9/26/2012 Weekly Report Transcript: "How Does the Human Mind Forecast?"
September 27, 2012 • 11:19AM

Watch the video!

JOHN HOEFLE: Hello, welcome to the LaRouche PAC Weekly Report for Sept. 26th, 2012. I'm John Hoefle, and joining me in the studio today, are Liona Fan-Chiang and Ben Deniston of the Basement, and Lyndon LaRouche. Good morning Lyn.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, it's going to be an interesting week, what's left of it, in the sense that we're taking a scientific subject today, which is of relevant importance, but in the meantime, we have everything is shaking up, and is about to be rattled fully, with a general collapse promised for the world as a whole. And that's on our mind, but science must proceed.

BEN DENISTON: Right. The point is, in this context, to give the counterpoint for what the future needs to be, where we can go, what the alternative is. And so, on that note, and continuing the discussions we've been having here for the last weeks, we had a very significant opportunity to participate in an international conference in Ukraine, a few weeks back. The conference was on the subject of international collaboration on defense, on defending the entire planet. And myself and Jason Ross were lucky enough to be able to go, to participate, to present — actually the only representatives from the United States — to present at this conference, which featured a lot of participation from Russia, from Ukraine, from a few other nations. And we were able to go and present the perspective from the United States, and deliver a very clear message that there is a fight inside the United States, to take up these issues of the defense of mankind, and get the United States away from its current orientation under Obama, under this imperial policy, and actually engage in collaboration on the highest levels, of the most powerful nations, of the U.S., Russia, China, etc., collaborating in these aims to actually defend mankind.

And so the conference itself was very significant. I want to give a picture of some of what was discussed, because it gives you a clear sense of where mankind can go. And it ties into a lot of what we've been discussing, what you've been emphasizing, Lyn, in terms of where mankind needs to go, in terms of the development of mind, of the human mind; how the human species needs to change and develop as a species in order to ensure that we can achieve the goals and aims that are required to advance out of the current crisis, and advance to a new state of mankind.

So the conference itself, it's significant, because it comes also in the context of the Strategic Defense of Earth proposal that Russia has proposed, which they put on the table, very clearly, as an explicit alternative to the war policy. They were citing very specifically the U.S./NATO placement of missile systems in Europe, they were citing the building tensions between the United States and Russia, and they said, "Why don't we go on this alternative route? Why don't we go towards the collaboration between the United States and Russia, in developing both missile defense systems, but also systems to defend the entire planet against the threat of asteroids and comets, which as we discussed was a very real threat that needs to be dealt with.

So this was proposed in the fall of 2011. This current conference that we just attended under the name of "Space and the Global Security of Humanity" was in the context of Russia's putting out this offer to the United States. And this conference we attended in Ukraine, focused on the work of a proposal of an organization that goes by the name of IGMASS, which stands for "International Global Monitoring Aerospace System."

So the proposal is, you have a lot of nations in the world, we all face the same threats. earthquakes don't examine what the borders of different countries are, before they strike. An asteroid doesn't say, "is this nation part of the NATO bloc, or not?" before it comes in and hits. Mankind as a whole, we face a certain reality that mankind as a whole faces.

That's the idea underlying this conference, is, why don't nations collaborate in sharing their defense capabilities, their observation capabilities to create a system where nations can collaborate to ensure the highest level of defense possible? Because the United States has certain satellite systems, certain observation systems. Russia has different ones. Other nations have other ones. So, why not create a system where we can actually integrate in real time, all the ground-based, air-based, and satellite-based observation systems, of both the Earth and nearby space, and even extending out to the Sun, to give mankind the greatest capability to defend himself from a whole array of threats.

And the type of threats they include, what they include in the scope of this proposal, is that we would collaborate in monitoring for industrial accidents, but then also looking at things like anomalous solar activity; so, monitoring the Sun, to see what the Sun's doing and look for anomalous activity that could affect us here on Earth. Monitoring for space debris, there's thousands of pieces of junk floating around the planet, that are constantly posing a threat to satellites and the Space Station and different things we have orbiting, so it's a serious concern; monitoring for asteroids and comets; getting early warning and defense capability against asteroids and comets; also monitoring earthquakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis, and even from the standpoint of developing forecasting capabilities, to warn about these threats before they occur. And then also, everything from fires, to landslides, floods, dangerous weather systems. So just take the broadest array of conditions, that all nations have to deal with, and the idea is to get serious collaboration in integrating these different observation systems, to be able to address these threats.

And there's other proposals that have existed for somewhat similar programs: The United Nations has a similar proposal, a couple of agencies are putting out similar proposals for sharing satellite data in different things. But one thing that makes this one very unique, the IGMASS proposal, is this idea of forecasting. And it's one thing to say a disaster happens and we should look and see how we can help respond. You know, that's responding after the fact: It's obviously important. A lot of nations don't have satellites, so they can't do that themselves, so they need help from nations that do have the capabilities to see that, but it's another whole question to say, we want to forecast crises before they occur, and we want to know what's going to happen, when it's going to happen, and how to make sure that we can make sure it has the least damage possible.

And I think the clearest example of that is this example of earthquake forecasting, which we've covered a fair amount, and it's a very interesting topic, and this was one of the central points discussed at this conference. And it's worth noting that under this program, under the IGMASS program, in Russia, for the past year, since about May, I believe, they've supported a trial program, to actually begin real-time forecasting of earthquakes. And it's not perfect, it's not a perfect thing, but they've had some major breakthroughs and some major success, demonstrating that we need to pursue this. And it is possible to develop systems to forecast and give early warnings of major seismic events.

And so, this system that's been operating in the past year is run by something called the Earth Research Monitoring Center. And they picked a region in the Pacific Coast region of Asia, so covering Japan, Sakhalin Island, that whole region; and they picked a relatively small region for the past eight months or so, focussed on observing this region and trying to forecast any major seismic events, any major earthquakes that occurred in this region. And it's interesting to give a sense, because they look at a whole broad range of parameters, and they made three official forecasts in this period, and each one came reasonably within what they said.

So they demonstrated that there is progress being made and there is capability to have reach forecasting systems for earthquakes. But it's interesting, they have a certain system they use, they look at a wide range of parameters: They look at the rotation of the Earth, for shifts and changes in how the Earth rotates; they look at gravitational anomalies; they look at stresses in the Earth's crust. They also look at things like cloud cover, they monitor certain irregularities in the cloud cover. They look at gas emissions, variations in gas being emitted from fault zones, from tectonic regions. They look at the Earth's magnetic field. And they also look at solar activity, they look at the activity of the Sun, they look at the activity of what we call the interplanetary magnetic field, the Sun's magnetic field.

And so they have this array of parameters, they have a theory about how these things interact, and this is the basis of then, a system they're developing to try and do this forecasting. And I have one image here, just worth highlighting, it's fun: One of the forecasts they officially issued for an earthquake in this region in this time period — and all of this is available on our website in a report we just released that discusses this in more detail and gives a lot of the background [http://larouchepac.com/node/23994] — but it's just fun. This is a letter submitted from this center, forecasting an earthquake, and they submitted this letter to I believe both the Russian Academy of Sciences, and maybe also Russia's emergency management ministry, what I believe is their equivalent of FEMA, or something similar to FEMA for Russia. So this is an example of a forecast they made, they submitted it, and something very similar to what they warned would happen, did happen in the following days or weeks after.

So, there's progress being made in this area. The conference was very insightful in showing what we can do in these areas, if we actually got serious collaboration, in actually pursuing these areas of investigation. I think it's worth highlighting, that, in the context of what we've been discussing on these shows, they're monitoring a whole array of things that otherwise, just to our simple biology would be invisible; they're be completely invisible processes. Here you're looking at gas emissions, you wouldn't be able to detect, just by looking at them. You're looking at fluctuations in the magnetic field, which you wouldn't be able to detect, just by your normal biological senses. They're looking at the activity at the activity going on in space, which we need special instruments to detect.

So they're using a whole, pretty impressive array of synthetic apparatuses, that are monitoring all these different kinds of activity: They're monitoring what's going on in the atmosphere, they're monitoring what's going on on the Sun, what's going on in space, what's going on with the Earth's magnetic field, what's going on with the gravitational effects of the Earth. And so they're taking all these — so, if you really think through and image what they're looking at, they're building this complex, layered, structuring of space, which we can only access by developing these types of synthetic instrumentation, that give the human mind access to a completely new view of the universe, that we wouldn't have by operating by our normal biological senses.

And so you get this idea, an illustrated picture of how structured and filled space is, with an entire array of activity, with the Sun interacting with the Earth, the Earth's systems interacting with the atmosphere and magnetic field, and the lithosphere, the Earth's structure, and all these processes that are constantly going on. But it's only when mankind is moving away from his reliance on just basic sense-perceptions, and moving towards a reliance, where the mind is becoming integrated and dependent on utilizing these types of satellite and ground-based monitoring systems, and then moving the interaction of the mind with the universe, away from a biological-mediated interaction, and to an interaction that's mediated by these synthetic systems that are created by the mind and used by the mind, I think it's just a really useful case to illustrate the point that this is what gives mankind new power over the universe. This gives us the ability to begin to look at things like forecasting earthquakes. We can now forecast, and foresee future events, and take actions that we couldn't take otherwise, and really change our relationship to the universe around us, based upon taking actions, which are only possible by this type of process I'm describing here.

And I think it also really goes to the point that, again, Lyn, you've been emphasizing with the significance then of the landing on Mars with Curiosity, is, this is a further demonstration of this type of capability, where it's not just putting some object out there, but it's demonstrating that if mankind is going to continue to exist in the Solar System, and deal with these types of threats, which we've discussed through and through — I mean, these are serious concerns: One large comet, and the human species could be gone, like that! We might have a year's warning time at most at this point, right? But the point is, that the ability of mankind to ensure that that doesn't happen, and to change the way we can act, depends upon this type of process, where the human mind identifies with this type of creation of synthetic systems, that expand the power of the human mind to act, and observe the universe and the Solar System. And the Curiosity is a clear demonstration of where we need to go, absolutely.

And then, so, just to bring it back: This conference was very significant, because it gave a clear perspective, a clear direction, in where we could go, if we could get the type of shift in the United States away from a completely suicidal path, and towards collaboration in developing these capabilities and ensuring and guaranteeing the defense of mankind. So that's kind of what I wanted to open with; I think, Liona, you wanted to add a couple things.

LIONA FAN-CHIANG: I think this is actually the most crucial part of the Strategic Defense of Earth's proposal. Because there has been discussion around for quite a while now, for a couple decades now, sparsely, mostly around defending from asteroids, defending from space debris and so on. But in the context, now, of the whole war situation building up, now you see the increase over just the past weekend and so on, that this is a real strategic flank to say: Look, the way that we're going to stop this whole buildup, this empire train buildup, is the same route that we should have gone in the first place, which is really a question of scientific method; that those two are fully integrated, the advancement of our scientific method, and the aversion of war, of empire-style war.

That actually has been the most important thing to communicate over the past several weeks, especially in our work in Congress and so on, that the point we've been making that this cannot be treated as a hobby, as something "nice to do." Wouldn't it be "nice" to have a space program, to deflect asteroids "at some point"? But that it is a real strategic flank right now, to address the whole cause of why we're in this situation in the first place.

And so, I want to look at the phase that we're in right now, and ability for us to be where we're at, even now. Which is what we're dealing with right now, as far as the capability to do this, which forecasting — earthquake forecasting, weather forecasting, and so on, has been actually a pretty short history: I mean, the first satellites that went up, Sputnik 1, that was in '57. Lyn, you were alive then, and —

DENISTON: You were already forecasting. [laughter]

FAN-CHIANG: People remembered that time, they heard the beeps, you could get it from a ham radio. And so, that was the first satellite. It had no instruments. The only instrument it really had, was a radio transmitter, so it gave us, yes, the first measurements of the ionosphere. Then also, the density of the atmosphere, just from its drag, but very, very basic.

The second thing that went up was Sputnik 2, with a dog. The third thing that went up was our Explorer, and as soon as we put something with scientific instruments, what did we find? We found something that was forecasted, which was not only cosmic rays, cosmic activity, but parts where — actually this is a very interesting story — they took measurements, and they didn't have a tape recorder on hand that was on the satellite, so it would take measurements and then it would black out. And they would take more measurements, and then would black out at times. And they thought it could be, were these points where there was no cosmic activity? Was there points were most likely they were just lapses in communication. Later on, they find out, with Explorer 3 that, actually they were just running into zones that were supersaturating the measurement devices. So it wasn't that they were zero, but that they were areas which too extreme for the measurement devices to actually take up. And this was of course, our first measurement of the inner belt of the radiation belt.

This is the first thing that we put up, and what did we find? Was this incredible structure outside of our — not even outside — it was actually part of the Earth, and incredibly integrated with, as now we know, our weather, the ionosphere, earthquakes, so-called terrestrial activity. And now, what we see is, it's incredible because that was one of our first discoveries, and now we've launched this new radiation belt space probes, and you see how the picture is filling out, and we've launched several thousands, depending on which source you're looking at, but really thousands of satellites. Just a few thousand which are in operation now, but to the point where we've filled out this picture, and now, with the new radiation probes, you're looking at what type of ions we're talking about, what type of subatomic particles you're talking about. What is the intricate interrelation with solar activity? With, you were talking about magnetic or electric activity, how is this integrated to how supposedly terrestrial properties respond and so on?

And so, what we see with our increasing array is not just more eyes out there, more types of eyes out there, and it's not just filling space in the extension standpoint. But you're talking about filling space in the sense of being able to conquer more actual principles, or being able to conquer more interactions.

I mean, this is what's so unique about the multiparameter forecasting method, which is, that you're not really looking at these "separate" things: You're not really looking at gravitational, and then magnetic, and then ionospheric. You're not looking at these things are just several senses. But what you're trying to get a picture of, is the strategic picture, the full integrated, top-down, interaction of all the principles, such that you're just acting in that.

And now you're dealing with how the mind operates, in not just earthquake forecasting, but as you pointed out in the paper that is coming out very soon, on metaphor, it's the same principle that is, not only earthquake forecasting, economic forecasting, but also Classical composition. It's all the same forecasting principle.

LAROUCHE: Yeah. Yes, that's what I'll be finishing up, because the final stages, I'm very careful, because this is a precision statement. It's not a description, it's a precision statement. And the point is, the ability of the human mind, as we know it, to forecast the future, is located only in Classical musical composition. It's the only place we have a clear view of that. This became really clear, first, with the work of Bach and his Preludes and Fugues as a set, the two sets of these things, were the first demonstration.

Now, what happened? This went into music generally in the 18th century, and into the beginning of the 19th century. It was the actual Classical form of music, as opposed to the Romantic. The Romantic form, as by Liszt and so forth, was actually junk, because it introduced factors which were not comprehensible; that is, they had no rationality to them. They were simply effects. And this goes back, essentially, in our knowledge of this area, goes back to Cusa in that century, and that's where you first get this kind of reporting. It existed earlier; there references to it all over the place, but in what we call Classical musical composition, which is very limited; it does not include Franz Liszt, it does not include the junkpile people later.

And most of our young people, today, have absolutely no competence whatsoever, in terms of principles on which their very existence depends! So-called popular music is actually the destruction of the mind, because it causes you to give up, access to means which are readily available to mankind, which have to have a cumulative effect. The human mind can not master this thing all by itself. It's mastered by the history of the evolution of Classical musical composition, and by different kinds of instrumentation and performances.

And so, what's happened is, is with the introduction of the so-called Romantic School, which began to take over after the 1812 period, 1812-1815, we had a decline in the ability of people to think.

Then you have another point, which gets into the pre-World War I period, and you have there, another, very brief period, of fundamental discoveries, which all are based on this idea of these harmonics. Because, what I do, my specialty is forecasting, and forecasting depends upon the ability to understand, for example, for modern people, to understand Bach! If you understand even the Bach Preludes and Fugues, you have an insight into it: Because in Bach, in these compositions in particular, you actually have a statement which is in present, the opening statement. Then you go, and you develop it, and it reverses the relationship, and so you have a different sense of time as a result of this. And it's only in Classical musical composition, which we can get traces of back into earlier centuries, but it's especially the Classical development, of the 18th century and the 19th century. That development is the one source that have a clear understanding, or ability to understand exactly how this thing works, how we can forecast.

FAN-CHIANG: I'd like to read just a quote from the paper itself that you wrote, "J.S. Bach's method, as typified by his work in the two sets of Preludes and Fugues, has the 'hearable implications of a system reflecting the evolutionary emergence of the future."

That's a really good way to state it. And then, later on, you say, in the same light: "Competent insight into crucial developments occurring in the future, depends upon the developed capability of the forecaster to have predetermined the content of the action by means of which foreknowledge of the future changes the present course of events." I think it's a very good example of this Classical way of thinking, and an ability to actually be able to see the future in the now.

LAROUCHE: Mankind has obviously always had this capability, for all intents and purposes. But with the brutish cultures, when people are brutalized, like the peasantries generally are brutalized, or the oligarchical system brutalizes the population; they become stupefied. They really can't think any more. They're not competent, they're confused, they have no sense of certainty, of something they know experimentally, they can test and prove.

And this power lives essentially, in various forms, but the most common one is Classical musical composition. And the significance of Bach, particularly the Preludes and Fugues, the two sets, is one of the best exercises! And when you hear somebody performing some of these Bach elements, you can hear the stupidity in the performance! Because they don't have — in this process, what you do, you actually have a reversal, a sense of a reversal of the process, and that's what the development process is. So you make a statement, then you make a counter-statement, and then you resolve it, and you find that there are lawful relations which come up in composition as a result of this process.

And this process, which has been developed — we know it best since about the, well, say the 16th century — what we know of this has been the one way in which we can forecast the future. You're not forecasting the future as an event, though you can sometimes come to that; but in Classical musical composition, especially since Bach and up through Furtwängler and so forth, you have a very clear understanding of how the future is determined, as knowledgeable. It's not in the sense that you could like to have it knowledgeable, but it's the way it is knowledgeable. And you can hear, in a great performer of music, as I've had the privilege of knowing some, in knowing their work, and knowing how they work, that the great performers of Classical musical composition, have an instinctive capability which is based on the whole idea of development, the principle of development in Classical musical composition. There is a sense of the future.

And this has also a moral effect: Is the person who has this kind of experience, and is aware of it, has a moral capability which other people do not have. And what's happened now, is we had, since the introduction of people like Franz Liszt and so forth, and wildmen of that type, having orgasms rather than ideas, that we've lost that. And we have a population today, which is much more stupid in this century now, this new century, than it was in the previous century!

And you look at things like the development of physical science in the 1890s and immediately following, before the 1920s, and you find there's a degeneration in the capability of scientific thinking among the population. What we got from Einstein, for example — Einstein's just an example of these several people, that had great creative minds coming out of the developments of the 19th century in particular, which did this. And you had earlier, in the musical development, you have it the same way.

So, it's our lack of opening of our minds to these kinds of things, and instead of doing as most fools do, and they are fools! Instead of assuming that Classical musical composition is some kind of "old thing," or something of that nature, this is actually a capability on which the progress of mankind, coming out of the dark ages, brought forth, this kind of understanding. The elements of course had existed as far as ancient Greece: You get ancient Greek culture has elements of this thing, which are very clearly defined, as such elements.

You have in Classical poetry, truly Classical poetry, going way back, you get the same thing. And you get the orgiastic cultures which are degenerate. And the contest has always been this, the struggle between this, man understanding himself in the universe, man shaping, willfully shaping the way that society functions, and that's what we're lost. We have lost that. We have a stupid generation now, stupid population, and our problem is, we've got to rescue people from this kind of stupidity.

FAN-CHIANG: Yeah, we've been seeing this over and over again, this type of moral degeneration, which is closely related to de-moralization. But it's reflected in, right now, in the inability to act on this whole war threat. Because people are trying to move, based on what's previously occurred. Now, thermonuclear war has never occurred before, so statistically that means it's never going to happen. But — [laughs] if it ever happened, we wouldn't be here!

And so, but that really — it's rampant in the way that people think, it's this deductive way of thinking, rather than what you're laying out, which is this Classical way of thinking.

LAROUCHE: Yeah, which is in Bach in particular: That you make an opening statement — that is not your composition, that's the setup! And now you go into the ironical development of this process. Now, that you go from the conclusion of the composition, now comes back and becomes the leading element of the composition, so that the order of space and time is different. And this is what I've depended upon in all my forecasting, it depends upon exactly that principle. It's the same principle that is true of Bach's Preludes and Fugues in particular. It's what's true of all Classical music of any competence whatsoever. It always has this thing: You go through the experience, and when you reach the end, you realize you have to go back to the beginning to understand what the meaning of the beginning was.

And that's the process. And all my forecasting is based on this, not just music! But it's based on this, and that does work. You can forecast the future! Man can and must forecast the future! If mankind does not develop the power to forecast the future, mankind is doomed. As the case now, like all these idiots who are supporting Obama, saying, "it's bad, but it's not that bad!" In other words, here we are, you have the former President of the United States, Bill Clinton, has attached himself with great regret, to Obama! My view is that Clinton actually despises and hates Obama! But he adapts to things that way, and accepts, to some degree, at least by his actions, accepts what is happening.

We are now headed for the extermination of the human species, because what we're on the threshold of now, is a thermonuclear war! All the elements are there, the triggers are all there! And if someone gets to a certain point and sets off the Middle East, like this Arab operation, Saudi Arabia, if they set that thing into motion, this will go — if Obama is President, this will go to thermonuclear war! It can happen this year — still this year, or the beginning of next year. That's where we are. And it's more likely to begin this year, than next year, at this time.

So therefore, we're in peril, precisely because we are stupid. And our stupidity consists in the fact that we don't understand that it is possible to forecast the future! Not to predict an event, but to forecast the condition in the future, and to estimate the timeframe in which the development will occur. It doesn't mean it can't be changed, but it's precisely the point you can change it, if you can forecast it! If you can forecast what's going to happen, you can intervene to change it! And that's been the characteristic of all great discoveries, of principle, in science and so forth, and in culture otherwise, as in music.

You're able to see the future, not as an event, plopping down before you, but you see a change in the tension, the organization of society. And that's how all my forecasting has been done, and I've been unique in this. I mean, all the major forecasting efforts, since I started this thing in the middle of the 1950s. That it's always been that way, and it always worked.

The problem is, most people, especially leading political circles, are incapable of competent forecasting of the future, first of all, because they don't know what forecasting is. They think that it's statistical predicting! They think that a statistical pattern, and it never works that way.

But actual, competent forecasting, is one instrument which we depend upon, and we're going to find, as we go into space, especially this Mars development, as we take on the question of dealing with these asteroids, floating around out there, we're going to have to exactly use that approach of forecasting to deal with it! How're we going to deal with all these, you know — the majority of all these asteroids out there, between Mars area and Earth area, all this stuff is deadly, and we don't know much about it! And you're not going to be able to predict it, mechanically! You're going to have to find a characteristic of the space, which gives you an ability to forecast where this collaboration goes!

DENISTON: Right. As you said, the forecasting is a question of actually giving mankind an ability to act; it's about action, creating action. The successful forecast is not predicting some event and letting that event occur. A successful forecast is actually creating the capability of mankind to create a new state, to create a new change...

LAROUCHE: It's to forecast a phase-space change. That's what you can do.

DENISTON: Mm-hmm. Which is again, what you're warning about now, is we're heading to a crisis point, with the way people have been accustomed to operate in a certain conditioning, certain framework of reference, can't continue to exist!


DENISTON: You look at the hyperinflationary collapse, the complete disintegration of the economic system, the acceleration of that collapse and the strategic tension, and the way people have conditioned themselves to operate, is in an environment that's about to completely transform about them.

LAROUCHE: Take the case of Obama right now: Obama's complaining that he's has a trillion dollars in debt, deficit in the operation. And I could wipe that debt out immediately! All he has to do, is let me do what I would do! And what would that be? Glass-Steagall. The introduction of Glass-Steagall and a new collection of credit system, combined, would eliminate entirely, that $1 trillion problem! All right, because the debt lies in times in the imaginary income! The not existing, but imaginary income: The Wall Street income! Wall Street would actually go bankrupt, but that would not be an injury to the people of the United States. That would be the greatest blessing you could give them right now! Because we don't owe that!

DENISTON: Right. I mean, that was your campaign in 2008, before the bailout was launched!

LAROUCHE: Yeah, that's what I was trying to fight against, to prevent it from happening. That's what I had an argument with Bill Clinton on this one! First of all, he made the foolish error, of actually cancelling Glass-Steagall! He was the guy who signed onto it, when he was President! Then, in 2008, after my quarrels with him on this thing, in that period, he defended himself on going for this hyperinflation. And I said, "You must not do that!" And he said, "Well! I'm going to do it, anyway." And look where we are!

Now, he was not guilty for all the mess that happened, but his role in this situation, indicates where he fell, in the game he was playing: He was wrong, in the first place; he was wrong in cancelling Glass-Steagall, and signing onto it, whatever the pressure was, whatever the excuse was: It was wrong. It was flat wrong, and it led to all this catastrophe. It all began with that measure.

DENISTON: Right. And he knew it was wrong, because, he's the one that came out in the late '90s, calling for a new financial architecture.

LAROUCHE: Ah, that's what he got clobbered for that.

DENISTON: And then he got clobbered for that. So, he demonstrated a recognition of what you'd been saying, what the real rot in the whole system is.

LAROUCHE: He's a very bright fellow, but —

DENISTON: That's when they came down with the whole Monica thing, and all this garbage, the whole impeachment garbage.

LAROUCHE: Well, this came out, I was involved in that with him, also in August of that year. But it came because of the crazy Russian game that they were playing with their finances there, and led to this collapse of the financial system of Russia. That was August [1998]. He got onto it, and recognized that I was right, and said so. This was August, going into September. Then he got hit with the Lewinsky thing, and everything went wild.

So, but the point was, he's a bright guy, he's more intelligent than you would think he is, because there's some things he doesn't talk about — which he should talk about, which he should explore. But the problem right now, is that he's playing with this thing, because he is not a man of action, of the type of action I would play.

But when he was in that situation, back in August in that year, there, he recognized I was right and the other guys were wrong. At that point, he supported my policy. But then, he got clobbered, for supporting my policy! Because he made the foolish mistake of the Lewinsky thing, and they used the Lewinsky thing to destroy him, or virtually destroy him. He shouldn't have done it. He shouldn't have done, period! But that's what he did. And therefore, he was crippled, and he never really got back, again. He was weakened, he was trying to survive, politically.

And he's not really a fighter, in a real sense. He's an intelligent guy; he knows a lot more than he will admit, ever admit. He's smarter than he would ever admit, because he won't show some kinds of intelligence, because he doesn't think it's advantageous to him to show that.

But that's the point: The ability to forecast, is something I can attest to. Mankind has that ability. And if you look at the history of composition of Classical musical composition, you can see exactly, why it is in Classical musical composition, especially 18th century/19th century, that that is the model of creativity. And that's why it's important! If people don't have this quality of Classical musical composition accessible to them, their mind's not going to work capably, for forecasting!

DENISTON: We see this very clearly in the work of Kepler.

LAROUCHE: Absolutely.

DENISTON: We're going to be doing some more work, and getting some of this revived, and presenting it, and Kepler had a very, very clear expression of this integration of music, science, all from the standpoint of metaphor, the standpoint of mind.

LAROUCHE: Exactly, the principle of metaphor. And it was — the crucial discovery he made in defining metaphor, that's what really defined modern science.

DENISTON: Mm-hmm, he had his "vicarious hypothesis" in the New Astronomy, completely broke mankind free from hundreds of years, locked in this crazy sense-perceptual system.

LAROUCHE: And that came essentially from Cusa, Nicholas of Cusa.

DENISTON: Right, and he's explicit.

LAROUCHE: Yeah, well, Cusa's knowledge was then, he had the experimental approach, as a brilliant solution, by Kepler. And so, actually, when Kepler's discovery, which was actually a continuation of Cusa's work, was the foundation of all competent, modern physical science. Because once you say, "we do not know, we can not accept sense-perception as evidence of truth. It's a phenomenon, but it's not truthful." And therefore, you have to understand what preconditions are required. And if you don't understand the principle of metaphor, and by the way, the problem today is, even in the dictionaries and so forth, the definition of metaphor that's circulated, especially since the course of the 20th century and beyond, is stupid! The way the word "metaphor" is used, is actually stupid, scientifically stupid. And it's destructively so!

And it's only through this understanding, which you experience explicitly, with Bach, and Bach on through Furtwängler, as really important leaders in this thing, that aspect of music, actually contains the germ, of what all competent physical science must be based on! Otherwise, you can't forecast, not competently.

FAN-CHIANG: I think it's what you mentioned earlier, about being able to live in a new phase-space: In Classical music, you're able to define a totally new phase-space, in which you then act in. You know, there's this pretty simple example, of, play a real Classical piece to almost the end... and stop it. People — right?

LAROUCHE: "Where is it?!"

FAN-CHIANG: "Wait! Where's the end?" So, why is it that you know, 1) that it hasn't ended; and then 2) what it should be, even if you've never heard it before? And that's one of the simple examples.

But it also just reminds me, of the way that Congress and people who make policy think, because right now, when we present this whole solution, — "look, we have the solution, this is what you have to do," they say, "this is impossible!" Or, "how is this going to work?" Right, this comes out almost every person asks this, or "how much is this going to cost?" But it's always in the context of the previous phase-space, the one that's driving towards destruction. So you're living in this, and asking how is something that is a reflection of the new phase-space going to play out in the old one!

Whereas, what we're trying to communicate, is, no, we already live in the one that we're trying to create, which is the new phase-space. We live in that, and that's the policy we're bringing you now.

LAROUCHE: And the way, if you want to have a scientist, you have to study Bach, and understand him. But not what's often done to him, they just play it out as if it were mechanical. The tension of the anticipation, which won't let you go, and that is the requirement of performing Bach, and all of his great followers, is the tension that won't let you go, until you have solved the problem! And that's what forecasting is! That's what competent economic forecasting is, it's the same thing.

But, you have people who don't have a Classical outlook, in art, in composition. If they have popular music rather than Classical, they're going to be stupid! Because they won't have the ability to see the future. They're just running their head up against a blank wall; it produces good headaches, but not much else.

That's where the fun is.

DENISTON: Right. And this shift you're talking about at the beginning of the 20th century, you look at Einstein's references to Kepler, you look at Einstein's connections to Classical music, you know, it's very clear that that was the tail end of a very clear continuity in thought, that existed, that we've really lost for the last century, in terms of this full conception of what creativity is, as such, you know, some connection to that. You have a lot of people today, that can perform tasks, within a framework that's defined. And so they can do a lot of innovation, but there's been a dramatic loss of that fundamental connection to what you're discussing here. You know, what a lot of what we discussed with the intervention of Bertrand Russell, and these reductionists in really cutting that off. And it's that core current of the connection to the unification of music and science, under this conception of metaphor, and what the natural state of the human mind is.

LAROUCHE: Bertrand Russell did more damage to science, than any other single living person.

DENISTON: Hmm: And therefore to mankind as a whole.

LAROUCHE: To mankind — that was his intention! He said, if we could kill off the population with a deadly disease once in every generation, people could have as much sex as they wanted freely without making the world too crowded with people! That was him, explicitly! He was the most evil man, of modern history.

DENISTON: Right. And people don't get that that is empire. That's what empire — that gets to the heart of empire.

LAROUCHE: That's the extreme expression of oligarchism, and that's exactly what we're faced with now.

DENISTON: Right, mm-hmm! And that goes to this question of music, you talk about popular music. What was the Congress for Cultural Freedom? Right?

LAROUCHE: Yep. 1950!

DENISTON: Right. Explicitly pushing an attack on this Classical music, explicitly pushing this crazy popular music, short songs, two or three minute "hit songs," and all this stuff. But from the standpoint of intentionally reducing the capability of the population to think.

LAROUCHE: Yeah, and you see it. You see what the struggles have been, from that standpoint: Now, you know who the enemy is. That's the enemy.

FAN-CHIANG: Let's hope we see the death-rattle of that.

LAROUCHE: Yeah, but quickly, and gone!

FAN-CHIANG: Let's hope that this is the death rattle here.

LAROUCHE: It is! It is the death rattle! Obama is the death rattle of the United States. That's it in fact. That's what he is.

DENISTON: It's the natural expression of that type of system, playing itself out, against reality.

LAROUCHE: Right. This is the Emperor Nero. And you know, when I defined that, in 2009, that he was the Emperor Nero: He is an exact copy of the Emperor Nero! And he has acted, as I have forecast, as a copy of the Emperor Nero, that's exactly what he's doing! And he fails, he'll kill himself, as the Emperor Nero did, because he could not live in a universe in which he was defeated. He would kill himself. First he sodomized his mother, and then killed her; that's the way he went out — he was not really a very good man.

And that's what Obama's like! And that's what Bill Clinton and others have to realize: There is no future with Obama. There is no future United States if Obama remains President. Even if he remains in the Presidency in the weeks ahead, the danger is there. And that's the situation we're in.

And you have people, who are innocently, in a sense, stupidly — their own stupidity which they adopt as a philosophy, blocks them from seeing reality! And therefore, they don't see a danger! They say, "Well, that's speculative." Yet, we know it's going to happen: It's like an earthquake, you can know it's going to happen. And if you know it's going to happen, maybe you can do something about it. But if you don't actually know what's going to happen, how can you do anything? How can you save yourself? And that's our problem.

So that's why forecasting is necessary. We have to develop people, and educate young people to be able to understand what forecasting is. And the best way, one of the best ways proven, is you have, since the Cusa's period, and up through the Classical musical composition. Which actually, you see in the case of Furtwängler. Furtwängler does represent an authentic expression of this, it's precise.

I've gone through this thing, again and again, ever since I first really understood Furtwängler. I was coming out of Burma, going back to India. And it was that time, I was in military camp in India, before I went to other destinations in World War II. And since that time, I recognized it; it was on the basis of a Tchaikovsky recording, it was done by EMI, the British system, and they did a Tchaikovsky symphony. And this thing, this shocked me, with delight! I was shocked with absolute delight! When that thing ended, I was immensely satisfied.

And since that time, I recognized what Furtwängler was. You know, I just followed this thing — "Oh this guy, this guy! This guy, this is great! This is what I want!" And that's the kind of performance of great works I want.

And that's the way it's like in this, now. We try to seek out great works, great intellectual works, which have an insight into the future, so you're not stumbling around in the dark. You actually have an intimation through the misty mists of the future, of what the future is. And then, you know what you have to do. You may worry a lot, but you know what you have to do.

And Furtwängler is, really, an excellent example of this, in some of his compositions, in particular — excellent, unique. And, much persecuted.

But that's where we are. That's what the world needs, is to realize what real Classical culture was, in Europe, and to spread it into the future. Then people will be able to defend themselves against stupidity. That's what makes me happy.

DENISTON: I think that's pretty clear. We should be prepared for a very intense week, I think.

LAROUCHE: Yes! I'll get this thing done in the next day or two. But the finishing touches are very important to me. So I shall not make any mistakes.

HOEFLE: All right, well, that will wrap it up for this week. Thanks for watching, and we'll see you next week.