Make a Platonic Revolution
To Save Our Civilization
Lyndon LaRouche addressed an international webcast on behalf of the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee on Feb. 23, 2006. He was introduced by his spokeswoman Debra Hanania Freeman, who chaired the event. Audio and video archives of the webcast. Transcript of question-and-answer session.
Freeman: Good afternoon to all of you. On behalf of LaRouche PAC, I'd like to welcome you to today's event. These events in Washington have become something of a regular occurrence, and I think that the progression of the strategic situation makes clear that these events are not only a regular occurrence, but an extremely necessary one.
Some of you here, and those of you who are listening via the Worldwide Web, are aware of the fact that in early February, Mr. LaRouche issued a warning that we were facing a potential confrontation that would be even more hideous than World War I. And at that time, of course, he was referring to the potential for a military operation against the nation of Iran. What Mr. LaRouche made clear, is, aside from the fact that such a military adventure would be a strategic catastrophe, that that catastrophe was intensified by the fact that anything along those lines, would detonate a complete blowout of the financial and monetary system, which is already teetering on the brink of vaporization.
The fact of the matter is that the danger that Mr. LaRouche referred to in early February, both the strategic danger and the danger of an uncontrolled, chaotic financial blowout, has not only not diminished, but it has increased. Fools in our nation's capital, probably best typified by First Shooter, Vice President Dick Cheney, clearly have very little idea of what they're detonating. They simply follow the orders of their controllers, of people like George Shultz, and the international layers that Mr. Shultz represents.
But the fact of the matter is that, despite this continued drive forward, we are a sovereign republic, and we do, in fact, have options. But for those options to be exercised, as Mr. LaRouche has demanded repeatedly, responsible members of the United States Senate, in particular, have to assert their Constitutionally sworn duty. Certainly, in the recent weeks, some doubts have been raised about whether or not they are, as a group, prepared to do that.
But it remains the case, that the potential is there. There has been no other point, since George Bush and Dick Cheney came to Washington and occupied the White House—there has been no other point, where they have been more vulnerable than they are at this very moment. Cheney has become the butt of jokes across the nation. And, as we've said many times, over the course of the last week or two, perhaps the favorite parlor game in Washington these days, is guessing and betting on who will replace him.
But, for all of that talk, he's still in there. And for all of that talk, the strategic situation continues to deteriorate. Outside of Mr. LaRouche's voice, we hear very little clarity as to how to respond. For Democrats, the issue is a critical one. Because they have to decide not only how they'll respond to this crisis, but also how to shape a positive alternative that can rescue the vast majority of the American population from the depths of despair.
I think that the recent deterioration of the strategic situation on the ground in Iraq makes clear that we're running out of time. And for that reason, I think that today's address is one which will prove to be perhaps one of the most critical interventions in the direction of this nation, and the direction of the world, in the course of this year.
So, without any further introduction, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to present to you, Lyndon LaRouche.
LaRouche: Thank you. Thank you.
Over the past three weeks, my wife has been checking with people in France and in Germany on the so-called bird flu problem. Now, recently, there were a number of dead swans, who turned up on the island of Ruegen, which is off the North Sea coast of Germany. And this typifies a pattern, in which Europeans, European leaders, in France and in Germany, have put the issue of bird flu, as one of the three great strategic problems which Europe faces at this time.
The problem is, that this particular strain, which is this H5N1, if this becomes cross-related with an influenza epidemic, we would have, globally, something comparable to the 1918 flu epidemic: in which, with a much lower population than now, and a much less vulnerable world than now, because of transportation and things of that sort, 20 million people died then. Much more, or a larger part of the population, perhaps as high as 100 million, would die, as a result, today. And there are very few precautions taken, on a scale and with a seriousness which would deal with this kind of problem. That's typical.
Today, overnight, there was a crisis in Iceland. That's really hitting the flank! The northern flank of Europe—not quite Greenland, but Iceland. Because Iceland was being used as a place for some fast-money operations of a very large dimension. The Iceland market collapsed, today. It could mean something like what happened in August-September of 1998. That does not mean that the world financial crisis has happened, as of today. It simply signifies that we're in a situation, where you've got gasoline all over the floor in a heated room, and people are smoking cigarettes.
It can happen at any time.
The World Is Ready To Blow Up
Now then, turn your attention, with this kind of event—and there are many such events, like the threatened war with Iran; other Middle East, so-called, problems: The world is ready to blow up. The President of the United States is an insane dry drunk. And it sounds like the Vice President is a not-so-dry drunk. We have a deficit beyond belief, growing beyond belief. The country is falling apart. The industry and agricultural sector are falling apart. They can't fix what happened with Katrina—they won't even try. And we have 100 days, now, to the next hurricane season. And the Gulf Coast, of course, and Florida, and so forth, these areas will be hit. Nothing has been done, to improve the response over Katrina. Nothing—less than nothing!
So, we have an utterly incompetent and terrible government—and mean-spirited, and stupid, and psychotic—all those wonderful qualities.
And we have other institutions of government, particularly the Senate, and the House of Representatives; we also have people who are institutional in service, or former service, in the Executive branch of government, or something related to that, who are out there as a very important constituency, a knowledgeable constituency, which can influence government very strongly, because they have the expertise. You find, those of you who have dealt with Capitol Hill, know that some of the people on the staffs on Capitol Hill, the various Senate and House committees, have much more experience with government, than the elected officials. And the elected official is worried about where the money is coming from for the next election, whereas the permanent staff person, who's going to be in there time-come, time-go, is concerned about the country. So, you find, often, more intelligent response from the staff members, than from the members of Congress, because the members of Congress have other things on their mind, other than reality. The reality of re-election, the reality of party politics and things of that sort.
The point is this: That, in Europe, and in the United States, in particular, there is no sane response to the situation which now exists, and the conditions which threaten to break out. This is an unusual part of our history. And you have to think back, as to how this came about, and what we do about it.
First of all, most of the people my age are dead, in this country. Those who are not dead, most of them, are in terrible condition. And, much to my enemies' dissatisfaction, I'm not. People in service, today, at the highest positions, senior positions, are generally in their fifties, which means they have no adult experience of the postwar period. None!
During the postwar period, a generation was born which has no sense of reality: the Baby-Boomer generation. Because, from the time they were born, during the late 1940s, early '50s, they were subjected to a mass-brainwashing by an institution called the Congress for Cultural Freedom. I call it the "Congress for Sodomy." And they went to work, with a program on young children, especially children in families who were likely to have some influence in the future, in suburbia—the white-collar syndrome of the 1950s is an example of that. The so-called "Organization Man" syndrome of the 1950s was typical of that.
Now, these young children, born usually after 1945, before 1955, constitute what's called the Baby-Boomer generation. How old are they today? The people who were born in the 1930s, were children during the '30s, the Roosevelt period, the wartime period. They're now mostly in retirement, they're in their seventies. And they have their problems. And they've been pushed out positions of influence they once occupied.
You have a generation in, between the ages of 55 and 65, which is generally running the leading institutions of the country, which has no comprehension, no emotional experience, no intellectual experience of reality! Because they were brainwashed, in schools, from the time they were little toddlers, even before they got to school with TV programs, which were already brainwashing, stupid little kids sitting before the television set watching the Big Boob! Where these monsters would come out and eat you, you know: This was their experience of reality.
So, what we have, with all that's said and done, and with the paradigm shift which occurred in the adult population, beginning 1968, in the United States and Europe, in the culture of post-industrial society, you have a generation which is running the country, usually between the ages of 55 and 65, which has, in general, no group stratum comprehension of reality! So then, when they're faced with crises of the type we have now, when they see poverty around them, when they look at the unemployment figures, when they go to whole sections of the country that used to be prosperous which are now dying—like the area of Michigan, western New York State, western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana! Or the Farm Belt, formerly. In these areas, they're dying! The economy is dying!
People who once had jobs they could support a family on, no longer have those kinds of jobs. They have so-called "service employment"—which is make-work employment! Instead of cooking at home, you cook in a restaurant. You make hamburgers. You don't make people healthy, you make them fat—because this stuff, this junk food that's given to them. Look at the obesity problem! Look at the people walking down the street! This is a disease! It's a political disease, caused by a change in culture, which is associated with the post-industrial society, which began to be introduced in 1968. And the poorer people are, the fatter they are! Because, they're more poorly fed, their conditions of life are worse. And it is reflected by terrible food, and terrible eating habits. And terrible conditions of life.
Family life doesn't exist: People run around with a load of rage, shapeless rage. Because life is enraging. There's no sense of a purpose in life. There's a sense of existing from moment to moment. There's no sense of destiny, there's no sense of posterity. Ancestors? What are they? I don't talk to any ancestors.
So, you have a demoralized population with no sense of reality, faced with the worst crisis in modern history—and it is the worst. And people are sitting thinking, "Well, maybe it won't happen. Maybe we can postpone the decision until next year."
Fascism, and the Alito Case
So, therefore, you saw a Congress where the Senate in particular, during the course of the year 2005, generally acted as an increasingly effective force, political force, defending the nation. Since the beginning of this year, it would seem that the Senate in the United States has died! And the passing the hat on the Alito question, was typical of it.
Here you had—take the case: What you have in the United States, the Federalist Society, for example. The Federalist Society is what? It's a group of people, based around Chicago University, where Leo Strauss used to hang out, who follow the ideas brought into the United States by Carl Schmitt: Carl Schmitt was the legal architect of the Hitler regime! It was his statements on law that gave Hitler dictatorial powers, in February of 1933. It was he that certified, in the summer of 1934, the assassination of people en masse, by the Hitler regime!
Now, the exact philosophy of this Nazi, directly created the Federalist Society, which gave us people like Justice Antonin Scalia, which produced Alito; which produced a version of the Nazi doctrine—it is a Nazi legal doctrine—which is represented heavily on the Supreme Court! And Alito is the latest addition to the repertoire.
So, we have a Nazi coup-type mentality in law, sitting as a near-majority, or potential majority of the Supreme Court! And the Senate of the United States says, "Oh, he's a nice guy." He sits there, like a kabuki dancer—like Roberts before him, a bunch of [strikes a "kabuki" pose]—kabuki dancers! The Senate questions him [strikes similar pose, looking upward quizzically], both cases. "Nice guys!" They didn't answer the question!
And people say, "But you can't raise the question of Nazism, when it comes to American politics." What do you mean?
Well, let me tell you about the number of families who contributed to Adolf Hitler's being brought into power from New York City, from New York banking circles. The cream of the New York City banking circles financed, on behalf of Britain—financed Hitler's party, being refinanced to be able to take over Germany. They changed their mind in the late part of the 1930s, when they discovered that Hitler, who they thought they were sending eastward to attack the Soviet Union first, was going to attack the west first.
Then, they changed their mind.
Not all of them! Some of them, they still liked Hitler. They just objected to the fact that he was German, or maybe Austrian. And they were afraid, also, that Hitler would take the British Empire away from them. And that, they really objected to—especially Churchill.
So therefore, they changed sides. Before, they had intended to keep the United States out of the Second World War, for fear that if the United States was involved in the war they were organizing, that the United States would come out more powerful relative to the rest of the world than before. So, the United States was intentionally excluded, and the British organized the America First movement inside the United States, as an anti-war movement. To keep the United States out of war.
Some of our military agreed. For example, remember, you had a guy, who was court-martialed, Billy Mitchell, in the 1920s. Now, to understand what's happened in the United States, you have to take a case like Billy Mitchell's—and just see, what patriotism really is!
At the end of World War I, the British, in particular, were concerned, that the United States power, military power and economy power, in the world were so great that the United States had to be chopped down to size. The issue was the U.S. Navy: The British and the Japanese, among others, demanded that the U.S. Navy be reduced to a point that it was inferior to the British Navy, and so forth. And it sought to build up a coalition of Italian, British, Japanese and so forth, naval forces, to out-power the United States. During this period, a plan for a war attack on the United States naval forces, was organized, in which the two principal figures were England and Japan. Among the plans made at that time, by the British and the Japanese, was called the attack on Pearl Harbor. The original attack was intended to come as a purely fleet attack, by the naval fleet of Japan, to be organized to take out Pearl Harbor, while the British would take out some of the Atlantic capabilities of the U.S. Navy. Not to make an attack on the mainland of the United States, but to sink a good deal of the Navy and cut us down to size.
That's the 1920s.
Now, this fact was taken into account by the U.S. military, in what was called War Plans Red and Orange, among the war plans of the United States. Billy Mitchell, who, as a general officer, was knowledgeable in these matters, recommended that the United States use large ships as aircraft carriers: that military aircraft, bombing aircraft, would be carried on ships, and these ships would then be used to sink Japanese and British Naval vessels if they approached the United States territory, threatening Naval forces.
For this, a faction of the U.S. Navy, and of the New York bankers, who were friendly to the British cause, had Billy Mitchell court-martialed. Despite the court-martial, the Japanese developed air-borne capability, naval air-borne capability from carriers. Despite the court-martial of Billy Mitchell, the U.S. Navy developed aircraft carriers: So that, when the actual attack came on Pearl Harbor—and at Midway—the crucial thing was the use of aircraft carriers, as the auxiliary, or the new dimension of warfare, the vertical dimension of warfare, added to naval warfare. The Battle of Midway, where the United States prevailed over a larger Japanese force, was the turning point in the Pacific War. It shifted the correlation of forces, where Japan's possibility of winning the war over the long term had become hopeless, after Midway.
Now, this was what was done. This was the kind of the problem we had inside the United States.
Japan, of course, had been an ally of Britain against the United States, since before 1894. The British royal family, represented by the Prince of Wales, had organized the Japanese royal family—which had been pro-American—into an anti-American position. And it was the British who organized the Japanese attack on China in 1894-95, which was the first Japan-Chinese war. It was the British, who organized the occupation of Korea by Japan. It was the British who organized the 1905 war against Russia. What was it done for? To destroy the U.S. strategic position in the Pacific. Because the British considered the U.S. expansion beyond California, to be a threat to British interests in Asia.
So, don't have any illusions about the "great alliance" in World War II. Eisenhower referred to it as a "difficult alliance." We were enemies, but we were fighting on the same side. That doesn't mean all the British people, because they were only the cannon fodder. But at top, it was the same.
Roosevelt's Intention: End Colonialism
In the postwar period, when Roosevelt died, the same logic continued. Roosevelt's intention was, that at the end of the war, the United States would use its power, to ensure that all colonial nations were freed from colonialism. And would be developed, by the assistance of the United States, and others, who were willing. The purpose of Roosevelt was to end the system of colonialism and imperialism forever, by building up formerly colonial nations to status as truly independent nations, and thus to form a community of sovereign nation-states on this planet, which would manage the planet, and would ensure that imperialism went away.
When Roosevelt died, remember, Churchill had already tried to start a war with the Soviet Union, while we were fighting the Nazis in Germany. Eisenhower and others stopped that. But as soon as Roosevelt was safely dead, Harry Truman, who is in my book no patriot, went the other way: went with Churchill.
And under Truman, we did several things: First of all, Japan was hopelessly defeated by the end of June of 1945. We were then at a point of a waiting game. Japan was totally isolated, U.S. air forces and naval forces had totally isolated Japan, which depended for its imports—Japan's economy and military economy depended—on having access to the continent of Asia. They couldn't get it. We virtually controlled, totally, the air space and the seas around Japan. We had already negotiated a peace treaty with the Emperor of Japan, through the Vatican Office of Extraordinary Affairs, which was then headed by a fellow called Monsignor Montini, later Pope Paul VI. The U.S. government had that. Only one thing: a declaration by the U.S. government to accept the treaty with the Emperor was waiting, in order to negotiate peace. The Truman Administration under British pressure did two things: They held up the peace agreement, which had been negotiated during the term of Roosevelt's Presidency. And secondly, they took the two prototype, laboratory prototype bombs we had in our arsenal—and that's all we had left—and dropped one on Hiroshima, the other on Nagasaki, largely civilian cities, of an already defeated nation. Why? We could have peace, the same peace we got, when MacArthur stood on the deck of the ship and the Japanese signed the papers. We could have had the same thing, months earlier—if Roosevelt had not died; and if Truman, who had just found out about the nuclear weapons, had not agreed with Churchill on a British policy, to do an exemplary nuclear bombing of Japan, before declaring peace, in order to set into motion a prepared war against the Soviet Union.
This is the kind of world we've lived in. This is the kind of world, the kind of treason—in fact—morally treason, to which we've been subjected, since the day Franklin Roosevelt died.
We went through various phases: During the immediate postwar period, we were the only nation on the planet, which had an economy. The war, and other conditions, had virtually destroyed every other economy. The U.S. dollar was the only currency in the world that was worth anything. Roosevelt had set up, with Bretton Woods, an agreement under which the U.S. dollar, which was the only valid currency in the world, would be used to back a new international monetary system, otherwise known as the Bretton Woods system. This system upheld the world, allowed many parts of the world to develop and improve, including the United States, during the first 20 years of the postwar period. And it happened that way, because nothing could be done about it. The United States was the only basis for maintaining a world economy—we did that with the Bretton Woods system. Nobody had an alternative, until about the end of the 1950s, the beginning of the 1960s, when President Eisenhower (who was no fool), warned against the "military-industrial complex," which just means people like those associated with Cheney, the people behind Cheney today.
This is a treasonous operation inside our government, financed by certain financial interests, and with a military component. We experienced what Eisenhower had said, in 1961: We experienced that with the Bay of Pigs; we experienced that with the Missile Crisis of 1962; we experienced that with the assassination of President Kennedy; we experienced that with the attempted assassinations, repeated attempted assassinations, against Charles de Gaulle in France; we experienced that with the pushing of Adenauer out of the Chancellorship in Germany, prematurely—done through Britain. We experienced that in many other similar ways.
Then, when President Kennedy had been killed, we jumped into the Vietnam War, an Indochina War, for which there was no excuse. It was an attempt to do something that couldn't work. But it was done anyway. We began to destroy the nation, effectively, through our involvement in this worthless, useless, Indochina War.
Remember the dynamic: Despite all the problems when Kennedy came in, on the basis of steps taken by Eisenhower before, the so-called post-Sputnik operations, to build up the economy, to build up industry, to build up science, we had started the economy on an upward path, under Kennedy. The most signal of these efforts, was the launching of the commitment to a manned landing on the Moon within the decade. That was an upward turn: The program of NASA, under this impetus, contributed technologies which were returned, in terms of technology, 10 cents for every cent we spent on the space program. It was the most effective science-driver, economically, we had ever experienced—under non-wartime conditions.
Shut down!
By the time that the Moon landing occurred, we had begun to destroy the technologies which had been indispensable in being able to get to the Moon! By the end of the 1970s, not much of it was left. We're now scraping bottom. And it gets worse and worse, and that's been going on since the 1980s.
The 1968 Cultural Paradigm-Shift
So, these are the kinds of problems. But the most crucial problem was the cultural paradigm-shift of 1968, in which the Indochina War was crucial. But the most crucial thing about the Indochina War, was the day that they began to start to draft college students, who didn't have enough qualifications to get exemption, deferment. You had one guy who didn't qualify by virtue of academic qualification for deferment—but he got his wife pregnant by some miraculous means. His name was Dick Cheney: And he got his fifth deferment on the basis of impregnating his wife ... which was one of the great accomplishments of his existence! Particularly if you know what the wife is!
So, in this period, with the 68ers, once the college students realized that they were also potential cannon fodder—and these were especially students from universities of the more privileged families of the United States—when they discovered that they, too, could be sent to Vietnam, not just poor black guys, or poor guys from Pittsburgh, or someplace like that.... But college students! We! The elite! The Baby-Boomers of suburbia! The Golden Children! We were going to be sent there, too! NO!! We revolt!! Tear it all down! Shut down the economy! Shut down everything.
This was called the "Golden Generation." (Actually, it wasn't golden, it was a much cheaper metal, but that's all right.)
And so, we had, in 1968, as a result of the brainwashing of young people, who had been born chiefly between 1945 and 1950, their brainwashing by the Congress for Cultural Freedom produced a—what? A proposal to tear down society.
Look back: Look back to 1967-68-69, and into 1970. What was the proposal? Shut down society. Shut down technology. Go on the street, take your clothes off, and fornicate with anything you find in the street. (Check its sex later.) You don't like it all? We've got some stuff you can swallow, or you can smoke. It will induce a state in you, where you won't know the difference. And you won't even have to remember what you did the night before—or who. Or which.
So, this generation became the counterculture generation, which is not new. We had countercultural phenomena in the 1920s, in Germany, for example, which was the key basis for building up the Nazis.
And don't kid yourself: When they said "left," "left" is sometimes a name for "right." Because, the key movements of this type, historically, since the middle of the 19th Century, are anarcho-syndicalists, that they go either way. Their idea is they hope to overthrow the existing society.
This was the policy of a fellow called Parvus. Actual name: Alexander Helphand. Actually a British agent, but who ran sometimes under Greek cover, sometimes under German cover, sometimes under Russian cover. He was the so-called architect of the Russian Revolution. He was the guy who told Trotsky to adopt this policy called "permanent war/permanent revolution" in 1905. Trotsky went ahead with it. Parvus left town—Trotsky went to prison. And then came out as an advocate of what Parvus had taught him. Parvus ended up as an open fascist, with Coudenhove-Kalergi's crowd in Germany, when he died. He was also an instrument, as a key arms dealer, operating from outside what we now call Turkey. And he was part of the Young Turk government movement at that time. He was also a war organizer. He was a top spy of the British, working out of Denmark and so forth, other places, in his operation.
But, he represented what was called "Synarchism," which is an organization which was modelled on the case of Tomàs de Torquemada, the Grand Inquisitor who expelled the Jews from Spain. And he was also a butcher, a murderer! Because this was the Inquisition, and that was mass murder, Cheney-style. This started religious war, against Islamic populations, as well as Jewish populations, throughout the world, in the period of 1492 to 1648, till the Treaty of Westphalia.
So, when there was a threat of a pro-American revolution in France, that is, a legal revolution under which the French King would accept a constitution drafted by a group associated with the Marquis de Lafayette—at that point, the British had an operation in place, which they set in there in 1770s, an anti-American operation set up by British intelligence. This operation created a Freemasonic association in France and Switzerland, called the Martinist Freemasonic cult, which absorbed a number of Freemasonic cults from around Europe, into one operation. They had people like Casanova, Cagliostro, others were involved in this.
But, the key, this was a movement that was used to bring to Philippe Égalité and Jacques Necker—both British agents—to organize the July 14, 1789 events in Paris, against the Bastille. It was the same organization that organized the Jacobin Terror, later; this was a British organization which ran people in there, like Danton and Marat. It was the same group that organized and trained and directed Napoleon Bonaparte: to unleash dictatorship on Europe, and to set up wars which resulted in the depletion of Continental Europe, to the greater glory of Britain.
So, this group, which became known in the 19th Century as the Synarchist group, is a group which organizes revolutions per se, and organizes wars: The idea is, overthrow existing government, in favor of dictatorship. And you do it from the left, or you do it from the right. And this is what you had in the case of what happened with the 68ers. The 68ers were, as I observed at the time, in '68, watching this operation—I said, "This is a right-wing operation just the way the Nazis were organized in Germany." And it was.
The 68ers were actually Nazis. That is, they didn't know it, but they were. Because they were the same kind of social formation, directed in the same way, by the same kind of people who gave us the Nazi operation in Europe, in the first place.
Now, the point of this is, that the people who are now running the United States, from the top, the most influential people of the leading generation, between 55 and 65 years of age—the Baby-Boomer generation—and the same is true in Europe, this generation in a sense is the "Lost Generation." The Lost-Mind Generation, the Lost-Morals Generation: the Lost Generation. Therefore, they have been inoculated, to the point that they have no sense, innate sense—they may be intelligent people; they may intellectually recognize the validity, or the importance or the significance of what you say: But when it comes emotionally, to reacting appropriately to a threat, like a threat of war, or threat of something of that sort, they don't react that way. They don't react as normal people would have in earlier generations. They've "lost" it.
Now, these are not necessarily bad people. Many of them, whom I know, are actually good people. Many idiots I know are good people. Many politicians I know, are good.
But the problem is, that there's a lack, in that generation of a quality of leadership. A lack of the power of decision, a lack of the competence for command. You see this, the way they conduct some wars: They don't know how to command in war, they don't understand command in warfare. The command of warfare, is to win it and get out! These guys get in there, and they can't get out—they don't want to get out, they don't know where the exit is!
So therefore, I have a generation of good people, in the Senate, and many Republicans, who are good people. They're intelligent people. They are, by other standards, capable people. They are, in most senses, people of conscience. But, when it comes to acting as a group, their tendency is to inaction.
The Athens Example: The Peloponnesian War
Now, look back in history, at a terrible example in the early phases of European civilization, like this: From the middle of the century preceding the so-called Peloponnesian War, that Greece which had been unconquerable, especially Athens, the Athens alliance had been unconquerable against all Persian Empire attacks, was corrupted systematically by what were called Sophists. The Sophists were people associated with the Cult of Delphi, the Apollo Cult, who concentrated upon the young boys of the leading or most influential families, in terms of educational programs. And they educated them, in Sophistry.
Now, Sophistry is what you have in the United States, among that generation today.
You don't believe in truth, you have an idea of moral relativism. You don't react on the basis of truth, you react on the basis of power. What you have the power to do. What you don't have the power to do. You say, "You may be right, but you don't have the power to do it."
"But we're talking about the destruction of civilization."
"That's all right! If you don't have the power to change it, you've gotta go along with it."
Sophistry! It's called "spin-doctoring" today, in the United States. You come up with a phrase, a term, an argument of Sophistry, as a reason not to be moral, not to react. "Don't be a conspiracy-theorist," for example. When a fellow tells you, "I don't believe in conspiracies," you say, you've got a genuine idiot on your hands. Because, I don't know anything in society that ever happened, of any importance, that wasn't the result of conspiracy! "You mean people don't talk to each other? People don't act in concert, on the basis of shared views, or perception of shared interests? They don't operate on the basis of influences upon them?"
How do you think revolutions are run? You should take the word "terrorism" out of the vocabulary. Let's put the word "asymmetric warfare" back in.
How many kinds of asymmetric warfare are there? You mean, asymmetric warfare is organized? Ah! But how is it organized? Is it organized by uniforms? Is it organized by a command structure, which is publicly advertised? No! It's organized by a secret command—usually by a government, which is not so secret. But you have a secret command, working, really, for a government, which can deny the existence of the secret command. The secret command operates without uniforms, and operates like an army; it operates like a government. And it deploys people who are enlisted to the cause, or bought into the cause, or paid for it—hmm? And they deploy effects on society! They get a number of people heated up, and they're able to get some action: They can harass a government into complete impotence. It's all secret government.
You have the President of the United States saying "Terr'ists! Terr'ists! Terr'ists!" (Whatever that is. I don't know what that is—probably, some kind of turtle soup, from the middle of the Texas desert!) He doesn't say "conspiracy." He says, there's a "terr'ist conspiracy," but there's no conspiracy.
He doesn't assume that there's a case of asymmetric warfare, that people like the head of the Arab Bureau of England, would organize a hatred against Islam, just the way that the Crusaders did! And for hundreds of years, dominated Europe, by Crusades. And the name of it was "Kill Islam." And they killed and robbed everybody in sight along the way. And they maintained a system of government—Norman chivalry and Venetian bankers—which controlled Europe for centuries, until the whole system collapsed in a new Dark Age in the 14th Century. That's typical of this operation!
Then people who fight against these things: They fight by conspiracy! How do you fight against tyranny? By conspiracy! Any other way, is stupid! And doing it that way, is also very bloody and dangerous, too. But that is what's going on in the world, today: You're in a period where you can no longer fight with nuclear warfare. You can't fight general warfare, because general warfare is nuclear warfare. And if you can't fight nuclear warfare and win it, then you have to resort to other forms of warfare: What do you resort to? You resort to some dog-and-pony warfare, which looks like regular warfare: But the real war you're going to fight, is not a uniformed soldier warfare! It's going to be an irregular warfare; it's going to be an asymmetric warfare.
Now, the Soviets used to be specialists in this, because that's the only kind of warfare they had available to them, and so, they specialized in asymmetric warfare. You will find that all Soviet strategy was based on a central doctrine of asymmetric warfare. Other forms of warfare were subordinate to the asymmetric warfare of the doctrine of the Soviet system.
What we're dealing with today—because the United States also ran asymmetric warfare, because the British have run asymmetric warfare ever since the early 18th Century—that you're in a world which is dominated by governments running asymmetric warfare, sometimes under secret codes.
For example, 9/11: Go back in history—they wanted to make Hitler a dictator. They'd made Hitler a Chancellor of Germany, but that didn't mean he was anything more than a Chancellor. They wanted to make him a dictator. How did they make him a dictator? Goering did it: Goering set fire to the Reichstag! Goering did it! They blamed it on some poor Dutch fool, called van der Lubbe, van der Lubbe, who was an idiot. And they used him as a name, to cover for the fact that Goering had the Reichstag burned down—why? In order to make Hitler a dictator! Just like 9/11.
Who did 9/11? Muslims? You can always get a few dead bodies to carry around, or people who will die, as fools, as part of an operation. Who was it done for? For terrorism? No. It wasn't an act of terrorism, it was an act of war: It was an act of asymmetric warfare against the government of the United States, and against civilization.
Just like the case of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution: You had a crowd in Washington that wanted a war in Indochina. The military and others said, "Don't do it. This is crazy. There's no reason to get into that war—don't start it. We want to get out. The CIA's in too deep already—let's get outta there!"
So: Kennedy was killed. And the Secretary of Defense and others moved ahead, quashed the investigation of the Kennedy assassination—and created the Gulf of Tonkin fraud. They got all but two Senators to vote for it. We got ourselves into a war we couldn't win, and didn't win. Just made a mess of a lot of territory. And ruined the United States, by the effects on the United States' population, of going through a hopeless war, which was like an Armageddon war.
It was done by the United States—and others. But done chiefly by the United States government, by institutions, to orchestrate something against the world, but against the United States' population itself. The objective was, as Eisenhower had warned, in his warning against the "military-industrial complex": There are fascists in the United States, who are very powerful, who represent very powerful financial interests, which are willing to go to any length, and to use their financial power, and their influence in certain military institutions, and armed institutions otherwise, to create dictatorship.
And that's what we've been subjected to. They wanted to get us, to give up what made us a power, the world's leading economic power. The greatest economic power the planet had ever seen: They wanted us to destroy ourselves. How did they induce us to destroy ourselves? By making us fools, and doing things to ourselves, and refusing to see what it was.
Sophistry: Athens, Then; the U.S., Today
So therefore, I have this problem: The problem of a potential leadership of the United States, not only within the Democratic Party, but with an obvious, potential alliance with Republicans. So, we're not talking merely about a "party" policy: We're talking about a policy of the sane people of the United States, the leading, sane people of the United States, many of whom are located in the Senate and House of Representatives. They may not be perfect, but they're sane, and that's the best you're going to get. So, don't complain if the merchandise is not perfect—it's what you got!
So now, we have the job of taking these people, who, by themselves, in their present state of organization, are not capable of saving their own butts! Let alone those of the rest of the people of the United States. How are we going to get them to have the capability, the intellectual capability, to mobilize themselves to do what they can do, or could do, to save this nation, and even to save themselves?
How can we get them to do that? They don't want to do it. Something inside them says, "Fail!" It's like the Greeks, under the influence of Sophistry: Here's Athens, the most powerful nation, a great maritime power, a naval power, which had repeatedly defeated the Persian Empire—which is Babylon. The Babylonians actually ran the Persian Empire; they set up a whole series of empires. And this was the evil of that period. And they defeated them!
How did the Babylonian faction, the Babylonian priesthood which actually ran the Persian Empire, how did they get Athens to destroy itself? Through the Cult of Apollo. Through the influence of the Cult of Apollo, with what we would call today Sophistry—what was called Sophistry then. And so, by educating, and mis-educating, the sons of the leading families of Greece, or many parts of Greece, they induced Greece under Pericles, or Athens under Pericles, to go into oppressive, brutal imperial wars, without cessation for nearly 30 years, at the end of which Athens was destroyed, virtually destroyed—never came back again.
That's what they've done to the United States! And what you're seeing in the Congress, and other positions of leadership in the generation between 55 and 65 years of age, what you're seeing is the effect of Sophistry on this layer in our government, which is comparable to the role of Sophistry under Pericles and his successors in ancient Athens. What we're headed for, is a modern, nuclear-armed, etc. equivalent of the Peloponnesian War! We are going down the same path, toward destruction!
Now, then, you have to go, then, to Plato. And read, and study Plato. Because, what is Plato? Plato is the young genius of his time, who, after the death of Socrates, emerged with a group of people, including the greatest of the surviving Pythagoreans and others, and produced an Academy of young people around him, who were the great scientific thinkers of that period. Greek science began to decline rapidly after that, except for the Platonic Academy. And these people assessed what had gone wrong, and what had gone right, in Greek culture, and its relationship, especially, to Egypt. And they were going back, essentially, to about the 7th Century B.C., when Egypt had come out of a dark age, and organized the Ionians, and the Hittites, then called Etruscans, organized them as a force in two parts of the Mediterranean as allies of Egypt, which was a maritime power.
Ancient Egypt was always a maritime power. It was never a landlocked river power. It was a maritime power, which sent large fleets around the world, especially into the Indian Ocean, where they had a lot of trade with the coasts of India, for example—and further. And they were sent out with ships which would be of some length, 70 feet or longer, and they would go out in flotillas, not as single ships. And they conducted trade largely, and they did exploration. And they practiced astronomy, and astronavigation and things of that sort.
So. From that point on, you had the emergence of a new culture, a European culture, which we call, today, in restrospect, "Greek," or "Hellenic" culture, of that century. And this grew to be a very powerful force. It's still a powerful force: All of European civilization depends upon the Mediterranean influence, which is associated with the emergence of Greek culture, of Classical Greek culture. European civilization, as it revived in the 15th Century, after the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, and this terrible medieval system of Crusaders and Venetian bankers—what modern European civilization is a product of: the conscious revival of the lessons of Classical Greece, learned chiefly from Plato, but many others.
That's what we are today, as a European civilization. We are either a Classical Greek legacy civilization, or we are nothing.
And we have made the same kind of mistakes, and been subject to the same kind of mistakes, that the ancient Greeks were, in the Peloponnesian War. The Vietnam War was a Peloponnesian War. The war in Southwest Asia, is a Peloponnesian War. The condition of our political system, of our leading families, is that of the Greeks who had been indoctrinated with Sophistry, and thus were lured into the follies of that, of war, as we are today.
So, what happened in the postwar period, with the death of Roosevelt, was the transformation of our culture, from the great renaissance of our culture, which was done by Roosevelt in the 1930s and early 1940s—you had to live there, as I did! You had to live there! To see the transformation of people, from the bums they had been in the 1920s, to the gray-faced people they had become in the early 1930s, and the people of rising optimism and morality, which emerged in the late 1930s, and emerged to carry us through the war, as the greatest power the world had ever seen! Not only a military power, but an economic power. There was no power ever like it. And we have destroyed it!
We have destroyed ourselves, by this culture, by this Sophistry, just as ancient Athens destroyed itself, with Sophistry in the Peloponnesian War. And there're some people in London who understand that, and who play that game against us.
That's my problem.
My problem, is to be a voice for that. I see clearly what things are. I've been through this enough. I have the knowledge to get these fellows who are younger than I am, who are of the age to govern, and to govern with energy and vigor, to pull them out of the mud, out of the morass of their own depression, their own Sophistry; to get up on their hind legs, and to stand up like men, and save civilization.
It's a difficult war. But there's no justice, there's no satisfaction in not fighting it. If you want to have dignity as a human being, you've got fight this war: You've got to fight for civilization. If you don't save civilization, what do you have? You're nothing! Your life is worthless! Your having lived is worthless! Unless you're willing to fight to save civilization. And, these people in the Senate, I think they're willing to save civilization. They're just not willing to give up their Sophistry, as a price of doing it.
So, that's our job. And that's my job in particular.
The Youth Movement and the Next 50 Years
Now, in comes the question of the Youth Movement. So, we have the situation, where you have three generations of adults that you're really dealing with. I'm sort of an exception. I'm an old dinosaur, I'm still around. Still frisky. But we have generations of people, who are the Baby-Boomer generation, born in the immediate postwar period. We have a few people who are in-betweeners, born a little earlier; they're in their seventies now; but they're reduced power. You have a middle generation, which was born later, very late 1950s, the 1960s—and they're completely confused. Because, they have no sense of a mooring in morality. They don't have one, they were never given it! Look at what they get for culture! They have no culture! They may have it between their toes, but otherwise, it's missing!
And then, you, the younger fellows come along. You're young adults, you're over 18. You have the emotions and sense of identity of a young adult. Your education stinks, but that's because your parents gave it to you. But therefore, you're faced with two generations, 50 years, of active adult life before you, in a world which is about to go to Hell. And therefore, you are the hope of the future.
Because, the Baby-Boomer generation has lost it. They have one good shot left in them: That one good shot is to be mobilized to save civilization, in a courageous act at this time. But, for the next 50 years, which we're working for, you—who are in this age-group, younger age-group—are it. The next 50 years. This is your world.
Now, what're we going to have to do? Take the programmatic issues. We're going to have to have an immediate return to nuclear energy, as a basic cornerstone of economic policy. If we don't go to nuclear energy, we're not going to have civilization. It's that simple. You want to die? Take nuclear energy: Think nuclear energy's dangerous? All right, but you'll die without it. So, you better get it. And control it, of course, when you get it.
Because, in what we have to do, we are in a new period in all of humanity. There's no period of humanity like it, in this one respect: The population of this planet is well over 6 billion people. If we provide a modern standard of production and life for the typical person, among this 6 billion people, we are going to find out that we are going to be using up what are called "natural resources" more rapidly than they are replenished.
So, no longer can we come along, like Robinson Crusoe on an island, and prey upon the natural resources we find there for our use. Now, we're going to have to start to reproduce what we consider "natural resources." We're going to have to move in on the Biosphere of this planet, which is where few people live. We live in the crust of the Earth. The crust of the Earth, where mostly dead bodies of animals and planets are located. You don't see the core of the Earth; you don't encounter it, very rarely. And the Biosphere goes from this crust of the Earth, up to the top of the atmosphere, because the atmosphere was created by living processes. The oceans were created by living processes.
You find we have a terrible shortage of water. Many parts of the world are living on fossil water. For example, at one time, in Eurasia, for example, you had great glaciation. The glaciers melted. And in the process, you had a deposit of fossil water, some of it millions of years old, as in some parts of India, at some depth—fossil water. Now, people say, "Okay, we've got water! We'll dig for it! We'll drill for it!" What're you drilling for? You're drilling, not for replenishable water; you're drilling for fossil water.
In some parts of the world, as the Philippines pointed out recently, the drawing down of fossil water to get fresh water for human consumption and similar purposes, causes land subsidence. This is not an inexhaustible resource. It's not an automatically replenishable source. And about 40% of the human population is depending upon fossil water.
Similarly, we depend upon mineral deposits which were left by dead animals and dead plants, millions of years ago. We call those "ores." But, the elements which are in that ore were not concentrated in that way, that we find them, when we mine for them, today. Animals, selectively, took certain things out of the ambient environment. Some use more iron, some use more something else. These animals or plants died: And their little dead bodies left the skeletons behind. The skeletons contained these minerals, in certain forms. We dig, where these animals died, or where they were concentrated in dying—as in seas, or things like that that dried out; we dig down there, we find this stuff, and we take it away.
Now, we find that rich ores, where the concentration of the metal is greater, are fewer, and fewer, and fewer. So, now, what're we going to have to do? We're going to have to start organizing the planet, to replenish—directly or indirectly—the kinds of things we have been content to use up and exhaust as ores, beforehand.
We're going to have to make water—not the way George Bush does in the White House. But, we're going to have to actually synthesize fresh water. How do we do that? Well, all of these processes involve what is called, in crude terms, very-high-energy flux-density forms of action, by heat action, so-called. To get the levels of heat-action, the intensity you require, for managing these kinds of problems, you need at minimum, high-temperature nuclear reactors, or thermonuclear fusion reactors. There's some other technologies, more advanced. But these are the ones that are in sight, now.
So therefore, for example: We're going to have to understand, that we can not be running on petroleum forever. Petroleum may be a non-organic substance—that is, it does not have an organic origin. It may be produced as a reducing condition within the Earth. Probably at one point, as a fellow, Gold, who was an expert in this proposed, there probably were seas of petroleum on the surface of the Earth, before the Earth, about 2 billion years ago, went into an oxidation phase. But when the Earth as a whole, and the surface, was in a reducing phase, then we would have a normal production of petroleum, instead of water. When we went into an oxidation phase, we underwent a change in the planet, a change in the characteristics of living processes. As a result of this, now the planet began to be covered with water, and we had an atmosphere: And this was done by the action of living processes, not as pre-organic processes.
So, we're going to have to, at this point, go to a high-energy-density economy: Which means, very capital-intensive. This means that we're going to have to have a lot of nuclear energy right now—high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, in the 120-200-MW range, for ordinary sources of power. And reactors in the 800-1,000-MW range, approximately, for production of synthetic hydrogen fuels, to replace petroleum. So that, throughout various areas of a country, you will have these higher, more powerful plants, which among other things, will produce your local hydrogen-based fuels. You'll no longer get petroleum from a distant country—you'll produce it locally.
You will produce vehicles, which are hydrogen-based-fuel-operated: aircraft, trains, and so forth. They're not just simply electric processes. We need that.
We need also, to deal with the management of the territory, in a way we've never done it before. People say, "Deserts are good." I say, "Deserts are no damned good. Ever try to live in one?" It's never good for your culture, it has lousy effects on your sex life, and so forth and so on. So therefore, you should have a well-managed, comfortable environment—and a healthy one. And we're going to have to do things in the area of making the use of land-area available to us on Earth, more efficient for a growing population.
A New Global System Based on Nation-States
We're going to also humanize the population, in the sense of raising the standard of living and culture of the population, not to have desperate, poor people. For example: Seventy percent of the population of India, is desperately poor. You have a similar problem in China. Throughout Asia, you have a problem. Asian culture has never accepted, yet, in general (maybe in Korea and some few other spotty places), but has never accepted, yet, the idea of the injustice of having poor people. That is, a very poor, illiterate people. They still say, you can accept a situation where 70% of the population, or approximately that, can be very poor, desperately poor: poor life-expectancy, and the whole bit that goes with that. It's no longer acceptable. It's no longer acceptable in terms of the productivity of the human race.
What we're going to have to do, is build a new system, a global system. It's really not that new: It's simply a new way of thinking more clearly about what we've already learned. We have learned, for example, in modern Europe, that a sovereign nation-state, committed to the general welfare of each and all persons and their posterity, is the only decent way to go. You can not have globalization, because you must have a responsibility for both the care of the individual person, in terms of the general welfare standards; and you also have to think about the intellectual development, and productivity of that person. Which means, you have to raise the standard of living of the population, to the point that you have a cultured population, intellectually, not just a population which is kept alive like cattle in a barn.
So therefore, for that purpose, since ideas, which are the basis of culture, are produced uniquely by the development of the human mind, you have to have a system which is based on educational principles which raise the level of people to think cognitively, that is, think in terms of the discovery of ideas, of universal physical principles, artistic principles—not simply living like vegetables. And therefore, the driver of society has to be scientific discovery, and related Classical artistic work. This must be the driver. This must be the characteristic activity of the society.
Now, to do that, as you know, and some of you younger guys have gone through this, that, ideas of discovery are not something you can get out of a crossword puzzle. It involves actually going through a special kind of process, which is the discovery of a universal physical principle, comparable to what Kepler did in his discovery of gravitation. It's a different dimension than most people know; it's a different dimension of mental life than exists in most institutions. It's a different dimension of art, than exists in the minds of most artists and most people, today. What you see is called "modern art," is junk! It's garbage! It is something lower than refuse. I mean, natural garbage is natural garbage—human-made garbage, that's something else, again! That, we don't need.
So. But, the idea of artistic composition, the idea of ideas, the idea of man: the idea, what is the difference between man and an animal? Why is man not just an animal? Because of creativity. No animal has it. Therefore, what's oppression? Oppression is to deny people access to their own potential creativity. To deny people access to their own potential creativity, then you deny them their humanity, because you deny the difference between man and a beast.
So therefore, we have to have nation-states, because the ideas that people are able to develop, they develop in terms of the culture from which they come. They situate the problems, ideas, in terms of their culture. Therefore, if you want people to think together, you have to use the culture they have, as a way of bringing them together, to think together. That is, to think in terms of actual ideas, not like an animal, trying to sniff his way to glory.
Therefore, you need the nation-state. But therefore, you need a global community of nation-states. You need a direct change from what Hobbes represents. Instead of having a system which is based on the idea of—a Kantian idea of "negating the negation" of conflict, as a way of getting peace; you have to have a positive conception of peace. Which is the idea based on cooperation, based on cooperation in developing ideas within the terms of a culture, and dealing with one another's cultures in terms of these kinds of ideas.
So therefore, we have to have a new global system of nation-states, which would not be strange to the idea of Franklin Roosevelt's efforts at the time he died. We need to eliminate everything that is not nation-states. We must eliminate globalization, because that will destroy human beings, and their characteristics.
And we must develop, we must develop the idea of progress: You young guys, who have been exposed to what we did with the Dec. 25th EIR "On the Principle of 'Power,' " are actually, in a sense, pioneering the way to the future. There are a limited number of you involved, but nonetheless, you are a test case, to prove what we can do, what your generation can do.
We're going to have to have an escape from what has been bad science, bad scientific thinking. We know where the bad scientific thinking comes from, when you study the history of ancient Greece. You know that about the time of the death of Plato, and later, there was a rapid degeneration in the culture of Greece—something that had already started 50 years earlier, which caused the Peloponnesian War. And therefore, when you look at ancient Greek writings, you find, in the case of Euclid, who was active, say 50 years after the death of Plato—there is nothing originally competent in Euclid! Euclid was a faker! He was a commentator, and a misinterpreter of great discoveries in mathematics and physics, which had been made by previous people. There was no important discovery in geometry, in the fundamentals of geometry, made by Euclid. And there were very few, made after Euclid—accept among the followers of Plato, in terms of the Platonic Academy, up through Eratosthenes and Archimedes, and so forth.
So, there was a fall-off in culture, in European culture, from about that time. A fall-off in culture: Sophistry which led to the Peloponnesian War; a fall-off in culture from the level of scientific and artistic thought; within 50 years, say, following the death of Plato, it became worse.
Recreating Scientific Progress
You, today, and European civilization, have two problems: Formerly, before the Baby-Boomer generation, we had people whom I knew, as in the Fusion Energy Foundation, who were good scientists, but they all had quirks. Some had quarks, too, but they all quirks. But, they had a problem, but they also had a virtue: They all were stuck into this Cartesian mechanistic crap, to one degree or another—some less, some more. But they were also working as experimental scientists. Not just ideologues. The mathematicians were hopeless. The pure mathematicians are hopeless ideologues, and you expect nothing from them, except idiocy! Don't pay much attention to them. But the physical scientist is working from an experimental standpoint, working with nature, working with a subject matter. He's trying to discover principles that govern the way this subject matter operates, and how to control these things.
So therefore, a good scientist, who's a working scientist, is never an idiot. Because, they are always—no matter what crazy ideas they have—they have a saving grace that they were involved in actually producing something, directly or indirectly. They're demonstrating something, as you saw, with this experiment we did, with the Dec. 25th "Principles of 'Power' ": Actually working through the derivation of the ideas, in an experimental mode, on which certain crucial things in physical science have been developed.
Now, what happened is, the generation, the Baby-Boomer generation, the 68er generation, turned away from that, in their rejection of science, in their rejection of production. As a result of their influence, the influence of their movement, society went from being a producer society, to a post-industrial society. Therefore, the generation that was educated in science—and fewer and fewer of them were, in the classroom; look at the percentile of science students, physical science students' decline, over the period since the 1970s. They were no longer engaged in reality! They were engaged in mathematical commentaries on reality, which were more and more kookish. Like these crazy formulas they use now, for economic planning.
Therefore, what is needed, is, we have to return a generation to the standard of actual scientific inquiry. To do that, we have to look at modern science and its accomplishments, up through Riemann, for example, to look at this sort of thing, and Einstein is very significant for this purpose. He typifies, sort of the last scientists, you know; the 1950s, the last scientist is about to die. And the people around him who are leading in science are all a little bit—oh-oh!
What we have to re-create is this sense of scientific progress, as a driver of economy, which existed in previous times. The only way to do that, is to go back to the period of ancient Greece, the period of the Pythagoreans and Plato, and look at the approaches to the fundamental discoveries in physics, and science, which we now know were absolutely valid, as opposed to anything different subsequently. Go back to that, and build a base, a constituency among people in your age and younger, for the concept of a practice of science. Because, the older generation, the generation preceding yours, still had experience with experimental work. And therefore, even though their mathematical ideas were often kooky, they were not kooks. They were productive, useful people, with scientific insight.
You belong to the children of a generation which has lost that! So, the connection of science, which existed in Europe, from the 15th Century on, to recent times, was broken, with your parents' generation. Because, they belong to a culture as adults which no longer believed in science. They believed in mathematics—information theory is an example of mass insanity! There's no science as such, in information theory. It's a trick! It's a gimmick. It's a real gimmick, but it was a gimmick.
So therefore, what we need, is a young generation which becomes the conscience of the older generation leading society, which does what you've been trying to do: Is to go back to the fundamentals of scientific knowledge, of cultural knowledge in European civilization, to re-experience in a condensed form, the generation of that kind of knowledge, to create among your generation a constituency for what we must do! And prepare yourselves to take over society, as you grow older.
Therefore, without you, without your doing this kind of thing, the older generation, represented by the Bill Clintons and so forth, who are the people in positions of leadership today, will not be able to have a sense of constituency to do what they have to do: Is, now intervene as recognized leaders in society, to pull together people, as we pulled together people in the Senate during 2005.
And you have to be the inspiration.
You're only a small number of the total population. But, if we do our job, and expand this operation, you'll have more, who will go through the same kind of experiences some of you have gone through. And on that foundation, of education, and educating the educators, we will build the constituency of young people of your age-group, which will be the foundation on which the people of older generations will build the future of humanity. And the United States, which is the epitome of the principle of freedom, at least constitutionally, if not always in practice, is the place in the world, from which to launch this effort for the reform of civilization.
Thank you.
