Empty Bottles

 

As we left the restaurant where the city had hosted its welcoming dinner for us, a young woman approached us from behind. She thanked us for coming to her city. She told us that she was impressed by my analysis of what drives scientific development. She also told us proudly that she is the head instructor of the local college, a kind of University College, as she described it. She wondered if we would like to make a formal presentation along the same lines that we had talked about, but to the whole college.

Jacky looked at Steve and grinned. Steve looked at me. "How about it, Doctor?" he said and began to laugh.

"Tomorrow at two," I replied to the woman. "Before that, please join us on the ship for lunch. Oh yes, I also need you to supply some educational materials. I need two water glasses, empty. Four empty bottles, and for bottles filled with fruit juice or colored water."

The woman looked puzzled, but agreed.

 

She was precisely on time. At twelve o'clock sharp she stood at our door on the Lu Rose. Wai-ye received her. She showed her around on the ship. Lunch was already set up on the upper deck; two kinds of rice, vegetables, fried fish, pastry from the market. It wasn't a fancy lunch, but the atmosphere made up for it. To be honored by this woman as our guest, somehow made the occasion special.

"What do you need the bottles for?" she asked during lunch.

"Knowing Peter," said Tony, "he will use these bottles to teach your students a lesson they will not forget for their entire life." He began to laugh.

She looked at me with a questioning look.

"You will see," I replied, "just trust me. Also, rest assured, what I present won't be hard to understand, but it will be profoundly significant to the students." Then I grinned. Moments later she joined in until we all began to laugh.

 

At the school, it was I who was surprised. It seemed as if the entire school was assembled in the auditorium. There was standing room only, and even some of that was taken up.

I told the students that would speak to them in very broad terms to illustrate certain principles. I warned them that the real world isn't as clearly delineated. Then I began.

"What is a human being?" I asked. "What sets us apart from every other living species on this planet? What is it that makes us human?"

Wai-ye translated the questions.

I told them the answer myself. I told them that our humanity lies in our ability to think and to understand complex phenomena by understanding the principles that govern them. We discern patterns of reality, discover principles, create hypotheses about a certain phenomenon, we test the hypotheses, we refine them, we test them again, and so we derive at an understanding of truth, of verifiable truth. The process is called scientific discovery. Then we build on this discovered truth. We create a culture for ourselves that is supported with industries and technologies that are all built on our scientific understanding of the truths that we have discovered. With these, we support our existence. Herein lies the proof of the truth. The truth becomes manifest in the state of our civilization. What enables out civilization to grow and become more secure and more beautiful, is an element of Truth. The process that makes all of this happen, that enables us to do all this, and to carry it forward, is called humanist education.

I took a glass from the table and held it up. I told them that it is the task of humanist education to fill our individual glass to the very brim with all the aspects that we need in our life. That process set our existence apart from that of an animal.

"So, let's see what we need to put in there," I said.

I told them that we need to fill these glasses with the products of our scientific development. I told then that this development has certain spiritual aspects, certain physical and technological aspects, certain cultural aspects, and certain sociological aspects, each of which has a unique type of science associated with it.

"Now I am going to tell you what I mean with that," I said to them.

I explained that a human being is a sentient being. This means that we have the capacity to be aware of ourselves, of who we are as the tallest species of life in the universe as far as we know it. Then, as we utilize this human capacity do discover, to see with the mind's eye what the physical eye cannot behold, we gain a realization, an understating of our world, and treasure that understanding because we can enrich our world with the products of that understanding. In this way we find great treasures imbedded in our humanity. We also find that the recognition of these treasures in our humanity inspire us to treat one another with the honor and dignity that our wondrous humanity is worth, which is very precious. Thus, we recognize love as a fundamental principle that unfolds out of our self-respect as human beings, and our respect for one another and for what we are as human beings. We also recognize this discovered principle to be a universal principle, because we all share the same humanity; the same beautiful Soul, as it were; the same intelligence; the same creativity, and so on. Thus, we recognize the principle of universal love as a fundamental, universal principle of civilization. We acknowledge this principle in countless different ways as we enrich one another and enrich our world with it. We find the truth of our humanity reflected in creations of beauty, music, art, literature, poetry, technology, science, and so on. Thus, we also recognize in this principle of universal love that we are all married to one another by the single humanity that we all share.

This knowledge of our universal marriage, or universal love, creates a mutually supportive civilization, a civilization that we feel honored to enrich with the fruits of our labor and our intellect. In this manner we build this civilization; a human civilization; and stand up for it and protect it, and fight for it if need be. We are even prepared to fight for our humanity when there is little hope that we will see the rewards for it in our lifetime. Still we are committed to do what must be done to assure the survival of our civilization as a worthwhile testament to the fact that we have lived as a human being on this planet.

Having said this, I picked up the empty glass again and the bottle that I had labeled, the science of universal marriage, and filled the empty glass a quarter full.

 

I explained further, that as human beings we also have a variety of physical needs. We need food, clothing, shelter, water, energy, transportation, household goods, educational materials, cultural materials, health care, and so on. And we need industries to produce these goods, and infrastructures for the industries. Also, we need a financial system that furnishes an equitable interface between the individual needs of people, and their labor to fulfill these needs. We call the whole structure with every part working together, an economy.

I suggested to the students that they might find it interesting to search for the underlying principles of that economy. I suggested that they should ask themselves where society's wealth is located. Is it located in money? Is it located in property? Or is it located in its productive industries that fulfill its needs, and in the human ingenuity and labor that operates these industries? Evidently, money is the least contributing element, and therefore the least valuable element of the whole equation, being nothing more than just a regulatory tool. By the same token, the human element becomes the most essential, and therefore the most valuable element.

I suggested that if this underlying principle is understood, an economy functions well, because the focus will them be placed on what matters most, the development of the human intellect, such as society's scientific and technological development, the development of its skills, its health, and the development of efficient energy sources and processes that increase the effectiveness of human labor.

Having said this, I picked up the glass again and the bottle that I labeled the Science of Physiology, or physical economy, and filled the glass to the half-full mark.

 

I pointed out that there is another major area in which the human being stands miles apart from the animal world, and that's the domain of dialog. Animals are able to communicate with one another in a primitive sense, but only human beings are capable of linguistic dialog. We have developed languages, complex languages that give us the capacity to share our discoveries and to preserve them for future ages by which we individually, gain a certain immortality. Except this is only the smallest part of the linguistic dialog. We are also constantly in communication with ourselves. We call this thinking. When we face a paradox, we use our spoken language to evaluate the evidence. We speak to ourselves in our thoughts, as we search to discover the underlying principles. For this we need a language. A high-level language. In this communication with ourselves we begin to discern complex universal truths. We begin to resolve paradoxes. Without a complex language, our thoughts will be fettered. They will be limited to primitive perceptions. At this primitive level our dialogs become useless chattering and accomplish nothing. That is why Homer, for instance, who practically created the Greek language in 500 BC, with his epic poetry, is being recognized as the foundation for the Greek Classical Period that became one of the greatest periods of scientific achievement in human history. In like manner did Dante lay the foundation for the Golden Renaissance.

With this said, I filled the cup up some more. I filled it three quarters full, from the bottle labeled the Science of Dialog.

 

"But there is still more to a human being than this," I said. I explained that the human being is an infinite being with a capacity to develop further and further. It is in that, where we find our riches; not in money, but in ourselves; in our capacity to develop ourselves, and with it our world. In order to achieve this, we require a certain commitment to ourselves, individually, and on the universal platform as a nation and the world. We need to make this commitment on the platform of committing ourselves to certain understood and acknowledged fundamental principles, which are universal principles. I told them that we call the declaration of these principles, a constitution. Obviously, this has to be done with a scientific approach. It can't be done arbitrarily. The constitution has to reflect verifiable truth; universal principles that have proven their worth in the advance of civilization. The U.S. Federal Constitution is an example of this type, which sets up a foundation for the general welfare; common defense; freedom to develop; the pursuit of happiness. All of these have been recognized to greatly enrich human society as a whole.

Another great constitution that was created, is the Treaty of Westphalia. This constitution contains the declared understanding and acknowledgement of the principle of universal love. It is an international constitution that was established as a platform that brought to an end eighty years of devastating wars.

Still another great constitution, further back in time, is the platform of a recognition of certain humanist principles and truths that became the foundation for the Golden Renaissance. These recognized and understood truths literally established the image of man in the image of God.

With this said, I filled the glass to the brim from the bottle labeled: The Science of the Constitution.

 

"But humanity is presently at war," I said, changing the tone. I pointed out that the imperial oligarchy of the world, the fondi, have launched an unending war against humanity to eradicate all the human elements that threaten their feudal empire. The fondi have done this after the Renaissance powers nearly eliminated their key empire, the empire of Venice. In a sense, this process of destruction of any movement towards a new renaissance is still continuing. The ruling empire of today sees itself as having to do this in order to save its existence. A highly developed society will never allow itself to become slaves or to act as slaves in the service of an imperial oligarchy; or allow itself to be looted; nor allow anyone else to be looted. This built in humanist resolve was well demonstrated in 1510 when the League of Cambrai was formed by the Renaissance powers with one single goal, to rid the world of the looting empire of Venice. It was a noble movement. It should have worked. It didn't. The Pope prevented it. Nevertheless, the humanist idea continued on. It raised its head many times in history, even though it was beaten back repeatedly by the imperial forces.

The strength of a people's resolve to free humanity from domination was well demonstrated to Winston Churchill of the British Empire, by President Franklin Delanor Roosevelt. Roosevelt made it clear that a commitment to defend human freedom would always be found whenever a highly developed Renaissance exists in society, of the type that he had helped to establish in the USA, that had touched the whole world and won its fight against fascism. Out of the resources of the Franklin Roosevelt inspired renaissance the USA had become the largest and literally the only globally significant economic and military power on the planet. Roosevelt announced at this point that the British Empire would have to be dismantled. He pointed out to Churchill that the society of humanity won't stand for colonialism any longer, that colonialism was doomed by the unfolding humanist environment. Unfortunately Roosevelt died at this point. With that, the fight for humanity came to a halt once more. In fact it was reversed. The imperials won again. But how did they do it?

None of the students was aware of how this had been done, how the greatest humanist development of the 20th Century was defeated.

It was done quietly, in the background. It was done through the baby boom generation. A large new generation was born. But would they be allowed to be educated as human beings? The very thought must have scared the imperial oligarchy to death. The entire imperial structure would be doomed if a vast new generation would be brought up on the platform of a powerful humanist renaissance like the one that Franklin Roosevelt had pioneered, who had threatened the empire in no uncertain terms. The thought of seeing a new generation growing up on this platform must have frightened the imperial oligarchy even more than it had been frightened in 1508 with its existence was threatened by the Renaissance powers. Thus, an effort was launched, especially in America, through the back door, to destroy this threat of a new renaissance at its very root.

And how was this done?

I didn't even wait for an answer. It was done by depriving the coming generation of the substance of its humanity, its education; thereby creating a generation of 'empty' people.

Towards this end the oligarchy, the fondi, dredged up from their mud pool all the counter-humanist philosophies and ideologies that they had established over the ages for similar purposes. Then they took the mud-grown stuff and gradually flooded the nations' education systems with it. The mud products consisted of irrational ideologies; ideologies without principle; ideologies that look fancy, but are hollow shells; empty structures that don't produce anything in terms of elevating society while they take up space in consciousness. These ideologies and philosophies are of a type that can be likened to the Emperor's New Clothes of Hans Christian Anderson's fairy tale. Everyone exclaimed over the beauty of the new clothes that Emperor wore, while in reality there was nothing there. It was said that these clothes could only be seen by someone intelligent enough to see them. Thus, the people all lied to themselves, and the Emperor who walked around naked was hailed.

I suggested to the students, that if one takes anyone of these mud-grown philosophies and ideologies, that suddenly everyone was induced to believe in, and adds up everything they have ever accomplished for the good of humanity, the combined total would amount to zero.

"So, let me illustrate how this process works that creates empty people," I added.

I took the bottle labeled "Adam Smith." I shook it well, and proceeded to pour from it into an empty glass, liberally. Then I took the glass and turned it upside down to illustrate that it is still empty, since nothing came out of it.

I told the students that Adam Smith says that greed makes the world go round; that the whole society benefits by an individual's greed. That's a lie. No principle supports that. Nor does the reality support that, as it is illustrated by the most far reaching social experiment in modern history, which in the USA was a generation dedicated to Adam Smith that accomplished nothing. Nevertheless, what Adam Smith says make a lot of sense to a hollow person that has been deprived of developing its humanity. After all, to a default person that lives like an animal, steeped in greed because that person knows nothing else, greed is the only thing that he's got left to live by as the animals do. Adam Smith creates and caters to such a person's mentality. Naturally, Adam's greed based economics is totally embraced by such a person, because Adam says what this person wants to hear. Thus, Adam Smith becomes celebrated as a great genius, or some kind of a god while society slowly dies from within.

I took the empty cup again and asked why the cup is empty. I said the reason is that Adam Smith is a liar, because there is no verifiable truth in what he says. I pointed out that America's baby boomers had used Adam Smith for thirty-five years, and their children have used him, and what was accomplished? They have taken the richest and most powerful economy on the planet and reduced it to nothing more than an empty shell, and half the world along with it. America's industries are largely gone; destroyed by free trade and other types of looting. The world-financial system is another casualty, an empty shell. The once healthy system of a Renaissance based economy became destroyed by a vast competition throughout the world in stealing from one another. The western population, the Adam Smith population, is now totally 'hollow' to the point that it can no longer produce the things that are necessary to sustain its existence. America lives of the labors of other nations, like Rome one did. It is literally unqualified for anything more than to exist as a consumer society. For that reason, it has been enslaving the world like the Roman Empire had enslaved everyone that was in reach of its long arms. The Roman society too, didn't know anymore how to produce what it needed, and had no inclination to learn to do so. It simply died with a whimper on its lips.

"Indeed, why would the baby boomers want to produce anything? Have they not been educated by Hobbes?" I asked.

I took the bottle labeled "Hobbes" and poured out liberally into the empty glass. And again, as I turned the glass upside down, there was nothing in it. "Why is this so?" I asked.

I answered that Thomas Hobbes has no principle to support his babbling. He speaks empty words. He says that love has no place in the world, except maybe in the smallest domain, in the privacy between two people. His motto is that human beings are animals, and in the animal world, "might is right," he said. He says that a person has every right to steal what others cannot defend. Thus society destroys one another and calls this a process of bettering itself. Evidently, this can't work. There is no chance that it can work. It is an empty dream that it will work. The reality is, that Hobbes was one of the war philosophers that dragged the nations of Europe into the hell hole of eighty years of war that degenerated into the worst military escapade in history, prior to World War Two. Still, Hobbes is celebrated as a hero today. Why?

The reason is simple. Hobbes says to society that human beings are animals, therefore we should recognize ourselves that way and act accordingly. I pointed out that this kind of talk makes a lot of sense to a generation that is being prevented from developing itself into effective human beings. Hobbes, therefore, makes sense to a hollow generation that lives on the level of animals; a generation of fascist animals that supports destruction, the use of force, the rage of killing people. In a very real sense, this deprived, default society, has become cultivated to become fascist killers. To such people, the song, "Might equals Right," is indeed a sweet song, which is being sung again with fanfares and speeches about our heroic readiness to use nuclear weapons in preemptive adventures to wipe other nations off the map. We may not be quite there yet, but we are singing that type of song already and evermore loudly.

I suggested to the students that it doesn't take a great scientist to figure out that this approach doesn't build a civilization. If one adds up Hobbes and all the others like him, the end result is still zero. That's why the glass remains empty.

After this, I took the bottle labeled "the empiricists and the romanticists," and poured out from the bottle into the still empty glass, liberally. And again, the glass remained empty. Why?

I suggested that the reason in this case, for the glass being empty, is that these zero-sum philosophies are all hollow in themselves. The philosophers themselves admit this, and are proud of it. They say there is no such thing as truth, all is opinion. No dialogs please! Don't talk to me about truth, you violate my opinion, I don't want to hear of it! If you face a paradox, don't puzzle over it. Life is full of paradoxes. Besides, you are an animal, you're not supposed to think. The very best you can do in this case, is to form an opinion, and to help you, I will tell you what your opinion ought to be. I give you the information. It is save for you to accept that, because it is after all, only an opinion. The key is harmony. Get along with other people's opinions. Don't fight for such abstract ideas as truth!

Naturally, to a person who is hollow inside, the words "don't think!" sound like music. Thus, two entire generations have been brought up on this 'music,' without an ability to think. The end result is that the world has been thrown into a frenzy of worshiping opinions, like the opinion that Ariel Sharon is a man of peace, which is about as far removed from the truth as is the moon from the earth. In fact, he would feel insulted to be called a man of peace.

An empty generation loves this kind of stuff, because it allows it to say anything it likes, since there is no requirement to prove anything, or support anything with a verifiable hypotheses. Thus, they cry: Deregulate the economy! Let everyone's opinion prevail. Don't talk about truth. Don't talk about physical reality. Talk about freedom in accounting practices.

I suggested to the students that the empiricists' and the romanticists' bottle is empty, because there is nothing in it that adds anything of substance to the maintenance and advance of civilization.

Next, I took the bottle that I had labeled "The Roman Pantheon," and poured from it liberally into the empty glass, and turned the glass upside down to illustrate that it remained empty. "Why did it remain empty?" I asked again.

I explained that a Pantheon results, when there is no constitution governing society. The Roman Emperor might have explained: Well, isn't every animal in the field entitled to live like an animal to its own liking? Sadly, this is still being said today about the human society. We have created two generations of people who have chosen the model of the Pantheon for their constitution, and rightfully so, because they lack the background to see themselves as human beings of a common humanity.

They say, if I want to shoot dope, I should have the right to do so, and if I want to sell dope to make a buck, I should have the right to do that too. And the energy pirate says: If I have a chance to fleece society with outrageous electricity rates, I should have the right to do that also. And the Israeli leader says, if I want to bulldoze a few Palestinian homes to the ground, I should have the right to do that, and kill the inhabitants if I want. And then the President comes along and says, well you guys, if I feel afraid of another country I should have the right to wipe out the whole nation. Finally the police chief taps you on the shoulder and says to you, well my son, since I don't like the way you look at me, I'll throw you in the brink for the rest of your life, because I have just claimed for myself the right to do that.

I suggested that the pantheonic development leads to ever-greater insanity, which obviously doesn't contribute anything to the advance of a civilization. Therefore, the glass remains empty.

I explained to the students that these zero-sum philosophies and ideologies aren't actually dangerous to anyone. I pointed out that they really don't have any power in themselves. I suggested that none of them could ever defeat someone like Plato or Leibnitz, for instance. I pointed out that their destructive effect has quite a different cause; namely, that they take up space, or more correctly, they demand us to give them space in our consciousness by throwing away valuable elements of our humanity that should be there, that should never be denied.

I illustrated to the students what this means.

I took a pitcher that holds three cups of liquid and filled it to the brim with fruit juice. I equated the contents in the pitcher with the contents of our humanity, such as; our love, integrity, generosity, sovereignty; also our intellect, our productive capacity, our universal good; as well as our capacity for making discoveries and for spiritual understanding; all the substance of ouselves as human beings that we require to create a civilization.

That's what a full pitcher looks like," I said to the students. "But then along come the synarchists, and they say to you: What you've got in your pitcher is nothing compared to what we can give you. So each one of them comes along and says to you: Pour out from what you have in there, pour out just one cup of it and throw it away, and let me fill this void with what is really good for you."

I mimicked Adam Smith saying: "There exists no principle of universal good. So, my son, throw that notion away. Greed is where the wealth of society is anchored."

With having said this, I poured out a single cup of juice from the pitcher and poured it down the sink.

Then I mimicked Thomas Hobbes saying: "There is no such thing as universal love in real life. My son, throw that notion away. All men are evil. Your welfare rests with the rule of might."

With having said this, I poured out another cup of juice from the pitcher and poured it down the sink.

Then I mimicked the empiricists and romanticists saying: "Forget the very notion of Truth, my son. Throw it away! There is no such thing as knowable truth. Give up wasting your time with that and be happy by devoting your life to whatever makes you feel good."

With having said this, I poured now a third cup of juice from the pitcher and poured it down the sink. Actually it was just colored water that poured away, but the empiricists believed me. Then I held the pitcher up high and turned it upside down so that everybody could see that it was now empty. It was empty because I poured everything way that was in there, and never added anything back.

Having illustrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the pitcher was now empty, I simply repeated what I had illustrated before. I poured liberally from the bottle labeled "Adam Smith," into a cup, and poured the contents from the cup into the pitcher; and likewise from the bottle labeled "Thomas Hobbes" and from the bottle labeled the "empiricists and the romanticists," and so forth.

Having done all this, I held the pitcher up high once again and turned it upside down, to illustrate that it was still empty.

"What makes this illustration different from the first illustration?" I asked the students.

Since no one spoke up, I answered the question myself. "The difference is in the way we regard education," I said. "With the first illustration, I proved to you that the synarchists have nothing to offer. Every time I filled a cup, there was nothing there. In other words, any young person who is educated by this system receives no education at all, even after having been spoon fed on these zero sum philosophies for all their academic years."

I laughed. "As you have seen," I said, "the entire contents of three empty cups poured out into the pitcher added up to nothing, right?"

I paused and added in a serious tone that this zero-sum effect actually creates only half of the problem. "That's why the second illustration is needed," I said, "because it points to where the real danger lies. The real danger is, that the synarchists take away everything that is vital of humanity."

I pointed away what I started with in the second illustration. I started with a full pitcher, but ended up with an empty one. "In real life, this means, that a young persons starts out with a full and rich humanity, and ends up with every aspect of that humanity totally denied."

I pointed out to the students that every human being starts with a full pitcher. I said, "It is not the role of education to fill this pitcher to the brim. Each human being has its pitcher already full. This means that the real role of education is to make us more fully aware of our humanity and its riches, and of the universal principles that it represents. The synarchists take all of this away, and have intensely done this for decades. They have literally robbed the people of their humanity. They have placed their humanity so far out of reach, by means of crafty lies, that their 'education' actually left them empty inside. They have dragged society down to the level of animals, and lower than that; to the level of beasts, of fascist beasts; to a kind of default state from where one simply can't sink any lower. If you take away everything that is human, there is nothing left that sets a person apart from an animal. And that is where the danger lies for society."

Here I had to laugh again. "The irony is that the synarchists are not dangerous in themselves," I said. "They have no real power. The danger is in that we given them the power they seek, when we respond to their bidding. That is why I call them synarchists. They are cynical, and they get everybody to run against everybody else in an well-orchestrated synchronized manner. That's what the Adam Smith synarchism does. It says to everybody, 'greed is good; be greedy and steal from everybody you can steal from.' And that is what everybody did. The financial 'market' became an arena in which everybody is pitted against everybody else. The divine Principle of universal good went out the window, completely, and with it the prosperity of society went out of the window. When Franklin Roosevelt died in 1945, America was the richest nation on the planet, with an economy so powerful that it could have revolutionized the world. Instead of utilizing that wealth for the good of humanity, the American people were intensively educated to become 'empty' people. In that process of becoming 'empty' people, America destroyed most of its industries, threw its skilled workforce onto the trash heap, and became the biggest debtor in the world. Before the whole thing disintegrated, America had amassed forty thousand billions of dollars in debt. That is how the Adam Smith synarchists set everybody against everybody else, in order to eradicate the slightest awareness in society of the principle of universal good, the principles of its humanity."

I pointed out that the Thomas Hobbes type synarchists did the same thing socially, by eradicating the very notion that love is a universal principle that needs to be manifest universally. I pointed out that the eradication of the principle of universal love opened the gates to the Thirty Years War, and to every war thereafter.

I further pointed out that the romanticist synarchists eradicated the very notion of universal Truth in the same manner, saying, "There is no truth in anything, there is not even any truth in such a thing as a humanity. We are all animals. It's all opinion."

I pointed out that with the very notion of Truth banned, the self-denial of society became so deep that nobody had any moral strength left to stand in the way of the imperials' goals; not in Roman times, nor in our time. "Our world has become more fascist than Rome had ever been," I concluded. "Who even thinks about the principle of universal good anymore in today's world, and acts with generosity, or even universal love? The synarchists have enlisted society into their ranks, even to spit in the face of God, as it were, and we in America hail ourselves of having become the foremost champions in that pursuit.

I pointed out to the students that it is totally possible to disable an entire generation of people with this deeply disabling kind of education, even two successive generations in a row. I told them that in my own country a third generation of young people is now being disabled in the same manner. I suggested to the students, that in order for them to understand what all of this means in real life terms, we would now need to look at what such an 'emptied' person looks like, who has been deprived of everything that manifests our humanity.

I pointed out that a human being is always a human being, whether that person is educated or not. In other words, the potential is always there to develop that humanity that we all share. I compared the human potential to a racing car, which is of no use to anyone if one doesn't know how to start the engine. For a human being to become effective in a modern society a certain level of humanist education is required to get the engine going. "In other words, we have to discover the value of the principle of universal good, which is the key element of our humanity, so that we won't be tempted to privatize everything that is good, and thereby deny its character and loose it altogether. If one doesn't have that kind of education that brings out our generosity, our integrity, our industry and intellect, and so forth; nothing good happens in the real world, and everything good that has been established, will fall apart.

"Except, where does this leave us, living in a world that is ruled by a hollow generation?" I asked. "Don't we then end up living in a hollowed out world that threatens to collapse into nothing?"

I suggested that the answer be, Yes. I also suggested that this answer must be followed up with another question, namely: What must we do to be able to survive in this disintegrating world? "The answer is simple," I said. "If our glass is empty, then let's put something in it that has substance. Let's pour into it the substance of our humanity in flood tides of universal love. All the stuff that we poured into our glass before were flood tides of voids. That's why the glass remained empty and nothing ever came out of it. Empire is that kind of default state. It unfolds when the flow of universal love isn't happening. It is a void like darkness is a void of light, and so is everything that is a part of this darkness, of the void called empire and reflects this void, such as empiricism, imperialism, and the insanity of romanticism as related to Rome, or the modern versions of these in the form of Hobbesian fascism and Adam Smith's fascism of greed. They are all voids of substance, the absence of the substance of love. When nothing comes out of our glass, and consequently nothing productively happens on the human scene, so that civilization disintegrates, then we have only one option before us. We have to pour something of substance into our glass. We have to pour into our world flood tides of love to fill the void, and that means flood tides of universal love for our humanity, love for what we are and are constructively capable of as human beings. It means universal love in terms of discovering of the boundless dimension of the human mind in creativity, reason, the recognition of the principles of the universe, scientific understanding, efficient living, creating technologies, infrastructures, culture, music, literature, art, beauty, and so on. Universal love flows from all of these aspects that makes us truly human. Universal love is rooted in truth, and manifest itself as honor, integrity, gentleness, caring, but also as joy and passion for living a human life. None of these are found in the void, in the emptiness of empire, in the darkness of greed, in the sewer of empiricism, destruction, war, and hate. So, it is important to learn to love universally, to embrace our humanity, to enrich it, and to heal whatever needs healing. Without pouring flood tides of love into the human scene we won't develop a rich civilization, and the civilization that we have will disintegrate. Our world will become empty, as I have illustrated with the empty glass when nothing of substance is poured into it, because the glass stands in metaphor for out world."

I pointed out to the student's surprise that the answer to that question of universal love has already been put forward long before the question was even asked by anyone. I pointed out that the answer has been put forward in modern times by a man who understood the answer already thirty-five years ago; who has been in a battle to get people to look at themselves and take the necessary steps to refill their individual glasses to the brim. The man's battle has been a battle for scientific, spiritual, and technological development, to create a real economy, and to cause the same to happen throughout the world. He spoke about humanist development; universal principles; scientific dialogs of the highest order and on the whole front, including a dialog of cultures to unite the world. He also spoke about the constitutional principles, the sovereignty of nations, and the principle of universal love. He also talked for many years about a new constitution for humanity, a new financial constitution, a new Bretton Woods type world-financial system based on fixed exchange rates, built on proven universal principles.

I suggested to the students that this man evidently knows the four bottles that represent the four essential domains of science which develop the substance of humanity, and he pours from them liberally.

I asked them to look at what it is that he pours from the bottle of the science of universal marriage. I suggested that his hope is for a world of perfectly sovereign nation states existing in a community of principle, rather than an imperial world ruled by force, terror, and the arrogance of might. "He sees the people of the world as one humanity, and that perceived universally of our humanity, reflecting the principle if universal good, is reflected in all of his efforts."

I pointed out that the evidence is founded in his large scale physical development proposals for Europe, North America, Africa, all of Eurasia, South America, the Middle East; development proposals on a huge scale that offer humanity a chance to live again. He speaks about infrastructure development in terms of a universal love for people that knows no boundaries or borders; which always, in the end, means universal human development as a means for enriching one another and to enrich our world as a whole. And he goes on fighting this battle today, against a hollowed out society living in a hollowed out world.

I pointed out that he also knows the second bottle well, and pours from it freely, the bottle of the science of physiology. He also understands the principle of economy as having both a human and a physical dimension. The first is a dimension of technologies and the infrastructures created by the human mind, while the physical dimension represents the products created on that platform. Where the zero-sum philosopher says, money is wealth, that man says, money is merely a tool. He says that society's wealth is in the human genius, which needs to be developed to its fullest potential. He says that only a sovereign, national, federal bank, that doesn't exist for profit, can operate on the acknowledged platform that money is not wealth, but a tool to develop the real wealth of mankind that is located in the human genius.

 

I pointed out that this man also knows the third bottle with the label, the Science of Dialog. No scientific, political, or economic leader has raised the language of dialog to a higher level in modern history, than did this man. He is known and honored throughout the world for his extraordinary speeches, articles, and in-depth scientific papers, which he has put out, and still does, with a speed that is bewildering. The speed is consistently such, that if one thinks one understands the man, finally, one always finds that he has moved two more steps ahead again.

 

I further pointed out that this man also knows the fourth bottle well, labeled the Science of the Constitution. He honors that science as no one else does. He speaks about the U.S. Federal Constitution in scientific terms, especially its Preamble, as a foundation for the nation, and he goes beyond it. He proposes the adoption of a global constitution that includes three elements. The first element involves the world's rededication to the principle of universal love, along the line of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which was the word's first major global constitution, and the greatest ever devised. His constitutional proposal is to use this platform and put the currently bankrupt world-financial system through a bankruptcy reorganization, in order to save the world economy from disintegrating totally. This constitutional principle worked in the past; it ended eighty years of war that had wiped out half the population of Europe. It has the potential to work again to save humanity from a worse fate.

The second element of his world constitutional proposal is for the nations to recommit themselves to a new Bretton Woods type, world-financial system, with fixed exchange rates as a minimal standard for global economic recovery and industrial development. He sees this constitutional proposal as a replacement for the presently ruling Pantheon of floating exchange rate speculation.

His third constitutional element for the world, is for humanity as a whole to commit itself to the building of the Eurasian Land Bridge and its global extension, as a minimal commitment to achieve a workable global economic development, including the extremely urgent redevelopment of Africa that has become a dying continent, as have many other places. One natural aspect of this global constitutional commitment will be the elimination of slave labor sweat shops, and an end to the enslavement of children that has currently trapped over two-hundred-fifty million children into a state of developmental hopelessness.

Finally, I told the students that this man who did all these things and is still doing them, who has presented the only possible answer to the current crisis and has done so for thirty-five years, is none other than the renowned American economist, scientist, and statesman, the eight times declared candidate for the U.S. Presidency, Lyndon H. LaRouche; the one man that is most feared by the imperial oligarchy and the most slandered by them, especially in America. The man is greatly honored everywhere else, and may be the most sought after political, economic, and pedagogical advisor in the world.

I suggested to the students that the battle lines for the future are clearly drawn. One finds on one side a hollow generation of people who have lost their humanity, and literally their ability to survive; who have become fascists armed with nuclear bombs; and on the other one finds the hated and slandered Lyndon LaRouche proposing infrastructures for survival that humanity has been coerced to reject. Indeed, a hallow generation of people does find it very hard to look above its default state of an animal type fascist existence and find the substance for its survival in the higher dimension of its humanity that it has been denied to experience for its entire life.

I pointed out to the students that instead of me, LaRouche should be addressing them, but I explained, that since he was busy lecturing high level people all over the world, this wouldn't be possible, as, after all, he is but one man. So, he confines his work to where it is most effective, to seminars and conferences in Rome, India, China, Russia, the Middle East, South America, Germany, Mexico, Africa.

I suggested to the students, that ironically, LaRouche represents nothing more than a level of perception that would likely be common place throughout the world, had the post-war generations been educated according to the once thoroughly established humanist principles, rather than having been smothered with the babbling of insanity, that the countless zero-sum philosophies had served up in the imperial circuses that many of the once respected institutions have become.

I suggested therefore, that LaRouche is not fundamentally an exceptional man, but merely an Exemplar of the kind of man that everyone of humanity has the potential be with the right education, with a total dedication to the task, with an unyielding determination to succeed, and a humanity that enables one to make the sacrifices that need to be made in the struggle to advance the state of civilization.

In closing, I pointed out to the students that my lecture should now make it possible for them to seek out the kind the humanist education that makes them appreciate the substance of their humanity, and the fact that they have the potential for their glass to be filled to the brim. I suggested that this should be their guiding star, especially given the fact that humanity is fast loosing the foundation for survival of its civilization, with very few people realizing the fact, and even fewer fighting on the side of humanity. I pointed out that the students own contributions are urgently needed in support of that fight, and that their individual contributions may make the difference between their own survival in a civilized world, and their personal destruction in a catastrophe that can still be avoided.

 

There was no discussion going on throughout the lecture. Consequently, I opened the floor up for questions and comments.

One of the first students who stood up asked me how I felt it was possible for a hollow generation that destroyed its industries, its financial system, and much of the world, to rebuild its economy in order to survive. The student asked how this can be done without a foundation for it, that obviously doesn't exist in a hollowed out population.

I agreed that this was a tough question to answer. I suggested that an answer has to be found, because a hollow generation is a potentially fascist generation; which is already showing through; which is evident by ever-louder cries for war, and an evermore arrogant flaunting of nuclear weapons.

That's when I remembered an article in which LaRouche had actually answered that question, by suggesting that a reverse paradigm shift is possible. I told the student about this article, and suggested that LaRouche is probably the world's foremost representative of the American intellectual tradition that the proposed paradigm shift leads back to.

 

I told the student that LaRouche had pointed out in this article that in the 1965 time frame a major paradigm shift occurred in America and around the world, but especially in America, which brought on a shift away from the American intellectual tradition that had been based on principles that worked; that had built a great economy and a great nation; that had successfully defeated the world's must sinister fascist empire. I pointed out that this paradigm shift in 1965, towards America becoming fascist itself, corresponded with the time frame of the baby boomers taking over the control of the nation and much of the world, which had been brought up on an intense diet of zero-sum philosophies and ideologies. However, I also pointed out that since the baby boomers did grow up in the era prior to this shift, they had personally experienced the rich substance of the prior paradigm. In other words they grew up in an era in which everything still worked; in which the economy functioned, which they themselves have experienced. So I pointed out to the students that the baby boomers have a foundation within their own experience to accept a return to the principles which they have experienced themselves to work, and to work well.

I suggested that the baby boomers might still be able to recall those days when they could buy a brand new car for less than three-thousand dollars, which most of them did, who then used their great dream boats to cruise down Sunset Boulevard. In fact, they could even walk down that boulevard without fear of being shot at or otherwise attacked, or being propositioned by prostitutes. They might even remember that the economy worked so well in those days that a family of four could be supported by a single worker's salary and build itself a decent house to live in. I suggested that the baby boomers could surely still remember that world that once existed, because they had been a part of that world. They saw it functioning. They experienced its dynamism. They may even remember that it was actually possible in that world for a worker to retire and live a carefree life. And as they remember all of this, which exists no more, they may also remember that a lot of the commercial enterprises of that world do no longer exist either; that the very industries that had created their prosperity, that had created their employment, even the industries that had once created their food, the family farm, are virtually gone. They may also remember that one could go to a movie in that world and not be ashamed afterwards of being a member of the human race, because of the violence that is being dished out as we have it today. They may even remember a time when they could look their friends into the eye with a smile, without this being translated into an invitation for sex as we see it so much in the world of entertainment. But mostly, when this past world is remembered, they will remember the physical prosperity they found in it, of a world in which almost everything actually worked. And if they can be induced to remember all that, they will want to get back to the world that worked, a world of actual prosperity.

 

Here another student stood up. He protested. "Life isn't a philosophical issue," he said acidly. "When the physical economy is gone, you can't resurrect it with philosophy."

I agreed. However, philosophy, or more correctly, the intellectual tradition behind the most advanced philosophy, is the foundation of the policies that determine how the physical economy operates, and that makes a huge difference. It determines the policies.

I told him that a long time ago a policy had been established to throw a debtor into prison, who could not repay what he owed. That policy of course made the outstanding loan even more unrepayable. The policy was so bad that it was eventually abandoned. Unfortunately, this didn't happen until it had done a lot of damage to society. Nevertheless, we still have many similar policies in force that are just as bad, which make an economic recovery virtually impossible unless some deep changes are made. This means, that quite literally, the survival of a nation, or the world, boils down to a matter of intelligent policy based on the best intellectual tradition ever developed.

I told the student who had protested, that the U.S. economy, for example is currently being strangled by thirty-two trillion dollars of debt that has been accumulated, because of bad policies. It costs the economy over seven trillion just to service that debt, which no magician in the world can squeeze out of a ten trillion dollars gross domestic product. This means that the debt can't be repaid, especially, since even the interest can't be paid. After all, people have to have something left over to live on. So, the bottom line is, the economy is bankrupt beyond hope. But how does one deal with a totally bankrupt economy? What policies does one use?

I told the student that the present policy is to let the corporations go bankrupt when they can't pay up, even huge corporations with hundred thousand employees, and more. I told them that this sort of thing happens a lot, because the debt is killing these enterprises. I pointed out that this shutdown policy is one way in which the outstanding debt gets written off the books. I also pointed out that in the process millions of people become unemployed and destitute, and eventually many of them become homeless. And to make matters worse, which is actually the greater tragedy, the nation deprives itself of the products that these enterprises had once produced. "Now, is this a good policy?" I asked. "Is this even a sane policy?"

I pointed out that if a corporation goes bankrupt, the debts get written off. So why shouldn't one deal with the debt as a separate issue and keep the economy functioning? Why should one shut everything down?

I suggested to the students that it would have been the policy in the American intellectual tradition to keep the economy functioning, on which people's life depends, and to deal with the debt as a separate issue in a global bankruptcy reorganization. I suggested that this would be done as a matter of principle to save the economy, to save people's pensions and other essential things. This kind of action would once have been assured under the general welfare constitutional principle that was an acknowledged principle in the American intellectual tradition. But we don't do that anymore. We let everything disintegrate, which is insane. This means we have to go back to a tradition that was sane; that worked; that protected and advanced society. That is what the reverse paradigm shift is all about. That is LaRouche's policy, the policy of a man who has become an American institution, a man who fights a hopelessly seeming battle and is determined to win, because he knows that as a human being he has all the principles of the universe on his site to win this battle that he ultimately cannot loose unless the whole world disintegrates before he succeeds.

I suggested that this kind of policy fight isn't actually so much LaRouche's own personal policy fight. Rather, it is a policy fight that simply reflects the paradigms of the long established American intellectual tradition that LaRouche merely represents, a tradition that is founded in certain invariable fundamental principles that had once been acknowledged as the greatest constitutional principles in history. It is the American intellectual tradition to fight for the substance of our humanity, to develop it, and to enrich our world with it. And this is what we need to get back to all over the world, I concluded.

 

At this point another student stood up and gestured in protest. "I don't want to hear about your American intellectual tradition," he shouted angrily. "It's all rubbish. It's a miserable failure. America has become a failure, a sewer, its activities around the world, stink."

"That's just the point," said another student next to him in broken English, so that Wai-ye didn't have to translate, and gestured his friend to sit down.

I agreed with the student that America has become a sewer, but I pointed out that what stands behind that sewer, as the cause of it, has nothing to do with the American intellectual tradition. I told them that the paradigm shift that turned America into a sewer was the result of a crisis that was abused to destroy that tradition, and the nation with it. I pointed out that the whole tragedy resulted from a people being unable to protect themselves in a time of a deep crisis. Sure, that defense could have been accomplished were the people embracing their intellectual tradition at this critical point more fully. Unfortunately, this didn't happen. This single failure to embrace the traditional paradigm caused the tragic breakdown to occur that led to the paradigm shift that destroyed the nation. This, however does not imply that the intellectual tradition itself has been wrong, or has failed. The people had failed themselves.

I told the students what really happened. We had just come through World War Two, we had eighteen million people overseas fighting a war to restore civilization, but in the background to this war, America was being attacked covertly by the American/British imperial oligarchy that was about to be eliminated by the Roosevelt mobilized renaissance, a renaissance that was totally built on the American intellectual tradition. Then Roosevelt died suddenly. In the resulting vacuum the oligarchy saw its chance to take over the strategic area that would be vital for the nation's future, the education of its children. By the time that anyone realized what had happened, that segment of the war had already been lost.

I suggested that it is evidently easier to fight a physical war against a visible enemy, even on a global scale, than it is to fight a war against an enemy that one can't see, that works quietly in the background.

I pointed out that this singe defeat put an end to the policies of the American intellectual tradition, both in America and throughout the world. Still one can't blame the tradition for it. The tradition was extremely substantial. It had worked well. It had worked so well that a single man, as Roosevelt was, based on that tradition, could advance a nation out of its deepest economic depression to becoming the most powerful economy on the planet in just a few years, and all that while the nation had eighteen million people to support in a war overseas. This horrendous achievement all by itself, illustrates the substance of the American intellectual tradition in terms of its humanist policies, and economic policies, which are really both the same, fundamentally.

I explained that a parallel to what happened in America, could be found in the history of the Golden Renaissance in Italy, which was itself the outcome of an intellectual tradition of great substance. It started in late 1300s after the Black Death plaque had wiped out half of the population of Europe. In such a depressed situation deep questions are asked, and answered. In this case answers were found that could be traced back to the Greek Classical era, to Plato and Socrates. Out of this background a modern intellectual tradition unfolded that was established by all the great minds of the time, in which Nicolaus of Cusa played an important role. This new tradition in thinking, in humanist terms, came to life almost in the form of a universal constitution through the work done by the Council of Florence in 1439-40. This constitution established certain principles for a higher perception of man than has ever been achieved before. The intellectual tradition that stood behind this constitutional platform of a higher image of man, eventually created the Renaissance. It became a powerful renaissance force that uplifted all of Europe. When Louis XI in France built upon this intellectual tradition the word's first nation-state, the economic well being of the people of France doubled. In short, a whole new kind of nation was born.

Of course, it is no longer a secret how the Renaissance was defeated by the imperial oligarchy of Venice, how Venice introduced counteracting zero-sum philosophies; several of them, by which the Renaissance leaders were set at war against each other, that finally caused eighty years of war to erupt that quite literally drowned out the Renaissance intellectual tradition. But this demise wasn't a failure of the Renaissance intellectual tradition itself, nor did it destroy that tradition. The people had been coerced away from that tradition. I pointed out that the collapse of the Renaissance was the failure of the people to be honest with themselves, about the best tradition that has been established by the most advanced geniuses of humanity up that point.

I pointed out, that although the Renaissance was defeated, the intellectual tradition behind it was never defeated. It lived on even in the face of the imperial war philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and Hugo Crotius. Eventually, at the very depth of that war and its resulting destruction, the Renaissance intellectual tradition was rekindled and advanced further until it finally produced the world-constitutional principle that ended the 80 years of warfare that the Venetian oligarchy had set up for Europe.

I pointed out that this world-constitutional principle was established as the Treaty of Westphalia that enshrines the greatest world-constitutional principle in history, possibly even the greatest of such principles for all time to come. It has put the principle of universal love squarely on the map. All the nations of Europe signed up on it. It became a new breath for civilization. The wars were shut down. All debts were forgiven. The atrocities were forgiven. No reparations were demanded. It created a peace in Europe that lasted almost for fifty years, until Napoleon came along and rejected that principle. Then the bloody wars started all over again.

I pointed out that the Peace of Westphalia was really the result of nothing more than just another paradigm shift, perhaps the first political paradigm shift in history. It represents a shift back to the Renaissance intellectual tradition. The USA itself, was founded on the back of this reverse paradigm shift that revived the Renaissance intellectual tradition, that set up the principle of universal love as a constitutional platform. Out of this universal intellectual tradition came eventually what is called the American intellectual tradition, since the American people's self government had become consciously founded on what has been established by the ongoing development of the Renaissance intellectual tradition.

I pointed out to the students that the so-called American intellectual tradition isn't really American per see, although it was advanced further in America. Rather, the term seems to refer to the kind of universal intellectual tradition that made America great during the few periods in which it was great. It pointed out that it is this tradition, this universal, humanist, intellectual tradition, that the whole of humanity needs to shift itself back to. I suggested that it is imminently possible that this reverse paradigm shift can be achieved again, and may be achieved when humanity finds the breathing room to do it. In 1347 society hit rock bottom. All the imperial structured had collapsed and had taken down the world around them. There was not a shred of credibility left in their claims and in their philosophies. That is when society had enough room to look at itself, and find its riches, which started the ball rolling towards the Renaissance. This happened in 1648 after half of the population in Europe had been killed in eighty years of wars. All the imperial philosophies of lies and the structures built on them were totally discredited. People suddenly found themselves with a little bit of room to look at themselves and they found in themselves something profound that they were moved to cherish and protect, and develop further.

I suggested to the students that the present world is not much better off than they were in those times of dark ages, economically and strategically. All the imperial structures are collapsing on the whole front and discredited by their massive destruction of society. Whether this gives people room again to look at themselves as in the olden days and rediscover their humanity cannot be determined. The whole world may disintegrate before this happens, at which point it will be too late. It can however be said with certainty that we have a critical choice before us to take whatever steps are needed to rediscover our humanity, its beauty, its strength, its potential, it infinite worth, and the principles that are reflected in it. Our challenge today is to put ouselves in this humanist sphere voluntarily, that until now we have only allowed ourselves to see when all the empty imperial philosophies were discredited as they collapsed our world around us. Since we would survive such a collapse in a nuclear-armed world with a globally interlinked financial system disintegrating under our feet, we have to achieve the needed transition the intelligent way. That means scrapping all the zero sum philosophies, and gaining back our humanity. That's our only chance for survival, globally.

I also pointed out to the students that the principle of the reverse paradigm shift has actually been known and understood for a very long time, since we find it illustrated as far back as in Christ Jesus' parable of the parodical son.

I told them about the parable: In the parable a father has two sons. The younger asked the father to give him his inheritance so that he could use it and make his way in the world. But being unwise the son wasted it all, to the point that everything he had was gone. Then, at his deepest despair, when he had nothing to eat, when he was eating with swine out of the same trough, he remembered the world of his father. He recalled that even the servants lived like kings compared to him. So, he returned home asking to be made one of the servants. Well, this wish was not fulfilled. He was restored to his full honor again as a full-fledged son. I told the students that this is a beautiful example of how a reverse paradigm shift can actually begin in real life situations, like the one that we are in like now.

I pointed out that this parable represents a starting point for us to work from, since we are already worse of than the man in the story. We have hundreds of millions of people in hunger today who would gladly eat out of the trough of the swine, who are human beings nevertheless, that need to be restored to that status, to the same status that we claim for ourselves. For this to happen the whole image of humanity needs to be raised.

I pointed out that in the American intellectual tradition the nation's fundamental principles were expressed in the development of effective industries in support of our civilization that enabled people to live like human beings, with the building of infrastructures that support these industries; and with machine tool industries that build the industries that we require; industries that support farming, industries that provide transportation, industries that enable health care; with all of them supported by national banking and nationally financed infrastructure building. That is what it means to restore the human being to its rightful place and a nation to its purpose of implementing the general welfare principle and so on. There is no need for any human being anywhere on this planet to eat with the pigs, or to go hungry totally and starve to death. We have the resources within us to end these tragedies.

I pointed out that when LaRouche talks about a reverse paradigm shift back to the platform of the American intellectual tradition, he talks about a return to these constitutional principles that had become a part of that tradition by which America had prospered. He talks about them as a minimal standard for a nation and a world; a kind of threshold that one should not drop below.

I pointed out that the world was presently operating on a level that is miles below this minimal standard, which corresponds to the fact that nothing is working anymore almost anywhere in the world. Consequently, LaRouche put the Bretton Woods principle back onto the map to shut down currency speculation, as a minimal world-constitutional standard, a standard that, if implemented, will end the currency speculator's Pantheon. And since the world has become so thoroughly destroyed over the last thirty-five years, LaRouche puts forward another world-constitutional principle, which is the Eurasian Land Bridge development principle that he regards as another necessary minimal standard to create the conditions for the economic survival of humanity in a largely destroyed world. This principle, once again, is totally rooted in the various other principles established within the American intellectual tradition. The reverse paradigm shift reestablishes all those lost principles and traditions in applying these principles. There is no need to tolerate the cultivation of empty people when the future is so bright with a fully developed humanity.

The need for doing all this brings back into view Franklin Roosevelt's other world-constitutional principle, that of ending imperial rule in the world. LaRouche established on this platform a related world-constitutional principle that challenges the world's nations to establish their economies on the foundation of sovereign national banks, instead of on imperial looting institutions, and to extend to itself through these national banks low cost credits for infrastructure and industrial development, including the development of real education, humanist culture, and effective health care. It has been a long-standing element of the American intellectual tradition to keep all imperial elements out of the vital areas that are essential for the welfare of society.

I pointed out that this principle hasn't always been followed, but it had been put on the map almost from the beginning of the founding of the USA, and has now, finally, been put totally on the map by LaRouche as a minimal standard for a civilized economy. This means that we also have to go back to regulated industries in defense of the general welfare of the nation and the world, shutting down greed oriented structures, and hollow education systems.

I pointed out that all of these principles really need to become accepted world wide, as world-constitutional principles, since the world has been run into the ground and cannot rebuild itself except by a return to the minimal standards of a civilized society which these principles represent. I suggested that Franklin Delanor Roosevelt understood the need to do this when he declared that the world imperial system would come to an end. Had he not met an untimely death and served two more terms as President, imperialism would have been history and all these higher principles would have been fully established.

I pointed out that it is possible to turn the world back to that and built on it further, even to rebuild a hollowed out generation of 'empty' people and start a new renaissance. The principles for this to happen have all been laid out. All the we need to do as a society of human beings is to look at ourselves and the brightest traditions of our past to utilize the principles established there, and really do it. I suggested that this might not be an easy task, especially since hardly anybody talks about the principle of universal love anymore, and much less translates it into reality. I suggested that each individual in the world needs to become involved with that and start a reverse paradigm shift back to principle, and develop an understanding of it and apply it ones own social world together with of all the other principles.

After all this long talking I felt drained. There wasn't a thing left in me, so it seemed, that I hadn't dragged out into the open. But, apparently, it wasn't over yet. I was accused of having committed a Satanic Crime.

As we were leaving the auditorium, a group of students blocked our way. "You should be arrested," one of them said in a loud voice as he watched our reaction. "Your speech constitutes a crime against humanity."

"How so?" Steve interjected in my dense. I wasn't sure if could handle more.

"Isn't it obvious," said the tallest of the group of four, a young man with a beautiful gentle face. He spoke is a calm manner. "You told us about Thomas Hobbes and Adam Smith, and about the empiricists and the romanticists, and you were right that their philosophies add up to zero. You told us correctly that any person educated on the basis of their philosophies ends up to be an 'empty' person because there is no constructive substance in their philosophies. You also told us correctly that the USA has two entire generations educated on this basis, which thereby have become two generations of 'empty' people. You told us that this zero-sum education now creates huge problems for America's continued existence, and more so for its future self-development. That's all correct."

"So what's the crime?" Steve interrupted. "What is the crime that you say we have committed?"

"Your crime is the same as the crime of Euler and Lagrange, which Gauss had proved to be a satanic crime," the tall man came back. "Except your crime is of a slightly lesser severity than the crime of Euler, who acted with the political intent to stupefy society, while you are merely guilty of the crime of omission. Still, the end result is the same, and that's tragic."

Steve just smiled. It appears there was something that he wanted to say, but evidently thought it to be wiser not to open his mouth.

"What is the crime of Euler?" our host intervened. "Be specific! If you have a charge to make, make it clear."

The man stepped forward and raised his hand, but I stopped him. "I can answer that," I said quietly. "Leonhard Euler, born in 1707, was one of the most renowned mathematicians of the 18th Century. He was the Einstein of his age. His crime was not that he put forward anything that was technically incorrect. He crime was that he gave no valid proof of the truth of what he said. The so-called prove that he put forward literally proved nothing. Euler's proof was based on imaginary numbers that he invented to make his theorem work out."

The tall young man nodded and turned to our host. "That's the crime!" he said. "Euler made his proof fit his theory, and he did it with the use of magic. He literally denied the existence of the complex domain in which the power of the human mind, the power of reason, becomes defined. Euler crossed out this entire domain. He said in essence: You have to take my solution by faith. And what choice did the people have? The people were literally forced to do that, because he gave no valid proof for what he said, and they believed him. They bowed to Euler and took his word as it were the word of God."

"The same thing is happening still," I said quietly. "Society bows to the elite and demands no proof for whatever they say. But Euler went deeper than that. His denial of proof and the imposed demand on taking everything on faith, essentially disables the scientific process of the human mind. The human intellect exists in the complex domain where we bring together what the senses tell us, with the principles that only the mind can behold. That's the domain that Euler denied. He presented a proposition and then invented magic numbers to proof the proposition, and with that he closed the complex domain. Gauss said no to that. Gauss said that all truth is knowable and provable in such a way that it becomes visually apparent that ones proposition is correct."

"I am glad that you agree, that you have committed a crime by leaving this vital aspect out of your presentation," said the tall man. "I am glad you agree that America has lost two generations that became 'empty' people not primarily because they had been taught a bunch of nonsense that adds up to zero. You seem to recognize that they have become 'empty' people primarily because their minds had been actively disabled by reductionism, a kind of thinking that disables the complex domain where the eyes and the mind come together to provide an accurate and provable view of the universe. If you disable that view, you disable what defines a human being. You reduce humanity to the status of animals. You destroy our identity, our humanity, our divine image, and our capacity to be creators to uplift and enrich the universe. That is a high crime; the highest crime that I can imagine. Euler committed this crime, and he did so intentionally on behalf of his oligarchic masters, no doubt. That makes his crime a satanic crime. And that, my friend is what destroyed two generations of human beings in the USA, in Europe, and in many other parts of the world. Not only were they not taught anything of substance, but in the process of this 'empty' teaching, their very capacity to think as a human being became actively disabled. Euler merely exemplified this crime which had countless disciples before him and after him, and with him. Humanity has since then elevated these criminals onto a high pedestal as though they were God. That is what turned two generations into 'empty' people. That is what you should have included in your lecture. That is why I am so deeply disappointed. You came so close. You began on the right note. I was overjoyed that finally somebody had the courage to expose the cause of the collapse of our civilization, but suddenly you stopped. You never addressed the core issue. I was waiting to hear you expose it. But you didn't even address it. You didn't even mention it in passing."

"Yes, that's the hidden crime that is been glossed over in the USA and in many parts of the world," said a young woman who stood next to the tall man. She spoke also in English. "It was on the basis of that that crime," she said, "that all the destructive economic and financial processes were foisted on the population, which would not have been possible without that underlying crime. Proof should have been demanded, but it wasn't. Adam Smith's disciples would have never been able to deliver this proof. A proof is not possible where there is no substance to prove. The whole destructive process would have stopped right there. But this wasn't done. Everything was taken by faith and that continues to the present day. Absolutely nobody of these entire two generations demanded a singe proof for anything. Can you imagine that? And even now, everything is taken on faith, a blind faith in the infallibility of the elite."

The tall man began to laugh. "What happened to America is so childish, one can only laugh about it. In the American environment where no proof of anything was demanded, the people found themselves being served great heap of lies. If you don't ask for proof, you expose yourself to lies. It's as simple as that. The two lost generations of America have literally become disciples of lies, and very destructive lies at that. These lies have destroyed the economies of the Americas, of Europe, of Africa, and to a large degree of those in Asia as well."

Steve agreed with the man. He turned to me. "You are guilty as charged. By not pointing out the basis for these lies," said Steve and grinned, "which would have gotten people to think from a higher level as human beings, you have been abetting these lies and their destructive effect. That is what the student's accuse you of, and they are right."

"That's a crime, don't you agree?" said the tall man, looking straight at me, then at our host. Moments later he began to laugh.

"How many students do you think would have understood anything of that?" our host asked the tall man, as it were in our defense.

"That's an invalid question," the tall man replied.

Steve began to laugh. "How many of your students have studied LaRouche?" Steve asked our host. "The answer to that is your answer," said Steve. He turned to the group of four. "Obviously you have studied LaRouche's ideas."

"Of course," we have, "said the tall man and began to grin. "Hasn't everybody?" He turned to our host. "Still, I must say that your argument is invalid. Plato's Meno dialog proves that these complex concepts can be understood by anyone. When Socrates, just by asking a few questions, can get an uneducated slave boy to develop for himself the proof, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that it is possible to double a square geometrically, which involves a complex process, then anybody should be able to understand what we have just talked about, which is much less complex."

"Would you be willing to accept an assignment to teach that?" our host asked me. "As you may realize, you have the reputation already established to get their attention."

I shook my head. "That is precisely why I must decline. If I build on my reputation, then, what I would be saying? Wouldn't I likely be asking to be accepted on faith?"

I turned to the tall young man. "Why don't you teach that concept? Actually, I don't mean teaching it in the standard sense. You should illustrate the principles in such a way that your students can develop an understanding of the truth in their own mind, and thereby prove to themselves that your are telling the truth."

"You mean me?" the tall man said, surprised. "I am only a student in the school. How can I teach?"

"You are a human being," Steve replied. "And as Pete just said, you don't even want to attempt to teach. That's what the Meno dialog is all about, isn't it. Socrates emphasized that no teaching would be required to get a slave boy to start working in the complex domain, and he proved to Menon that no teaching had been involved in accomplishing what the slave boy had been asked to do. Surely, you don't suggest that your fellow students are lesser human beings than this slave boy had been?"

"I can see this to be a lot of fun," said our host to the tall young man, who was almost a foot taller than she. "If you accept the challenge you can be assured an honorable mention in the school history book, and if you do it well, you will receive a certificate of gratitude from the school."

"What about us?" the young girl who had spoken earlier, interrupted.

"Shouldn't a discussion panel have more than one person on it?" our host replied. "You are all included in the challenge."

Steve spoke up again. "LaRouche expects to have a thousand youths educated on Carl Gauss along these lines. With these one thousand youths, he will have an effective majority over the entirety of the two generations of 'empty' people, and with that he will change the course of the nation and the world. That's his plan," Steve whispered, "and he will do it."

Steve turned to the young man, and then to our host. "If you can raise the level of thinking in your school to the level that Gauss was working from - and don't make the project just a one week affair - you can turn this school into the most powerful intellectual center of the entire region, if not of China as a whole. You will literally create geniuses here. That is the inevitable result when people begin to think and see the world in terms of universal principles. In this respect, regard today's session as but a seed crystal for the process. If you carry this through. I can guarantee you that you will develop a whole new concept of education, and you will experience it with joy."

Steve turned to your host. "Yes, you will have fun with it, all of you. As you already know, Gauss didn't dispute Euler for telling mathematical lies. Euler told no lies. He committed a more hideous crime, a satanic crime, as LaRouche says, which you said yourself is the crime of denying the complex domain in which we deliver proof to ourselves that we are human beings. Let's not commit the same crime here, and let's have fun with developing that complex domain in which we find our humanity. Gauss proved Euler wrong in his famous paper on the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, which simply illustrates that all algebraic facts can be proven in geometry, and thereby be demonstrated irrefutably to be correct by way of illustrating the principles involved. If that doesn't open the door to a lot of fun, what will? Gauss was no older than you are, when he did this, and he changed the world. In order to do that, Gauss had to uplift the very concept of geometry itself, out of the Euclidian space concept, to a higher level of perception of geometry. Sure, it's a hell of a challenge to get oneself up to that level. I have trouble with that myself, but it is also a lot of fun to discover how far one can go in ones understanding of the universe."

With this having been said, our host invited us and the four students to a waterfront sidewalk restaurant for tea. On the way to the Market Square, along crowded streets I had a chance to mention something to the students that they were not aware of. Actually, the students themselves prompted me on that.

"What shall we call our discussion session?" asked the young woman who spoke English well. "Shall we call it, Welcome to the 21st Century?"

Another girl, who had been silent until then, shook her head. "We should call it, Welcome to the 18th Century," she said. She spoke slowly in broken English, which was difficult for her to pronounce.

The tall man agreed. "Euler was hired to refute Leibnitz who grew up in the 'sunlight' of the Treaty of Westphalia, who through his scientific insight had become the intellectual driver behind the American independence movement. Euler tried to discredit Leibnitz, but failed, because Gauss later refuted Euler, and all that had something to do with the independence movement becoming a powerful force in the world which the oligarchy tried to prevent. The oligarchy were so scared that they staged the French Revolution in order to murder the leading edge thinkers of France, and then they created Napoleon Bonaparte a bit later, who destroyed the intellectual elite of Europe, just for that. Yes, Welcome to the 18th Century, sounds good, because Gauss fought back."

I shook my head. "If you focus on the 18th Century, you deny the achievements along this line in the 19th Century," I intervened. "At the end of the 19th Century, an American scientist by the name of Mary Baker Eddy pursued the same course as Gauss did, but within the spiritual sphere of Christianity. She had elevated the sphere of Christianity from its low Roman level, based on dogmatic religiosity that the people were forced to accept on a platform of faith. She had created a high level scientific platform for humanity, for its moral, spiritual, and scientific development. Her pedagogical infrastructures for this platform have never been surpassed, neither have they been implemented yet, except by herself."

I explained that she herself, had been highly successful in implementing that platform which is located completely in the complex domain. Through years of observation, studying, and personal experiences based on pondering the great paradoxes that Christ Jesus had laid before humanity with his profound healing work, she discovered what she called, the absolute principle of scientific mental healing. And she delivered proof, by doing her own healing work that mirrored that of Christ Jesus.

"You say that she worked her way up into the complex domain, in the spiritual sphere?" repeated the tall man. "You say that she proved this by doing the same kind of work that Christ Jesus did? You can't deliver better proof than that. But can that proof be understood? Can its geometry be understood?"

"The answer is both, yes and no," I replied cautiously. "Yes, the proof was understood, because she was able to teach other people to heal in the same manner. And no, that proof is no longer understood." I explained that she had created a vast pedagogical infrastructure that enables a student to discover in a visual manner the complex interrelationships of profound universal principles, covering everything related to being human. "It covers the whole range of human experiences, from uncovering depravity all the way up to the highest level of embracing the absolute spiritual domain. Whoever sits down and develops these pedagogical infrastructures in his or her mind will be able to determine at an instant what forces are working for or against the truth about man as a spiritual being in the image of God. All that was put in place in the latter part of the 1800s. She had used essentially the same process to refute the religiosity of Christianity, which Gauss had used to refute Euler. Unfortunately, her pedagogical infrastructures still remain largely hidden behind the cloak of secrecy. As a consequence, the science that she had discovered and founded, has been reverted back into the sphere of a religion that people take merely on a note of faith.

"So you see, Euler won again, even while he is long dead," commented the young woman who spoke fluently English. "Euler won once gain, probably for the same oligarchy that he worked for in his life, and which all the modern criminals in high places are still subservient to."

"That project of ours really gets interesting," answered the other girl who spoke English only with great difficulty.

"It gets more interesting still," I added. "The Eulers of this world may be able to hide that spiritual scientist's infrastructures, but they cannot hide the evidence of the impact of her work that had evidently been built on these infrastructures." I explained to the students that during last 35 years of that woman's life, no major victories were won by the synarchists and fascists of this world, for whom Euler had paved the way. Her effect on the world was like that of Gauss. But that all changed soon after hear death. Within two years after her death all hell broke loose, especially in the USA. The Federal Reserve, a private central banking system, was established in the USA by an act of Congress that gave away the nation's sovereignty over its currency into private hands. This crime may yet kill us all. Also, in the same year the Income Tax system was cemented into law, and the year after that, World War I was started that the oligarchs had wanted for decades already.

The tall man, listening intently, sometimes nodded and sometimes shook his head. "That's Interesting!" he said at the end.

While we were having out tea at the sidewalk restaurant near the market square, the tall man took a napkin and drew LaRouche's triple curve on it. He pointed to it. "This is a small example of the kind of visual images that you said the woman from America had created for the spiritual domain, isn't that so?"

I agreed.

He pointed to the lower curve that he had drawn steeply declining into the negative area of the graph. "That steep decline represents the physical economy," he said. "That is what society has experienced in terms of lost productive capacity for fulfilling its needs. That decline is real. The curve represents real physical measurements of lost household income in terms of a family's available market basket. All of that has been collapsing since 1965, approximately."

Then he pointed to the steeply rising curve in the upper part of the graph. "That curve represents the rise of the values in society's financial portfolios. And what do we see if we look at both of these curves together? We see the physical production of society collapsing, and the financial values shooting sky high at the same time. In other words, these financial aggregate values don't represent anything real anymore."

"They represent a dream world," I agreed, "that is connected with the real world only in as far as the looting of the physical economy makes the financial values rise."

"Anybody who looks at these curves with an open mind will instantly recognize, beyond any doubt," said the tall man, "that this system is in a systemic collapse phase. There is no way it can continue on, and there is no way it can be saved. The graphs illustrate that reality. A single look reveals the systemic crisis that the world is in. That's the reality. A single look reveals that the world's system of greed based economics is a fraud, is doomed because of it, and can't work because it hasn't a single principle in support of it. Nor has it ever worked. The graph can be supported with real numbers. But the beauty of it is that it illustrates at a glance what forces are destroying our world. On the other hand, if you take away this simple geometric illustration of these interrelationships, and merely talk about the numbers, people can't see the principle involved and are forced to take everything on faith. In that manner society becomes exposed to also take in all the oligarchy's lies, on faith.

He sighed that the irony is, that the public is more inclined to accept the lies than to look for the truth which so easily provable. "Gauss refuted Euler, probably in order to put scientific honesty back onto the table which Euler had scrapped."

"That means nothing more, than that we have to become honest with ourselves in all areas," I said to him, "even in respect to the way in which deal with one another as human beings, including in the social domain, and this right down to the lowest grassroots level. What should motivate us there? Should we be motivated by historically trained emotions and long-standing axioms about the way things should be, that we take on faith? Or should we be motivated by recognized, universal principles that are understandable and provable?"

I pointed to the Lu Rose, our ship that was anchored nearby, that was visible from the sidewalk restaurant. Its name was clearly readable. "That's what the name means," I said. "It means that we aim to be motivated by recognized universal principles, because they are understandable and provable."

After tea, we continued our discussion on the upper deck of the Lu Rose in the light of the evening sunshine. The discussion lasted until long after the sun had set, when it was finally high time for dinner.

I wondered that night if Beethoven or Schiller had any idea as to what extent their music and their poetry might set the human intellect in motion, centuries after their death, as was happening here in that small fishing town on the far end of the world from where they stood.

The young woman, who had been our host wondered about the same thing while we were all having dinner together on the Lu Rose. "I think they knew," she said. "I think they understood their immortality. The more important question that we should ask, is this: Do we ourselves understand our immortality, or are we afraid of it like Hamlet had been, and try to shrink away from the responsibility that accepting our immortality brings with it?"

On that note the discussions on the Lu Rose adjourned that night, long after dinner, near midnight. That final question that had bee posed, remained unanswered. We all knew that this question is the very question that LaRouche had challenged humanity as a whole, to answer, and to answer it honestly. We also knew that our answer to this question would always change and would evolve and be continuously unfolding as we continue to uplift our humanity as human beings all over the world.


From: The Lodging for the Rose - Episode 8: Lu Mountain

 Return to index

Writings by Rolf A. F. Witzsche, presented by Cygni Communications Ltd. (c) 2008 public domain