JASON ROSS: Hello, today is April 23rd, 2014,
you're
watching the New Paradigm for Humanity show.
My name is Jason
Ross and I'll be hosting the show this week.
Joining me in the
studio are, as always, Lyndon LaRouche, and
Megan Beets, of the
LaRouche PAC Science Research Team, also known
as "The Basement."
We are speaking today at a time of great crisis
in many
respects: There's an intense political crisis,
which anybody
following this site is well aware of.
What we're going to be
focusing on today, is the physical economic
crisis, that, in
particular is striking the Western part of
the country, but whose
solution really involves the country as a
whole.
Right now, the entire state of California
is in a state of
drought, with over 70% of regions in a high
state of drought, a
large percentage in a very exceptional drought;
in Texas, water
systems run the risk of running dry all over
the state, cattle
herds are being sold off to early slaughter,
without the feed
available to maintain them; in California,
the California Water
Project, which provides water for the needs
of 25 million people
across the state, is projected this year to
have {zero percent}
of its usual water available.
There's a killer shortage of food brewing
that's brought
about by the drought, by fracking, -- and
fracking's a great
name for it -- and multibillionaire Warren
Buffett's plans to
help, along with some of his other billionaire
friends, reduce
the world's population.
In particular, he's doing that through
his control of a major part of the nation's
infrastructure,
specifically our railroads.
So, out in the Central States, where
much of the 2013 harvest is still sitting
in local regions and
farms and local warehouses and elevators,
and has {yet} to be
transported out, because the railcars are
simply not being made
available, while they {are} being made available
in record
numbers of the hundreds of thousands, for
operations for
fracking, for bringing in fracking materials,
and for bringing
out the hydrocarbons.
So, the only way to reverse this involves
throwing out
Obama, and using Federal power to immediately
end fracking, stop
using up water in these water-short areas,
and insist that our
transportation network be used for things
that are essential,
such as, the million tons of fertilizer the
Dakotas need every
year, and the transportation of food.
The long-term survival of
course, is the NAWAPA program which Megan
will be addressing in
more detail in the show today, driven by fusion
power.
So, in looking at all of this, not only is
there an intent
on the part of Warren Buffett, among others,
specifically headed
by the Queen of England, to reduce the world's
population, but
also, things get presented in a funny way
about money, where the
argument might be made that a railcar full
of oil is worth more
than one full of grain; or perhaps shipping
fertilizer's just not
as profitable as supplies for a fracking well
-- who's going to
pay more money?
Under that argument, people would say, it's
great if food prices go up, because then,
they'd be competitive,
shipping them would actually make economic
sense, and until that
happens, they just won't be on the railroads.
You can see how that's a crazy idea, when
you measure
everything in terms of money, instead of in
terms of its value
for the economy.
This is also being presented as the U.S.
becoming a "new Saudi Arabia," a goal that
Obama has trumpeted,
that lunatics in the Congress, or people at
least who act like
lunatics on this, like Ed Royce, who look
at the potential for
the U.S. to be a "geopolitical power," that
the way we're going
to show Putin who's boss, is by destroying
our farms and driving
up prices for fuel oil in the U.S., in order
to export it to
Ukraine: This is totally crazy!
Instead, we have to develop, and move upwards
to higher
forms of power.
We had the opportunity to develop fission
much
more than we have now, and thanks to green
opposition -- which is
hardly green, it's much more brown -- we're
now pursuing a policy
of fracking, instead of nuclear power, and
fusion has been held
back, and we don't have it now, even though
we should have.
Overall, this development, of what we ought
to be doing, is
very much like that of life generally.
Just to make a short
statement about this: Life generally has shown
an increasing,
you could say, independence from the environment;
or, perhaps you
could put it better, it brings its own environment
with it.
It
creates its own environment, it shapes its
own environment; the
biosphere shape for life as a whole, by life
as a whole.
One
example of that is the creation of oxygen
in the atmosphere, by
the early photosynthesizers, which, although
a poison -- pure
oxygen is a poison; it's very chemically reactive.
Yet, the
development of life to a higher stage, with
animals that use the
oxygen was a revolution.
Another one, the move of life to land from
the oceans.
In
the oceans, you don't have to worry about
maintaining your body
temperature -- good luck trying for the most
part; you don't have
to worry about keeping moisture; reproduction's
very different
among these earlier aquatic species, where
different organisms
would just squirt their gametes and then they'd
mix in the water,
that doesn't work on land.
So, with the move to land, what did
you need?
You needed skin, you needed new types of reproduction,
you needed temperature regulation.
Look at human beings as a whole.
Look at our increasing
independence from nature, or better said,
our increasing control
over it and the shaping of it, to meet our
human needs.
Irrigation, this is something that humans
have done for thousands
of years, or 10,000 years.
The use of animals as beasts of
burden; the use of water for water wheels,
for milling;
windmills.
Then the real development of the use of fuels,
with
the steam engine, the development of metallurgy,
of our
understanding of electronic processes, nuclear
processes.
Today, to really be safe from these vagaries
of nature and
long-term droughts, we need to be able to
modify the weather, we
need to be able to control the continent,
and the urgency of this
is made even more clear by the fact that while
some people might
think, eventually this drought will end, it
might not.
I mean,
really, how much time had modern civilization
existed in
California, to measure water flows and things
like this?
A few
hundred, a couple hundred years?
How old is the Earth?
How long
are the long-term cycles of water, of rainfall?
Scientists in
California, some believe that actually, the
most recent couple of
centuries were the wettest in the past 7,000
years.
If this is
true, the drought is not something that will
go away, and we have
no alternative, except for the very wonderful
chance, to reshape
the continent to our needs.
I think we should get into some more detail
on that.
MEGAN BEETS: Okay.
I just want to pick up on the point you
made, Jason, about the natural action of life,
that throughout
the period of biological evolution taking
place on the planet,
life has developed as a system to higher and
higher degrees of
complexity, and has exerted its independence
from the surrounding
environment, which is dominated by the principle
of nonlife, or
the lack of the principle of life.
You had the move of life onto
land, developing new biological systems, to
actually be
independent of the impingement of nonlife
on it.
Human beings do this too.
Human beings exert the principle
of creative discovery, to reshape the environment,
and actually
reshape both the nonliving and the living.
That's natural, and
that's exactly what the NAWAPA, or the North
American Water and
Power Alliance, was designed to do.
And I can just show our
viewers the concept of the North American
Water and Power
Alliance was developed in the early 1960s.
Now, this was a
decade when you had Kennedy in the Presidency,
you had the idea
that man can, and should exert power and take
action to change
nature, to make the conditions of life more
suitable, not only
for himself living now, but the perspective
was to do this for
decades or even longer, into the foreseeable
future, for the
generations yet to come.
Now, you think about why was that the idea
with Kennedy?
Well, you see the legacy of what was done
with Franklin Roosevelt
and the Four Corners Projects: man had just
proven that he could
do this on a larger scale, than ever before
in history.
You also
see something funny, which was the powers
exerted during World
War II, where, though it was for destructive
causes, you had the
most enormous powers exerted by man ever before
in history, and
the idea, moving into the decade of the 1960s,
was that these
enormous powers at mankind's fingertips, could
actually be
utilized for the good of all of mankind.
And so you had the conception of the NAWAPA
project, which
was designed to address the fact that we had
great developments
taking place in the Western States of the
United States, we had
new dams being built, we had created the Imperial
Valley and the
great agricultural potential of southern California
and the West,
throughout the period of the Depression and
FDR's Presidency.
But it was recognized that if man continued
to develop and grow
in this region, at the rate that he could,
that he had the
potential to do, there was simply no enough
water in the
Southwest to support this.
There would be no reallocation of
water within the region, that could possibly
meet the needs of a
growing and expanding mankind.
And so, the original project said, okay, we're
not going to
look at managing the water cycle of the region.
You take one
evolutionary step forward, and you look at
the water cycle of the
entire continent.
So, if we look at the water cycle of the
continent we see a couple of things.
One is that the water as
it's distributed across the North American
continent is actually
in a great imbalance.
The design as given to us by nature is
actually very poor.
And that's for a couple of reasons: One of
which is that if we take the run-off from
the Western part of the
North American continent, it runs off into
the Pacific Ocean.
Roughly two-thirds of this, when it falls
again as rain on the
continent, doesn't fall in the "lower 48,"
but falls up in
Alaska, Yukon and along the coast of British
Columbia.
So the
water that had come from the continent now
falls again up in the
north, where it falls as rain or snow and
remains frozen up
there, or, in the spring melt, runs back off
into the ocean.
That's one imbalance.
The other imbalance is that if you take the
amount of water
which exists in the different regions of the
continent, there's
roughly eight times as much water per square
kilometer on the
land of the Northwest going down in the Washington
state and
Oregon, {eight} times as much water per square
km, in that part
of the land, when compared to the Southwest,
including
California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Colorado,
and so forth.
Now, there's another imbalance, which the
NAWAPA project
actually utilizes to our great advantage,
and that come up in the
issue of the productivity of the water.
So, if we look at the
water that exists on different parts of the
continent, it doesn't
always do the same amount of work, and we
can measure this in a
term called "net primary production," and
what that measurement
looks at, is, what is the rate at which the
biosphere, the plants
are actually using the process of photosynthesis
to crease new
biomass?
So it is a measure of the upshift of the energy
potential on the continent, because you're
measure how much life
is taking the nonliving elements, and actually
turning them into
a higher chemical potential by creating new
biomass out of them.
So, if we look at how much water is participating
in the
process of photosynthesis on different parts
of the continent,
the water which exists in the Southwest region,
even though
there's much, much less of it, each drop of
water is more than
{five times} more productive, than the water
up in Alaska and
Yukon.
So you have an incredible discrepancy in the
power of the
water which exists in the Southwest, but there's
not much of it.
So what we do with the NAWAPA program is we
take the water
cycle of the entire continent, which mankind
has never done
before, and we bend it: We actually build
a single
infrastructure system, to bend the water cycle,
bring the water
from where it's abundant, down to where it
will be much {more}
productive, and we raise the productivity
of the water on the
continent as a whole.
Now, what I'd like to do, is just look very
briefly at how
this project is going to impact, specifically
Texas and
California.
This is another view of the project.
So, the NAWAPA
system stretches up from the far northwest
of Alaska and Yukon
Territory; we collect roughly 20% of the run-off
of the major
rivers up in this area, and we reverse the
flow of that run-off,
which wants to go out to the Pacific Ocean,
without doing any
work, and we make it do work.
We reverse the flow of that water,
which is roughly 180 million acre-feet per
year [MAFY] and we
reverse it.
And we bring it down through British Columbia,
and we
hook it into a natural reservoir, called the
Rocky Mountain
Trench, which is hundreds of km long, and
we make that water come
down into the continental United States.
Now, some of it does
get diverted to move east across Canada, which
I'll get to in a
moment.
This gets pumped up to very high elevations,
using very high
energies, when it enters Montana and then
down into Idaho in the
Sawtooth Mountains; now it's at an elevation
where it can flow by
gravity and be directed via a series of canals
and tunnels, down
into the area and get potentially very productive
Southwest.
So, let's look more specifically, for a moment,
at
California.
We have the water, coming down across the
Canada-
U.S. border, up into the Sawtooth Mountains
in Idaho, where it's
pumped up to high elevations.
Now, it can flow down, and what
I'm going to talk about here, is how we're
going to get the water
into California.
With the NAWAPA project, California stands
to
gain 220 MAFY, of new, permanent supplies
to California, which
means that per year, we're augmenting the
amount of water that
can be involved in agriculture and industrial
activity in
California by more than 50%.
So this water gets directed
through Idaho; we direct it into a new, manmade
reservoir on the
eastern border of Nevada, just east of Elko.
We direct that
water west, via the Humboldt River, where
it turns south,
servicing parts of Nevada.
We direct it south, and begin
tunnelling across the Nevada-California border,
into the Owens
River Valley, which is a very potentially,
and formerly,
productive agricultural land, which is now
very much dried up.
The water begins to refill over time, the
Owens Lake.
The second way we're going to get it into
California, is
again, coming down through near the eastern
Nevada-Utah border,
we're going to tunnel it down, and create
a new reservoir, called
Lake Vegas, which currently doesn't exist.
It would be
positioned north of Las Vegas, and it would
be a reservoir which
is larger than Lake Mead.
So we're going to create this.
The
water is then going to flow, via tunnelling
through the
mountains, it's going to flow south into southern
California,
reaching the land down there; we're also going
to allow it to
flow south into Baja California, and then
tunnel back up into San
Diego.
Now, the third way we're going to get water
into California
is via the Northwest, via the Columbia River
Basin.
Now, this
the high-energy consumption part of the project,
but we have the
potential, by coming down through northern
California and hooking
into the Sacramento River system, to bring
10 MAFY of water to
California.
So now let's talk about Texas: In Texas, we're
going to
utilize the Colorado River.
Now, back in the 1950s and '60s, you
had agreements of the states of the Southwest
to allocate the
water of the Colorado River, and we're at
a point now where, with
the existing agreements, the Colorado doesn't
have enough water
to meet all those agreements.
So there's just simply is not
enough water there, and so you have water-rights
fights.
What
we're going to do is use the water from the
NAWAPA system, to
replenish the Colorado River and make it flow
once again.
The water's going to come down through Utah,
south by Lake
Powell, into the Colorado River system; we're
going to tunnel
down east of Flagstaff, Arizona, we're going
to hook into the
Salt River and the Gila River, which runs
in the southern parts
of Arizona and New Mexico, and we're going
to begin to bring this
water east.
Well, bring it east via the Gila River, and
Las Cruces,
we're going to tunnel into the Rio Grande
system.
Now this is
going to service Texas.
From there, we tunnel east, underneath
the Sierra Blanca Mountains, and we tunnel
east to the Pecos
River Reservoir, which is going to be augmented
to be larger than
Lake Mead.
This hooks into the Pecos River and flows
southeast,
servicing basically the whole northwestern
and western part of
Texas, which is currently incredibly, incredibly
dry, which is
wracked by the additional crime of all these
fracking wells.
We're going to turn this again into productive
farmland.
We get 12 million acre-feet which is most
of the water we're
going to bring to Texas.
Just to mention, Texas, from the NAWAPA
project, is going to receive 14 million acre-feet
more water per
year, which is a 78% increase over current
supplies.
So you're
getting somewhere in the range of doubling
the amount of water
that's available to Texas, just through this
single project.
So
that's where most of it comes from.
Now, if we look back, as I mentioned, to the
original
project, most of the water is going to come
down from the North
and flow directly West, via the Rocky Mountain
Trench.
Some of
it, in British Columbia, we're going to start
diverting east what
would be a new, manmade, navigable Canadian
Prairie Canal, and
will bring, with some additional collection,
will bring 50
million acre-feet east, via the Peace River,
across the Canadian
Prairie, entering the United States in the
Dakotas.
And so,
we'll have about 20 million acre-feet that's
going to be made
available via the Dakota Canal, to the Missouri
and the
Mississippi River systems.
One possibility for getting even more
water to the Great Plains States of the United
States, including
Texas, is to bring the water, via the Dakota
Canal into the
Missouri River system, west over the Niobrara
River through a
series of reservoirs and dams on that river,
and we'll bring it
west into a newly create Great Plains Canal,
which basically runs
the entire length of the much-depleted Ogallala
Aquifer.
So we
bring that water into northwestern Texas,
near the Panhandle.
The other possibility, is to bring water via
the Dakota
Canal, into the Mississippi River system,
which some years floods
-- so giving us the possibility, with the
additional water, to
utilize that excess water, to bring it west
across northern
Louisiana, and then down into eastern Texas,
where it can be
distributed along the eastern coastline, the
north and eastern
coastline of Texas.
Now, I don't have a map of this, but we also
have the
potential -- basically, the NAWAPA project
will take a number of
years to complete.
We're probably looking at something like 25
years for the whole project.
You can have parts of that online
sooner, in something like 10-15 years.
But we need water
immediately, and we need to begin gearing
up the energy densities
available to us, to continue to build the
NAWAPA project.
So we
also have a proposal, which we laid out in
the Nuclear NAWAPA XXI
pamphlet, which goes through this program
in more detail, to
bring more than 40 desalination plants to
the United States, most
of them concentrated in this region of Texas,
the Southwest, out
to California; which would be a series of
many, possibly nuclear
desalination plants along the coastline, along
rivers, to clean
up and recycle the water that's flowing through
rivers, and also
through heavily farmed areas, to clean up
the run-off and excess
water from agricultural sites so, that it
can be used again.
So by having an accelerated program to build
this series of
desalination plants, number one, you begin
gearing up the nuclear
industry again.
Many of these probably should be nuclear.
And
you have the potential to add much, much more
water into the
NAWAPA system, but in the immediate period.
What we're proposing is a program which is
immediately
available to be implemented.
We're proposing a program, where,
for the first time, man is operating on the
basis of controlling
a system of an entire continent, taking an
evolutionary step that
should have been taking decades ago.
But what we're also
discussing is making a complete revolution
in the way that
people think about economics and life.
Because what you're
discussing, this project is {very expensive}.
Not monetarily, I
mean, that's sort of a -- but what we're talking
about is a
project that is incredibly energy-intensive
and energy-expensive.
We're going to be bringing in more farms and
more people to this
area.
The amount of power, that's going to be applied
in the
building of this project, in the maintenance
of this project, and
in the expansion of life in this area, means
that for every human
being living in this area is going to be consuming
and applying
magnitudes more power than they do today!
Now, this is the complete {opposite} of what's
claimed today
to be the direction we should be headed.
What's claimed by
everybody is that, oh, if you want to survive,
you have to
"conserve" energy, you have to decrease your
footprint on the
environment around you, and basically do the
best you can to
disappear.
Well, that's the hallmark of civilizations
which have
collapsed, as {we are today}, as you see happening
right now in
California and Texas.
That system, that ideology, brings death.
What we need to do, is reassert the natural
condition of
man, which is to go application of higher
and higher amounts and
forms of power applied to change nature.
And what that means for
us today, is that we have to immediately return
to a serious
program for the implementation of nuclear
fusion.
Nuclear fission we have.
We have to immediately lift the
restrictions, and move with that, today.
But the only way to
sustain this is to move for the early discovery
and
implementation of nuclear fusion.
Now, the United States has,
and has had for -- oh, 60 years, now, a serious
nuclear fusion
research program.
This came out of same scientists that worked
on bringing the world the power of nuclear
fission; they
immediately moved to make the breakthrough
for fusion.
The
United States had it classified, but then
unclassified crash
program, in the {1950s}, bringing the best
minds in the nation
together, to make the breakthrough in fusion.
We had serious
investment programs.
We had a plan, which you see represented in
this chart here,
we had a plan, that was laid out in 1976 with
very detailed
studies, laying out how we would actually
go from the experiments
being done in the national labs, to having
a demonstration fusion
reactor that put power on the grid and could
be used for
industrial uses.
And you see, different possible timescales,
the
most conservative of which would have had
fusion online in 2005!
But we could have had it as early as 1993!
So this is the direction we need to go.
Now, if you look at
the current funding of fusion, as it's actually
occurred, as
opposed to what should have happened, you
look at the levels,
which peaked in the early 1980s -- fusion
funding peaked in the
early 1980s, and we've been collapsing ever
since.
This
President has done {nothing} but cut the fusion
budget, and
again, the budget which was submitted a few
weeks back, again,
slashed the budget to really, levels which
would destroy the
entire program!
So this has to be reversed.
And this is what people need to join us in
fighting for, is
this vision of mankind, this representation
of human reality and
human nature.
And once again become a species which is
representative of this creative, noëtic power
in the universe.
LYNDON LAROUCHE: This brings two big issues.
First of all
that the human species ability to exist depends
upon energy flux
density applied by human beings.
Now this is the natural
condition of the human being, but not of animals:
Animals have
no willful capability of increasing the energy
flux density that
flows through them.
That density is determined by the biological
determination of the species.
Now, the human species is not an animal species.
And when
you classify the human species as an animal
species, you're
making a very fundamental mistake, in terms
of scientific
conceptions.
Because the human species' difference is,
the human
species has a voluntary ability to increase
its per-capita energy
flux density.
This is done through the discoveries we call
of
energy discoveries; increases of energy flux
density.
Only the
human species has that ability.
Now, what you're up against is a culture,
a cult of evil,
which is called the Zeusian cult, which is
the cult of the Roman
Empire, {and} the cult of the British Empire.
And to the degree
that the British Empire has dominated the
planet, which has
happened through assassinations of Presidents,
for example, of
the United States, through that process, we
have curtailed the
development of the human species to higher
and higher energy flux
densities.
For example, in the year 1900, a program began,
to
{cancel} thermonuclear fusion, implicitly.
Not only by name, but
by intention.
Because the intention of thermonuclear fusion,
is
that mankind must rise to higher energy flux
density of its power
to act upon the Solar System and on our Earth
as such, and that's
what the principle is.
And mankind therefore increases the power
of mankind, in
terms of energy flux density.
That mankind turns to use heat,
controlled heat, controlled by mankind, and
to raise that to
higher energy flux density.
This enables mankind to achieve many
times the power over the Earth that was achieved
in earlier
generations.
The enemy has been the Zeusian conception,
that mankind must
be kept stupid and kept as a slave of a ruling
class which sits
on top of, regulating the subordinated classes.
And so, that's
the Roman Empire {and} the British Empire,
both have that
characteristic.
Both the Roman Empire and the British Empire
are
the enemies of the human species.
And once you see things in
those in terms...
Now, what are we?
Nicholas of Cusa and others, his
immediate predecessors, recognized the solution
to the great
horrors that mankind had gone through before.
And that meant
that Nicholas of Cusa, and others before him,
Brunelleschi and so
forth; and then, again, you had another range
since that time,
since the first cycle of the Renaissance.
Remember, the change
in the direction was in the Renaissance, the
movement out of
Europe, into North America, in particular,
was the driving force
which saved us from Hell.
Without the colonization, in
Massachusetts Bay Colony, first, which was
then crushed by the
Dutch bastards; and then you had the crushing
of the American
Revolution, first of all by subversion, and
many of our
Presidents were actually subversive agents
working for the
British interests against the United States
itself -- and most of
them were.
They didn't know that, but what they would
say, they
wanted a system in which states would have
power to regulate the
nation.
And it was that system, which corrupted the
United
States.
We had great Presidents who did exactly what
they should
have done: to have a driver program for higher
energy flux
density, they understood that.
We had Lincoln understood that;
he was assassinated.
We had John Quincy Adams who understood
that, he was almost assassinated, virtually
assassinated by an
operation run by the British, through the
British channels in New
York City, which was this crap.
And we've had it again and
again.
Most of the Presidents of the United States
were not fit
to be Presidents.
But through British influences, the British
influence was exerted, through corruption
and other means on the
United States.
So, we've had great Presidents, but these
have been
relatively episodic: John F. Kennedy was one
of the last of
those who was really significant in that.
He was assassinated,
because he was a threat to the British Empire!
And take the
kinds of people like the people who are running
the fracking on
the northern border of the United States,
they're evil!
But
they're British controlled.
And the policy, the green policy is
an evil policy based on a Zeusian conception,
of degrading
mankind to reduced population, which is the
British right today.
It's the policy of these two Presidencies
we've had, you know the
first and second Bush, and now we have the
Obama administration.
These things are actually enemy agents operating
inside the
United States, with the powers of the Presidency!
And with the
buying out, through Wall Street, which is
the main instrument by
which we're destroyed in the United States.
So therefore, the issue is, you have to go
to higher energy
flux densities.
This is the characteristic of the human species,
it's the characteristic of the human mind.
The human mind is not
simply a vegetable, it's not simply a nervous
system.
The human
mind is a voluntarily developed power of creativity.
And only
the human species is able to do that.
Now, say, what's the destiny of mankind?
Well, mankind has
one characteristic which is very disturbing:
Death.
Death by
age, for example, and death by circumstances
of culture, these
are very significant.
But, you say, what is mankind?
And here's
where the real problem becomes clear.
People say, well, people
live and sometimes they achieve something,
sometimes they're
successful, but then they die!
And we say, "Oh, terrible,
terrible!"
But the death of people is not necessarily
the death
of humanity.
There's a difference.
The question is, do the
people who live and die, is the meaning of
their life real, once
they've died?
So, when mankind is actually developing a
higher level of
technology, of science, knowledge, mankind
is doing something
else.
Mankind is not only increasing our power to
exist on this
planet, increasing our power to influence
the nearby parts of our
Solar System, so that when you look at the
effect of the
mankind's progress in terms of scientific
discoveries of
scientific principles, you realize that mankind
is an {immortal
species}, unless you kill it.
And the Zeusian, like the British
Empire, the British Bitch who's now sitting
on top of the British
throne, these are the enemies of mankind.
Because mankind has an
immortal purpose, the individual dies, but
{the meaning of their
life does not die!}
And the meaning of their life is the
progress of humanity to go to higher levels
of achievement.
Because, for example, let's take little objects
like
satellites, floating out there, around there
that threaten us.
Well, we could -- the whole human species,
could be wiped out by
one satellite, if it hits just right.
And these things re
floating around all the time.
So therefore, the question of the
{meaning} of the human species, depends upon
our ability to
defend the human species, against big rocks
in space.
So
therefore, if you're not developing the capability
to deal with
the big rocks in space, you are actually a
traitor to the human
species.
And therefore, those who abhor, resist, the
increase of
energy flux density in man's capacity, are
the enemies of the
purpose of the existence of mankind.
And should be treated
accordingly!
Therefore, the laws have to be changed.
Now, for example,
we have in the history of our United States,
we have a history
from Alexander Hamilton, who was the one who
actually defined, in
fact, defined the principles, on which our
economy is based.
The
principles of our Constitution.
But we had a lot of Presidents
who were actually opportunists, after George
Washington, after
Hamilton's death, assassination, the United
States went into a
desert period.
Until Monroe came in as a President and actually
pulled the Presidency back together again,
and then John Quincy
Adams, both in serving under Monroe, and as
President in his own
right, actually produced the greatest advanced
in the United
States: The 48 states of the United States,
were created as a
result of what was done, essentially by John
Quincy Adams.
That's how the 48 states were created; then
you got Hawaii and
Alaska after that; but he did that!
He did in the context of
the Monroe Presidency, in which he served,
and as President
himself; and he continued to serve, even after,
he was sitting
up on the House of Representatives.
And up until the time he
died, in 1848.
And he created Abraham Lincoln.
He created that
process.
Then they killed him.
You find the assassinations of Presidents
of the United
States generally coincide with British imperial
interests.
Now,
in many cases, like some of our early Presidents,
John Adams was
a fool!
Because he had a fishing interest offshore
in New
England, and the fishing interests were his
secular interests!
Every one of those Presidents actually sold
out, and the
principle of the Constitution of the United
States was never put
into effect, not permanently!
You had some Presidents who would
put it in.
For example, the dominant feature today is,
"who's got the
money?"
I would say, well very simply: bankrupt Wall
Street.
They don't have any right to that money.
Who gave them the right
to set the money?
What was our original Constitution?
That the
productive powers of labor, and the increment
of the productive
powers of labor by human ingenuity, applied,
is our nation.
They
say, "No!
{Money}, world money, the money system of
the world is
what's going to dominate."
So what happens, you get the corruption of
Europe, led by
the British Empire, now says what is important
is money, and what
is important is the value put on money.
Well, who's putting the
international valuation on money?
It's being done by the British
Empire!
So therefore, if we had, under our Constitution,
as defined
accurately in principle by John Quincy Adams
and others, but also
Alexander Hamilton first, that principle is
the principle we have
to restore.
We will not succeed in anything, unless we
get rid
of that problem now.
We shut down Wall Street: They've got
nothing coming to them, they're totally bankrupt,
you have all
these people paying rents in San Francisco,
for shacks; which
were classes as shacks earlier, now they're
considered luxury
apartments: What nonsense is that?
Why is that money given to them?
Why are those prices given
to these things?
Because it's a fraud, it's a Wall Street fraud!
If we were to put Glass-Steagall into place
immediately,
that would not be an adequate measure, but
if we put it into
place, we'd just collapse all these values.
We don't care if we
wipe out the values.
I mean, we're talking about people being
condemned, not to have housing, because the
prices have been
risen, to meet the market standard.
No!
We'll bankrupt those
guys!
Wall Street is bankrupt!
We have to foreclose on it, shut
it down: because, it's a violation of our
Constitution.
People
talk about Constitution principles?
Where's the Constitution?
The Constitution is based on a conception
of the definition and
creation of the United States.
And so that's what we're dealing with here.
And once we
realize that we, as government, are responsible
{to forfeit} the
claims of Wall Street, to forfeit the idea
that foreign money
defines productivity in the United States.
That investment is
based on foreign money's considerations.
No, we say, no: We
have our currency, we have our productive
capability, we have
what we can do, our science, and we understand,
this is based on
the {principle} of humanity, the principle
of the difference
between humanity and Zeus, between humanity
and Roman Empire,
between humanity and British Empire, and every
tyranny like it!
We are going to have to make a clean-up, of
our Presidential
system, to return to the original Presidential
system, for which
the specifications were given quite precisely
by Alexander
Hamilton, in his four measures of the Constitution,
that he
introduced into the Constitution.
And under those conditions, then we say, "well,
we don't owe
anything to the frackers!
They got nothing coming to them!"
And
the application of a principle of law to the
practice, we
foreclose them!
Because the purpose is, what does the nation
do
for its people.
The frackers are destroying the people.
And,
what we have to do is take these considerations
which we've been
discussing here, so far today, those considerations
must be
brought to bear, as the authority of {lawmaking}.
And challenge
the fraudulence -- how do we do that?
Well, they say, "all these
laws are passed," well, many of these laws
are junk and frauds.
Well, how do you deal with that?
We have a Constitution.
We're
a constitutional nation.
Therefore, if there's an injustice is being
done, against
the people of the nation, the lawmakers of
the nation must
enforce justice!
They can not enforce {money}, they can not
enforce {wealth}.
They must enforce the development and security
of the people of the United States.
And what we need to do right now, is use that.
The
campaigns, we have two of them, Texas -- and
what I've insisted
upon, this argument in Texas by this crazy
swindler, this dentist
who pulls everything, including probably teeth,
or everything but
teeth, but he pulls a lot of things, [laughter]
that I don't
want to talk about.
He's a thief.
But this swindle, the money
swindle, what is this SOB worth?
Where'd he get his money from?
Why did he get paid -- how many teeth did
he pull?
Huh?
So the issue here, is that these issues, of
the question of
water, must be resolved to the question of
the money question, on
the basis of {what is the principle of mankind}.
Mankind is not
an animal.
No animal can do what mankind can do.
Mankind is the
only species that can protect Earth from an
asteroid, and we
better get ready to do that!
And therefore, everything else has to be judged
by the same
statement.
The idea of the {money system}, which is a
European
Roman-based kind of system, Roman Empire tradition,
the British
tradition, these are the things which we fought
against to create
what became the United States.
Now we have the curses of these
characters, coming on and imposing this on
us, and all the things
we're discussing, that you've been presenting
so far, here, all
pertains to that.
Where is the will power, to say, what is the
honest principle of law: Let's go back to
Alexander Hamilton, as
the Treasury Secretary of the United States,
and his reforms,
which completed the reforms intended by Franklin
and others.
And
those reforms are the foundation, those reforms
are expressed by
what Monroe supported, in terms of John Quincy
Adams, what
Abraham Lincoln represented, what John F.
Kennedy represented,
and what Franklin Roosevelt represented, and
so forth: These
people represented true law.
And what we've had, in the most part, is contaminated
law.
And we've for the past two Presidencies is
out-law!
And that's
what it is.
The Bush Jr. administration and his fracking
friend,
and the Obama administrations are an abominations!
They're
abominations of evil against the United States
and its people,
and implicitly against the entire human species.
And what we
have to do, is go at this directly, and say
-- they say, well the
laws' on the books now, say, no, we're going
to have to change
those laws, they're not consistent with our
Constitution.
They
are unconstitutional.
Because it's not a formality of law, it's
an {actuality of
principle}!
BEETS: Well, they change the laws anyway.
I mean, the only
reason fracking is able to occur in the United
States, is because
they changed the law, the Clean Air and Water
Act, to make an
exception to allow fracking to occur!
LAROUCHE: Yeah!
BEETS: And so, you take -- it's Wall Street!
You know,
most people in the United States today {defend}
Wall Street!
Not
because they say they love Wall Street, and
they think what Wall
Street's doing is good for them, but they
defend it in the sense
that, "they're too powerful and you'll never
actually win."
But
what they don't see is that they're defending
a system which was
{never} part of our system!
Wall Street was not an outgrowth of
the American System, it was not some brilliant
people that found
a way to play the American System and built
up this Wall Street
empire.
It was {left} here, when most of the British
soldiers
left, Wall Street was left here as a disease
that was left in the
United States and has been maintained by British
agents ever
since, like Aaron Burr -- who killed Hamilton!
LAROUCHE: Yeah.
Well, think about one other thing: How
did this happen?
How did this happen.
It happened, because we
lost the connection of the actual principle
which underlies the
Constitution.
The principle was, to recognize, it comes
from
Nicholas of Cusa, and Brunelleschi.
These were the people who
came out of an {orgy} of evil, and formed
a new system, until the
old Roman type of system came back, by using
international
warfare, to destroy what had happened in the
Renaissance.
But everything that was {good} in the United
States,
everything that was good in any nation in
Europe, was based on
the Golden Renaissance, where new standards
of principle were
established.
And since that time, the imperialist types,
the new
Roman Empire types, the British Empire types,
the Dutch Empire
types, these guys, all created a counter-system,
to restore
imperialism.
And we're living under an imperialist system.
And
the United States, the Constitution of the
United States is based
on what was started with the Massachusetts
Bay Colony.
And this
is the Constitution.
And we simply have to go up, and raise our
voices, and say,
we are not going to be killed, we're not going
to mass-murdered,
and if you say "the laws' on the books now,"
and say, "we have to
do that," we'll say, "screw you, we're going
to overturn the
laws, and we're going to get new laws, laws
that conform to our
Constitution, and we're going to make a fight
about that!"
And
say, "These are constitutional principles,
innate to the human
species, and its rights.
And you can not have a constitutional
provision and call it constitutional, if it's
against the nature
of the human species."
And any laws that get in the way of the
human species should be suppressed.
But we're going to have to make a fight about
it.
But the point is, the fact that people are
not fighting,
that they don't think they want to fight it,
means that if you
don't fight to defend your rights, you lose
them!
And
particularly human rights.
ROSS: Yeah, we can bring the concept of law,
that properly
exists in science, that has to be the same
standard in politics.
LAROUCHE: Exactly!
Except by the year 1900, they....
ROSS: Yeah, it's not in such good shape in
the science
world, is it?
LAROUCHE: Since we don't have scientists,
much any more.
We have very few scientists.
ROSS: The whole idea of what the nature of
reality is, had
a huge shift in 1900: If you compare the -- I
think Bertrand
Russell at earlier parts in his life attacked
Leibniz quite a
bit.
You know, in the usual way Russell writes
things, very
condescendingly, everything bores him, and
he's so intelligent.
And he said that Leibniz had the characteristics
you would
appreciate in a good employee: He showed up
to work on time, he
was tidy, etc.
But, then, later in life, Russell said that
he actually
agreed with Leibniz, specifically on Leibniz's
trying to develop
a universal characteristic.
Now, what Leibniz meant by that,
Leibniz had this idea of a universal characteristic
being
something that would do for thinking what
telescopes had done for
vision.
In other words, it would make thinking much
clearer.
In
other words, Leibniz had an idea of somehow
creating a language
or developing language to make it impossible
to say things that
weren't true, just like there are ways that...
anyway, this was
Leibniz's idea.
But his idea in it, was that, his logic, his
idea of logic,
Leibniz says, is of a metaphysical nature,
that his idea of logic
is the art of invention in general, is discovery.
Now, Russell's
got the {exact opposite} thing.
For Leibniz, the fundamental
building block of everything, was discovery,
was there's always a
greater richness within it, is discontinuity.
If you look at
what Cusa had done, it's through these negations,
that Kant would
have said were impossible, -- or Kant later
said were impossible;
Aristotle said it's impossible.
Like {A} and not-{A}, can't both
be true.
That's a basic of Aristotelian or Russell's
logic.
{A}
and not-{A} are true all the time!
That's what look for!
That's
what it means that you are using a wrong language
to understand
things.
That's where the truth gets out of logic and
gets into
meaning.
So for Cusa, these negations had a very positive
meaning.
It was the definition or the prompting to
discover a new
principle.
And from the outlook of Cusa, and then as
later
defended by Gödel against Russell, the fundamental
building block
of reality, is that when you try to look into
the small, and you
say, what's reality really made out of?
You find yourself
looking at the mind.
Because there's no way that you can ever
create a system of physics or of anything
else, that's done.
And
if you try to do that, then you're always
missing something.
The
most fundamental thing that exists, is always
the fact that
there's more there.
That creativity exists, even if you try to
exclude it.
LAROUCHE: Take what you just said, and let's
put it in a
slightly different posture.
All right, mankind is a creative
species, and we know, for example, the very
fact that we are now
talking about defending Earth against satellites,
means that
mankind has adopted the recognition of a principle,
of which he
was not aware at an earlier time, at least
not in a systematic
way.
And thus, the law of mankind is changed by
mankind.
In
other words, the universal physical principles
are those things
which are known as the practice of mankind!
And which are known
in accord to their importance as opening up
opportunities for
mankind which otherwise would not exist.
So that's the permanent part.
That the creative personality
is one who creates a new state of awareness
of the universe!
It
may be only a small corner of the universe,
but it's a new
establishment.
And therefore, that is truth.
Truth is the
ability of mankind to increase his power to
exist, the efficiency
of its power to exist, to increase the meaning
of its existence,
to get beyond sense-perception.
For example, sense-perception is
the thing that imprisons man the worst.
And mankind confined to -- look at our education
system.
What I lived through, even in the times which
were not as bad as
these now, every class was taught, the teacher
tells you what the
principles are.
If you recognize as you are prescribed, then
the
teacher gives you a good mark.
If you don't agree with the
teacher, you get a bad mark!
Now, take the case of Euclidean
geometry, which is one of the bugaboos which
I keep talking
about, hmm?
If you believe in that system of geometry,
you're an
idiot!
You're a liar and an incompetent!
You're a menace to the
human species.
As was demonstrated in the Renaissance: One
greatest achievements of the Renaissance to
thoroughly destroy
everything to do with this nonsense!
Which is really Zeusian!
It's a Zeusian principle.
And so, the problem is, therefore, our educational
system
stinks.
Why?
Because the school system, whether the teachers
know it or not, are by and large, even in
better times, are by
and large, imposing predetermined universal
principles on the
mind of the student.
When the progress is, to make breakthroughs
to things that the teacher had not yet learned.
And if you can
get students who can educate the teacher,
{now} you have a real
society!
In other words, if you have a student, who
is a
so-called "bright student," who recognizes
that the course that's
being taught, has got a real defect in it.
And the student says,
"yes, but what about this?"
Everybody looks around in shock.
I
had one of these shocking things I got, on
the question of
Euclidean geometry, when I was first confronted
with it.
And
they asked, "what's geometry about?" and I
told them what
geometry was about, what I knew from my experience
in terms of
high steel construction, going from the carbon
kind of
construction to the high steel construction.
And this was considered a great scandal, that
I would utter
this idea!
Attack Euclidean geometry!
Why did the student
believe in Euclidean geometry?
Because the school system, the
education system, taught him: That's what
you get a mark for.
If you go against that, you get a D mark!
And the teachers and
the faculty members go whispering around you,
against you, that
"this guy's a little bit... you know, not
so good.
He doesn't
conform!
He doesn't conform."
And so therefore, the idea of conformity with
previously
taught established opinions, which are still
the trait of people
today: What makes our people drug addicts?
Why do we have so
many drug addicts among young people?
Because they were told,
they're confined, they can not be creative.
They're confined to
predetermined standards.
And when you get into a society that
doesn't work, and the predetermined standards
don't work, either,
what do you get?
You get the mess you've had, since the Bush
administration!
BEETS: I think that's one of the key things,
because people
often ask us, people often recognize the rot
in the education
system, they see their own children coming
home and what they're
not being taught.
And so people recognize that there's a
problem, but here's the issue: The education
system isn't going
to solved in a vacuum as the education system
per se.
That has
to exist within a nation which is taking on
a national mission
for humanity.
The student has to actually see that he exists
within a country which is progressing.
And in which he could
play a leading role in leading the progress
of mankind.
When you have a collapsing society, you start
to get this
complete disintegration...
LAROUCHE: You go right to the whole with my
whole
experience with this business.
And I got into a fairly
high-ranking position scientifically in this
process, by going
through a whole series of things.
But the problem is, is with
those things which I saw clearly had to be
done, were negated.
What does it means?
It means you're destroying your own society!
What you do, therefore, is instead of being
in the United States,
we've become a British colony!
And when British colony standards
of international standards, so-called, global
standards, then
take over, then you destroy our people, because
they're not
allowed to develop!
They have to conform!
You deny them the
right to do this.
You tell them you have to do that, you
legalize drugs, you legalize all kinds of
afflictions.
And the purpose of this whole thing, drugs
-- why is the
Queen, the biggest crook on the planet, why
is she the biggest
whore on the planet?
Her policies!
Her educational policies.
Her drug policies!
She's the biggest drug-pusher on the planet!
She's a criminal!
So we have a criminal standard of
international law.
And all kinds of weird kinds of new laws come
in, new cultural patterns come in -- they're
all destructive.
And only if you stand up on your hind legs,
and two are
required, you bring two, and you stand up
on your hind legs, and
you say, "We don't accept this," and you make
a fuss about it.
You say, "Look, our educational system stinks,"
and the
corruption of our educational system, and
I saw it, for example,
in the postwar period.
People were going back to universities,
or going into universities, after World War
II, forget it!
Forget it!
You would get exceptional people who would
get out,
but they would be diminished in number, in
ratio.
So it's only when we actually go out to attack,
directly,
like in this case of the Texas election and
the California
election: You have to go in against every
kind of standardized
standard of law, on the books now, in order
to save the United
States.
In the case of, say, Texas and California.
You have to
get rid of fracking!
But the fracking is already there!
It's
already legalized, the policies are legalized.
You have to
delegalize them.
So you have to go out and demand, and you
have
to inspire the majority of population to revolt
against these
injustices.
And only when we get to the point -- see,
if we say we're
going to defend ourselves against the attempt
to crush the
campaign in Texas, or by implication, California,
if you try to
conform to what is the accepted standard,
you're going to fail.
And what I've insisted upon, you have to go
beyond that: Do not
allow yourself to be confined to the topics
which the so-called
authorities are willing to discuss.
You bring in the topics
which {have} to be brought in, to upset the
whole argument.
And
therefore, you can not have a Texas program,
for a Texas election
program for Senate, you can't have that unless
you take on the
California question.
And the question which comes in, from the
California connection, and that's the whole
Western States
problem: so, California and Texas are the
two largest states in
the United States as a whole.
They're also the major components
of the entire Western half of the United States,
and beyond.
Therefore, you must have law, which pioneers
to solve that
problem, to break through!
And you can not limit yourself to the agenda
that's on the
table.
You can not take a fixed agenda set.
You've got to go
outside, attack the thing -- always attack
the enemy from the
outside.
Always understand the principle of the flank.
You
never go by the standard rules.
You go outside the standard
rules, to find the right rule to apply, and
you bring that to
bear: That's the only way you succeed.
That's the only way we
can be assured of a possibility of winning
a Texas election, or
later a California election.
Unless we go {outside} the agenda.
In the Congress, they'll always try to stifle
you, by saying
"that's not on the agenda."
You say, "That's why it should be
on the agenda!
Because you dumb bastards weren't smart enough
to
do that!"
And that's what my concern is on this item
on the
table today, that you have to {go outside},
always go outside the
given agenda.
Take the total agenda, look at the total agenda,
and then say, "what is missing?"
What must we do?
How do we
deal with the fact that you've got all these
people living in
shacks, which would have been {called} shacks
in San Francisco
earlier!
They're simply shacks!
But what happens is, they just
raised the price on shacks!
ROSS: It's amazing what a coat of paint will
do.
LAROUCHE: Even without it -- they won't even
bother!
And
our problem is, in our campaigning, in our
own organization, the
tendency is to try to say, "what are the agendas,
what are the
facts?" and if you don't look and see what's
outside the facts,
as defined, and see what the problem is, and
define what the
solution is to the problem, you're not leading
anywhere.
You're
just stirring the mud.
BEETS: And you see that, because of everything
you've just
outlined, a victory in Texas and California
redefines, it's a
breakthrough which overturns all of these
illegal laws, and ways
of operating for the entire nation.
It completely changes the
circumstances.
LAROUCHE: But you have to do the things that
do that
specific result.
And this question of this subject, which is
why
I thought this subject is so important, let's
go at this water
question!
Which is a life or death question for mankind
-- go at
it! we know what the solutions are, we know
what can be done;
we've outlined a good deal of the tactics,
strategy required for
this operation for this, on this table, today.
But that's what
has to be there.
You have to get {outside} the so-called rules
of what's on the agenda.
Don't let yourself get trapped in the
fixed agenda, or prefixed agenda, not what
are the issues.
The
issues should be left in the toilet bowl,
-- and then flushed.
ROSS: There you go!
All right.
Well, with that view on
issues versus principles, in our minds very
firmly, that seems
like a good place to end it for this week.
And we'll see you
next time.
