Story 22 - For the Sake of Truth.
We had our answer the next morning. Instead of being sent home, we were invited to four more days of meetings. The next meeting started at ten in the morning, and there were twenty people present.
"Please explain the principle of the paradigm shift in economic terms," said one of the newcomers to me. He wore a business suite, white shirt, black tie. His hair was short and neatly combed.
"Let me take you to 1932," I said to him. "America is in its deepest depression. It's election time in America. President Hoover, the depression President, is campaigning against Franklin
Delanor Roosevelt. Hoover comes empty handed. Hoover inherited the conditions that caused the depression, but he had done nothing to overcome it. So he comes empty handed and promises
America what must have seemed as a bunch of lies. He promised the people a chicken in every pot.
To some, that lie must have sounded like a savior's call during depression times. But why was he not elected?
This promise sounded hollow. No universal principle stood behind it. Thus, Roosevelt was elected. Roosevelt didn't promise the people a chicken in every pot. He promised to create a
whole new world. Nor did he come empty handed with that promise. He came with George Washington in his pocket, and Alexander Hamilton, and Abraham Lincoln. In other words words he came to the election platform with America's tallest intellectual tradition in his pocket, and he promised the people, I am going to create a new
world on that tried and proven foundation! And that's what the people voted for.
As you know, he did deliver on his promise. When Franklin Roosevelt died, twelve years later, America had been raised out of its deepest depression
to being the richest nation on the planet and the most powerful economic force that was ever created.
All of that was caused by a cultural reverse paradigm shift back to the tallest intellectual tradition in existence, that had been carelessly abandoned."
"Hadn't George Washington done the same thing?" asked another man, who also wasn't there on the previous day.
"It was the same process," I agreed. "The founding fathers came with Leibnitz
and Benjamin Franklin, and others in their pocket. And these stood on the
achievements of all those people before them who were involved in putting the principle of universal love and universal sovereignty on the map with the Treaty of Westphalia. The founding fathers of the USA were trusted by the people, because they stood tall, not so much by their own achievements, but by the intellectual tradition they represented. They stood tall, because they stood on the shoulders of people who had achieved their own cultural reverse paradigm shift back to the Renaissance intellectual tradition, people who had Nicolaus of Cusa in their pocket. They stood on these people's shoulders. Of course, those people themselves stood tall, because they had achieved a reverse paradigm shift back across all of the dark ages to the intellectual tradition of the Greek Classical Era. That is what Cusa stood on, who came to
his people with Plato and Socrates in his pocket. And when Roosevelt stood up in 1932 and promised Americans that he would create a
whole new world, he stood on the shoulders of all these people rolled into one. This is the kind of reverse paradigm shift we need to create
today and build on that." I pointed this out, forcefully.
At the next day's meeting we had close to fifty people in the room, with a few women among them.
"I have heard about LaRouche," one of the new people commented. "We have been told that LaRouche has been marginalized in the USA. Still, he is respected around the world. How does he fit into the patterns of paradigm shifts?"
"You can't marginalize the man," said Steve.
"This can't be done. I have spoken to the man. He is one of the few rare people in our modern world who has made the reverse paradigm shift back to the tallest intellectual tradition of humanity's long cultural history. He stands tall on this collective achievement, and he comes with a lot of people in his pocket, people like Franklin Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Gottfried Leibnitz, Nicolaus of Cusa, and Plato and Socrates, and many others. If you want to ask: Who is LaRouche? you have to ask: Who are those people? What cultural
achievement do they represent? What principles have been brought to the foreground during
their life? That is why it is impossible to marginalize a man like LaRouche, who represents
all of that. You can't really marginalize or slander Plato and Socrates; or marginalize
and slander the Renaissance; or marginalize the principles of the Treaty of Westphalia; or marginalize the founding principles of the United States of America; or marginalize its profound intellectual tradition. You can close your eyes to it, but you can't marginalize that
history, or slander that history. It remains as valid as it was on the day it was made. It is a fact of history that America rose from its worst depression to become the greatest industrial power on the planet in less than a dozen years. You can't marginalize
that, or slander that achievement. This happened. This is the manifestation of America's intellectual tradition. This is what LaRouche brings to the table, with both pockets filled to the brim. You can't marginalize a man like that. You can deny the man, but this means denying your own cultural
substance. Sure, you can spout out slanders, but in doing so you would only
slander yourself by demonstration to the world that you haven't got the faintest
idea of what you are talking about."