Panel 3 “Ungdommens opgave” fra Schiller Institut konferencen
“Vil menneskeheden blomstre eller gå til grunde?”

MEGAN BEETS: Good afternoon, or good evening as the case may
be. I'd like to welcome everyone to the third and final panel of
the Schiller Institute conference, "Will Humanity Prosper, or
Perish? The Future Demands a 'Four-Power' Summit Now." My name is
Megan Beets, I'm with the Schiller Institute in the United
States, and I'll moderating the panel this evening.
	Just a note by way of housekeeping, in the previous panel
this afternoon, we were unable to show a presentation by Mark
Sweazy for time reasons, but we will be posting that video on the
conference page so that it can be included in the proceedings and
people can view that. [That that presentation is included in the
Panel 2 transcript, where it was originally scheduled -- ed.]
	The title of this evening's panel is "The Job of Youth," and
we are going to begin with a musical offering to set the tone for
our discussion. What you'll hear is My-Hoa Steger, who is a
member and organizer with the Schiller Institute in San
Francisco, California, performing Johann Sebastian Bach Prelude
and Fugue in C-minor, from the {Well-Tempered Clavier}....
	If we look back through history at moments of great
revolutionary change, we see that most of them have been brought
about either in part, or on the whole, by youth movements: The
Italian Renaissance, the American Revolution, the Apollo
Moon-landing. This is not by chance; there's a principle
involved, a principle that Lyndon LaRouche recognized going back
to the very beginning of his own political activity in the 1960s
and in the decades since. Young people do not just represent the
future, they create it. They are not necessarily trapped by the
old, failed axioms of the previous generations. To quote Percy
Bysshe Shelley, "young people resonate with the gigantic shadows
which futurity casts upon the present."
	Today is no different, and today's huge crisis requires the
leadership of youth, But youth who are qualifying themselves to
lead this new paradigm of civilization. So, let me introduce our
speakers on the panel tonight, and give you a sense of how this
is going to work. We'll hear first from the leader of the leader
of the LaRouche Youth Movement, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, followed by
Daniel Burke, who's a leading organizer with the Schiller
Institute, and is also currently a candidate for U.S. Senate in
the state of New Jersey. We'll then hear from a number of
different people, including some of the people who are leading
the effort to reach out to and educate young people in various
parts of the world: Carolina Domínguez Cisneros in Mexico;
Chérine Sultan in France, and you'll also hear from some of the
young people who have been participating in an ongoing series of
dialogues with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, and in making organizing
interventions in their own nations on behalf of the policies for
a new paradigm. You'll hear from José Vega in the United States;
Sebastián Debernardi in Peru; Andrés Carpintero in Colombia;
Daniel Dufreine Arévalo in Mexico. You'll hear from Franklin
Mireri from YouLead, in Tanzania; Areej Atef in Yemen; Sarah
Fahim from Morocco, studying in Paris; and Lissie Brobjerg in the
United States.
	We'll then go to a dialogue, where you'll hear more young
voices who are part of this growing chorus.
	So, before I turn it over to Helga, I'ld like to go to a
short clip from the founder of the LaRouche Youth Movement,
Lyndon LaRouche. This is from an address that LaRouche made to a
gathering of young people, the LaRouche Youth Movement, in
February of 2003. What you'll hear him discuss is both the power,
but also the responsibility, of youth.

 https://larouchepub.com/lar/2003/3007cadre_sch.html
	LYNDON LAROUCHE: Because I saw the condition of society. And
historically, only a certain kind of youth movement can change
things.
	Your generation, as well as those among your parents'
generation, who are still alive and viable, are confronted by the
fact that your parents' generation gave you a {no-future} world.
There's no way you can make a deal with this culture, which
prevails today. No way. Because you can't survive! This culture
cannot deliver you the means to survive....
	So, you know that. What are you going to do about it? You
know that you don't have a future unless you can change society.
But you're a generation which is not in a controlling position in
policy-making of society. So what you do, is you go out like
missionaries, and begin to organize the dead generation, your
parents' generation, in society. And you see the impact you have
when you go into these various places, like the campuses--go into
places such as the state legislatures, or the Congress--you see
the effect you have. The presence of four, five, or six of you,
walking in, knowing what you're talking about, which is more than
most of these legislators can do, and others: You have an effect
on them.
	What happens then, is not magical, it's principled. Whether
people know it or not, the difference between man and a monkey,
is the fact that the human species can do what no monkey can do,
no ape can do, no Al Gore can do: Actually assimilate valid ideas
of principle, and transmit them to a next generation. That's the
difference between man and the ape. Man is capable of discovering
universal physical principles by a method of discovery which is
illustrated by Plato's dialogues. Or illustrated by the case of
Kepler, or illustrated by the case of Gauss, or the case of
Leibniz. Man can do that--and transmit these discoveries, about
what's out there in terms of principles in the universe, and
transmit this to new generations.
	These discoveries, and their transmission, increase man's
power in the universe, per capita and per square kilometer.
Therefore, the most important thing about man, is society. We all
die. Everyone is going to die. The mortal life of everyone will
come to an end. So, you've got a mortal life; what are you going
to do with it?
	How long it is, is not the most important thing. It's what
you go out of this life, leaving behind.
	And what do you leave behind? You leave behind younger
people. You leave behind successive generations of younger
people. You leave behind what you transmit to them, what you
contribute to their development, to the circumstances of their
work in life, to the conditions of society, to coming
generations....
	And when you're wise, and you're living in a generation, you
think about dying. Not in the sense of a morbid thing, but you
say, "I'm going to die eventually. Now, while I'm still here, I'm
going to get a certain job done. And my job is, to guarantee, to
the degree I can contribute to this, that the next generation
will have everything we have, in terms of knowledge, and the next
generation will have a better life than we had. And that future
generations will benefit from what we, in our generation, have
done." [end audio]

	BEETS: Now we're going to go to Helga Zepp-LaRouche who is
joining us from Germany, who is the founder and chairwoman of the
Schiller Institute. Helga, please go ahead.

	HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I just want to bring to your attention
a very important writing by Friedrich Schiller, after whom the
Schiller Institute is named, and that is "Why Do We Study
Universal History?" This was an address which Schiller gave to
students in Jena in 1789, where he talked to a room full of
students like you are now assembled here on this webinar, and he
said that the fact that we have assembled here -- and you can
actually refer this to our situation as well -- you have to take
all of universal history into account: All of you come with a
very specific history, family, background, cultural experiences,
something which made you join this webinar. And he basically then
says, it is that which brings people together which makes them
uniquely qualified to respond to the historical moment in which
they are.
	Now, we would not be here without the man you just listened
to, namely, my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, who was really the
most spectacular, knowledgeable -- he knew just about everything.
He ran eight times for President, he was known throughout the
world. We had many leaders in India, in Mexico, in African
countries, who all expressed one thing, namely, that he was about
the only American they could trust. And he had developed a unique
method of scientific knowledge, of forecasting; he predicted
every single aspect of this situation in which we find ourselves.
He talked about the pandemic; he talked about the systemic
collapse of the financial system, when it was absolutely not
apparent, because everything supposedly went well. But if people
would have listened to him, we would not be in the situation we
are now.
	He had an incredible vision where mankind should be, which
is expressed in a beautiful movie he made, "The Woman on Mars";
[https://larouchepac.com/20170321/woman-mars] it's expressed in
his writing {Earth's Next Fifty Years}; which were all extremely
visionary ideas where mankind should be. But I want to emphasize
one quality, which I think distinguishes him from all other
people, because he had the most unbelievable passion for mankind.
And since it's now not so fashionable that young people should
have passion for mankind, I would like to encourage you to take
that specific aspect, the agape of Lyndon LaRouche, because if we
are going to save civilization, and you are going to save
civilization, because it's your future, I think you need exactly
that incredible love for humanity, and then, there is no problem
which is unsurmountable. That's really what I wanted to tell you.

	BEETS: Thank you very much Helga. Next we're going to hear
from Daniel Burke. Daniel is an organizer with the Schiller
Institute in the United States, and he will speak to us on the
topic of "If You Sat Where They Sit, What Would You Do?"

       - If You Sat Where They Sit, What Would You Do? -

	DANIEL BURKE: [as delivered] The Schiller Institute has
convened this conference with the urgent goal of bringing about a
summit of the leaders of the so-called Four Powers: Russia,
China, India, and the United States. I address my presentation to
the youth of the world, to encourage them to investigate for
themselves, what should be the character of such a summit. For,
without a personal notion of what should be accomplished, how can
you genuinely demand this meeting to occur?
	So my question is, "If you sat where they sit, what would
you do?" You can also stand, sitting is not mandatory.
	It may be useful to begin by asking, just who is it that we
are sitting in for? Not in the sense of, who are Trump, Putin,
Xi, and Modi personally -- but, who is a national leader and what
are their obligations?
	What authority is conferred upon you, when you take their
place, and where does that authority spring from?
	Some, like John Bolton, perhaps, would say that the
authority of the U.S. Presidency lies in its vast power -- its
military power. Its power to kill. These are the heirs of
Thrasymachus, outright Satanists, who, in fact, obliterate the
notion of "authority" by crowning "force" supreme -- force
without regard for its author. This concept of authority is
exactly the one {preventing} a summit from taking place.
	It's like Mike Pompeo's doctrine of deterrence -- kill them
first, that way they can't do anything wrong!
	To many Americans, the source of a President's authority
lies in the notion of "democracy." Since we elected our
President, he gets his authority from the people. He should
represent their will. These are the people who put, "Not {my}
President!" on their bumper stickers. But, it raises a question:
What if your citizens have become a bunch of raving degenerates,
on account of the misleadership of the past, or their own moral
failings? What if their will is to take drugs and play video
games? That would make for a terrible summit!
	If we change our approach, and say that this authority comes
from the "consent of the governed" rather than "the will of the
people," an obvious question follows: By what authority do
individuals confer their consent?
	In our nation's Declaration of Independence, we answered
this question by appeal to the unalienable rights conferred on
all human beings by their Creator -- to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.
	Ultimately, therefore, the President's authority, and,
indeed, the authority of the leader of any sovereign nation do
not derive from the people, or even from the Constitution or the
Declaration of Independence (no words jumped off the page to give
him the keys to the White House), but rather from the natural
rights of the human individual in the living image of God. Should
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness be promoted, the
obligations of that authority are fulfilled. The same concept is
known in China as the "mandate of heaven."
	This creates another problem -- you'd better figure out what
this thing called happiness is! So, if you're depressed, you're
going to have to give that up.
	I submit to you -- that the greatest happiness is that
corresponds most closely with our unique human characteristics.
{We are not animals!} We are {creative} creatures. We think, we
discover, we devote ourselves to the future. {Not} to the present
-- to the future!
	Here, I can disabuse you of the idea that you are important
because you are youth! It's not so. It's because you are humans!
I will quote from Mr. LaRouche: "Natural Law is the hypothesis
which corresponds to the necessary and sufficient reason for
mankind's successfully continued existence." That is -- human
progress in the universe towards a greater and greater mastery
over its principles, is an essential function of that universe.
We're acting on behalf of the universe, when we do that.
	As the German-American space pioneer Krafft Ehricke put it,
"By expanding through the Universe, man fulfills his destiny as
an element of life, endowed with the power of reason and the
wisdom of the moral law within himself."
	So, I think it is {not} at all an exaggeration, to say that
the authority of these Four Leaders, to create this New Paradigm,
depends upon the future colonization of the Solar System, and,
implicitly, the Galaxy. In that that is the most human thing that
we can do.
	Their actions today, these leaders, are necessary to the
task before us, which will have been vitally important to
creating that future -- today, we have to overturn the unjust
rule over world relations by Thrasymachus! He has palaces in the
City of London, in Lower Manhattan, and we should repossess them,
and his weapons of mass destruction -- financial derivatives --
should be buried in a cave where they can't harm anyone.
	And if we act in that way, we can unleash a Promethean age
-- we can create miracles such as as the founding of a freedom
from material want for every human child. A future where even the
Moon and the Earth, who have been lovers forever, according to
Percy Shelley, they will finally marry, the ceremony held at the
founding of the first international Moon village. And in case you
think I am too optimistic, consider the words of Lysander
Spooner, from his 1860 treatise, "The Unconstitutionality of
Slavery":
	"Natural law may be overborne by arbitrary institutions; but
she will never aid or perpetuate them. For her to do so, would be
to resist, and even deny her own authority. It would present the
case of a principle warring against and overcoming itself.
Instead of this, she asserts her own authority on the first
opportunity. The moment the arbitrary law expires by its own
limitation, natural law resumes her reign."
	Here I find, then, the job of the youth. Regarding yourself
not as youth per se, but as practitioners of the natural rights
of man -- discover for yourself the limitations of the arbitrary
law of oligarchy, which has prevented humanity as a whole from
acting in accord with natural law.
	What are the limits to a tyrant's power? Where is the weak
flank of the enemy?
	I think it lies in the flimsiness of the postmodern
paradigm, so-called. "The prevailing narrative" tells us that we
want to be free from judgment, free from responsibility, free
from rules or limits on our behavior. Free wifi. Or, increasingly
popular, we're encouraged to run society the way that the Big
Tech firms run social media. Block anyone whose views differ from
you -- they are not human, you are justified in ruining their
lives by any means necessary.
	And stacked on top of those narratives is a meta-narrative:
namely, that the universe as such is fundamentally unknowable,
and that "narratives" are how we impose meaning on our lives --
while we all acknowledge, with a knowing glance, that such a task
is, in fact, meaningless.
	You can know whether you like death metal, or lo-fi hip hop,
or K-pop, but you cannot know the meaning of your life in history
-- you can know if you identify as left-libertarian, or
right-authoritarian, but you cannot know how to end poverty.
Poverty, human suffering, these are merely part of the pastiche
-- the millimeter-deep collage of experiences that comprise our
lives.
	That fraudulent and quite Satanic view of the universe {is}
a weak flank. Across the world, the real physical economic
conditions have asserted themselves. The passions of the people
are erupting, and being manipulated to drive us further toward
the mass killing of the impoverished populations of the world.
But, it's my faith that a small number of people committed to
developing a higher, more beautiful concept of the nature of man,
can sound a certain note, and change the course of history. And
it's my view that this is not a hopeful wish, but it is hope
itself, upon which we have always depended.
	So, ultimately, will you find within yourself the moral
leadership, to cause yourself and others, to discover the
principles of natural law?

	BEETS: Thank you very much, Daniel. Next, we're going to
hear from Carolina Domínguez Cisneros, who is leading the Youth
Movement of the Schiller Institute, in Mexico. She'll be joined
by three others, Sebastián Debernardi in Peru; Daniel Dufreine
Arévalo in Mexico; Andrés Carpintero in Colombia. The title of
their presentation is "Getting Back the Great Ideas That Were
Stolen from Us."

   - Getting Back the Great Ideas That Were Stolen from Us -

	CAROLINA DOMÍNGUEZ: Good afternoon. My name is Carolina
Domínguez from Mexico. I'd like to welcome you to this
international conference, which is a result of the efforts of the
Schiller Institute, which I've been a member of, for a number of
years. I would like to share with you our enthusiasm and hope in
creating an international youth movement.
	Throughout his life, Lyndon LaRouche, and his movement which
we are part of, defended the idea of creating a youth movement
that studies the most profound ideas that humanity has produced.
These profound ideas represent the creation of new institutions.
LaRouche always said that, if you want to educate a president and
transform a society, you should create a youth movement. And that
is what we have done.
	The youth movement which we are now creating is based on the
idea of giving youth what has been stolen from them in their
universities, their schools, and in general. They have stolen
from them the idea that they can know the universe, they can
understand the universe, and master the principles which run the
universe that man lives in. In addition to understanding those
universal principles, they can take them, master them, and apply
them for the welfare of all society.
	As you have seen throughout this conference, it is essential
that youth and the new generations master these concepts.
	So our work in Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Chile, Argentina,
Venezuela and in general in Spanish-speaking countries, the task
we have taken up is to gather together these youth who are
interested in transforming history, in being participants in an
international process with other youth who are not willing to be
told by the media that yes, this is a sad situation, that lots of
people are dying daily--but rather that they have to change it.
They cannot just wait to some day be part of those statistics,
but they have to act.
	And that is what the LaRouche movement exists to do, to be
that guide. We have weekly meetings studying Kepler, the
astronomer LaRouche tasked us to understand. Kepler showed how
human beings are able to understand those principles, and he left
us documents that allow us to understand his method and his
thinking. We also study Friedrich Schiller--right now we are
reading the Letters Upon the Aesthetic Education of Man, which
has totally stunned the youth about how they have been denied all
these ideas in the universities. The younger people in these
meetings are the ones who are most struck, thinking that their
education has only been to learn things, pass an exam, and then
forget them. Now they recognize, by participating in our
movement, that the knowledge and method they are learning is
useful to transform society.
	So the message I want to give you is to join and participate
in this movement. I don't expect you to agree with all of the
ideas that he have discussed on these panels, but I do believe
that we have all felt at some point that things are not right,
and that it is necessary to do something, to assume
responsibility as young adults.
	The following messages that we are going to hear are from
youth whom we have asked to comment on what they think of the
work we've done with them--youth from Peru, Colombia and Mexico,
who have taken up the opportunity to know the ideas that were
stolen from them in their formal education.
	So I invite you to participate in this. We have meetings
every week, and this movement is growing. All of the work which
Lyndon LaRouche developed has allowed us to master ideas that
will help us change history, and not be reconciled to a totally
uncertain future. That is my message to you; we're here so that
all youth can participate in this process. Thank you, very much.

	SEBASTIÁN DEBERNARDI: Good afternoon. My name is Sebastián
Debernardi of Lima, Peru. I want to tell you about a Dialogue
Meeting that we held on June 17, with the participation of
Schiller Institute youth from Latin America, on the subject of
the proposal to create 1.5 billion new, productive jobs in the
world. That program is in response to the economic and health
crises globally, and to the urgent need of the population as a
whole to have greater development for their lives, and those of
their families.
	Various great projects proposed for our countries by the
Schiller Institute can have a major impact both on the creation
of jobs that improve the quality of life for people, such as
access to a better education and culture to be able to carry them
out, as well as benefits they would bring in the short term.
	The Dialogue Meeting was characterized by a shared optimism,
as a result of the joint search for answers to the problems of
the age, which are overwhelming our countries. And so we met
virtually this time, hoping to be able to actually meet soon as a
result of the completed great projects.

	ANDRÉS CARPINTERO: Hello, friends. My name is Andrés from
Bogotá, Colombia. I'd like to invite you to get to know the
proposals of the movement that Helga and Lyndon LaRouche have
created, to reverse the economic and social entropy that has
brought us the chaos we are in today. We need to learn and
acquire the tools to create a clean and sustainable future,
inspired by reason, morality and art. We youth will build the
world of the next 50 years. Join and participate in this
marvelous movement.

	DANIEL DUFREINE ARÉVALO: Hi, how are you? I'm Daniel, and
I'm very happy to greet you from Mexico. I have a very important
message for you, especially the youth. We are living in a world
that is changing ever more quickly, but the only thing that
hasn't changed is oppression by the powerful, who are toying with
the world's people. We are living in mankind's most important
age, a mankind whose purpose is to grow and improve those aspects
of life which make us human: love, passion, joy and methodology.
The powerful have taken all of this from us, and they will
continue to do so, unless we change this reality.
	Fortunately, there is a plan, a plan inspired in the
profound thinking of Lyndon LaRouche, which essentially is an
educational for fighting against the problems caused by the sick
ambitions of the Wall Street and City of London circles. That
plan requires the greatest possible number of youth, with their
dreams and hopes, in order to make a better world in which to
live, and not merely survive.
	The Glass-Steagall Act will be implemented; the banks will
be quarantined because they are bankrupt; and the toxic
derivatives bubble will be frozen. We will demand that the
leaders of Russia, China, the United States and India meet to
decide on the next stage of industrial growth, which will allow
us to grow more, while using less. Connecting the world with
hundreds of thousands of kilometers of high-speed rail lines;
creating more than 1.5 billion jobs in the whole world.
	The time for changing the world has arrived, and we need you
now. Let us fight now, to make this reality possible. Let us all
fight to free the world, to bring down national barriers, to
eliminate ambition and hate. Let us fight for the world of
reason, for a world where science, where progress lead us all to
happiness. Brothers, in the name of freedom, we must all unite.

	BEETS: So, you've now heard from the United States and from
Ibero-America. We're going to go across the Atlantic now, where
it's much later at night, and we're going to hear next from
Franklin Mireri, who is the partnership's coordinator for
YouLead, which is an organization I think he'll tell you
something about, which is based in Arusha, Tanzania.
	Hi, Franklin. Nice to see you. Go ahead.

    - The Greatest Want of the World Is for True Leaders -

	FRANKLIN MIRERI: [as delivered] Hi Megan, nice to hear from
you. Thank you, it's a pleasure.
	Ladies and Gentlemen, fellow citizens of the world. Allow me
to greet you in the famous Swahili greeting, "{Jambo}!" which
simply means "Hello."
	My name is Franklin Mireri, from Kenya, representing the
YouLead program. YouLead is East Africa's flagship Youth
Leadership and Development Program working to unlock youth
leadership potential for a prosperous region. YouLead is a
collective-action youth program hosted by MS Training Centre for
Development Cooperation (MSTCDC) and the East African Community
Headquarters in Arusha, Tanzania. It is co-owned and supported by
the YouLead Consortium of over 25 State and Non-State Partners
across all the 6 East African Countries (EAC) and Member States
of the EAC.
	We are cognizant of the wonderful work that being done by
the Schiller institute in advocating for and mobilizing
governments to respond definitively to the current crises,
especially through the efforts of impassioned youth across the
world, who are committed to taking responsibility of persuading
their governments into action.
	Last month, YouLead, a consortium organization in the six
East Africa countries, launched a sovereign report on the
disruptions of the coronavirus in the youth life in East Africa.
The study, which was conducted between March and April, laid bare
the bare the startling socio-economic impacts of COVID-19 to the
livelihoods here in East Africa: 59% of the respondents had
extremely severe negative impacts to their income and this was
just at the beginning of the crisis in March; 57% had experienced
severe impact to their education, while 34% were not working from
home because of the nature of their work. We believe that the
economic impact will be most severe in developing countries,
since many countries do not have social security safety nets.
	At YouLead we are developing an online jobs platform for
East African Youth, to mitigate the economics effects that have
been brought about by the coronavirus. The platform will bring
together skilled youth and potential employers on the same
platform, with an emphasis on verified skills and a scoring
system from successfully completed tasks, which build trust. The
platform will provide three distinct features: a platform to
reskill and retool youth; a one-stop shop for employers and
employees; and a youth employer mobility passport, the year's
passport. And finally, skilled and unskilled jobs without
borders. This is to overcome the challenge of labor mobility in
East Africa.
	The creation of 1.5 billion new jobs across the world and
dedicated financing for efficient health infrastructures in every
country will definitely require more than just talk. Sadly, many
of the noble ideas that have been advanced in the past, like the
Millennium Development Goals, then the Sustainable Development
Goals, the Global Goals, and action towards curbing climate
change, have been clawed back because of a lack of leadership.
	The greatest want of the world right now is for True
leaders. Leaders who will not be bought or sold, leaders who are
true and honest to the plight and needs of their citizens and
humanity. Leaders who do not fear calling impunity and servitude
by its name, leaders who will stand for what is right, though the
heavens fall.
	Allow me to end by quoting a famous Swahili phrase --
"{Hakuna Matata}," which means "All is well." I am sure most of
you have heard that saying in many cartoons or animation films.
The phrase appeals to the optimistic good-natured spirit of human
beings all over the world. The truth is that the world is
presently faced with a uniquely challenging combination of
threats on every side.
	This is the time for decisive action by everyone: young and
old, rich and not-so-rich, from every religion, race and kindred.
If we do not move and act decisively, together -- the
consequences will be dire.
	Thank you

	BEETS: Thank you very much, Franklin. Next we're going to
hear from Sarah Fahim, who is a student from Morocco who is
studying in Paris, and she's been working alongside our Schiller
Institute friends in Paris, France. Hello, Sarah.

	SARAH FAHIM: Hello, everyone's hearing me? OK.
	I study in the Schiller Institute's press my thoughts on the
situation in young people's fate in my country and across Africa,
because many of the causes are still present there today. So real
phenomena are at the source of the failure of these young people
to enter the professional world.
	Morocco is divided country. Politics have unfortunately made
of the national educational system something singularly reserved
for less privileged social classes. There are way too many
students and they're growing towards a school system that does
not lead them out of poverty, and towards success. There are way
too few teachers and they're discouraged by mediocre conditions,
and educational structure. Then comes trouble with language: In
public school classrooms French is not well taught, even when
this language is, especially since the French protectorates that
ended 1956, essential in today's job market. This language, as
well as the Arabic language, is spoken daily across the country.
These young people then find themselves less trained, pushed
aside, and see their future constricted by these conditions.
	At the same time, another part of the population is
benefitting from quality teaching. The educational system itself
has never before been this developed. This minority has access to
an education that, while expensive, still guarantees admission
into prestigious universities as well as very good jobs, the best
in the country. This evolution has led to a very real crisis,
driven by the loss of confidence in one school, its role,
efficacy, and equality. Public schooling, though supposed to
bring children from various backgrounds together, as opposed to
separating them, has failed. This observation is a real threat to
African development. Governors do not ask for the required
urgency to repair and invest in young people's educations, to
offer them training that will ensure job acquisitions down the
line.
	This is how creating job opportunities as mentioned in the
LaRouche plan will be achieved. Indeed, we need to remember that
in the '60s, economists created a positive correlation between
human investments and economic growth. The development process of
industrialized countries as well as developing countries has been
structurally shown to accompany a general growth the skills and
educational levels of their population. The essence of creation
of job opportunities lies in education which is one of the
strongest weapons against mass poverty.
	While we stand to support the African development process, I
always wondered if there was this conscious will to deprive
Africa from developments and education for its youth? Can
knowledge be dangerous? The answer to this question came to me
when I paid closer attention to colonialism in this continent. It
is important to understand that, in today's world, as claimed by
LaRouche studies and conferences led by the Schiller Institute,
every country's prosperity contributes to the well-being of the
general population.
	To me, at 19 years old, the only way to save the youth from
this vicious cycle is to train them. Exposure to social media is
stronger than ever nowadays. We must use all the digital
resources we have access to and take advantage of this potential.
With around 364 million Africans ages 15-35, this continent has
the youngest population on Earth. The United Nations predicted
that Africa will be home to over 40% of the global youth
population by 2030. The challenge of how to successfully
integrate these new people into the formal economy needs to
become a top priority for governments, policymakers, and
development practitioners.
	I was lucky enough to be born to a couple of hard-working
parents, that had the privilege to offer me an education, that
could help me succeed. I want this opportunity to become a right.
The children of my country, of my continent, of the entire planet
deserve these rights. But even the paradoxical reality between a
youth that is sabotaged by our educational system and this
enormous potential young people have, complete with the will to
act and in an awareness of the battles to come, it is our duty to
provide them with the necessary tools and the new job
opportunities will naturally follow. Thank you.

	BEETS: Thank you so much, Sarah. Next we're going to go to
Chérine Sultan, in Paris, France. She will be speaking in French.
I'd like to make sure the interpretation is working before we get
underway. We have to fix an echo. Thanks to everyone for being
patient.
	OK, now we're working. Go ahead.

	CHÉRINE SULTAN: [as translated] I would like to thank Sarah
for developing this question of digital, as a chance to develop
youth. But I would like to raise the negative point of the
digital culture today and see what we can do. We could call that,
"the youth and the digital and the future, how to employ
digital?" Because often, you get children whose parents are
telling them, you have to work in order to earn money, and you
have to get good results in school. And when you have good
results in school, the parents say, "well, I'm going to give him
one hour of television, one hour of internet, because he's
deserved it." So, it's a kind pathway to push children to
education.
	The problem is that the good results in school are not so
good, because the level of education has been going down. So
international studies which are showing competencies of children
in OECD, show that that the levels are lowering and equalities in
measurement of the levels.
	So this success is not at school. But we see the young
people have a lot of success in the social networks, that is,
that is the new way to have success. So you will see, on
Instagram, on YouTube. And the objective of these media is to be
seen to have a lot of viewers. So the young people want to be
"influencers." It's become a competition, and the negative point
in that is, some of them are becoming Manhattan sellers, even
against their well, but they're just selling things, selling
themselves, selling products: for instance, makeup, clothes,
drinking. Imagine that, for the very famous influencers, we can
have $20,000 for some minutes of video, and some of them are less
than 18 years old, so the parents are dealing with that; and some
of them are very happy to have this money, because of the
unemployment. So that is a big challenge.
	Because I'm just asking the question, who is gaining, who is
earning the money, really? Actually, it's not the people who are
selling the product, it is the companies. Because the companies
are just using those young people to selling things. So we can
see that the videos are touching more and more people than
advertising in the metro stations, because it's spreading very
widely on the internet. And so, if you know Edward Bernays on
propaganda, he developed the concept of advertising, this idea of
making people commercialized, to sell people was already
developed.
	One of the favorite hobbies of youth is TikTok, today.
TikTok is one of the main occupations of children. I don't know
how many millions of young people have subscribed to this
network. You have a lot of young people dancing, and you have to
manage to do a perfect dance movement on the video, to enter the
application and you can share the video -- and you can do it
again and again, before you share it. And so you're repeating all
the movements. Now you have children in classrooms or at home,
are doing the movements unconsciously, so it's kind of a
robotization of the body's movement. So their behavior is
modelled by this kind of dance. People are more and more sharing
their pictures without really going to other places; they're
staying at home, sharing pictures, and not traveling or going
anywhere to share.
	Finally, people are becoming enslaved by social networks.
You could say that those young people who want to be influencers,
you could say that -- (I'm trying to get the idea); so you have
those young people who have access to a higher degree, and they
want to be not influencers as such in the social networks, but
they want to build startups. And the problem is that even in this
world of the startup, the small companies growing up, there is a
trap, because you need a lot of finance at the beginning, and the
finances coming from the big companies, if you don't have money
to invest at the beginning, you have to submit to the big
companies like Google, Microsoft, and you will have to work for
them. But because in France you have something, just call it,
Station F, which is a startup incubator -- like you have a lot of
young people going things, and to go in that you have to pay
rent, you have to access to employment, often, you have to be
dependent on a big company like the GAFAM, which is Google,
Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft. And if you are clever
enough to develop something, the big company will help you but
you will be under the circumstance of being employed by the
company.
	So your competence is used by those big companies. So maybe
you are clever, you've done good studies, but we have to change
the social environment and the economic environment, to ensure
that the intelligence of people is used for the common good, not
for those who have power. The question is, who will be instructed
politicians, because now you have a lot of politicians who are
discouraging, they are showing a lot of mediocrity.
	So if you want to really be a startup to change the system
you have to join our movement. If you want to start to develop as
a young student, you have to join our movement, study how Kepler
discovered the Solar System, that's what we're working on, that's
what determines our capacity to understand the Four Laws that
LaRouche has developed, for instance. So on that, I want to thank
you.

	BEETS: Thank you very much, Chérine, for that challenge.
Now, we're going to go back across the Atlantic, back to the
United States, to Lissie Brobjerg, who is an organizer with the
Schiller Institute, formerly in Denmark and now in United States.
Her speech is "Are You a Large-Scale Geological Force?"

	LISSIE BROBJERG: [as delivered] Thank you, Megan.
	I will begin with a quote from the great Russian-Ukrainian
biogeochemist, Vladimir Vernadsky: "The noösphere is a new
geological phenomenon on our planet. In it, for the first time,
man becomes a large-scale geological force. He can, and must,
rebuild the province of his life by his work and thought, rebuild
it radically in comparison with the past. Wider and wider
creative possibilities open before him."
	Now, what will your role be in the shaping of future
geological phenomena? How will future geologists see the
irrefutable trace of your life in their geological studies? Will
the soil reveal but your biological remnants? Or a large-scale
noetic geological force?
	Vernadsky revolutionized the study of the nature of life.
Looking into the chemical composition of soil, he observed that
all organisms create a whirlpool of atoms passing through the
body by way of respiration, metabolic activity and reproduction.
This process tends toward manifesting itself to the highest
degree. Furthermore, the evolution of species has a
directionality which is not random, but which increases this
biogenic migration of atoms. Looking at the build-up of fossils
and life in the ocean, he recognized a steady increase over
geological time of biomass, fleshiness, metabolic activity,
energetic lifestyle (such as predation and swimming), and
increase in food supply. Let's look at a few examples of this.
	Four hundred million years ago the sponge class
{Sclerospongiae} was dominating. Afterwards they declined and the
classes {Demospongiae} and {Hexactinellida} took over dominance.
The living tissue of the old class was confined to a thin veneer
outside a 2-dimensional skeleton; whereas the new classes had
developed erect, interlocked 3-dimensional skeletal structures,
which enabled them to inhabit areas with strong currents,
utilizing the waterflow for nutrition, thereby increasing their
biogenic migration of atoms.
	At the same time, the dominating corals were of the orders
{Tabulata} and {Rugosa}. After they went extinct, {Scleractinia}
took over. Whereas the old orders were barely able to attach
themselves to the substrate, making them vulnerable to
disruptions, {Scleractinia}, through its ability to cement itself
to the substrate and build large colonies, could sustain
communities that were able to survive even severe storms. Such
communities underwent symbiosis with microorganisms which enabled
them to inhabit low-nutrition environments.
	Then, 240 million years ago, the only orders of
{Articulata}, a class of brachiopods, that did not go extinct,
were those that developed strong pedicles, enabling them to
optimize their position in currents, and those that developed
their feeding system to filter through more water for nutrition
and prevent the influx of indigestible particles.
	At the same time, the dramatic increase of the diversity of
{Bivalvia}, a class of mollusks, was due to the development of
full mantle fusion and siphons, which enabled it to burrow more
efficiently and thereby invade new eco-spaces.
	These are examples of the directionality of life toward
maximum manifestation and evolution directed through the increase
of the biogenic migration of atoms in the biosphere.
	Now, the noosphere, the domain of the mind, is able to
direct this increase through cognition rather than biology. In
Vernadsky's words, since the appearance of civilized humanity
tens of thousands of years ago, "the face of the Earth transforms
itself and virgin nature disappears." Our thoughts are able to
change the chemical composition of the universe like no other
species, and over short timespans, through exceptional individual
contributions.
	Shall your life, then, be reflected mainly through the
biosphere or the noosphere? Do you choose to become a large-scale
geological force?
	What would Shakespeare say?
	"Be not self-willed, for thou art much too fair
	"To be death's conquest and make worms thine heir."

	BEETS: Thank you, Lissie. Next, we have a short video
message from Areej Atef. Areej is the Vice President of the
Education Committee of the BRICS Youth Parliament, in Sana'a,
Yemen.

        - -Youth of the World Face Two World Systems: -
                    - The Old and the New -

	AREEJ ATEF:

 Thank you for giving me the opportunity
to be able to talk with you about the youth at the present time
and the future. I'm Areej Atef, the Vice President of the
Education Committee in the BRICS Youth Parliament. The experience
we got in the BRICS Youth Parliament has given us the ability to
see two world systems: the old, and the new. All the things with
available knowledge of the LaRouche "5 Keys" to advance the BRICS
countries and its definition has reached Yemen, in English
language and Arabic.
	As I'm responsible for health education in the BRICS Youth
Parliament, I trust that all youth of both genders have the will
to face the war on policy-viruses, like they're able to face
deadly viruses. And this through the right health education,
which is built on physical economy, which we have learned from
the late Lyndon LaRouche.
	As for the beauty of Yemen: The civilization of Yemen has a
fragrant smell. This civilization is the identity that triggered
the reports of the "Happy Economic Miracle" because of the
pairing of the old frankincense trade and the New Silk Road. It
is a model report and all countries should pursue its rules.
	Finally, I would like to share with you that on the coming
Tuesday [June 30] we will be celebrating World Parliament Day.
The world has been celebrating this day since 2018, so there they
can encourage the development in the parliamentary work. So, if
the world is going to celebrate this day, let the Alliance
college in Yemen be lifted, so we can achieve the Sustainable
Development Goals nationally and internationally.
	Thank you. [end video]

	BEETS: Thank you to Areej, who is doing some very important
work in Yemen.
	Our final speaker for the presentation portion of the panel
will be José Vega, who will speak to use from the Bronx, in New
York City in the United States, and his presentation is "A New
Space CCC."

	JOSÉ VEGA: [as delivered] Hello everybody, I'd like to start
by reading a quote by Schiller, later put into song by Beethoven:

	Be embraced, O ye millions!
	Here's a kiss for all the World.
	Brothers, above the canopy of stars,
	A loving Father must surely dwell.
	Do you feel Him near, O ye Millions?
	Do you sense your Creator, World?
	Seek Him above the canopy of stars!
	Above the stars must he reside.

	I don't think even Beethoven realized it, but he was
actually calling for a space program long before Kennedy.
	Through classical composition, Beethoven's entire symphony
serves to develop the ideas and essence of Schiller's poem, which
is that of Mankind's beauty under the image of the Creator.
Beethoven was incredibly challenged to set music to the poem,
saying that it may not have been possible to create a symphony as
beautiful as the poem. Beethoven's composition of the {Ninth
Symphony} is similar to the Apollo space program, in that it
required the composer to make new creative discoveries that would
allow for such a composition to even exist.
	In our pursuit to seek a loving father above the canopy of
stars, we must make new discoveries that'll enable us to go
farther and faster than ever before. But what does it take to
actually accomplish this? Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his
letter from a Birmingham jail "Human progress never rolls in on
wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of
men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard
work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social
stagnation." What does that mean to be God's co-worker? It
demands that you use everything you have, no matter how big or
small it is. That requires big thinking, not small-mindedness.
	Take the poorest district in the United States, which has
the highest COVID transmission and infection rates, the highest
levels of poverty and drug use, and also the highest amount of
"essential workers." How can anyone who lives in these conditions
be expected to believe me, when I tell them that humanity is
greater than this, and that within them is the potential for
greatness? Well, truthfully they no longer have a choice. They
have to believe me because if they don't the country, and the
world around them will implode. The fight for an honest future
begins with those who need it the most. Because it is within them
that the real future begins.
	We must demand a New Deal-era policy, where a new kind of
Conservation Corps is brought about, and it will be called a
Space Civilian Construction Corps. Where anyone between the ages
of 18-26 is allowed to use their God-given right to develop their
creative capacities to bring forth a real future.
	Suppose the people who go through the program are now
running around building hospitals in their communities where
millions will be born long after their deaths, and building
schools where those millions will receive an education similar to
theirs. These same people start developing higher forms of energy
flux density where it'd be more expensive to send you a bill
every month than to actually power your home. But then they go
beyond their communities and even their own countries. As they
get older and other programs start popping up all over the world
they become teachers, passing down what they've learned, so that
those they teach can then do for the world, what the original
group did for their country. I would like to think that Martin
Luther King, Jr. would agree with me when I say that this is one
of the highest forms of non-violence.
	I'd like to finish off with a quote from Beethoven's {Choral
Fantasy}. "Only when Love and power are wed/ Mankind has God's
blessing." So with that being said, are you ready to be
co-workers with God?

                - Question and Answer Session -

	MEGAN BEETS: All right! Thank you very much, José. So, we're
going to move into our question and answer session now. What
we're going to do is, we have a number of young people who I
mentioned earlier are part of the chorus of voices who are
organizing, educating themselves on, and demanding a New
Paradigm. So, we're going to bring some of them in to ask
questions of the panel. What we really want to build here is not
just some kind of formal Q&A, but a real discussion with the
panelists.
	We are going to start with a question -- or maybe it's a
comment, he'll have to tell us -- from an honorary member of the
youth movement, State Senator Theo Mitchell. Senator Mitchell is,
as I said, a former state senator from the state of South
Carolina in the United States. He is a Board Member of the
international Schiller Institute, and a long-time friend of
Lyndon and Helga LaRouche. He's also a long-time fighter,
courageous fighter for justice. So, Senator Mitchell, welcome.
Can you hear us? We can't hear you. We're going to come back to
Senator Mitchell after trying to solve those audio problems.
	In the meantime, I would like to go to a question from our
panel of questioners assembled in a Zoom meeting. We're going to
go first to Maddie Hirst. Maddie, are you there?

	MADDIE HIRST: I wanted to thank José first off for that
impassioned speech, because that's what we need. We need somebody
who's going to connect with people. I also wanted to note on a
kind of theme that's been throughout the entire program, and that
is that history is made by individuals. Every single one of us
has the potential to change the world. Unless we act on that, the
future we all dream of is not going to come into being. That's
mainly what I wanted to say.

	BEETS: OK. José, do you want to start us off?

	JOSÉ VEGA: Sure. To your response, yes, it is true. History
is changed by individuals. But what good is writing the greatest
symphony, or a great treaty, or the greatest essay if nobody is
going to read it or listen to it? You really have to organize
people around your ideas. Martin Luther King, Jr. was an amazing
reverend, preacher, organizer, non-violent promoter. But it was
the people around him, the people who organized with him who
really made that possible. So, I don't think you can forget about
the unsung heroes, as we put it. They're just as important, if
not more important. I'll just say one thing. I know that there is
a great philosopher from the 13th century whose name is escaping
me at the moment who writes about civilizations that were so
great, that were lost to war and famine. And no one has ever
heard of them since. So, how do we stop that from happening to
us? That requires everybody to come together to prevent from
getting lost and destroyed.

	BEETS: Right, well I think that raises to a certain degree
what Chérine was bringing up about the culture. And I wonder if
Chérine would like to come in on this, and say something.

	CHÉRINE SULTAN: I don't know exactly what I can add.
Creativity is a big word that attracts people. And often we don't
know exactly what we are talking about. When you are really
creative, maybe you don't recognize it in the time, but if you
are confident in the long time, finally you will see the
difference between a false creativity and the true one. So, I
would like to encourage people to make this tough work, to work
on science, to work with others, because to do it by yourself is
quite difficult.

	BEETS: Thank you. For any young people who are watching
this, we do have classes of the exact kind of group educational
sessions that Chérine was referencing. So, I would invite you to
get involved in that. Would anybody else on the panel like to
respond to Maddie before we move on? OK.
	It looks like we have Senator Mitchell back. Senator
Mitchell, can you say something? Let's see if we can hear you
now. Still can't hear you.
	Let's take another question from our Zoom meeting here,
while we fix Senator Mitchell. I'm going to go to

,
and then after Senator Mitchell, I would like to go to Vicente or
Mauricio. Is that Senator Mitchell? Welcome!

	THEO MITCHELL: Thank you. Thank you very much. I certainly
want to pay my respects and regard to my good friend Helga, for
having this the temerity to put on this panel, this conference;
and certainly to Lyn, my long-time friend too in giving
recognition to his contribution and his foresight and his
perspective as far as even today is concerned. It's really
perplexing to see that we are living in a time and an
administration that has little interest at all in doing the right
thing, especially on exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche.
	I have been active for quite a while with the Schiller
Institute. We dealt with the Operation Freuhmenschen and the
human rights abuse concerning Lyndon. The Operation
Freuhmenschen, of course, was targetted at the African-American
elected officials. We managed to bring that to a standstill or
halt. and consequently we don't know what if anything Lyn paid
the price for, for he served time for nothing: it was abuse.
Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark said that it was the chronic
case of abuse of the so-called system of justice that he had ever
seen. And this man was in the Attorney General's office, one of
the Cabinet offices. Consequently, he came out in support of Lyn.
We all did.
	We are all happy to know that there are so many young people
who are now participating in this saga. There's a lot of work to
do, but we always have to remember this: To be able to get the
justice that Lyn deserves and the exoneration, we're going to
have to press people into the service, as far as this world is
concerned. How can we act, when there's still abuse? No matter
what you talk about as far as the Four-Power conferences are
concerned, they're not going to spend one nickel or time on
Lyndon LaRouche; especially this administration. This is a
program that we certainly can't forget. It is something that we
must continue working on. Of course, at this time, the abuse of
the police departments, George Floyd, and the one in Atlanta, Mr.
Ahmaud Arbery: it's an abuse. It's open season. Still, open
season on the black male. Consequently, I'll ask this
distinguished panel, what suggestions if any to you have to be
able to help save us? Thank you. Exonerate our good friend Lyndon
H. LaRouche, Jr.

	BEETS: Thank you so much, Senator Mitchell. Before I turn
that question over to the panel, let me just say that we will put
a link in the video description to the petition to exonerate
Lyndon LaRouche, so people can go there. There's also a really
wonderful video on Lyndon LaRouche's exoneration which people
should watch and help us disseminate.
https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/petition_exonerate_larouche
	Let me turn that over to the panel. Let me start with
Daniel, and see if you have a response to Senator Mitchell's
question.

	DANIEL BURKE:  Thank you, Senator Mitchell; thank you,
Megan.  I'd like to respond by saying that the most important
thing that we can do in my view is to create 50 million new
productive jobs in the United States, and 1.5 billion jobs in the
whole world.  This is not a jobs program; this is a fulfillment
of what Mr. LaRouche was fighting for in his life.  It is a
policy of transforming the human species to a new and more noble
level of activity.  It means that we're going to be invigorating
all Americans with a mission for the future.  Because it is only
means of the future that we have any ability to unify Americans.
It's always been that way; we're always for a "more perfect
union" to fulfill the promissory note known as the Declaration of
Independence.  It's in that effort, as people commit themselves
to creating such a future, I believe, that we'll be able to solve
the abuses of people that exist.  Intolerable crimes that are
committed against people in the name of -- for all types of
justifications.  We're going to have to take a look at a
universal standard of man that demands of us that we fight with
such a passion to overcome the brutality of this system in all of
its representations by establishing a scientific optimism about
the future.
	To put it very directly, I am perhaps more optimistic than
you are, that we could get this administration to exonerate Mr.
LaRouche.  I think that this is a time for miracles, and whatever
circumstances stand in our way that appear to be objective, the
fact of the matter is that their system is in a total breakdown
crisis.  So, the rules that have been set up to keep this system
going are crumbling, because the system is crumbling.  Therefore,
I'm committed to the idea that it is possible in a short amount
of time to create a breakthrough on the recognition of Mr.
LaRouche in the United States.  And that perhaps the most
important thing we can do, in addition to fighting for his
exoneration itself, is to recruit people to this vision that he
developed.  Which includes taking the people of the
post-industrial cities of the United States, taking the people of
the poor areas of our nation, and giving them a means to
contribute to the future.  This is how we're going to give people
a deeper identity and get them out of a feeling of nihilism and
despair, which is clearly inundating the country.

	BEETS:  Would anyone else on the panel like to say something
in response to Senator Mitchell on the issue of justice?  José,
yeah, go ahead.

	JOSE VEGA:  If Black Lives Matter, why isn't there a space
program in the Bronx, or in Oakland, California?  That's my
response.
	I live just a few blocks away from Gouverneur Morris' grave,
and Gouverneur Morris was the person who penned the Constitution.
He also wrote the words to the Preamble of the Constitution.  In
it, there is a section on promoting the General Welfare.  So, if
we're promoting the General Welfare, doesn't that include
developing the minds of all Americans, and giving them the
opportunity to educate our youth?
	I'd like to reference the story of Caliph Browder.  He was
wrongfully put in Riker's Island prison, over a dispute of
stealing a backpack.  He was there for three years; his mother
could not afford bail.  Eventually, he was found innocent.  He
refused to plead guilty to a crime he did not commit, and three
years after leaving Riker's Island, he committed suicide.  There
was no more hope; there was no future for him, in his mind.  That
is a tragedy.  That is what's happening to many young Americans
today who feel as if there is no future and no hope.  We will
give them one.
	I'd like to also reference Plato's {Meno} dialogue.  Because
in the {Meno}, Socrates and Meno, a slave master, are having a
discussion about virtue and where does knowledge come from.
Socrates says, I'd like to see one of your slave boys.  So, Meno
brings out a slave boy, and Socrates asks about the slave, was he
born here, and can he speak the language?  These two things imply
that this is not a native Grecian.  This is somebody who does not
look like them, or may not even sound like them.  What he does
is, he brings him to the beach, and he tells the boy to double
the area of the square.  What does that mean, exactly, to the
slave boy?  The slave boy does it, and the slave boy is not
learned.  He has not studied at all, nobody's ever taught him
anything.  And yet, he was able to find the solution to a complex
geometrical problem, which is not so complex.  The point is, he
could easily be the slave master, as Meno could be a slave.
	The way we're going to solve this, is just develop the minds
of people, so that 50 million years from now, when everybody owns
their own galaxy, what will the questions be?  Will the question
be, do black lives still matter?  Or what do they become?  How do
you transform the future in that way?  I'll leave it there.

	BEETS:  Franklin, go ahead.

	FRANKLIN MIRERI:  Thank you.  It's been wonderful hearing
from the fellow panelists and even from Senator Mitchell, and how
passionate he is about the issue of exonerating Lyndon LaRouche.
I think while many people outside of the United States may not
have heard of Lyndon LaRouche, personally I first heard about him
this year, when I started taking the economics classes being
offered by the Schiller Institute.  When I many people may not
have heard about him, what I know resonates across the world is
what he stood for.  For example, the way the financial systems
are currently skewed against developing countries.  So, that's
just one aspect.  As we then seek, as we then sign the petition,
let us not forget the importance of global solidarity towards
that cause.  You never know; the more people who get to hear the
wonderful works he did, the more gradual pressure might be put on
any administration.  It might be this administration, or the
coming one; but ultimately what he stood for was greater than
just in the United States.  That's my submission, thank you.

	BEETS:  Thank you, Franklin.  Thank you so much for joining
us, Senator Mitchell.
	I'd like to go back to our Zoom call, our collection of
young panelists there.  Actually, Calvin I said you could go
next, but first I want to check and see

	VICENTE:  I would like to ask the panelists if they can
clear me a doubt that I've been thinking about.  Today, as we can
see, it is inevitable and it is impossible; we cannot implement
all these projects of the LaRouche movement and the Schiller
Institute without the concepts for embracing globalization and
various alternatives like the multipolar world, and this is
talked about in the BRICS and the New Silk Road.  So, I wanted to
say these are all new alternatives for globalization, but as we
can see in nature, so as in the spirit of the human, there
doesn't exist multipolarities, so I wanted to ask if the new
embracement of multipolar world for globalization, if it coexists
with the physical laws of the universe?  Because in nature, there
is no multipolarity and neither in the human spirit.  There is
only the Earth is a polar world and as the Chinese law of change
-- they call it the sooyi or iching -- they say that you can
bypass the polar concept, but you have to go beyond the polar
concept.  It's not anymore polar; it's passive.  It's not any
more active, it's beyond.  So, these are not active spaces on
Earth; these are passive spaces on Earth.
	So, I wanted to ask if the multipolar world of the
alternative of globalization being embraced in BRICS and the New
Silk World, if it is coexists with the universal laws of physics
and the human spirit?

	BEETS:  OK.  I believe we also have Carolina on our Zoom
call.  So, if she's on, we should test the translation first.
I'd like to see if she would like to respond first, and then open
it up to the other panelists.  So, Carolina, are you on?  It
doesn't sound like it.  I'm going to open up Vicente's question,
which is really wonderful, to the other panelists, and if
Carolina is on and we can get the translation going, then we'll
do that.  Actually, Lissie, would you like to answer that one to
start us off?

	LISSIE BROBJERG:  I think we have to start from the
standpoint of trying to understand what the nature of the
universe is.  So, I don't think that we just look, when we look
at how life has been developing biologically, we see that new
solutions are found all the time in order for life to manifest
itself more effectively all the time.  It's interesting how
animal life and plants develop new biological technologies in
order to do that.  But the mind is superior to that, and
Vernadsky discusses how suddenly you have an explosion in the
world because of human cognition.  We make all these discoveries.
	So, I don't think that the nature of our universe comes down
to a question of multipolar or not.  I think what's interesting
is our creative ability to find solutions and to manifest
ourselves in our thoughts and our ideas more effectively in this
universe.  What do you think about that?  Was it Vicente?

	VICENTE:  Yes, well, I think that the universe is as Lyndon
LaRouche said, is negentropic, and as we can see the mathematics
and its closed system can't understand it because it's an
entropic model.  I was asking because if in politics and in the
economy, we create on Earth and embrace a new concept of the
alternative of globalization based on the multipolar world idea,
it is as we can see if we just study old civilizations.  They say
it is proven scientifically that Earth is based on two poles --
the North Pole and the South Pole.  This is gravitational and
electromagnetic, so I don't understand the concept of a
multipolar world when you want to embrace it on Earth.  I wanted
to understand if this is an entropic system or a negentropic
system that can coexist with the universal laws of physics?  This
is in the aspects of politics, economy, and globalization, so is
this negentropic or entropic?

	BEETS:  Carolina, can you hear us?

	CAROLINA DOMÍNGUEZ CISNEROS:  Thank you.  What I can say to
you about this question is that you're going to have to discover
this for yourself.  You could discover this.  We're working on
Kepler, and that's the best method.  There's a document that
LaRouche wrote for all youth, people who are younger than me,
people young like you and even younger people.  It's called "My
Encounter with Leibniz and with Kepler," which is a document for
young adults.  So, I'm not going to save you the hard work that's
required, but let's keep studying Kepler every Monday in the
evening, and that's my answer to you.  Thank you.

	BEETS:  OK, great.  Daniel, you want to say something?

	DANIEL BURKE:  Yeah, if I can, briefly.  I just want to
respond because this question of a multipolar world and the idea
of globalization.  What do we mean when we say "globalization"?
This is something that Helga LaRouche has referenced more than
once.  It is not her view, and I concur, that there is such a
possibility of a multipolar world.  In other words, one in which
you have multiple poles of influence, who are collaborating; it's
meant to be in opposition to what's called the unipolar world,
which is where you have a collection of power in one center.
Neither of these theories of the world really cohere with what is
happening, which is that we live in an era of oligarchy.  One of
the tools of oligarchy which is, in my view, centered in these

 ... groupings across the world, these institutions
that Mrs. LaRouche in the first panel referred to as the British
Empire.  That this operation to suppress humanity is the key
enemy that we have.  It's not a matter of one nation holding
power over others, although the United States has often played
the role of the brawn for the British brains, but rather, it's a
matter of creating a community of nation-states.  Or, as the
President of China refers to it, a community of shared destiny.
A community of principle is what John Quincy Adams called it.
	The point is, and this is what I was trying to get across in
my comments: if the whole purpose of a nation and the whole
purpose of our republic here in the United States is to advance
the pursuit of happiness for our population.  But it's based on
the idea of universal rights of the individual that extend
naturally beyond Americans per se, as Franklin emphasized, then,
we have the prospect of national governments working together for
the common aims of humanity.  If we want to demonstrate that the
world is not a closed system, not an entropic system, as you're
raising, Vicente, then it's my view that the strongest way to do
that is to have collaboration between Russia, China, and the
United States, and other countries.  All other countries that we
possibly can bring into this, on the exploration of the Solar
System and the galaxy.  Because as José said, it's some future in
which we're all going to have our own galaxy.  There are 2
trillion galaxies out there, and there's more than enough room
for the human population to extend out there.  It's a
demonstration that there's not such a thing as fixed resources,
or a closed system, or that we have to manage through a unipolar
or multipolar system.  What we need is a level of recognition of
sovereignty, respect for the sovereign governments of many
nations, that they can form agreements in which they can work
together for the benefit of all.  This realm of space science
would be a great frontier by which we could change everything.

	BEETS: OK, great.  Now, we're going to go to Calvin.
Calvin, are you there?

	CALVIN:  Mine is more of a question.  I think it was Dennis,
I'm not sure who said this, but there was a comment one of the
guys made about people who are becoming slaves of white social
networks and social platforms, and he further went on to
criticize young people for making a huge amount of money by doing
things such as selling make-up and making a lot of videos.  That
criticism about the way people choose to make money kind of
reminded me of a conversation I had with someone last week about
how when people do Uber and Lyft, those aren't real jobs.  They
aren't really productive, and they don't provide a sense of
security for people.  We talk about a lot of advances, but me
personally, I see a lot of advances in this society
technologically and non-technologically in both ways.  I do think
the result of some of these advances let's some of the white
people choose to make money.  But my question is, what's wrong
with people making money off of selling videos and doing Uber and
Lyft and things like that?  I'm all for the 1.5 billion
industrial jobs and things like that, but I think some people
have to be realistic.  Not everyone wants an industrial job; some
people are satisfied with selling make-up for the rest of their
lives.  I'm just trying to understand what's wrong with making
money off of making videos and stuff like that.  I hope the
question made sense, I know I was all over the place.

	BEETS:  It made sense to me.  Chérine, I think maybe we
start with you; that's your territory there.

	CHÉRINE SULTAN:  Yes.  I think that there is a common point
between this and in the past when people had still productive
jobs, the less-educated were workers, and the more educated ones
were the bosses.  It's to simplify, but that was the question.
Because you asked yourself, do I need to find a job on my own and
the society won't help me?  So, I have to fight for my future on
my own.  The question today is quite the same.  If I will use all
my means on my own, if I can make videos in my bedroom, in my
bathroom, I will make it.  I will own my life, and if I have more
skills, I can produce some software, some applications, I can
invent something.  At the same direction, there is no collective
work.  We have to work on this issue.

	BEETS:  Yeah, Sarah?  We can't hear you.  Why don't we work
on your audio, and we'll go to somebody else and come back to
you.  José, why don't you go ahead?

	JOSÉ VEGA:  Sure.  First of all, Calvin, always a pleasure
talking to you, pal.  I actually had this conversation with a few
friends the other day.  Is it immoral to want to make a living
for yourself, and want the best conditions for yourself, if that
involves you working a menial job or selling content -- whether
that be stupid videos on the internet or whether that be dirty
pictures and videos on the internet?  My point is simple:  I
think you're worth more than that.  I think you're worth more
than a 9-5, and I think you're worth more than any salary or any
amount of money that you could ever make in the world.  I think
everybody is worth

 dollar amount.  But where is that
worth?  That worth is in the soul and in the mind; that's what
makes you beautiful.  I'm simply saying the country needs the
means to develop that beauty that lies within everybody.  That's
where your real worth is.  You could die with $50 million in your
bank account, 5 homes in Beverly Hills, 20 luxury cars.  I think
Jay Leno has a robot that he can use.  None of that will mean
anything.  You die, and you've contributed nothing.  Is that what
you want your life to mean?  Because life is not defined by the
present, but the future.  If you live in the present, you will
die when you die.  But if you live in the future, you become
immortal.  And that's really where true beauty and meaning in
your life exists; in the future.  That's my response to you,
Calvin.

	CALVIN:  José, I truly and honestly agree with everything
you say, 100%.  But maybe it's just me -- I don't know if there's
bias on my end, but I think those jobs have value.  It's good to
live for the future, but I think we also have to live for now.
I'm going to use a few examples:  Uber and Lyft drivers, for
example.  Not everyone is in the position to afford a car.  Some
people have to get a job.  It's more affordable than catching a
cab.  Selling make-up; that's a huge industry.  The make-up
industry is a huge one in America right now.  We have beauty
standards in America, unfortunately, you have to look a certain
kind of way to get a job; have a certain kind of hairstyle to get
a job.  These are jobs that help satisfy those requirements to
get those jobs or get to work and things like this.  Don't you
think it's a bit odd to say that those jobs have no value when
they in a way satisfy certain things that are needed today?  I
don't know; I hope that makes sense.  I think those jobs that
people consider unworthy are worthy.

	BEETS:  Franklin, did you want to say something in response
to Calvin?

	FRANKLIN MIRERI:  I just wanted to say I totally understand
where Calvin is coming from.  I am a content producer, by the
way.  I produce gospel music when I'm not doing youth engagement
work.  What I can say is that I think I heard the contributor
saying is it isn't bad to be making content and to be spending
your time using your talent -- whatever it is -- to get a living,
and as José was saying, explore your creative aspect.  But what I
see most young people doing is that they see it as a means to an
end.  It stops there.  The intellect is not growing.  Because
yes, you can be making music, but also develop your mind.  When
you look at how even structures are, I think one of the
contributors was saying in the medieval times, and while the
economy was developing, the ones whose intellect was more
developed were the bosses, and the rest of them were the
peasants.  Sadly, that's how the world is. When your intellect
and your ingenuity is not explored to the fullest, you are, so to
speak, confined to now trying to just the menial crumbs of the
economy.  Yet, we could do much better.  In Africa, for example,
let me give our context for example.  A lot of youth are spending
more time trying to be YouTubers, trying to be on TikTok.  It's
not bad, but we could be doing so much more, like exploring
funding opportunities, exploring opportunities to be computer
scientists.  So, that is the whole aspect.  We are not saying
that yes, content production is not bad, but let us do more.  And
with that, we will open up a whole new basket of opportunities
for the economy.  That is my input.

	BEETS:  Thank you.  Lissie, go ahead.

	LISSIE BROBJERG:  I just have a question for Calvin.  What
kind of culture, what kind of thinking is needed among people
today and in the future for us to face a situation in 2 billion
years where the Sun will burn out?  How will we solve that?  Yes,
we have creative abilities, we have the ability to solve
problems.  But what kind of culture do we need in order to do
that?  Many animal species went extinct, and if we are not acting
on a higher level, if we're just acting on some kind of basis
where we're  not developing and making new discoveries, and
developing in a way that will make us able to solve that crisis
in 2 billion years, then we could go extinct.  What's special
about man is our minds; that's the most precious thing we have.
Therefore, I think in terms of necessity, necessity changes.
Once the person can make a new discovery that makes a lot of what
you can call practical jobs or anything obsolete.  What do you
think?  What kind of thinking do you think is needed for facing
that in 2 billion years?

	CALVIN:  Critical thinking, logical thinking most definitely
some form of intellectual thinking would be needed to at least
that kind of future, or contribute to that kind of future.  So,
it would most definitely be a culture of critical thinking.
That's my answer.

	LISSIE BROBJERG:  Yeah, well we have to look.  It's not an
easy question, so we really have to look into how do we answer
that question.  Lyn had a huge attack on the educational system,
because you have this drill and grill method where people have to
learn as if they are like a box.  You fill the thing and you
basically just have to learn like a dog that learns tricks.  But
he actually was challenging people, especially young people, to
go through the discoveries.  Who made the biggest changes for
mankind?  Who had these huge, large-scale geological influences
on behalf of mankind?  Carolina was talking about Kepler, who
discovered how the Solar System works.  So, we should look at
those people who actually did change physically and through the
noösphere, and redefined mankind and the role of mankind, and the
future of mankind.  And look at how did they think; we should
rediscover their discoveries, so that we actually become also
qualified to answer that question.  What do you think?

	BEETS:  Can we see if Sarah's audio is working now?

	SARAH FAHIM:  To answer that question, I think the problem
is deeper than just selling products.  I think that the problem
is the fact of what kind of society are we thinking if we just
reduce all our visions to social media?  We are encouraging a
lack of ambition, we are encouraging this idea of easy money, of
not developing our minds because we can have a normal life by
just selling products on Instagram or something.  I think the
problem is that we are not educating people if they think that
there is a future in that type of work.  It can be a first step;
you can sell products to win money to create another project.
But it can't be a vision.  This is not the way we should imagine
a society; this is so small.  Social media is part of our lives
now, we can learn to live with it.  But we can't make it the
major part of our vision.  I do not agree with that, because I
don't want my society to not be educated and to dream about
selling products and nothing more.  This is what I have to say.

	BEETS:  Thanks, Sarah.  So, we have a question from Joshua
Kisubika, if he's still in the Zoom.

	JOSHUA KISUBIKA:  I just wanted to pose a question to
Daniel, maybe, just to get to know the position of the LaRouche
group to support the youth in Uganda.  So, I was saying that over
700,000 people reach working age every day in Uganda.  This is
expected to rise to an average of 1 million in the decade from
2030 to 2040.  It's already creating a mismatch between labor
demand and supply.  While Uganda's youth are known for being
highly enterprising, fewer than  4% of Ugandans are employers,
32% [?] are working for themselves only.  43% are unpaid family
workers.
	So, you can see that even this, it all goes back to maybe
leadership.  I was trying to look at which strategies can we
decide and fight together with you to help the youth in Uganda to
start living life to the full.

	DANIEL BURKE:  Thank you very much, Joshua.  I think that
what you're raising is the prospect of dialogue and discussion
about, most importantly as we are discussing here -- the
epistemology of economics.  Because what you're describing -- it
depends upon your point of view.  The point of view expressed by
this British imperial, oligarchical financial system is the point
of view that if you have many mouths to feed and you don't have
enough food, or if you have many youth to employ, but you don't
have enough jobs; then that means that you're poor.  But from the
standpoint of the American System -- which is to say, I'm not
referring to what the United States has been doing recently or
even over most of its history, but rather the so-called American
System of economics from Alexander Hamilton -- which has been
developed by Lincoln's economist, developed under Franklin
Roosevelt, developed under John Kennedy, and in particular, by
Lyndon LaRouche as an economist and an individual.  Under that
system, you look at a large number of youth and you say, "My
goodness!  What incredible wealth we have," because of the
creative powers of their minds.  And because we understand, as
Hamilton did, that it's through the function of the human mind
making discoveries that we actually are able to increase our
wealth, our ability to provide for the population and for the
future population.  If we approach the circumstance from that
respect, then we will immediately begin to look at what are the
great projects that need to be built that would establish a new
platform of infrastructure, a new platform of capability for the
nation and for the region and for the continent, and therefore,
for the world, which provide a basis for new qualities of
economic activity that otherwise were not possible?  That you
create a future with a future.  You create some kind of next step
to the whole system.
	But it's most important that this be under the idea of a
leapfrog.  We say leapfrog to signify go beyond any of the
so-called intermediate steps that the IMF demands that people
take, which is total nonsense.  You may have seen on panel 1,
that Daisuke Kotegawa, former Japanese representative to the IMF,
dealt with this idea: that it's ridiculous that we should be
expecting nations to go step by step by step up the ladder of
industrialization and so forth.  That's nonsense!  We should go
to the highest technology that's available, and overmaster all of
the problems that have come before, and go for the most rapid
possible advance of productive capability.  So, what we would
like to discuss with you would be, what are the principles by
which this can be achieved in Uganda, in the region, in the
continent, and in the world.  And what are we demanding from
governments?
	That's why presently, given the conditions of total
breakdown of the system, which is what we're faced with right
now, we're seeing that we really have got to bring forward youth
leadership to demand this summit.  A summit of the nations that
are capable of initiating a New Paradigm.  Because if we want to
get that kind of project rolling, that kind of new platform, then
we're going to have to change the whole financial system.  We
cannot allow the continued suffocation of the so-called
developing countries.  What the Schiller Institute is proposing
is 1.5 billion new jobs.  The discussion is that this could mean
$125 trillion of international credit, provided by international
credit institutions to nations.
	So, we'd like to discuss this with you and the youth that
you work with, and provide a basis for dialogue in which we can
have shared understanding of what is necessary.  Then, have a
basis by which to demand that of the government there, and of the
people of the world, and the governments of the world.  Thank you
very much for participating.

	BEETS:  Thank you very much, both of you.  We have
unfortunately come up on time.  That's very unfortunate, because
we have many more people who I know have questions, both live and
we also got a number of email questions which we don't have time
to take on this panel right now.  I would encourage everyone who
did not get an opportunity to ask a question, to send your
question in.  We will direct it to the panelists, so that we can
continue this fun, fruitful, and important dialogue.
	What I'm going to do is ask each of the panelists who remain
with us if they'd like to say anything in closing before we end
our panel.

	CHERINE SULTAN:  I would like to emphasize on the question
of leadership and so on, saying once you have discovered a kind
of truth, a kind of direction society is, maybe you didn't aim to
take leadership, but this fate coming on you owes you to take
leadership.

	LISSIE BROGJERG:  To all of you, I would just like to say
that we will all become very old and wrinkled and ugly and all
that, in old age.  So the question is, when you are there can you
think about your life and say that "Certainly, my life was
important, and I am not just going to worm food."  That's all.

	CAROLINA DOMINGUEZ CISNEROS:  I appreciate and thank
everyone for having participated in this.  I'm very happy.  This
is the first time we've had a forum of this sort for youth.  I
think that what helps me to understand and organize youth is to
not be judgmental, but to actually try to inspire them.  To view
them from the standpoint of agape, of love.  If we see the pain
of seeing youth who are on drugs or doing those kinds of things,
if this causes pain, we have to realize that perhaps there is
something better that's an option.  So, I think that we should
take the occasion to try to communicate the idea that we can
change all of this.  We have tremendous potential.  The more
people die from drugs in the streets, the worse it is; rather,
they can have lives based on creativity and agape towards others.
Thank you very much for this seminar.

	SARAH FAHIM:  I think this is extremely amazing to be all
gathered today to fight for our ideas and for a better world.
This is so powerful and inspiring at the same time.  I'm really
happy that we're slowing changing our world, and I'm glad to be a
part of that change.

	DANIEL BURKE:  I want to echo what Sarah said; I totally
agree.  It's inspiring; it sets a standard that encourages us to
go higher.  So, I just want to quote the immortal words of Lyndon
LaRouche:  "Have fun!"

	JOSE VEGA:  Think like Beethoven!

	MEGAN BEETS:  So, I'd like to thank all the panelists,
everyone who got on to ask questions, and I'd like to thank our
audience for watching today.
	Let me put out a call:  Get active!  If you're young, if
you're old, get active with the Schiller Institute.  We need you
to become a member of the Schiller Institute.  We need to sign
and circulate our petition for a global health system.  We need
you to circulate our program for 1.5 billion productive jobs.
And we need you to organize.
	Thank you very much.  Thank you to everyone who watched the
conference today, and we'll see you again soon.