Finally, I would point out in connection with all of that, that the donations which I had solicited after previous lectures in which this paradigm failure was illustrated, amounted to nothing more than what the LaRouche people received on donations. I suggested to the audience that this pattern should tell them something about themselves, and about the riches of their world, and the security of their existence.
At this point Sylvia would usually remind the audience that the power which the fondi and their minions wield; or the 'royals' of this world, to steal, to create wars, to depopulate the earth; is theirs by default since the most advanced nations of humanity simply don't care what happens to them. Sylvia and I would then challenge our audience to find a single LaRouche table anywhere in the USA where the public responds with a greater sense of commitment to the modern nuclear-war threat that was becoming more immediate than it was in those days so long ago when an actual nuclear war was narrowly avoided several times. We would challenge our audience to look into their own hearts to find the barrier that would prevent their own support of those people's efforts to protect humanity. Sylvia and I would predict that this barrier would likely be related to other barriers in their life; to marriage barriers; sexual barriers; to countless unfulfilled needs; even financial fears, and to the cynicism about their own ability to make a difference in the world. We shook up their narrow minded, exclusive commitments to their families, friends, businesses, marriages, philosophies, and so forth, which are all inconsequential if society doesn't survive.
We have even brought up the metaphor of humanity being a village that is located behind a great dam this is leaking. We told the people that this village behind the failing dam is their village, and that no one in this village is not involved. We told the people that those who insisted that the dam wasn't their business, were nevertheless directly involved with it by their refusal to help. Their reaction would thereby involve them indissolubly with the destruction of the village that might otherwise be prevented.
Finally, we would tell the people that if their own fight for the survival of humanity should begin some day in earnest, they would be able to measure their impact on humanity by the yardstick we had just described, or similar ones. We told them that the financing of the self-protection of humanity IS their business. They are involved in it, because there simply exists no option not to be involved. They must see themselves as either as becoming involved as a part of the solution, or as pathetic fools that could have prevented the destruction of their world and their life, and refused to do so.
Unfortunately, we found not a great many occasions during our travels when those deeper issues could even be addressed, and fewer still at which the audience could comprehend that nuclear-war, depopulation, the destruction of nations, the ravishing of Africa, and so forth, are all manifests of one single economic issue that stems from the feudal oligarchy of the world aiming to protect its base of power and its instruments for looting. And on still rarer occasions did anyone comprehend that the core failure in all of that was their own irrational perception as to what really constitutes the wealth of society. It was never easy for those people to understand that the economic issues of humanity had subjected to the war that the 'royal' fondi had fought for centuries to prevent the renaissance idea of sovereign nation-states and sovereign people, to become a foundation for the sovereign self-development of humanity around the globe that the feudal oligarchy would not survive.
Of course, there were fewer occasions still, when the people at our meetings could recognize that the wider view of perception in which this economic issue comes to light. And even then, when our talk became centered on the need for taking responsibility, and the nature of responsibility as Erica had once explained it, "to enrich all mankind, and to injure none," very few people remained committed to fight with us in support of humanity. Many people loved the idea of expanding their mental vision and experiencing expanded freedoms, but when it came to the need of taking responsibility for their actions, it appeared that we were asking too much of them. The sad reality was that no one stood up and even hinted at what Erica had said, that night at the dance hall in Germany, that this was the most minimal demand, meaning that nothing less would do.
Nevertheless, our hopes for humanity had remained intact throughout this time in spite of the overwhelming fact that much of America had lost its once beautiful soul, which had been destroyed by the fondi far more extensively than that had been accomplished this in Russia. Our hope was based on the fact that we had experienced in our own life, that a people's lost soul could be restored, as it was when the Renaissance was created. We never lost sight of the fact that a revolution in people's thinking can be unleashed overnight, once the ground for that revolution has been thoroughly prepared.
"There is no law," Sylvia would remind me whenever my spirits became too low, "that a decade or more must pass before this renewal of the human soul can be accomplished." The more Sylvia and I became convinced of this fact and projected it in our speeches and in our work with individuals, the stronger became our conviction that the survival of humanity and its civilization might still be assured, even at this late hour.
We both felt that there was a type of satisfaction associated with this work, that brought its own reward, even though we could never be certain that we would win the final, necessary, victory for humanity.
"So, has it all been worthwhile?" we asked ourselves. "Has it been worthwhile even if the final victory eludes us? Has the struggle made us richer as human beings in our own lives?"
"How would you describe your life now, after all that has happened to us?" I asked Sylvia one evening on the road to the next city on our agenda.
"It has been like a symphony," she replied instantly, and then thought about it for a minute. "It has been like a symphony by Brahms, like his second symphony," she added. "This symphony is rich in melodies and in power of expression. This is what our life has become, hasn't it? Brahms wrote this symphony in one of the beautiful areas of Austria, of which he said that the melodies are so abundant there that one must take care not to tread on them. Doesn't this reflect what our life has become; a garden that is rich with beautiful melodies, so much so that one has to be careful not to step on them because of their profusion?"
"Indeed," I replied. I answered honestly, because Brahms' first symphony had been thoroughly dealt with in my experience with Anton. We all had grown by its power. "Isn't it amazing what deep reaching experiences Brahms had been able to share," I added, "and how badly he was treated in response by those who relate his work to the fact that he was never married, who see his work as the result of an unfulfilled longing. The history books tell us that Brahms was deeply in love with Clara Schumann, who was married to Robert Schumann, a respected friend and fellow composer. After Robert's death his path to Clara was wide open, but nothing became of it. Brahms never married; not Clara or anyone. But how could Brahms have written works of such beauty and power, as he did, had his own life been so sadly unfulfilled as the 'experts' suppose? Why are people so blind?"
|| - page index -
|| - chapter index -
|| - Exit -