the fact that he didn't take up the leadership that was required. And you compare that, as we were discussing, with William Tell: You have this idea, that as Schiller said, theater sheds a light on mankind and his character and his destiny. But it's not something that mankind doesn't have any control over, that mankind has control over his own destiny, but they have to get inside their own mind, to free themselves from the degeneracy of the culture around them.

And I thought this was very profound, just thinking about it — like, how do come to have this scientific identity? Well, the only way you're going to have this scientific identity, is, you put your mind, you put yourself on that stage of history, in the way that Modi did. And he wasn't just up there, speaking to an audience of tens of thousands of people, saying "I'm just up here speaking to you." He was saying, "I want you to also put yourself on this stage." And I thought that was just very, very profound.

LAROUCHE: Well, that is the principle. You've got it right, that's the principle. Exactly. You drive yourself, to make yourself what the future requires. And that's the only satisfaction you really ever get in life, the ability to drive yourself, to achieve what you know you have to become. You may not always succeed, but you have to keep trying. And if you stop trying, you're finished.

BILL ROBERTS: Lyn, I was struck by the fact that you referred to what you and the Basement did on Friday as "creating a new economic standard." Because at first, I reflected on it, and I said, well, it's the proper standard for communicating ideas. But then, it sort of hit me that, if you have process in an economy that's not on the level of immortality, then it's not actually driving the economy forward. And I thought of Modi, an instance that gets at this idea, it might not surprise people that the Prime Minister of India has written poetry in his own native language of Gujarati. And it's been translated into English, but I haven't read it; but I did read a description by the man who translated Modi's poetry into English. And he said, it's really a blessing, because usually with politicians, you only ever get a sort of cartoonish idea of a leader, the sort of surface idea of what this person's personality is; but because Modi — he said, this challenge of translating someone's innermost ideas, he had to spend hundreds of hours to get inside the mind of Modi, and he just pointed out, "look, the Indian people have access to this man's real personality," which, as he reflected on his own process of translating this, he reflected on how, getting into Modi's mind meant essentially having to access something within his mind. And I think this is exactly this question of real leadership and what these new BRICS leaders, the quality of person that they exemplify and why this is really a new paradigm

LAROUCHE: I agree with that argument, for several reasons. It's truthful intrinsically, but the deeper aspect of this thing is really much more important. It's what I turn to in my opening remarks today. It's that orientation, which makes it, which makes the difference. It's the continuity of progress, which that implies, or shall we say, efficiently implies — because imply is not always an adequate term — but efficiently implies. And that's what we're seeing.

We're seeing, in the continent here, the American continent, we're seeing a revolution! And people are talking, oh, they're being successful. They're not being "successful"! That's not the term. What they're doing is they're taking a part of the world, which was really put through the wringer, almost destroyed, and now they're bouncing back! Now, they're creating a new economy, an economy which is affecting the entire world. Just think of various parts of South America: They are now creating contributions, to the best parts of world as a whole! Not just themselves. And that's the difference.

The idea, the point is, you have to make yourself a source of the improvement, of the mind. That's what my principle has been, of course, in the things that I've raised especially recently, but more often in the future. That's the issue! And we're on the edge, for example, what's happening in China. China has reached a level, in its scientific development, where it has reached to the level of creativity which has been reached only by very few people. And what is happening in China, in the development of the economy of China, the economic development, is actually one of the greatest miracles of the planet, right now.

But it lies especially in that issue, the issue of the economy, the issue of the universe, the issue of what makes the universe function. And that's what you're getting, seeing, uniquely expressed, in the case of the mining process on the Moon, in China itself. This is something absolutely unique. It has no know comparison right now, and it shows that China has its problems, it has problems in various parts of the population and things like that. But, something in China is actually at the very pinnacle of what can be done.

I was thinking about, you know, one of the greatest scientists that I know from, shall we say, the history of astronomy, the same kind of thing. There's something wonderful and new, is being built there, and that's the same kind of thing that his remarks indicate. There are wonderful, remarkable things, which are to be achieved and made available, by people who focus their attention on this particular goal. It's the best thing that mankind has, that I know of.

MICHAEL STEGER: Well, under these current political circumstances, the one thing that keeps coming back, I know to myself, and probably many others of us in this political fight, is, you look back at the last 40 years, of the lives that have been lost, the people that have been basically let to succumb or be destroyed by this Empire policy. And you think to yourself, and you go back not just 40 years, you can go back centuries, you can see the course of human history, but you realize that what gives meaning to everyone's life, both past and present, is a future conception, is the future prevailing with this orientation with scientific advancement.

When China, or any nation, as we did under Kennedy put a man on the Moon, it's not just one nation, it is a representation of mankind towards a future orientation, which then makes all previous sacrifices actually worth something, because it's oriented toward the development of mankind's overall progress. And you realize that we're at a point now, where that can be consummated, but yet, it is an ongoing drive of the individual, of a sense of that immortality that you raised on Friday, that was developed over the course of that discussion and into the weekend.

LAROUCHE: Yeah. I would say that what I did say on that period, in those days, was probably a more effective representation of what my views are at this moment, than what I would express at this moment! [laughter]

OGDEN: Well, if people haven't seen the proceedings of the Friday webcast, that's archived on the website, and people can watch it from there.

Well, seeing as there's nothing else to be said at this moment, I want to take this opportunity to bring our show to a conclusion today, and thank you for joining us. And thank you very much, Lyn, for what you've said here. And please stay tuned to