Weekly Report · Jan 15, 2014
January 16, 2014 • 10:53AM

The audio of this week's edition of the Weekly Report featuring Mr. LaRouche, Liona Fan-Chiang, and Jason Ross; runs about an hour


Transcript:

LIONA FAN-CHIANG: Hi, today is January 15th, Wednesday of 2014, and you're joining us for the New Paradigm show which we have weekly. We're going to continue on our theme of creating a Promethean culture, a Promethean society that can destroy an inherently doomed Zeus oligarchical principle.

We have with us today, Jason Ross and Lyndon LaRouche, and Jason Ross has some fun things for us today.

JASON ROSS: Well, I wanted to start with a quote. Maybe viewers can guess when this might be from and who might have said it:

"What most frequently meets our view (and occasions complaint), is our teeming population: our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly supply us from its natural elements; our wants grow more and more keen, and our complaints more bitter in all mouths, whilst Nature fails in affording us her usual sustenance. In very deed, pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race...."

Now, who might have said that? It might have been Prince Philip, it might have been Al Gore. It was actually a resident of Carthage around, 150 A.D., when the world population was 200 million.

FAN-CHIANG: Wow!

ROSS: Yeah. The concept that world's overpopulated isn't a new one. This is something that anyone who dislikes people will believe at any point in time. This is a quote from Atra-Hasis epic, a piece of Babylonian something or another, from the 19th century B.C. And this concerns the god of this time, named Enlil.

"The country was as noisy as a bellowing bull

The god grew restless at their racket,

Enlil had to listen to their noise,

He addressed the great gods:

'The noise of mankind has become too much,

I am losing sleep over their racket.

Give the order that the surrupu-disease shall break out!'"

Okay, so 4,000 years ago. Here's another one, a bit more recent, which sounds almost identical: This is from Paul Ehrlich, author of the The Population Bomb. He said:

"I have understood the population explosion intellectually for a long time. I have to understand it emotionally one stinking hot night in Delhi a few years ago. My wife and daughter and I were returning to our hotel in an ancient tax. The seats were hopping with fleas. The functional gear was third." (Poor Paul Ehrlich!) "As we crawled through the city, we entered a crowded slum area. The temperature was well over 100, and the air was a haze of dust and smoke. The streets seemed alive with people. People eating, people washing, people sleeping. People visiting, arguing, and screaming. People thrusting their hands through the taxi window, begging. People defecating and urinating. People clinging to buses. People herding animals. People, people, people, people. As we moved slowly through the mob, hand horns squawking, the dust, the noise, heat and cooking fires gave the scene a hellish aspect. Would we ever get to our hotel?"

Anyway, I wonder if Paul Ehrlich would say this if he were on the streets of Manhattan, would he say, "People shopping, people trading stocks. Oh-oh!"

Look what these have in come is pretty simple: A dislike for people. Now, this hatred for people was also characteristic of the Olympian god Zeus. I'm going to quote from Aeschylus on this. This is from Aeschylus' play Prometheus Bound.

Prometheus says to the Chorus:

"As soon as he [Zeus] had seated himself upon his father's throne" -- Prometheus had helped Zeus overthrow Kronos, and take over as the head god -- "he immediately assigned to the deities their several privileges and apportioned to them their proper powers. But of wretched mortals he took no notice, desiring to bring the whole race to an end and create a new one in its place. Against this purpose none dared make stand, except me" Prometheus" "-- I only had the courage; I saved mortals so that they did not descend, blasted utterly, to the house of Hades. This is why I am bent by such grievous tortures, painful to suffer, piteous to behold. I who gave mortals first place in my pity, I am deemed unworthy to win this pity for myself."

Chorus asks: "Did you perhaps transgress somewhat even beyond this offense?

Prometheus says: Yes, I caused mortals to cease foreseeing their doom

Chorus: Of what sort was the cure that you found for this affliction?

Prometheus: I caused unseen hopes to dwell within their breasts.

Chorus: A great benefit was this you gave to mortals.

Prometheus: In addition, I gave them fire.

Chorus: What! Do creatures of a day now have flame-eyes fire?

Prometheus: Yes, and from it they shall learn many arts."

We're going to discuss the beginning of some of these arts today, but I want to let Prometheus speak to us a little bit more about how he saw what he did.

Prometheus: Still, listen to the miseries that beset mankind -- how they were witless before and I made them have sense and endowed them with reason. I will not speak to upbraid mankind but to set forth the friendly purpose that inspired this blessing.

First of all, though they had eyes to see, they saw to no avail; they had ears, but they did not understand; but, just as shapes in dreams, throughout their length of days, without purpose they wrought all things in confusion. They had neither knowledge of houses built of bricks and turned to face the sun nor yet of work in wood; but dwelt beneath the ground like swarming ants, in sunless caves. They had no sign either of winter or of flowery spring or of fruitful summer, on which they could depend but managed everything without judgment, until I taught them to discern the risings of the stars and their settings, which are difficult to distinguish" -- the seasons, the calendar, right?

Yes, and numbers, too, chiefest of sciences, I invented for them, and the combining of letters, creative mother of the Muses' arts, with which to hold all things in memory. I, too, first brought brute beasts beneath the yoke to be subject to the collar and the pack-saddle, so that they might bear in the man's stead their heaviest burdens; and to the chariot I harnessed horses and made them obedient to the rein, to be an image of wealth and luxury. It was I and no one else who invented the mariner's flaxen-winged car" (the sailing ship) "that roams the sea. Wretched that I am -- such are the arts I devised for mankind, yet have myself no cunning means to rid me of my present suffering."

For those unaware: Prometheus has been chained to a rock by Zeus, where a bird comes every day and eats, devours his innards.

Chorus responds: "You have suffered sorrow and humiliation. You have lost your wits and gone astray; and, like an unskilled doctor, fallen ill, you lose heart and cannot discover which remedies to cure your own disease."

The last bit from Prometheus here: "Hear the rest and you shall wonder the more at the arts and resources I devised. This first and foremost: if ever man fell ill, there was no defense -- not healing food, no ointment, nor any drink -- but for lack of medicine they wasted away, until I showed them how to mix soothing remedies with which they now ward off their disorders.... Now as to the benefits to men that lay concealed beneath the Earth -- bronze, iron, silver, and gold -- who would claim to have discovered them before me? No one, I know full well, unless he likes to babble idly. Hear the sum of the whole matter in the compass of one brief word -- every art possessed by man comes from Prometheus."

Now, as we've been discussing, and as Mr. LaRouche has been making clear in his work and his papers recently, this is not idle speculation. This story of Prometheus as told by Aeschylus, by Sophocles, by Goethe, others, this is not "entertainment," and it's not mythical. This represents a true principle of the human creative spirits, and of the inherent conflict, as you pointed out Liona, with the oligarchical approach, with the approach of Zeus.

So, what I'd like to do today, to bring some real specificity to this, is go through the last arts that Prometheus mentioned, going beneath the Earth, and using bronze, iron, creating new materials. So let me shift over to -- here we are.

So, let's get into metallurgy, metallurgy being the most -- really the advent of metallurgy coincides with basically the beginnings of history, when we first began to record and actually write down the doings of humanity. This material is copper. Now, you know, here's a piece of copper, you know it's used in wiring, it's the most common wire for house wiring. Copper is a metal that you can find in its native state. This has not been produced by an industrial process, this is something you can actually find in the ground. A few metals exist in their native state, gold, silver, copper; and from meteorites, even iron. So old cultures had the opportunity to start working with metals, even before they ever extracted them from ores, simply by finding them.

However, today, we don't get our copper from mining copper in the ground; we get most of our copper from mining malachite, and azurite, that's the picture on the screen. Here's a piece of malachite, it's a green rock. These [displaying both copper and malachite] don't look similar at all. The properties aren't the same. This [malachite] is brittle. If you bang it against something it'll break; if you bang a copper with a hammer it'll bend, right? Copper's ductile, a rock is not ductile. This looks like a -- well, it's a copper color. This is green. I mean, you can keep going -- there's very little that these have in common, if you look at them.

Yet, and how this happened, we can only speculate, since there weren't records, but by taking malachite and heating it in an environment with carbon, so, this is charcoal, so by burning malachite in a charcoal fire for enough time, you would create copper. Now, making charcoal is itself quite an endeavor: this is a very involved process overall. This is an old picture, this a hundred years ago: This is the creation of charcoal, in around 1900, somewhere in Germany, I believe. So you pile up a bunch of wood together, 'cause wood's good, but it doesn't burn very hot, and it's full of a lot of impurities, but you can transform wood into a better fuel. You take your wood, pile it up, cover it with dirt, burn it underneath the dirt, so, that huge pile would probably take three days to burn in this very slow, and controlled way; you're not letting a lot of air in. When you're done, the wood has been transformed into charcoal. So that's how the charcoal that we have today is produced -- not necessarily in a small pile like this. Industrially, it's made on a larger scale, but charcoal is wood that's been transformed, and it's basically pure carbon.

So we take our malachite, we take our green rock, we burn it in layers in a furnace: some wood to get it started, then charcoal, malachite, some more charcoal on top, let it burn for enough time; the heat doesn't melt the copper out of the malachite. We know today from modern chemistry that the carbon in the charcoal is combining with the oxygen in this ore, and pulling out the oxygen, leaving behind the pure copper. So this is almost like a large rock of copper rust! We're familiar with iron rust: Iron when it rusts, the rust is not very much like a metal, it's brittle, it's flaky, it's almost like a red rock, because that is, indeed, what it looks like if you have a lot of it put together. So we're de-rusting the copper in the furnace.

So by that technique we can produce our own copper. So think of this amazing power! To transform, fundamentally, materials -- to turn a rock into a metal, which can then be formed into all sorts of shapes. Copper tools could be made then: Knives, other tools, that were, in some ways excelled the stone tools that were used before that, the chip-flint tools. Then the real breakthrough occurred around 3500 B.C. with the addition of -- this is a particularly good-looking specimen of it -- this is cassiterite, this is another ore. This does look somewhat metallic: This becomes tin. So, by combining cassiterite, the tin formed from cassiterite, with the copper from malachite, when the two are put together we produce a new material -- we produce bronze.

Bronze, brass, you probably heard both of these terms, they come from the same root, which is why they've got such similar named: Bronze is copper with tin; brass is copper with zinc. So at this time, the Bronze Age, the copper mixed with tin -- this is now superior -- you would never want to use stone for any purpose now, not for tools, anyway. This gets sharper than a stone tool, it's much harder than a stone tool, bronze is better than copper, it's stronger, you can make it sharper, it gets harder, it melts easier.

So again, think of this transformation: from a green rock to a metal, and then, I know this is pretty rusted, so it's hard to see what it looks like!--but copper and tin have been combined to make another metal, and if you look at it, the color of bronze doesn't even look like it's midway between copper and tin; it has a more golden appearance, it loses the red, it's not a mixture of the red and the silvery appearance of tin. So something's happening: We're producing, we're creating new materials.

Copper existed on Earth, before human beings extracted it from ores. Bronze didn't: This is something that we made. So the opportunity to have bronze, what can do with this? I know this is not the most peaceful application, a sword, but because bronze melts at a reasonable temperature, you can melt it and then pour it into molds. This is called casting: You create a cast bronze object. You could create from working in wax, you then make a bronze statue, for example. A bronze sculpture is not made by taking a big piece of bronze and then beating away at it -- some are, but this one isn't. This was made by casting. The same techniques developed thousands of years ago for casting, are still used today! If you want to make a bronze figure or a silver figure, this is an example of it, it's called the "lost wax process," and this existed thousands of years ago: You make a wax image of whatever you'd like to produce in metal -- say a little dog -- and then you coat the wax in plaster, you bake it to set the plaster, the wax all melts out, which then leaves a mold into which you can pour your bronze, or in this case, silver. And you can see the little attachments added to the dog's legs; those would have been added in wax, and then you could pour the, in this case, silver, in through one hole, and it would fill up the dog, and then you'd break that off and file it down; and this technique for producing specific figures out of this material, this is thousands of years old.

So overall, what this development had meant -- maybe I'm belaboring the point here! -- but, from one kind of material we created something totally different, and then made materials that had never before existed, to suit our purposes.

The next really big breakthrough occurred in part because of the unavailability of tin. Tin was not found in the Mediterranean; you could find copper, but tin, people had to go to the British Isles, or even, some say the New World, to seek out tin, from trading routes.

With the collapse of this around 1200 B.C., it was not possible to make bronze any more. The material that took its place, again, you wouldn't know from looking at it -- here's a rock, this looks like a rock! It doesn't look like a metal, it doesn't look particularly useful, except for banging something or as a weight, this is hematite. It gets used today -- this is a punch of hematite being poured onto a barge, to be shipped for processing. Here's another ore, this is taconite. It just looks like just a red rock. These rocks, hematite and taconite are transformed into iron.

Iron is much more difficult to produce than bronze, than working with cooper. But, iron is so much more plentiful! So iron is a material that you can only take advantage of, really with higher technologies, with higher forms of power. And with a better division of labor, to be able to allow the specialized working that's required. To give a sense of the extra steps involved, after you take the iron ore and you burn it in a charcoal fire, and you pull out the oxygen from the iron ore, you're left with almost pure iron. People knew that if you made the fire too hot blowing air in with a bellows, for example, the iron would melt. And once iron was melted, it became very brittle.

We use melted iron today, or iron made by melting is called "pig iron" and it can be poured into a mold to make cast iron object, like a cast iron pan. Cast iron, it's hard, but it's very brittle. If you smack a cast iron pan with a hammer you could break it; you could break cast iron, just by changing its temperature too rapidly, it can break. So, it's hard, but you can't do anything as a blacksmith with it. So not that useful.

Instead, you would produce wrought iron. So this is the production of wrought iron: The iron's not heated enough to melt it, it still contains impurities, and this is an amazing process to watch on YouTube, you can actually beat the impurities out of the iron. The iron hasn't melted, but much of what becomes the slag does. And by repeatedly hammering it, and smashing it and reheating it again, you get the crud basically to come out, and after you've worked it enough, you have "wrought" -- it's an old word for "worked" -- iron, basically pure iron.

So wrought iron's very helpful, but it's not as strong as bronze. What really makes iron possible to supplant bronze, such that we don't really make that much use of bronze today, compared to steel (oh, I guess I gave it away), is making steel. So this is an old, Damascus steel knife. The production of steel, this goes back -- basically, the way you'd make steel, is iron with abou8t 1% carbon in it. So you would take your wrought iron, have it all nice and hot, and you'd basically beat it into charcoal: You'd hammer it against charcoal, and some of the carbon (not that people knew this at the time) would get into the steel, it would carburize the iron and produce steel.

The reason why this has got all these different bands in it, is you would have to do this repeatedly. Only the surface could become carburized and become steel. So you'd have to beat it into the charcoal, fold it over, rework it, expose a new layer, which was still pure wrought iron; beat that into the charcoal. So you might end up doing this refolding process 15 or 20 times --

FAN-CHIANG: You can count it in here, how many times they did it.

ROSS: Yes! Right. You could see, this is a very, very intense process, it takes a lot of effort! When you do it, though, this is way superior to bronze. Steel is a superior material. It takes a lot of work, but, there is a lot of iron, so at least the ore is plentiful.

Here's another picture of this Damascus steel, as it was called. The real breakthrough came in being able to produce steel on a massive scale. And that came from, instead of adding carbon to wrought iron and never letting the iron melt all the way, the big breakthrough came in using blast furnaces. This is a not very inspiring picture of a blast furnace! It's one that's been shut down. But in a blast furnace, truckloads will come to the top of this furnace and pour in coke -- we'll get into what coke is -- oh, I left out that picture.

Okay, this is a lot of detail: Charcoal is made from wood. If you're making a lot of steel, you have to cut down a lot of trees. So steel production would move around Europe based on wherever there were still forests that hadn't been cut down -- I mean a lot of trees! Like you'd destroy a whole county worth of trees to make steel.

Coal wasn't useful for making steel, because coal had so many impurities in it, it would ruin the metal. So, just as wood was burned, slowly, to produce charcoal, coal is burned slowly to produce coke. Coke isn't better than charcoal; it's harder which is kind of nice, but it's not really a very different fuel. Charcoal is purer, but coke is much cheaper. It's much easier to mine coal and turn it into coke, than it is to basically destroy all of the forests to produce charcoal, which is very limited.

So, coke, iron ore, and then limestone is a cleaning agent: They're poured into the top of this furnace, the iron melts, molten iron comes out of the bottom -- here's a couple pictures of the process; this is incredibly energy intensive. Huge amounts of heat, huge amounts of fuel are involved in this. You see a worker, working with the molten metal -- very intense process.

The molten metal can then be, for example, make the Eifel Tower out of steel. The molten metal, the pig iron, then has too much carbon in it; when it melts, it sucks in a lot of carbon from the charcoal. You've got to get that carbon back out. This is a Bessemer converter. The Bessemer steel process, from the mid-19th century, worked by blowing air into the melted pig iron. So, earlier we used coke or charcoal to remove the oxygen; now we're blowing in air, to remove the excess carbon.

So there's a lot of steps in this process, but by combining them all, we're able to produce the steel that we use to today. The more modern technology, include, this is an electric arc furnace: so if you've got scrap steel and you want to recycle it, one way to heat it, is just to pass electricity through it and then it melts. Its own resistance generates heat, and then the steel melts. So here you can see these three huge electrodes that are put into a pile of melted iron and also scrap steel, to melt it, to reform it. Here's one of these furnaces from the World War II era. It was able to recycle this steel.

And then, the other really big breakthrough beyond producing steel in this way, which, really the mass production of steel is from around 1860 or so that it could finally begin. The other aspect is producing new alloys. So, to take an example, -- oops, that's sideways. That's the top of the Chrysler Building. A lot of buildings, when this material was developed, a lot of people liked to use it for their buildings for appearance purposes. You also see this in the kitchen of a diner, for example, stainless steel. What makes it stainless is that, this is steel that has another element, chromium, added to it, at least 10% chromium. If that steel gets dinged or scratched, the chromium in it, reacts with the oxygen in the air to form a protective coating of chromium oxide, so it won't rust. That's why stainless steel, if you take care of it, will last basically forever.

Another process done with steel is coating it in zinc, known as galvanizing. I'll bet you've all seen metal like this, on a light pole or electric power line pole -- you've seen this around. This is galvanized steel. The zinc on the surface forms this spangled appearance; the zinc won't corrode, the steel won't rust; but if you scratch through that thin layer, it will.

So galvanization, stainless steel, there's a lot of different kinds of alloys and specialty steels that we make today for very specific applications, like using under water without rusting, using in acidic environments without getting damaged, etc. So in all of this, let's get back to the conception point, about how metallurgy works, this whole process, think about what we've done with the use of fire and the use of its power: As Prometheus said, that fire will give us many arts. This has been one of them. The creation of new materials, begins with metallurgy, really, and these new materials serve very specific and unique purposes now, including going beyond -- metals are now used for applications beyond the ones that would be applied to wood, for example. If you're building a building you want wood that's strong, maybe you want wood that can bend a little bit. For applications for metal, same kinds of things, is it hard, is it strong, how dense is it?

But with the advent of electricity, and the economy in which we use electricity in which we've got motors, we've got lights, we transmit power, metals take on a new role. That's why, the primary use for copper is in wiring, motors, generators. We're now using a different characteristic of the metal that didn't really matter before: does it conduct electricity? That didn't matter 200 years ago. Now, it does.

Or, just to go a little bit beyond even metals, metalloid: There's a famous element called silicon. This is small creatures that make their shells out of silicon. Silicon is sort of a metal, it sort of isn't: By changing its composition, by adding in other elements to it, silicon's able to have very special electrical properties, hence the name of "Silicon Valley" out in California, in computing.

Using those properties -- this is a model of the first transistor, developed in 1947 -- it made it possible -- a lot of what computers are used for today is for entertainment and wasting your time. However, they are an amazing advancement, in terms of automating production processes, automated machine tools, factory automation. The transistor, this new use of silicon, creating materials that have specific electrical properties is where this developed, where this is headed. And now, we even know about, as Liona discussed last week, nuclear properties, as the Chinese are heading towards doing using helium-3 from the Moon as a fuel source, so, in all of this, it's astonishing to look at the power we have as a species! It's really astonishing, the way that we transform everything around us.

It makes you wonder, it makes me wonder, why are there 1.5 billion people on this planet without reliable access to electricity? Why are there 750 million people without water? Why are there 2.5 billion people without proper sanitation? Or over 1 billion that don't have any access not even to an outhouse? Half of the disease and suffering in the developing world, comes from diseases that could easily be remedied by proper sanitation, diarrheal type diseases. Why do these exists on these levels? Why do almost a billion people on this planet not have enough food?

Given the clear nature of our species to improve our mastery over nature, to be able to do pretty much anything we want, it's really astonishing what we've been able to do -- why do we have these conditions? Is there some law of nature that a physicist hasn't exactly expressed yet, about why we can't have irrigation, fertilizer, modern harvesting in poor counties? Is there some law of nature that prevents the use of nuclear power?

It's intentional. The poverty in the world that we see, it really should disgust us! Because, it's not accidental, it's not "just the way things are"; it's not true that some countries are just poor. If we had not had, an oligarchical system, holding mankind back over all of these years, where could we be today? This power should really inspire us.

So, today, the real goal of an individual life, when you think about, like the people who created the Bronze Age, those individuals who created these new things, we don't know their names, we have no idea who they were, we don't even know that well what country, what area they were from. But, they did something that had an unquestionably immortal effect: What they did, changed fundamentally, almost like a kind of evolution, a super-genetic evolution, the human species. Most people have not had the opportunity to do that. Most people think of those numbers I just related: Somebody who is barely able to make ends meet, somebody under grinding poverty does not have the opportunity, generally to develop these powers of their mind.

So the goal of any individual, Mr. LaRouche's goal, personally, as he's made quite clear, is the development of a condition where every human individual has the opportunity to live a life that makes an immortal contribution. Our goal: To bring everyone to be able to be a Promethean human being. This can not exist along with oligarchy, so ask everyone to consider that: Will the future know that we existed? Go several generations in advance; we've gone thousands of years back, a thousand years from now, is what you're doing going to matter in a thousands years? What kinds of things that you could be doing certainly would? Are we acting to make that opportunity to live that way a reality for people, physically and mentally.

So that's, I think the most noble goal for anybody. This is the aspiration for anybody to have today, to bring that future about.

FAN-CHIANG: The other thing that you point out is, it's not just that he gave us the art of fire, or that he gave us the arts, but, from what you just described, through the whole arc, it is the art to increase the capability to create fire, or to increase fire, even, the quality of fire.

So it's not just then a certain particular instance that is being, or instance of development of a certain society, that underlies how you measure it, but rather this process, this continual process of progress, that then defines the Promethean society. If that makes any sense. These things haven't disappeared, these technologies and the development so far, it's still here, but, would we call it today, a Promethean society? Well, not really.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: There an underlying principle which has to be added to this: All of these things which you just discussed, and much more, all involve a principle which is the principle of the human species, which has no actual comparability to anything of this sort fact in itself. No species, other than mankind has ever been able to perform, the universal principle of creativity. And that's the difference of the human species from all other species: creativity, of the type we've been exemplifying in this report and so forth, depends upon one thing, the existence of the human species. And that is what the significance is, of everything. Everything we've just discussed on the table here, right now.

The underlying foundation is the uniqueness of the human species, contrary to any other known living species; no other living species can do, what mankind alone can do. That is the essence, in effect, of the principle of human creativity. For example, you have a reflection of this: What we call this, in effect, is energy flux density, that's what we call it today, when we're thinking clearly, is a principle of energy flux density. This is not a principle of "nature," as people normally think of nature. This is an issue of the difference between the human mind, and all other kinds of minds! We don't know any form of life that can do this, except the qualities specifically unique t the human mind.

What you are discussing and representing in terms of this description of the process, you were discussing about human creativity as being intrinsically creativity. And that if mankind tries to act, to the contrary, the Zeusian principle demands, mankind willingly progresses, but generally tends to go backwards! And the destruction of the human population, to reduce its numbers, is the repeated characteristic of the Zeusian principle.

That's what the Roman Empire was deliberately! They deliberately built up a population by conquest. Then, as they reached a certain peak, they themselves destroyed that population! The arena events, were part of a population-reduction process, which the Queen of England would probably would admire!

FAN-CHIANG: And they destroy their own ability to continue.

LAROUCHE: That's right. So therefore, what they do is they restrict the population by a kind of cannibalism, either eating people, as one way of doing this, or the other is simply, getting them to kill themselves, or be killed. Therefore, you have a restriction, which is what the Queen of England represents today: The Queen of England, in terms of her intention, is not a human being. She has had a policy of reducing the population from approximately 7 billion people to less than 1! She's said that, that is her policy! She is not merely the Queen of England, she's the head of an empire. This empire, which has taken over the Wall Street and similar kinds of things, those phenomena are oligarchical principles. The destruction of the human population, in order to control it by reducing its numbers, and degrading its means of production.

So within the human framework, what the Queen is, biologically, an animal, not a human being. That is, her behavior is not that of a human being, but of an animal; a peculiar kind of species of animal which has transformed itself into an animal form of existence.

FAN-CHIANG: She definitely sees other people that way.

LAROUCHE: Yeah! But now, you have this interesting thing: The concept of energy flux density. If you apply what we've been discussing at the table here, right now, there's a little German slogan which came up, it's an old slogan, came up in the year 1960: "Die Hauptsache ist der Effect!" And that, if you understand that, in its humorous expression, you have implicitly paid attention, to the fundamental distinction of criminals, in human guise, and really normally human beings!

FAN-CHIANG: Oh, interesting!

LAROUCHE: Because, what happens is, you're describing in a very good illustrative approach, you're describing a process of evolution of mankind itself. Because mankind is not only making discoveries, like discovering some gimmick, not like making a new mechanical construction with old materials. This, mankind himself creates these transformations! And only mankind can do that. Things like that may occur by apparently accident relative to the human species. They do occur, have occurred in nature. But the deliberate creation of these steps of progress can only occur through the initiative of the human mind. And the development of the human mind by the effect of making those advances. So it's a duel relationship: It is not making acting on something, or something like that. It is mankind acting on itself!

ROSS: Right.

LAROUCHE: Now, the problem we have, there's a potential problem, that we do not understand and define mankind in those terms. We do not define man as creative. We do not see that energy flux density is a product, the increase of energy flux density is a product, of human progress. The human progress from its most simple phase, is fundamentally different than any animal life ever lived! Mankind is not an animal! Because mankind does not fit, in any degree, the distinguishing characteristics of any form of animal life. The voluntary capability of creation exists only for mankind.

There is creation in nature, but it's not voluntary, it's evolutionary, a natural evolutionary process of any form of life. But essentially, in human life, you have a distinction which does not exist in life in general, and that is the noetic principle "Die Hauptsache ist Der Effekt."

FAN-CHIANG: The Prometheus story really is, it's very instructive, because, when you say going backwards, that what I think of now, instead of just going back to a state that you were, the real going backwards is going back to what human beings, so-called, were, before Prometheus. And now, Prometheus then, is really, he has this saying -- I don't have the exact quote -- but he said, "they had eyes, but they could not see; they heard, but they understood not." And you see that what he's describing is basically, they're beasts.

And then Prometheus gave humans, humanity.

LAROUCHE: It's the meaning of the term "bestial." You don't have bestials among animals, they already are beasts.

FAN-CHIANG: They're already beasts! [laughter]

LAROUCHE: And so, also some politicians are also bestial. Some Presidents have been bestial. They've been not bestial as a term of description; they have been bestial intrinsically.

And this is the issue, the real issue of policy, which is posed by such examples as the Green policy. The Green policy is a degenerate type of human being, which has degenerated, and continues in impulse to degenerate, into some form of curiously bestial characteristics!

FAN-CHIANG: It definitely glorifies that.

LAROUCHE: Gore is a beast!

FAN-CHIANG: Not "Gore" but he does that, too!

LAROUCHE: But Gore acts like a beast in terms of his behavior in society. That was the big problem that Clinton had in his two Administrations: He had Gore all over him! And Gore had a father who was also Gorish.

FAN-CHIANG: Right, we made a whole video about that.

LAROUCHE: But the point is, the significance is, scientific and political. And this pertains to the relationship which the China program now, is. Because we opened the case with helium-3, in relatively great quantity, in the Moon, and with very marginal volumes available on Earth itself, because of the magnetic field of Earth, which in living forms gives protection by the magnetic field for life on Earth. When we go to the Moon, where the potential for life had died, in the shrinking and decay of the Sun to its present, lower level, when it had its maximum activity. We now see this thing as a pattern more clearly.

So therefore, we are not going to get a great amount of helium-3, which is an essential element to be freely available for purposes of developing thermonuclear fusion. Without helium-3 we can not achieve the kind of progress in thermonuclear fusion which we require on Earth! Only in marginal degree. If we want a mass production of this product, we must colonize the Moon: don't bring the people to live, as a population on the Moon, but established by our colonizing the Moon, establish the equipment, the electromechanical and related process, the chemical processes, by which we, from Earth have gained control on the Moon, of a means of utilizing the thermonuclear fusion which we need, but we can only secure satisfactorily, by helium-3.

FAN-CHIANG: Well, ironically helium-3, the helium-3 that we have comes from nuclear processes. It comes from nuclear bombs, and nuclear reactions and so on. But then, the helium-3 that we would be mining from the Moon, would actually be coming from the nuclear processes of the Sun.

LAROUCHE: That's right. And that's a massive radiation of the Sun, in all kinds of directions, but fluctuating magnitudes. And therefore, what we have to do, since we can not put these two things together, without an Earth-based plus a coordinated Moon-based process. If we do that, we bring a new golden age to the human species. We also, by doing that, we change man, from being an Earthling to an active power, penetrating all the immediate sections of the Solar System.

This revolution, which is what we must go to immediately, now to start the process, like China started the process by putting the focus on the utilization and realization of the application of helium-3. And by the utilization of that process, we can do for mankind on Earth, what mankind on Earth can not do, without this application of a source from the Moon. And therefore, we cease to be Earthlings, as I said. We are no longer destined to be Earthlings. We are now a power within the Solar System, even though we can't live on most of the territory of volumes, within that part of the Solar System. We have to take Mars, not as a target for an isolated development, you know where you travel from Earth to Mars as a joy-trip or something; what you're now going to do, is you're going to plant on Mars an apparatus which we know can work on Mars, build up that system of apparatus as we can on Mars, by inspiration, but we're not going to live there. We may have visits there, which may be essential to get this project going.

But generally, what we will do, we will develop systems by the very development of thermonuclear fusion, by the aid of helium-3. And applying that to that process, we will then move in the new direction. We will now be able to build, with the kind of what we can produce on Earth now, we will now build a source of material, and material processes, by which we can reach out, from Earth, to plant on Mars, and on satellites--we can plant on these things things that mankind, by means of the increased power of mankind, can control asteroids. We can apply the power to maneuver where the asteroids go, what their course will be, so it doesn't hit Earth, and doesn't hit the Moon. Except for the micro-asteroids.

Then, under that condition, we can now build a sufficient power in order to begin to take over control over asteroids, and even the planet Mars, by building the kind of apparatus and means of transportation for this apparatus, and communication, which makes mankind not an Earthling, but the master of a certain region of the Solar System. That is what we must reach, because the very idea of the defense of Earth depends on such an approach. And the need for the defense of Earth demands that we do that. And now, since we're opened this thing on thermonuclear fusion, in respect to the Moon, through the helium-3 enhancement, now we have opened the gates so that, within one generation, we could have realized not only thermonuclear fusion on Earth, as an enhanced form, but also, with the aid of helium-3, we can augment that quality of thermonuclear fusion, from the Moon, applying that to the Earth.

That then brings us immediately within the range of one generation, to beginning to take over the inner part of the Solar System, within our immediate vicinity. Mankind then is no longer an Earthling. Mankind dwells on Earth, from which it develops and controls the development of a larger part of the Solar System.

And when you consider the other question, the history of the Sun, as far as we know it so far--and I've discussed this before--the history of the Sun is declining. The usual customary conventional perspective is that the Sun will go dead, and then subsequently explode, and destroy the entire Solar System, within about 2 billion years, well that's just an estimate.

But whatever the actual reality of that estimate is, or what a quantitative measurement of that process is, we now understand that with this process, by this use of helium-3, which in itself is a product of the Solar generation, we can use that product as a raw material, not as a finished product, but a raw material. We must develop the raw material which that opens up to us. Because now we have enough access to power, through the aid of the application of helium-3, to produce an enhanced form of process, of energy-flux-density, which we cannot really conveniently do except under the most extraordinary conditions, which is what we have in some of the reaction we have, the big apparatus we have or have planned.

These are gigantic enterprises, of great complexity and difficulty, and trying to drive what is capable in this degree of thermonuclear fusion, which we had back when I was working in the early 1970s. That's not enough. We have to have a much more refined... Now we're trying to do this by a really super-construction, exceptional case of these kinds of contructions. If we enhance these abilities, such that they become much more effective and available to us, on Earth, we have now been able to tap the process of the Sun, which is a projectively dying phenomenon, in order to introduce a factor within the Solar System, a factor of action, mankind's action, which will tend, in the long term, if there were a continuation of that process, that principle of process--we can save the Solar System.

FAN-CHIANG: Or bring it with us.

LAROUCHE: And we have to look at, what we have to do, this raises the question of the fact that the Solar System is an appendage of the galaxy. And we have to apply that thinking, not as a formula, but as a perspective.

We know that this galactic-Solar relationship, where the Solar System is contained within the power of the galaxy, where the conditions of the Solar System is the Solar System's movement along a track which is determined and controlled within the galaxy. We know the galaxy; we don't know enough about it, to be able to even touch this stuff. We simply know that phenomenon is there.

So, we take these phenomena, which we have a very imperfect understanding of, on a larger scale, we focus on Earth in the Solar System, and the problems on Earth within that part of the Solar System. We use that to build up a capability which leads in the direction on the long term which mankind must have, for the survival of mankind itself.

ROSS: I think, from what you said before about, it's not just the use of technologies; it really is being human, it's a self-conception. You can train an animal to use some technology that already exists.

LAROUCHE: The principle is the noetic principle. In other words, the noetic principle, as opposed to a fixed standard of chemistry. Instead of having a fixed chemistry, and saying there's an evolution of a fixed chemistry, why not have a revolutionary redefinition of what chemistry is, which has already happened, and that is what, that principle of creativity means. The human principle.

And that is what the human principle means. It does not mean a fixed basis to which you are limited. It means that the noetic powers of the human mind are capable of creating a new higher level of noetic basis. And that's what we call the development of the discoveries of the improvement of natural possibilities of mankind, to go and make leaps, not merely quantitative leaps, but qualitative leaps.

And the ability to utilize the solar radiation of helium-3, as planted on the Moon, which is not difficult for us, as China has demonstrated freshly--it's not difficult to do. Therefore, we simply have to push it, and realize its benefit. That leads us toward qualitative increments in man's power on Earth, by the ability to use that power, taken originally from the Sun as a raw material, passed as a raw material of the Sun's production, applied to the Moon as a source of raw potentiality. And if you can continue that, you get that cycle going, where your enhancement of life on Earth, and its productivity, from the standpoint of the utilization of this other raw material, which you have a limited source of, which is on the Moon, radiating from the Sun.

FAN-CHIANG: Which then feeds back.

LAROUCHE: Right. So now, mankind has always used that principle, whether it knew it or understood it or not. It understood that this is the way man functions. We take the product of a technology, which we may call a principle, an advancement of principle of different qualities of materials, evolution--which you were describing in effect today. So now we come to a higher order of the same conception. And we are led to that.

But once we understand what China's destination is, in this last project, if that is carried through fully, we have enough information to know that this is feasible. We have to engineer--which China is implicitly undertaking to do, which other nations could do, but ain't. And therefore, this means we are opening the gate to a new sense of general principle, of man's actual life within the Solar System. And that breakthrough, the ability to recapture the Moon, as a resource of this type for mankind, leads to other developments, which are also, similarly, qualitative.

Once we break loose of being Earthlings, as such, limited entirely to the category of Earthlings, caged on Earth, in effect, at that point, once we've made that breakthrough, and realize that mankind on Earth can, from Earth, control the process which gives us something we could never do from Earth alone.

That has to be our perspective. We cannot simply fuss around and try to starve our way through, to the survival of mankind in the present circumstances. This China operation has actually actively presented the teasing ideas, of feasibility, which give the whole of mankind a potential power, which mankind has never had before. A quality of power which mankind has never had in his repertoire ever before. And that's the true expression of what we know of the Promethean principle now.

With all these questions about, what about the galactic relationship of the existence of the Solar System, within the framework of the galaxy? Obviously, the galactic situation is a factor which determines what the Solar System is going to be. And until we understand the mysteries that are involved in the relationship, this kind of relationship of what we already know is a radical transformation occurring in the galactic system, and the galactic system is the thing that contains the Solar System, and we know enough about that to know that's a fact--to say that the ebb and flow of the Sun within the Solar System, requires us to go beyond this idea of the Moon/helium-3 application for Earth, to go beyond that to raise other, higher-order questions: Can mankind operate as a form of life within a very tiny part, relatively, of the Solar System as a whole, a Solar System which is apparently dying, or presumed to be dying?

But then we have to say, we really don't know conclusively, because we don't know what the effect, the galactic effect, of the Solar System's movement which is within the galaxy. And we know the galaxy is undergoing recently, in known time, in modern times, the galaxy is undergoing some very spectacular exhibits. And therefore, we have to get to the point where we're capable of considering what those things are.

And the only chance of the continued existence of the human system, is that. We don't know what the solutions are, but we should know what the problems are. And then, within that context, take some of the shorter-term solutions which are presented to us in principle now, and proceed from that with the understanding, we don't know crap about what the effect is of the confinement of the Solar System within the galaxy.

That is the kind of outlook which mankind must always have, and should have always had.

ROSS: That's natural.

LAROUCHE: Yes. It's the natural relationship of mankind to the universe, is what's involved. And that is transmitted by the relationship of the Solar System to the galaxy, and beyond.

FAN-CHIANG: Well, I think you've posed a sufficient challenge for today. We'll have some more followup on helium-3, on physical chemistry, coming up in the next few weeks, as well. And until then, join us.