presentation appears in the May
18, 2001 issue of Executive Intelligence Review. Audio/video
version (RealPlayer) is also available.
the Ecumenical Battle
For the Common Good
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
following is Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.'s keynote address to the International
Caucus of Labor Committees-Schiller Institute conference
in Bad Schwalbach, Germany, on May 4. Subheads have been added.
face at this point a turning point in history. The story is, that the Secret
Service of the United States wanted to get a dummy to use for security
purposes, as a duplicate for President George Bush. To get the dummy with
the exterior appearances was not too difficult; but to get a dummy who would
function with a certain amount of verisimilitude was more difficult. But,
fortunately, Hewlett-Packard stepped in, and, together with Texas
Instruments, they found some scrap, discard, from their production line, and
by inserting these non-functioning components into the dummy, they made one
that would sound and talk exactly like President George Bush.
this is actually quite a serious business, because he is a dummy. He's
obviously a mental case, and this was not a secret prior to the time he was
elected. The question you have to ask is, when you look at the way the
election was rigged--between two dummies, one a psychotic, and another,
stupid and psychotic: Gore and Bush, both equally evil, one would have been
as bad as the other. But, the fact that the election campaign, in the press,
and by the leading parties, was limited to these two dummies, who said
nothing about anything of importance that they were going to do, or that was
going to happen to the United States or the world, they were put in the
front position, and by an unconstitutional act by a bunch of fascists on the
Supreme Court, one of them was selected--George Bush.
they know they were doing that? Did the group of wealthy financial powers,
and the law firms associated with them in New York, Boston, Washington,
D.C., Chicago, and Houston, know that these were a pair of dummies? Did the
leading news media, which are controlled by this establishment, know this
was a pair of dummies? Of course they did. Thus, therefore, you have to say,
that George Bush is not the issue--he's the afterbirth. George was someone
who was selected with malice aforethought, to become the President of the
United States, under the worst condition of world financial collapse in all
modern history--the biggest financial collapse of all human history,
including pre-history, because they didn't have such big finances back then.
this was done. Why would this crowd put a cheap imitation Adolf Hitler into
the White House at this time? Because they wanted the effect of having this
kind of vicious, mad-dog dummy in the White House at this time. They did not
wish to have a President who could think, because he might start thinking,
and that might cause problems for them.
is at stake at present, is the attempt by an international oligarchy--which
is largely centered among the five thieves, that is, the four kingdoms
controlled, major kingdoms, controlled by the British monarchy, the United
Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand; and the associate member of the
British Commonwealth, the United States--to have the oligarchical powers of
these combined powers, establish a de facto world dictatorship by methods of
terrorism, by methods of intimidation. By using the threat of what remains
of military power in the world, to try to intimidate the world into
capitulating to this kind of dictatorship. It was very much like the Hitler
in the bunker, where George Bush went into the White House as Hitler in the
bunker from the beginning; he didn't have to wait all those years to get in
what you face, is an attempt to intimidate the world into submission to
something that the world doesn't like, out of pure fear. And to understand
what is going to happen in the United States, all those fools that thought
that maybe they could deal with Bush, that maybe Bush was just a change for
a different flavor from a Clinton Administration, were fools. And many parts
of the world thought, we can work with Bush. Many people in Europe said, we
can work with Bush. "Oh, we know Rumsfeld. We know Cheney, from the old
days. We can reach them. We can influence them. Yes, Bush is crazy, but
we'll work together with these people we know. They'll come around, they'll
help us deal with this situation. Don't worry, it's going to be under
not going to be under control.
is a perfect fascist. We don't have a fascist regime yet in the United
States. But we have a fascist party in power, within the Republican Party,
represented by a President who's an integral part of that. This man is a
Nietzschean personality, and if you've watched some of the things that he's
done, and his administration has done, they do not consider the consequences
of their actions. What they have done, as financial emergency actions, were
stupid. Absolutely stupid. What they have done will make everything worse.
They will not control anything. They will make nothing better. They will
control nothing. They're going to go from crisis to crisis, as you see the
case of this Sharon phenomenon.
are on the edge of what could become a nuclear war in the Middle East. This
war--Sharon is deployed totally with the backing, personally, of President
George Bush. The intention is to have a war in the Middle East. It's not a
question of, somebody might provoke the Israelis into launching; they don't
need to be provoked. They are already provoked to launch the war. It's like
Hitler invading Poland; it was not something the Poles did that provoked
Hitler into invading Poland. He intended to do it. It was not something the
Soviet Union did that provoked Hitler into launching Barbarossa; he intended
to do it when he wrote Mein Kampf! And his bosses intended it should happen.
in the period where this Nietzschean triumph of the will, like an Adolf
Hitler Nuremberg rally, is the characteristic, the mental state, of the
President of the United States, to the extent he has a mental state, and is
the mental state of his Attorney General, or the Falwells, or the Robertsons--you
know, these religious fanatics, who are not Christians or anything else,
they're just fanatics.
is a fascist movement. The theory of government, in the United States, as
typified by the decision of the Supreme Court majority, is fascist. It is
the mentality of the Carl Schmitt in Germany, whose influence on law
designed the Notverordnungen [emergency decrees] that made Hitler a dictator
in Germany. This is their mentality. Their mentality is that of Hegel, who
was the first philosopher of fascism in modern Europe, who used the case of
the Napoleon model, to write a theory of the state, which was then copied by
Carl Schmitt, for Schmitt's doctrine.
in the United States, as a friend of ours, now deceased, Professor von der
Heydte, pointed out, the danger of fascism from the types like Bush and his
father, in the United States, is worse than the danger of fascism from
Hitler in Germany. Because, in the case of Germany, the Nazis were
constrained by the powerful influence of a cultural restraint; they did not
dare attack the German culture openly. And that imposed a limitation on
Hitler's freedom for action. In the end, it didn't make much difference, but
it was different. In the United States, the dominant ideology is radical
positivism, which is the perfect ideal for fascism. Fascism in the United
States would be worse than we have seen in any part of the world, unless we
stop it. Because there are no constraints. There is no cultural constraint,
no limit. And this group was put in to establish a Roman Empire of a new
type: a globalized empire.
see what they did in Peru, even before Bush was in there. You see what
they're doing today, and have done, in the Philippines. You see what they're
doing in various parts of the world. They're toppling governments! According
to the law of Schmitt. We have a fascist government already in Venezuela,
the Chávez government. The Chávez government is based on the philosophy of
the same Carl Schmitt whose design of law was used to bring Hitler into
power in Germany. And we have the Chávezes, and people that are alike
throughout Ibero-America, among the followers of the influence of Savigny
and Schmitt in law.
Financial Crisis in History
this is what we face. We have the worst financial crisis in world history.
We have a crisis in which the ruling financial powers of this world are
doomed. There's nothing that can save them. There's nothing that can save
this system--it's finished, it's over. But nonetheless, they're determined
that if they die, everybody else will die first. And therefore, they will do
what they can to enslave the world, into meeting their conditions, their
financial and economic and other conditionalities, and to overthrow every
government that they don't like. To manage the world by causing wars, and
threat of wars, and incidents. Their policy is one of global crisis
management, including the deliberate provocation and launching of wars.
as you may have observed, most of the countries of the world, including
those in which many people were foolish enough to believe they could work
with George Bush, or work with the new administration, or that it won't be
so bad, or that the collapse won't actually come, that somebody will control
it--they were fools, and that illusion is essentially over.
saw what happened at the United Nations, the repudiation of the United
States on several issues in the Human Rights Commission and several other
things this past weekend. There's a revolt, even among the traditional
slaves of the United States and Britain in continental Europe, against this
danger. They just don't quite know what to do about it. There's a sense of
this in China. There's a sense of this in Russia. There's a sense of this in
other parts of the world, that this is not an administration with which one
can hope to live. You cannot marry this administration and expect to
survive. This is the worst case of a bipolar personality, without much
sweetness in it, that you can imagine. It's not the kind of person to marry,
if you want to live. The axe may come down at night, instead of the loving.
that's the situation we face. And there's no way in which this is going to
be worked out neatly. What this is going to do, is lead not only to an
accelerated financial crisis. For example: During the past approximately one
year, the U.S. financial market, in terms of indexes of market values, has
actually lost, openly, $5 trillion, and has actually lost more than $10
trillion. That is, when the accounting is done, it will be seen
retrospectively, that in the past approximate year, the United States
financial markets have lost over $10 trillion.
to see what $10 trillion means, is this. The total GDP of the United States,
before this collapse came on, was estimated at $11 trillion a year. So, the
amount of collapse, the financial collapse, of the U.S. markets, in the past
year, approximates the total annual GDP income of the United States. The
total GDP income of all nations of the world combined, is estimated at $42
trillion, which means that the collapse of the United States financial
values in the past year, approximates 25% of the total GDP of the entire
world. The amount of debt outstanding, if you include the off-balance-sheet
debt, including derivatives debt, is in excess of $400 trillion--more than
ten times the annual estimated GDP of the entire world. These debts are
based largely on leverage. These are not simple debt. They're not debts at
simple interest. They're debts based on value, which depend upon a
compounded gain in financial values.
United States Is Bankrupt
look at the employment in the United States. Most people don't work any
more, especially people that are employed. They're employed in services
which contribute essentially nothing to the economy. They're make-work.
Instead of cooking hamburger in your kitchen, if you still eat one these
days, you go to a McDonalds or someplace like that, and you have somebody
working at cheap slave labor, processing that for you. This is typical of
everything in the United States. The great majority of people are employed
in professions which, from a strict economic standpoint, in terms of
priorities, are useless. The number of people who actually produce anything
of value is diminishing constantly.
has happened is a number of things. The social program, since 1963, but
especially since 1972, has been a social program of trying to buy off the
population, by creating service employment, unskilled personal services,
financial services and so forth, as a way of keeping the population
reasonably unemployed, in terms of income, by increasing the number of jobs
they work in order to get this income, and reducing constantly the number of
people who are actually producing wealth.
most of the wealth of the United States in the recent period comes from
several sources, which are interesting. First of all, the United States has
shipped its employment out of the United States, into cheap-labor markets
around the world. Of which China is an example, South America--Mexico, in
particular. So, the United States no longer produces its consumer goods.
Many of its other goods are no longer produced in the United States. The
industries which used to produce these categories of production, have been
largely shut down. People kicked out of these employments, have gone into
services, as gas station attendants, or whatever, just to give them
something to keep them going. They've been offered the chance to invest in
markets which have been boosted with financial speculation, with mutual
funds, in stock markets, and other forms. They put their pensions, and their
savings, into those forms. As long as the stock markets and other financial
markets were inflating, they thought their savings were increasing. They
were given the opportunity to borrow on credit, with credit cards or other
devices. They were given the opportunity to take the equity they had in a
house, which was already mortgaged, and to go to a second and third
mortgage, in order to pay their bills, and to finance new purchases, as part
of their essential income. And this comes in the order of 15%, at 23%,
borrowing costs, for this kind of thing.
have been living on income they didn't earn. The United States as a whole,
in terms of its income, the current-account deficit rate, toward the end of
last year, was reaching levels as high as $600 billion annually. That is,
the United States was spending, from the world, $600 billion more than it
was earning, and that was being leveraged.
top of that, through this speculation, nations of the world have been
relying on the U.S. market, to dump their goods--China, and other nations,
which are all going to suddenly take a depression; they're going to
collapse. Because the imports into the United States have been collapsing,
and will continue to collapse, at an accelerating rate, which means that
countries which have depended for a large part of their national income on
the margin of exports to the United States, are going to lose the greater
part of that income.
the same time, the world has been investing in the United States, both in
direct investments and markets, and into other forms of flows of capital
into the United States. For example: One of the biggest sources of subsidy
for the United States, is Japan. Japan loans money overnight, at virtually
zero percent interest. The people borrow from Japan at zero percent
interest, or relatively near that. The yen they borrow, they then use to buy
dollars, or euros, or other currencies. They then invest those other
currencies, chiefly in the U.S. market, or the London market. This amounts
to trillions of dollars a year flowing into the United States in the form of
financial inflows, which is part of the leveraged effort to support the U.S.
dollar, and the U.S. financial markets.
United States is bankrupt. Without going into other details, I can tell you
that every leading bank of the United States is hopelessly bankrupt. The
Federal Reserve System as a system, is hopelessly bankrupt. So you've come
to the point, that to try to preserve this system, you could no longer do it
by management methods. It can be done only with bayonets, or similar
devices, and terrorism. And that is what is happening.
example, as you'll note, in another panel in this conference, there'll be a
large reference to a fight around D.C. General Hospital, the effort to save
it. What is happening throughout the United States, especially since 1997,
is a shutting down of essential health-care facilities, such as hospitals
throughout the United States. Whole categories of people are being triaged,
will no longer receive medical care, while diseases, infectious diseases,
are spreading around the world. The death rates among vulnerable sections of
the population, those over 50 and so forth, will increase. Those who are
impoverished, at higher rates. So what we face here, is a social crisis,
both within nations, and among nations, where the attempt of the Bush
Administration to keep a system which is unsustainable together, by
dictatorial methods, runs into headlong collision, in the form of social
crises, with nations, other nations, with other parts of the world, and
inside the United States itself.
have two major points of vulnerability in the United States, and social
crisis. One is the energy crisis. There is now scheduled, at minimum, about
120 to 150% increase in average energy costs, for all U.S. families, in the
coming year. There will be a global hyperinflation in energy costs, under
present conditions, throughout the world, including here in Germany.
Hyperinflation in energy prices is part of the package. Collapse of
essential services--health care, other forms, pensions, these things--are
about to be looted, and to be collapsed, throughout the world, at
differential rates in different parts of the world.
most vulnerable parts of the world, will be the ones most looted.
Do We Find a Solution?
therefore, we come to a point of crisis. What is the alternative to sitting
back, and either pretending this isn't happening, or to simply complain
about it's happening, and protest wildly?
humanity is different than animals. Animals, under these conditions, would
simply go crazy. But, except for some of my opponents, human beings are not
beings are cognitive, and the characteristic of history is that, when
mankind uses his brain, his mind, and exchanges concepts with others, which
define an alternative to an impossible situation, mankind will adopt an
intention, a governing intention of action, to make some innovation in
institutions, to try to solve the problem. Therefore, the most essential
thing at this point, is ideas. Ideas are the distinction between man and
beast in any case. The cognitive powers of mind are the distinction between
man and beast. And it's by addressing, in times of crisis especially,
confronting mankind with the crisis, encouraging it to face the reality that
the impossible is about to descend upon them, making it clear. But that's
not enough. You also have to provide a clear image of the feasible
alternative. What do we do instead?
we have a population whose leadership, organic leadership, has a clear idea
of what to do about the crisis, then the fact that the majority of the human
race has an interest in those ideas, gives leaders who represent those
ideas, the ability to transform institutions, especially institutions which
are controlled by a tyrannical minority, whose actions are contrary to the
vital interests of the human species.
therefore, the most important concept at this point, is not exactly a new
concept, but a fresh vision of an old one. This is a concept which Helga
will address in her address tomorrow, on the source of the idea of the
modern nation-state. And the characteristic feature of the modern sovereign
nation-state, for which there was a long struggle in Europe, and which came
into being for the first time in the Fifteenth Century, was the notion that
there is no legitimate government, except government which is efficiently
committed to what is called the common good, or the general welfare. This is
the principle on which the United States Constitution is based, the
principle of the general welfare. It's a concept which is reflected in the
leading three paragraphs of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. It is a
concept for which man has fought. It is the concept which His Holiness Pope
John Paul II, has affirmed in the past two weeks, in a new statement on the
anniversary of an old papal decree.
concept of the general welfare, that man is a special creature, unlike the
animals, given a cognitive power, a creative power, and that man must be
defended, in principle, because man is of this quality.
there is no alternative to defending that kind of human nature. It is the
only basis of law on which we can be governed. It's the only basis in law,
in concept, by which you can lead this aching, imperilled world out of the
tragedy it's now embroiled in, and lead it to a place of safety.
Development and World Recovery
are some practical considerations in this, strategic ones. And you'll see
that the two focal points of this conference, will turn out to be, at the
end, as they are at the beginning, the issue of Eurasian recovery, Eurasian
development, as the pivot for world recovery, including the role of Russia
as a very special part of any such recovery effort, and the relationship of
this Eurasian commitment, to the contrasting situation of Africa. In other
words, to understand the world as a whole, in the simplest terms of
reference, look at the possibility of what we can do in Eurasia, and then
look at the needs of Africa, in order to see humanity in its wholeness.
Those who have the means to lift themselves up, and those on whose behalf,
in the larger term, they must act, to lift them up too. Because the idea of
the general welfare, while it's a notion of government of each nation, also
must be a notion of the relationships among nations of the world. We must
find a community of principle in the notion of the general welfare, to unite
nations for a common good. The common good is the general welfare of the
nations, of the people in each, and of the community of nations as a group.
It's the only chance for this planet.
to go to the question of what is the role of Russia. I addressed this
yesterday in a forum we had, a seminar yesterday. And I shall restate it
like the rest of Western Europe, and Central Europe, is also bankrupt. This
is a condition which was installed immediately in 1989 through 1991, when
the Soviet system collapsed--and was collapsed. At that point, since there
was no credible adversary, the Anglo-American powers, led by Margaret
Thatcher, who was made Prime Minister out of the wreckage of a
green-grocer's daughter; George Bush, a mental case, the old George Bush
(the young George Bush came by his mental infirmities honestly; it's only
their money that they got dishonestly); and François Mitterrand. And these
people set up a plan, to prevent Germany from surviving the reunification of
Germany, and set up a plan to destroy Eastern Europe, especially Russia.
That was their plan. And if you look at the history since 1989-1990, you'll
see the result. That's exactly what happened; it was intentional.
plan was tht they launched globalization, to destroy the last vestige of the
sovereign nation-state on this planet, through globalization. To set up a
modern financier oligarchical form of the Roman Empire, this time on a world
scale, in which there would be one world government, run out of London and
Washington, in concert with Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. That's what
has been happening.
is a joke, nobody takes it seriously. NATO is nothing but an appendage of
the Anglo-American facility, sometimes with French cooperation, sometimes
not. There is no NATO, there is no sovereignty in Europe. A world empire is
emerging, with pagan Roman characteristics and fascism to boot. After all,
fascism is nothing but Caesarism revived in the modern age. That is the
these conditions, Germany is being ruined, and you see it with the
Chancellor, or Eichel: Every time they turn around, they're cutting more and
more. The situation is desperate, the budget is unbalanced. The French
budget is unbalanced. In Italy, they're used to it, it's always unbalanced,
so they put up with it better. Other countries' budgets are unbalanced,
they're cutting and cutting, but already they're long below breakeven. These
nations cannot survive on their present budgets; physically, they are headed
towards Hell, with no way out, no exit in sight.
used to be the pivot of the European economy. Since they got rid of de
Gaulle in France and so forth, and crushed Italy, most of Western Europe
couldn't earn its own living. The way it survived was through the margin
contributed from Germany, a Germany able to contribute to support the rest
of the poor nations of Europe. They were all living on the German dole, from
Germany's high-technology export capabilities. And as long as those
capabilities were maintained, and they were up until about 1989 and the
assassination of Herrhausen, then Germany could sustain Western continental
Europe. But what was done to Germany, in the process of reunification, the
way the process was handled in the assimilation of the former East Germany,
destroyed Germany from within too. And thus, Germany is at a point that it
cannot survive, and Western Europe cannot survive, the way things are going.
there is an obvious solution. There is a great potential market under the
proper conditions in Asia: in China, in India, other countries, which
represent the largest portion of the human population. In a great area of
particularly Central and North Asia, which is one of the great frontiers of
growth of all humanity, an area of tundras and deserts and general
underdevelopment. Through the mediation of Russia, which has the
peculiarity, historically, of being a Eurasian nation per se, as a result of
the aftermath of the Mongol occupation--through that mediation, it is
possible for Europe to unite with Russia and nations in Asia to set up a
long-term system under which, instead of consumer goods markets and
investments for these countries, you set up long-term development of the
productive powers of labor in these nations.
you're talking about a generation or more. That means a system of long-term
credit issued by those nations which are producing the greater part of the
technology, to the nations which need that supplement in order to get out of
the mess they're in. This means a system of long-term credit, interest rates
of the order of 1% per annum, simple interest, no compound interest,
long-term agreements under which the great markets in South Asia, Southeast
Asia, East Asia, now come into a partnership with Europe, with Russia, with
Japan, in order to create a great economic boom with some of the same
features used to rebuild Western Europe in the immediate postwar period,
through the Marshall Plan and other plans.
program for a generation of recovery, a generation of progress, a generation
of development. In order to make this work, as has been understood for more
than a century, almost a century and a half, the only way this could work,
was to develop a system of infrastructural development which would
effectively link the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean across Eurasia.
This is not railroads, this is not Silk Roads, these are corridors of
development, which run a range of, let's say, up to 100 kilometers in width,
from the Atlantic to the Pacific, going in various directions. Along these
routes, as we did in the United States with the transcontinental railroad,
the area on either side of the transportation axis becomes immediately, in
and of itself, a sustainable area of economic development. By that means,
you can branch out from the main corridors into subsidiary corridors of
development and capture the area. If we can make that kind of link, one
interesting kind of change occurs immediately.
as long as we know, mankind's economy has been dominated by the oceans.
Contrary to all these theories that the British Biblical archeologists tell
you, civilization did not come from England and march down the rivers and
the seas, it went the other way. What we know from especially information on
the internal characteristics of ancient astronomical calendars, shows that
they were predominantly calendars used by a trans-oceanic maritime culture,
functioning over a long period of time when most of North Eurasia was under
a giant glacier, for about 100,000 years. During that period, most of what
later became civilization, was running around the oceans. From the time that
these maritime cultures came back into Eurasia following the melting of the
glacier about 20,000 years ago, when that began, they began to move inland.
The first direction was to move along the great riverways inland, to move
along the coastways, close to the seas and to maritime traffic. If you look
at the map of the world, you find the characteristic of long development is
the lack of the ability to utilize the inland areas, the land-locked areas,
of the world, with the same degree of efficiency and productivity that was
used in the coastal areas and chief riverways.
at Asia today. In China, you have the coastal areas which reflect this, they
are more highly developed, relatively speaking, and the inland is poorly
developed, the population has a poorer standard of living and poorer
opportunities for development. This extends then into Central and North Asia
as a whole. Therefore, if we conquer this area, what happens? Take
transportation alone. People who don't think, think that ocean freight is
the cheapest way to move freight. That is not true. The cheapest way is
across land, but not by truck; trucks running up and down the highway tell
you that the economy is being dismantled. It costs too much, it's
intrinsically bad. Railways are much better. Integrated transport systems,
featuring railways, especially magnetic levitation systems, are excellent.
Magnetic levitation systems move passengers more rapidly, but those same
systems for moving freight, that is really a wonder. That's where the payoff
comes. If you can move freight from Rotterdam to Tokyo at an average rate of
300 kilometers per hour, without much stopping along the way, and if for
every 100 km of motion across that route, you are generating the
creation of wealth through production as a result of the existence of that
corridor, then the cost of moving freight from Rotterdam to Tokyo is less
than zero. What ocean freight can do that? Did you ever see a large
supercargo ship producing wealth while travelling across the ocean? And at
Turning Point in Technology
we have come to a turning point in technology, where the development of the
internal land-mass of the world and the great typical frontier is Central
and North Asia. That is the greatest single opportunity before all mankind
for development. This requires some revolutionary changes in the way we
think about things. This means that we would be engaged in the greatest
change in the environment in the history of mankind. This single project,
say a 25-year or more development of Central and North Asia in this
direction, including the conquest of the tundra. (The Arctic tundra is one
of the great frontiers to be mastered, and it can be done.) That would be a
great change in the environment. How are we going to decide what is good or
bad about changing the environment? What people think today about the
environment is pretty stupid. It doesn't make any sense, people don't know
what they're talking about, and when you see the kind of education they get,
it's no wonder they believe that nonsense. Especially those with physics
great theory of the environment was established by a Russian of Ukrainian
credentials, Vladimir Vernadsky, with his concept of geobiochemistry. The
problem is that what you're taught in most universities about science is
nonsense--it's a damn lie, to put it frankly. What you're taught as basic
physics is mostly a lie. Because, as Vernadsky demonstrated this in his own
way, and as others have shown, there are actually three principles involved
in man's physical relationship to the Earth and the universe. Three
categories. One is what we call non-living processes, what most call
physical processes. The second, which those in molecular biology refuse to
understand, is the principle of life; you will never get life out of a
non-living process. Life is, as Pasteur insisted, a principle unto itself, a
universal physical principle which, as Vernadsky demonstrated with his
biogeochemistry, the oceans and the atmosphere were produced by living
processes, down several kilometers below the Earth's surface. Most of the
Earth that we are in touch with as humanity was created was a by-product of
living processes, with what Vernadsky calls the "natural products of
the biosphere." We can measure the power of the biosphere over the
non-living processes, we can measure it!
processes are superior to non-living processes; they are more powerful, they
are apparently weak, but their long-term effects are more powerful than the
short-term effects of non-living processes.
Need for Revolutionary Discoveries
is a third thing, which Kant won't let you know--that's why they call him
Kant, because he can't do anything. The essential nature of man is that we
are capable of making discoveries of universal physical principle,
discoveries we can validate in known experimental ways. By applying these
principles, we increase our power in the universe, in ways that can be
measured physically, per capita and per square kilometer. We can measure
this in terms of the demographic effect of this kind of action. That is,
does the human species improve its life expectancy, its power to exist in
the universe, as a result of this? If it does, that is good. Mankind's
primary mastery of nature has occurred in terms of his mastery and
development of the biosphere. So actually, the biosphere, including what we
call basic economic infrastructure such as waterways, power systems,
transportation systems, the development of good cities--these are natural
products of cognition which are reflected as improvements in the biosphere.
The biosphere is weak, it is stupid, it does not know how to deal with the
deserts it has, or the tundras, or other problems, but we, as human beings,
can come to our poor, stupid slave, the biosphere, and say, "We will
educate you and we will make you stronger and better."
mankind intervenes in the biosphere to make it better. So the principle of
discovery applied to the environment creates natural products of cognition
in the biosphere which improves the biosphere, which increases the potential
for human life. This is not a mysterious, arbitrary area, it is an area of
science, of scientific precision. Which means the job to do is not to ask
whether it is good or bad to tamper with the environment: It's very good to
do so if you know what you're doing. But you have to develop the science of
water management, the science of transportation, the science of
reforestation, the science of how to change and control the atmosphere and
the climate. You can't make big mistakes, they will live with you for a
quarter of a century or more; therefore, you have to have competent groups
of people determining how to do this. But by changing the biosphere of
Central and North Asia, and changing the biosphere in the arid regions of
China, and so forth, we will create the greatest boom for humanity on any
part of this planet.
we need is a mission-oriented task force to undertake the policy planning
for precisely this. And it must be international.
Pivotal Role of Russia
the peculiar part of this is the case of Russia. Russia has gone from
communism to liberalism, without passing "Go," and certainly
without getting $200. It got nothing, it lost money on the deal. The problem
in Russia is to define itself--once again, intention: This will work, if
Russia adopts the intention of playing that role for itself in a Eurasian
development program. That means, leading Russians must adopt such a
perspective, and the Russian people must increasingly participate in that
vision of the role of Russia in changing the situation in Eurasia and in
those conditions, the role of Russia as a pivot, with other parts of
Eurasia, is crucial. How? First of all, there are conflicts of an historical
and cultural nature along most of the nations of Asia. China and India, for
example. China and Japan, Korea with China and Japan, and so forth. So that,
on a bilateral basis, long-term agreements among these nations are very
difficult to manage. However, if you have a common mission, with a common
interest, which involves a number of these nations together, then you can
bring them together in a system of cooperation. This is the natural role in
which Russia can play a mediating part throughout Eurasia.
is what came up when Primakov was Prime Minister, on the triangular
cooperation, which we boosted very much, and pushed for, between China,
Russia, and India. That is a viable idea. It has to be given more legs to
walk on and a mind to direct it, in that sense. In Western Europe, where we
could potentially revive the kind of high-technology export potential which
once existed here. But Western Europe has to adopt a mission, and Central
Europe has to adopt a mission, of participating in this development of
Eurasia, as a group of sovereign nation-states, through instrumentalities
which they create among themselves, to facilitate this cooperation.
object would be to bring the United States in to cooperate with that great
if you look at Africa, as we shall discuss here, it has no chance, it has
been too looted, unless it has help. The help it requires is of the same
nature. The primary needs from the outside for Africa are in the area of
basic economic infrastructure, particularly large-scale extensible systems
of infrastructure: transportation links, power grids, water management, the
redistribution of water in Africa, could make a revolutionary difference.
Africa needs assistance on this.
Africa is allowed to have the room to undertake its own development, with
that kind of assistance, Africa can develop. This assistance must come from
viable other parts of the world. A prime case is Eurasia: If Eurasia is
developing prosperously, then it will help Africa. But, if the Americas and
Eurasia are not developing, there will be no help for Africa. And the
penalty of what has been done to Africa, like an infectious disease, will
continue to destroy Africa, internally and otherwise.
we should see this connection in this world: Eurasia is the great center of
human population. The conquest of the inner space of Eurasia is a great
focal point for a mission out of this process. When we then turn to Eurasian
development to look to Africa, and see the misery there, then we see a
larger mission which exemplifies humanity as a whole. That is our chance.
Fought for the General Welfare Principle
the United States, we find, as around the D.C. General fight, which we have
not won, but which we are fighting as nobody thought we could, or in the
fight against deregulation of energy supplies, we are finding a great
response from within sections of the American population that have been
disregarded and cast aside, the lower 80% of family-income brackets, who
have been out of politics, essentially, for much of the past quarter of a
century or longer. They are responding. Why? Because my friends and I are
intervening with people in the Democratic Party, all kinds of people, to
bring them together around the idea of establishing the general welfare as a
general principle. The reference to that is easy. The general welfare
principle, as Helga will indicate on Sunday, is an old principle in European
civilization. It is one of the characteristic benefits of European
civilization to all of humanity. The idea of the sovereign nation-state as
the alternative to empire. That is the great contribution.
in a recent period, which is most comparable, in immediate recollection, to
that of now, in the Great Depression of the 1930s, when stupidity similar to
that which rules the United States today, the stupidity of Theodore
Roosevelt, that fascist, of Woodrow Wilson, that Ku Klux Klan racist, the
stupidity of Coolidge, who got himself into trouble every time he opened his
mouth, so he didn't talk, at least not in public, these people, along with
Mellon, destroyed the United States and destroyed a good part of the world.
Franklin Roosevelt came in. He had poliomyelitis, he was crippled, he fought
against the crippling effects of polio. During this period, he restudied his
own roots. He was the descendant of a collaborator of Alexander Hamilton
some centuries before. He found again his roots in the American Revolution.
And he brought forth, as governor of New York and as candidate for President
of the United States, a conception which transformed that traditionally
ultra-racist party, called the Democratic Party.
the Democratic Party was conceived as a racist, treasonous party, and
remained so until Roosevelt became President, even though there were some
decent people in it from time to time. Roosevelt changed that. He changed
that party from the party of racism and treason into a party committed to
the promotion of the general welfare. Not that he was able to enforce, with
a sweep of the hand, the general welfare, but he fought to establish the
principle. Most important, he fought to establish the principle in the minds
of the American citizens.
we are not emperors; we can not, with a wave of the hand, declare a
principle and then impose it by our will, on people. The way we convey a
principle is as philosophers, philosophers in action, who convince people
that that principle is the way in which they ought to live and act. When a
people is aroused to act for that principle, then the great good comes. No
man is a god, no man can decree by a wave of the hand and give the world
something according to principle. What a man can do, an individual human
being, is to transmit ideas, utilize ideas, convey them to others. The
function of leadership is essentially that of a philosopher, which few
politicians seem to understand. It is the philosopher who conveys and
implants ideas in people, ideas of principle, like a scientist who conveys
discoveries. It is the implanting of those ideas in the social process, the
creation of political and other institutions around ideas, which mobilize
humanity to do a great work.
We Can Win
is the lesson for today. We are in the worst crisis of world history, and
the good side of it is, there is no way you can cheat. You either do it my
way or you're doomed. The other good side is that we can win. But to win you
have to think of philosophers in action, not as agitators, but as
philosophers in action who take people who are living in a depraved mental
state, who are being selfish--
me give you an example of the principle involved. It may have occurred to
you that we have each been born. And it has occurred to most of you that all
of us are going to die, even George Bush, who may already be dead. So when
somebody talks about my self-interest, what is that? If you're going to die,
what becomes of your self-interest the minute you die? Your self-interest in
pleasure, in gluttony, in riches--What happens to them? They go! Your
self-interest is in having lived, and having your life mean something to
humanity. You live for your self-interest. Now, most people are not capable
of doing that, not yet. Given the education system, that is not surprising.
But, when people are inspired to rise to that sense of their personal
self-interest, that what they can do for mankind while they are alive is
their self-interest, then they are capable of exerting leadership. If they
can do that, they can arouse in people, who all have this potential, at
least for a moment, the ability to see that in themselves.
the old times, when people used to believe in having babies, people would
express that in a very simple way. They would say, "Okay, I'm living,
I'm sacrificing for our children and grandchildren." And children and
grandchildren gave a way of focussing concretely on what your life meant.
And you would joyfully sacrifice for the sake of the future of these
children and grandchildren. You would vote, and support actions by society;
soldiers were ready to die to save it, not because they wanted to die, but
because they were ready to take the risk, because they had a sense there was
something more important than their mortal life itself. It's what they do
with it that's important. Like a scientist. How do you measure a scientist?
By what they contribute to humanity. People whose names we know from
thousands of years ago, what was their self-interest? To be what they were:
great discoverers who benefitted all humanity after them, great artists who
uplifted all humanity after them. A few of us have that developed
commitment. In former times, more people had that kind of commitment, which
they expressed in terms of their obligations to improve society, their
family, and so forth. Those values have more or less passed away, during
this decadent cultural period in which we have lived. We have come to a time
when people suddenly realize that "My money, my money, my money!"
is not the essence of humanity or life. the essence of the ability to buy is
not the essence of life. It is being human that is the essence of life.
people have taken away from them, some of the false values to which they
have clung too ardently, sometimes they are forced to look and say,
"What is really valuable?" Sometimes, for that reason, it is the
poor who are the best fighters for freedom. Because they have the least to
lose, and freedom means everything to them, because they have nothing else,
except freedom. So, when we come to a time of great peril and depravity, the
secret is leadership. The secret is the development and spread of ideas,
sound ideas, which enable people to mobilize themselves about actions which
will address the problem. In such a moment, when that occurs, suddenly the
majority of people are able to decide on how to run this planet. And those
few tyrants who dominate us, become pitiful wrecks running into places of
refuge, or hiding or changing their identity. Thank you.