New Paradigm for Mankind Weekly Report April 16th, Transcript
April 17, 2014 • 10:14AM

Watch the video presentation here, or listen to the audio here.

JASON ROSS: Hello, today is April 16th, 2014, and this is this week's edition of the New Paradigm for Humanity show. I'm Jason Ross, and I'll be hosting today. I'm joined in the studio by as always, by Lyndon LaRouche, and by Creighton "Cody" Jones.

We are addressing you today at a time of incredibly intensifying conflict. To give just a couple of examples of this, the situation around the push for thermonuclear war, being pushed by the British Empire and exploding currently in the Russia-Ukraine region is reaching new heights. Just in the past few days, unarmed Russian jets buzzed, about a dozen times, the USS Donald Cook, which is an American ship in the Black Sea, equipped with Aegis antimissile systems; a French intelligence ship is there, a French destroyer's just been sent there. A French rescue ship Alize is in the Black Sea. Russia just recently, a couple of days ago, test launched an ICBM, and Russians has been doing flights along the Turkish border. Crimea is having its water supply from Ukraine shut off, almost completely. It's a very dangerous time.

Now, Mr. LaRouche has begun a paper (maybe you've finished it by now, but I've seen only the beginning), called "World War III, Now?" And in you point out, — well, you began it, you said, "If the British Empress and her stooge, Barack Obama, had had their way, we would already have been at World War II." And then you said, on the notion of empire, that, you said that "The notion that the empires of the past, including the present implicitly dominant British Empire under such as the imperial Queen Elizabeth, were each the product of a new imperial system, has been a popular delusion of ignorant historians. All imperial systems on this planet have been reincarnations of a degenerate form of human society, as typified by the model of an imperial Zeus."

On this conflict between the Promethean outlook of man and the Zeusian one, which is the only way to understand the growing conflict, the push toward thermonuclear war, this isn't one where time is moving forwards from current events, where current events are somehow leading towards war, the intent is war. That's the only way to understand how things are developing.

And as you also wrote in this paper, "since the Renaissance, all progress of the human condition since that time has been exceptional and temporary. The dominant trend has been toward recurring degeneration, as that is typified by the relatively global phenomena, such as the Roman and presently British Empires." Also in the discussion last night, you had said that, since 1900, since this attack on science by Hilbert and Russell, the Zeusian time has become dominant, in science, culturally more generally, and you had led a major fight against this through the Fusion Energy Foundation, which is going to get into the topic that Cody's going to be addressing: Where the Fusion Energy Foundation, which you led, took on fusion as the newest form of fire, the most important breakthrough that would most directly take on the Zeusian anti-growth outlook, and provide mankind with the biggest step forward that was possible to make eliminate. Fusion has happened yet, and it's not because of the science. It's because it's been deliberately underfunded and attacked politically.

So, as far as what we're going to talk about today, you've introduced two triads for understanding science. We've spoken some recently about Brunelleschi, Cusa, and Kepler as the first of those triads, and the second of Planck, Einstein, and Vernadsky, which cody will be addressing today.

CREIGHTON JONES: Yes, so we will get into, as you said, the second triad which really does represent that current which was fighting against the backwards flow of the Zeusian tradition as typified by Russell and followers of Russell. And it's far and few between as you've said. You made the comparison, in your writings of the first triad, where you had Brunelleschi, Cusa, and Kepler. Brunelleschi introduced a certain idea of action in the very small; then you had Cusa introduced an idea of the very large, what is the boundary condition of the process in the very large; which was then resolved through the discovery of Kepler. Kepler really introduced a resolution of how to understand those two types of ideas.

In the second triad, we have the work of Planck, Einstein, and Vernadsky, who, as you've said, has really left an unresolved question. They opened up a certain question of universals, but it's not something which is resolved, at least to the level that the first triad is. So what I'd like to do, is get into, really, what are the kernel of the discoveries of these various giants of science, and really put the question on the table.

So we'll start with max Planck. And in 1900, he made his discovery of what became known as Planck's constant, which is the quantum of action, and so let's just take a look at how that discovery came about, what spurred that discovery. So, around the time of 1900, one of the principal investigations was of light, and the phenomenon of how to understand the relationship between temperature and intensity: It was known at that time, that for any temperature, regardless of the material, that it would emit a very specific color. So whether it was wood, or steel, or plastic, given a particular temperature at which that material was heated, it was going to radiate the same light spectrum. And so, at this time, one of the emerging technologies was the lightbulb, and so the question on the table was: We can know, given a certain amount of wattage for the light, given the material that we're using for the filament, and the resistance, we can know what kind of temperature we can achieve. But the question became, given that temperature, what's the spectrum of light that's going to be emitted? So, the real practical question was what's best kind of filament to use, what's the best wattage to use? How do we produce a lightbulb, which is going to most efficiently emit that spectrum of light which is the visible spectrum of light? That's what's going to be most useful to us. And so companies like Siemens and others had set up laboratories, specifically to investigate this question.

Now, some of the people who had first introduced hypotheses about how that might work, were people like Wien, and then you what became known as the Rayleigh-Jeans formula, which was fairly adequate for practical purposes, in terms of saying, given a certain temperature, we know what the spectrum curve is going to look like in terms of what's the emitted radiation. And it was enough for them to practically come up with what was going to be the best filament for a lightbulb or what have you.

But there was still no universal involved. The principle behind the relationship between temperature and light was still an unresolved question. And Planck is the one who took that up and ultimately resolved it. So, here, just to give people a sense of what the issue is: Here you've got what's known as black-body radiation curves, for different temperatures. You see, you've got 3,000 degrees Kelvin, 4,000 degrees Kelvin, 5,000 degrees Kelvin. And no matter what material you were using, if it were brought to that temperature, which would be the curve of distribution of the radiated light. And you can see in the middle there, that's our visible spectrum.

So the question was, what's responsible for producing that curve? Can you come up with an idea which will allow to forecast what the shape of the curve is going to be, given a temperature? And so you see, you've got wavelengths going across, going from smaller wavelengths, to larger wavelengths; and then you've got the radiance, the intensity of light for a given temperature.

This is where Planck came in. He said, nothing in terms of the current theory is adequate. You have, what was produced was something known as the "ultraviolet catastrophe," this what came about as a result of the Rayleigh-Jeans hypothesis, which is that: OK, they got a certain formula that incorporated the temperature and other things, and the wavelengths involved, and so thy would predict fairly adequately at what temperature a certain element was going to emit, in the spectrum they were looking for, largely the visible spectrum. But their formula also said that you would produce an unlivable amount of ultraviolet radiation, if in fact, the world operated according to the formula they had put forward. Obviously, that wasn't happening: Physical reality showed us that that was not happening, or else, you would turn on a lightbulb and we'd all eventually wither away and die and all get cancer overnight or something. So clearly, their theory was not true.

And so Planck had to come in and say, what's really behind this, what's the actual principle that's behind the way the intensity of light is distributed for a given temperature? And it was something that was not deducible: ultimately what he had to come to, and he had to carry out a thought-experiment, where he had to think about, if you had a black-body radiator, something which was both a perfect absorber and emitter of the full spectrum of light, what would have to be the condition, such that it produced what we actually measure empirically as the intensity of light?

And so, he had to introduce a new idea, what was known as "the quantum," Planck's constant. He has to introduce the idea that, in fact, light the energy is not emitted as a continuous process, but it's emitted as discrete packets. The energy exhibits a discreteness to it. And this is where what became known as "Planck's constant," his action constant. Which makes sense if you think about it, that action in the universe is not something which is simply continuous, it has a discrete quality to it: That you either have a competed action or you don't, there's no half-action: Just like there's no half-thought, you either have an idea or you don't. It's a one. And so, he had to introduce something which was absolutely revolutionary at the time. Even Planck himself questioned his own discovery, because it was so outside the norm of what was thought or accepted about the nature of light, the nature of energy. And so, he introduced, not through deduction, but he had to actually introduce, from seemingly outside of all deducible understanding, a new idea.

ROSS: And then, that contrasted with — you mentioned the Rayleigh-Jean's law, which had this ultraviolet catastrophe, and then Wien, who had made a curve which matched things better, but he had no physical hypothesis for why it would work. That would be like the example of using data but not having any idea.

JONES: Yeah, right, it was purely a mathematical deduction, but there was no principle behind it, there was no action behind it. So, Planck came in and introduced a principle of action. And as I said, he himself even had questions about the validity of his own hypothesis, because it was so revolutionary. And it really became up to Einstein, to ultimately demonstrate the proof that in fact, this was physically what was occurring. Whenever Einstein resolved the problem of the photoelectric effect, that, in fact, the only way you could explain what was occurring with the photoelectric effect, was if, in fact, light had a discrete quality to it, if radiated energy had a discrete quality to it.

But the real point, at least for our purposes here, is that the idea of Planck's, was, (a) it was completely outside the domain of deduction; it required bringing in a new hypothesis. Which in a sense gets also at this question of time. You know, where, in time, did that idea exists? It wasn't something that you could build up to, but it seems to be something which he had to reach, in a sense, into the future for, to bring into the present, to resolve this very real problem of how to understand the relationship between temperature, and radiation, and intensity.

So Planck introduced this idea, the quantum of action. So here, you're talking about the very small: How does the universe... what's the action in the very small? Now, that was 1900. 1905, Einstein comes along and introduces a new fundamental idea about the nature of physical space-time in the large, with his discovery of relativity, again, this was not a discovery which he came to as a function of deduction, or though working out some sort of mathematical formula. If you listen to what he himself says, about how he came to the idea, that space and time are not independent, do not have independent existence. There is no absolute space, there is no absolute time, as people like Newton argued for. But, in fact, you have physical space-time, which is relative, which changes, relative to the action of the observer.

So, he says himself — a particular place to look at for this is an interview he did with Wertheimer, who's one of the founders of Gestalt psychology, who was trying to understand, what is this process of creative thinking, and he wrote a book called Productive Thinking. And in there he goes through a discussion he had with Einstein about his own discovery of relativity. And so Einstein says: It all started at a very young age, by posing a question. He said, what would the universe look like, if you were riding on a beam of light? Now, that's not a practical question. That's not something you can get at through a deduction. But it was a fundamental question that he posed to himself, and then, set out to try to resolve: Well, what would the universe look like, if you were in fact, riding on a beam of light. Then, he said, if you had to measure that light, would you just as — for example, if you're chasing after a car, the person running after the car and the person standing on the side of the road looking at the car, are going to measure two different speeds of that car: There's going to be a relative difference between say, what I measure, running after the car, if I'm running at 10 miles an hour, and the car is moving at 60, the relative speed of that car to me is 50 miles an hour. But you, Jason, standing on the side of the road, are going to measure that car as moving 60 mph. So we're both going to have very different ideas, if someone says, what's the speed of the car, we give two very different answers to that.

And Einstein wondered, well, would that be the same for light? If you were chasing after a beam of light, would two different observers give two different ideas about the speed of light? So, it posed the question in his mind. But he said, for him, because light represents a certain extreme, it represents a certain boundary in the universe, it must have a constant, and it's not the light which would be measured as changing, it'd be the space and time which would change, relative to the observer.

And so, he introduced and demonstrated that, in fact, this is the reality: That space and time, two things which up to that point which people had held as fixed, absolute ideas, were, in fact, as Einstein demonstrated, really just shadows of the mind, in a sense: Space and time don't have absolute existence, but they're something which are projections of measurements of the mind. And so, he really started to shatter the whole notion of space, the whole notion of time, and then ultimately, this led him to his even greater discovery of the general theory of relativity, which again, focussed on light as the thing which was the invariant. So there, because of the curvature of space-time as a function of gravitation, or really, he measured gravitation as a curvature of space-time, the thing which he held as the invariant, was the fact that light travels in a least-action pathway, that though two different observers may see the universe different, in terms of what they measure as the space-time curvature of the world around them, what they will both observe, which will be invariant to all observers, is the fact that light always travels according to a least-action pathway.

And so, again, he measured in the large, the thing which is invariant, is a principle of least action. Again, similarly, you've got with Einstein and Planck, both of them are dealing with a question of action, that the thing which is fundamental in the universe, is action, in the small and in the large.

Now, the thing is, where Vernadsky comes in on this, is that with these two, with Planck and with Einstein, though they made revolutionary discoveries about the nature of the physical universe, there's a certain static quality, you could say, to their discoveries. There's something a bit static about what Planck discovered as the quantum of action; there's something static about what Einstein discovered about relativity, or about the least-action nature of light. They don't incorporate the fact that the universe is in a process of constant change, but with a directionality to it. Now, they may have thought in these terms, but their discoveries themselves do not incorporate that into the discovery, into the science their working out.

But this is something that Vernadsky introduced. Vernadsky in his investigations of life, brought into the idea that there is a directionality to the process, that what we're seeing with what Planck is investigating, with what Einstein is investigating, are part of a universe, are part of a process which is directional, which has an evolutionary quality to it. And so, Vernadsky brought that into the discussion: What is the direction of change in the universe, as this is typified in what we see in life, in what we see in the evolution of life?

Let me just give a sense of this in the next image here. So, this is a curve which looks at the change in biodiversity of life in the oceans. And you see, there's a definite trajectory to it: It's moving from 542 million years ago, up to the present, because this is where we have the best records. And so you see there's a certain directionality to it, though punctuated by these mass extinctions, which represent certain points of change, where you obviously have a great loss of life, the overall orientation is up. There's a direction, it grows, it develops.

And this is something which Vernadsky was very fundamental in understanding, that life as a whole, though each individual, discrete creature, will come and go and die, though each species will come and then die and go extinct. As we've discussed, over 98% of all life that has ever existed on the planet has gone on extinct. But life as a whole, the biosphere as a whole has a trajectory to it. It's constantly going towards increased complexity, increased diversity, and increase in what we might measure as an increase of energy flux density. So it's got a direction to it, it develops.

And so Vernadsky brought into the discussion an idea of directionality, that the universe moves with an intention to it. Now, not only that, he also recognized that life, which most of people think of as simply a terrestrial phenomenon, is actually a cosmic phenomenon. And if you look at his book The Biosphere, which you might think is just simply a discussion of life on Earth, he starts the biosphere, by saying: We have to understand life as a cosmic process. We have to understand that life on Earth is intimately connected with processes of the Sun. And then he introduces, though he doesn't have enough to fully develop the idea, he introduces the concept of cosmic radiation, that we have to understand that life on Earth is a function of processes occurring on a cosmic scale.

And so, as we see life evolving here on Earth, we have to recognize, that reflects a process of evolution of the galaxy as a whole, of the Solar System as a whole. That what we see as an increase and development of life on Earth, reflects an evolutionary process of the universe as a whole, and that life characterizes that process of directional change, of evolutionary change.

Now, of course, we know that's not the whole picture, because life is not the most powerful process on the planet. There's something even higher, which is, the noëtic process, the creative human mind, which Vernadsky was reaching for, though he didn't have the time, or what have you, to fully develop the concept of what he came to call, "the noösphere," the domain of human creativity. But which he recognized was an even more powerful process than life itself, and that just as the biosphere can be thought of as a creative process, that the biosphere is a creative process, no individual element of the biosphere, is itself, self-consciously creatively. That's something which is unique to man, that man now represents an even higher process of self-conscious, willful creativity, willful evolutionary development.

And so, it sort of left the question open: What really is the role of the creative mind? What really is the even higher, underlying principle behind the upward development of our universe, of our planet? And just to give an idea, that in fact this is something which Planck himself was also wrestling with. You know Planck himself recognized the power of the creative mind as really the driver in the whole process. Planck himself says, and this from a speech that he gave later in his life; we've quoted this before, where Planck says, "Gentlemen, as a physicist who devoted his whole life to the sober science, to the study of matter, I'm surely free of the suspicions of being taken for a Schwärmgeist [a visionary], and so I say of my research of the atom, there is no matter as such. All matter arises and exists, only by a force which brings the atomic particles in motion and keeps them together as the tiniest solar systems of the universe. But, as there is neither and intelligent force, nor an internal force in the whole universe, this is the long-awaited perpetual motion, which the humanity failed to reinvent. We must assume a conscious, intelligent mind behind this force. The spirit is the basis of all matter, not visible, but ephemeral matter, is the real, the true, the substantial. Because matter would not persist at all without spirit...."

And so you see, Planck, even himself, at the end of his life, after obviously devoting himself to, as he says, the atom, to the investigation of matter, of physics, could only come to the realization that there's something higher, behind all these processes: The principle of mind, what he calls "spirit," what Vernadsky eventually came to understand as "the noösphere." And that that in fact represents the direction that we must orient, if we are to truly resolve many of these unresolved questions in science.

Which gets us exactly back to what you said on the question of fusion: You know, you had the discoveries of Planck, on what's occurring in the very small, the quantum of action, which obviously is fundamental to understanding what's occurring at the subatomic level. You have the discoveries of Einstein, not only in relativity, but the way relativity led to his understanding of the relationship of E=mc 2, which is act that core of understanding what is the amount of power that would be released through an atomic reaction. Then you have Vernadsky, who, we can look at these processes at the atomic level, and say, if we're really going to understand what's occurring at the atomic level, we can't ignore the process of the principle of life, we can't ignore the creative, evolutionary characteristics of the universe. If we're going to come to really master and understand the principle of fusion, we have to now incorporate certain ideas of Vernadsky, incorporate this idea of what is the underlying anti-entropic principle of life.

But ultimately, to resolve it, we're going to have to come to a greater understanding of the principle of mind. What is the principle of mind which really governs all of these processes? And it's only once we move in that direction, that we're going to fully make the necessary breakthroughs required, to master things like fusion, to master the processes of the Sun, and stars in general.

So, I'll just leave it at that, just as an introduction of the second triad, the Planck, Einstein, Vernadsky triad, and obviously, there's a lot more that can and will be said, over the next weeks and month ahead. But just to give that idea, that's where we are right now in science. Science, though it's made certain technical achievements since the time of Planck, and Einstein, and Vernadsky, in terms of fundamentals, it really hasn't moved very far, and in fact, it keeps being pushed backwards, by this trend of Russell and people like Norbert Wiener and the whole information theorists.

You know, but for the discoveries of Mr. LaRouche, in the domain of physical economy, which really does start to get at the question of the role of the creative, willful mind, in moving the universe forward.

ROSS: Yeah, just to add one thing that we were talking about before the show, about, if you take Vernadsky and one of his opponents, Oparin, who was allied with Russell, Oparin had the idea about the development of life as coming out of a chemical process, and that we could imagine a way of putting things together, get some electricity, some chemicals, and boom, you get life started — one of the ways that Vernadsky pointed out that that was foolish, was that we've never had a form of life that can do what the biosphere does. So he points out, that you've got that, well, you've got some organisms that do this, and do this, and do this, and that do this, and the whole thing works together as a network, and what is the single form of life, that would actually do all of that?

So the question of the origin of life itself, wasn't about one living thing, which does something which that we'd never seen anything in life do, but more likely, how does the biosphere as a whole develop?

And then, the same thing with economy, as we were talking about, that individual human beings exist in an economy, sure. The most individually human activity, though, is the development of science, when it comes to the economy as a whole. Individual human beings aren't really the thing you add together to get the economy.

JONES: Right, right.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, you have to look at this thing, in a different way, also. Take the case of Kepler versus Vernadsky and what their role was: Both of them actually defined a principle, a true principle which enclosed a whole category of events. In the case of Vernadsky, the question of life, as being an active principle, not a fixed principle, comes into play. That's what the real thing is. Now, this correlates very closely with the way in which the human mind is organized. The human mind is the actual metric device for understanding the universe; it's the only device we have for understanding the universe, is the progress of the human mind in making discoveries, which actually result in changes in the universe. In other words, man's ability to change the universe, and Vernadsky brings this thing up to a crucial point of questions, of questions and answer. That's the difference.

Now, it's for that reason, I've hesitated to push or overexaggerate, shall we say, Vernadsky. But this much in Vernadsky is absolutely crucial: That the idea that the universe, the universe and the human mind are one and the same thing in a certain respect, that the universe is giving you a picture, of the development of the human mind. And therefore, the idea of what life means; the whole meaning of life. And therefore, you get, for example, in religion, and there are various kinds of religions which have this idea that man is imperfect, and therefore man has to be ashamed of himself for being imperfect. When the truth of matter is, man is only imperfect, when he does not perfect himself, and that means, essentially Vernadsky's policy, his program: That the universe is progressive and the concept of mind is man's relationship to the universe in motion. And that's what this whole business is about.

We have very poorly defined that thing that I've just defined, so therefore, I had to say, well, this is not yet perfect. The indication is correct, this is what is happening. The universe is changing. Man's understanding of the universe is changing. These are two different things, but they're related things, because man is actually changing the universe, by developing! But that doesn't explain how the whole universe is functioning. It explains how in our section of the universe, how things are developing. In our section of the universe, we're getting the experience of man, man's mind. And we have whole areas of the universe, we don't know, dark areas, unknown areas. But we know that the universe has this same kind of principle. Therefore, we do know the limitations. We only understand one aspect of this, and that is, what we do understand is what Vernadsky understood.

And you just take him literally. And this is where the real fun starts. Because now you say — you know, you have these religions that say, "God is ashamed of man," hmm? That's the usual, that's the kindest of version of this thing, "God is ashamed of man." And while, God will be ashamed of some religious figures, very much so! Where'd these bums come in? How'd they sneak into my church? [laughter]

JONES: I'm sure he's ashamed of Obama.

LAROUCHE: Very much so! No, I don't even think Obama comes up to the level of shame. I think he's somewhere, way back there!

But no, this is the thing we should be concerned with, is with Vernadsky's contribution, is first of all, we get ourselves out of ordinary matter and so forth. We now go to a question of a much more universal question: What is man's experience of the universe? What will be man's experience of the universe? That's where it becomes a matter of principle. That's where we're imperfect, on Vernadsky. Vernadsky gives us the indication of what the answer is, but what the final statement is to be made in terms of man's own experience, the experience of the human mind. That's all there is. We don't know anything except the human mind. But the self-development of the human mind, once the human mind emerges, is a revolution in terms of living process. When man begins to think in those terms, in those noëtic terms, mankind has changed the nature of living processes, from being dumb ones, which function on the basis of something they don't understand themselves, it's not voluntary. To the point that mankind, when mankind begins to understand nature scientifically, understand man's own existence scientifically, then you have a completely new species, a new order in the universe.

JONES: Yeah, you with an individual, say, like an Einstein, is able to go through this kind of revolutionary upshift in his own understanding of the universe, which you only see at a long-wave process of the biosphere over successive millennia.

LAROUCHE: But you only experience is, if you do experience it, as discovery: That's the point. So, the people who can not see the future, are people who are dead in one respect, their ability to see the future is lost, therefore their minds are dead. They only know what they have experienced. The nature of mankind, the leading nature of mankind, the quality of mankind which is crucial to mankind itself, is the ability to see the future. And people who can't see the future, who can't see it with some degree of accuracy, are almost like dead minds. They're like animals. They know what they've experienced, they don't know what they should experience.

And that's the biggest problem we have in society today, and that's where your problem comes in with the Vernadsky thing. I know, that we know, what the future. That's my business, forecasting the future. I know my limitations in doing that, but I understand I can do it, even within limitations. Many people can't. I know they lack judgment. If you can not know the future, you lack judgment, because you have no reason for what you decide to do.

That's the problem we have out there, in society! Most people in the United States today, will make a decision that they have no account of a reason, why they should have made that decision. Especially the decision they should have made, for the benefit of mankind. If you can't catch up with the making of history, you're not competent to direct history, you're not competent to make judgments about history. And whatever human beings should be most concerned with, is their own ability to make accurate judgments, about the future!

Now, some people can do that, in qualitative ways. That is they can adduce what could be made, what could happen, the reason why it could happen, how it could be discovered, how that could be developed. But they may miss the point, often. So the other thing is a higher level: Can we look at what mankind's destiny, in mankind's future? Can we say, do we have a standard of the future, by which we can judge what is right and what is wrong?

Society today fails in that, and a lot of these religions fail. The religions that say that mankind can not know the future, that is a very bad religion. And that's what you get in Islam, the worst part of Islam. You don't know the future, you have not the power and authority to make a decision! Therefore if you don't like something you kill 'em. And that's evil, that is Satanic. Because mankind has the responsibility of knowing the future.

ROSS: Yeah, that's a responsibility that's the essence of morality. Some people try to take an easy way out, and say, "Well, my personal morality will be..." some list of law of what's right and what's wrong. And you know, many of these lists, they include things that are, indeed, good things to do, and they proscribe things that are bad and that's all well and good.

But what happens when the right thing to do, is something is something that hasn't been done before? What happens when the right thing to do, isn't something that anyone's conceived of yet? So, to "do the right thing" in a larger capacity than not just doing something obviously wrong, requires, at times in history, obviously a great act of heroism, a great act of scientific insight, a great act of composition.

So, the substance of morality in that sense, an idea of knowing what's right and what's wrong, an idea of sanity, has to lie in the ability to develop new things, to develop a new future that's not based on what's already existed.

LAROUCHE: Take the fact, the requirement of mankind is to foresee the future, that is, what the future must be. And by knowing what the future must be, you're able to judge what the future should be and is, because the requirement is what's the standard.

ROSS: And that's your standard for judging things today. Is some action today, is it right or is it wrong? Well, what's the future, where's it heading?

LAROUCHE: Right, exactly. So that actually, the human mind, when it's functioning properly, is functioning in a different way than most people think today. If you're thinking about what the future is, and what the future must be, now you are again talking about truth. If you're saying, I don't know what the future must be, then you don't know about truth. Or, if you go the other way, and say, well, since we don't know what the future is, therefore we have to accept this. "They must be right." If we don't know what the future is, "they" must be right. Who's right? Whoever's running the show.

JONES: Mm-hmm. That's the point you've made recently about Hamilton, and his understanding of the role of credit, that credit operates from this kind of conception of how do you organize the flow of activity, the flow of your current resources, from the standpoint of what the future must be. That the future determines your credit policy.

LAROUCHE: That's exactly what he does. He lays done a very systematic rule, for that, in terms of economy: That you must progress. Mankind must progress. And he has a formula for progress, the requirement of progress, which eliminates money as a standard. Because it must be the increase of the productive powers of labor, that is the standard. Well, heathens don't like that standard.

JONES: Yeah. Well, the greenie policy is how do you halt progress? For them, the achievement of their economic model, is the rate at which you can halt progress.

LAROUCHE: Well, that's Satanic.

JONES: Right!

LAROUCHE: That is frankly Satanic, that is evil! Therefore, you would have to say, the Obama administration is not only wrong, it's evil!

JONES: Exactly.

ROSS: It shows you the foolishness of practicality. Like people might say, well you know, we have a lot of ideas of things that would make the economy much better, but, we don't have the money for them, how're we going to build an alliance to get them done, how can we practically achieve these things? But, the rules that they're playing inside, prevent them from ever achieving a recovery. Like look at the whole trans-Atlantic world: People have got these axioms of free trade, the idea that the "market" will somehow create growth, and you know, we shouldn't have communism. But, you know, in doing that, you exclude the most major drivers for development, and you can just look, you can contrast the trans-Atlantic world, where countries following the IMF's recipes, are being prescribed poisons, and you compare that to what's going on in China, with the Promethean aspects of the developments that are being seen in China, both the basic infrastructure, high-speed rail, power plants, etc. And, their very exciting initiatives for the Moon, for their public discussion of eventually using helium-3 from the Moon as a source for a fusion fuel: They're demonstrating, you don't have to play by those rules.

LAROUCHE: Now, the danger is, see, if mankind does not progress, the consequence is, mankind will probably go extinct. And I think, at this point, we are at the threat of an extinction point for the human species. The present policy of the British Empire, which is dominating the entire world today, is that British Empire's policy leads right now, to the conclusion of a highly probable thermonuclear catastrophe, which will mean the extinction of the human species.

So the point is, that the British Empire, and what it represents, as being the leading empire, the real Zeus of today, the Queen, and that is the threat of the extinction of the human species. And therefore, that's not a matter of speculating on what's good, that's a matter of how do you stop what's evil. And that is really the test of evil!

JONES: It really becomes, ultimately, the question of where, really, you locate the idea of free will. It's not the simple idea of do you choose this flavor versus that flavor, this shirt versus that shirt. The real free will is do you choose, extinction or do you choose evolution? Man can choose willfully to be creative and evolve to the future, or by negating that, in effect choose extinction.

LAROUCHE: Well, we have a very simple, physical-chemical way of looking at that, in the terms of increase of energy flux density. And the question of the efficient energy flux density, of mankind, is also a measure of the fitness of mankind to survive. If mankind goes to a green policy, mankind becomes incapable of surviving. If we don't eliminate the green policy, today, mankind will probably not survive, even in this short time ahead. So we have to recognize that mankind has the obligation of bringing on the future, and knowing how to discover the future. We do know how to discover the future! Because it comes in the course of increase of energy flux density. And you can take all the things we were discussing so far here, today, and you can translate that into energy flux density, and you can amplify what you mean by energy flux density, in several useful ways.

So therefore, mankind's mission is always to find the way to the increase of the energy flux density of mankind's practice. And that's exactly what the same thing you get from Hamilton: The increase of the energy flux density of mankind's practice. That is the gauge, that's the measure.

And if you're not doing that, you're wrong! And we have been doing wrong, ever since Hilbert said "go back to mathematics." That was evil. That was Satanic! Hilbert was a weak Satan. We had a big, real Satan...

ROSS: Russell showed him how it was really done.

LAROUCHE: [laughter] Satan's real angel, was Bertrand Russell! And Bertrand Russell, because that period, that very event — and look at it, the turn, 1900. Think about what happened between 1895 and 1905. A clock! The catastrophe started earlier. The catastrophe started with the assassination of Lincoln, and that led to the ouster of Bismarck. And Bismarck was the trigger for what became World War I, II and III.

So today's standard of judgment, in general, is an immoral one, and just for even the simple reasons we've laid out in this discussion so far today. The morality of the United States today, the public morality is evil! Why is it evil? Because it's leading to the destruction of mankind. And that must be changed.

And therefore, Hamilton's view, in his own way, does correspond to the intention of the founding of the United States as a system of government. It conforms to that. And if we had stuck to that principle, we would not be in the trouble we are in today! We didn't need anything more, than the impetus which is demonstrated, reflected by Hamilton's design. If you say that's your principle of economy, if that's your principle of organizing society, of development of society, you're not wrong! You may need a lot of improvements, but you're not wrong.

And that's the best you get. You get, for example, the Mayflower business. What led to the Massachusetts Bay Colony, after the Mayflower problems, was actually a standard, a moral standard reflecting the influence of Cusa and so forth, a moral standard which was the proper standard for a nation in the United States. The Dutch killed it! The Dutch bastards killed it. And then the British came along as the new Dutch.

And that British Empire, out of this Dutch evil, as a reaction against the Renaissance has been the great historic crisis, for mankind now. And all these things we take into consideration, are considerations which inform us, of the questions we must ask and the answers we must seek.

But, this Vernadsky thing is crucial. But the problem is that people don't understand what the implications are of what he said. I mean, what he did is fundamental. It was a fundamental change, from the idea of life in one sense, to the true conception of life, which is what he explored and defined.

JONES: Right, that life is not simply a discrete phenomenon, but that it actually represents a universal principle. And that really seemed to be what he understood, that there's a universal principle of upward directional change, which life embodies.

LAROUCHE: Just imagine if he could have lived for another 50 years: It'd solve a lot of problems!

JONES: Yeah! [laughs]

ROSS: Him and Roosevelt both, that would have been great.

LAROUCHE: Yeah, right. Exactly. That's exactly true.

So that's the lesson, I think.

ROSS: That gives us a sense of our job today.

LAROUCHE: Yes. The job of mankind today and it gives you an understanding what people don't know, that they must urgently learn.

ROSS: Right: Ask yourself, is my morality moral?

LAROUCHE: That's too passive. Am I doing what I must not postpone? No, that's the issue, that sits before us. And you see it in a rather simple way in this kind of discussion we have today. The points are all clear, the implications are also clear. You simply have to ask a couple more question, and you have the implications.

ROSS: Yep.

LAROUCHE: Well, that's what I like to do.

ROSS: All right. I think that's a good place to leave it for this week. And we will see you next week, continuing the discussion.