New Paradigm for Mankind Wednesday, April 23, 2014, Transcript
April 24, 2014 • 10:54AM

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

JASON ROSS: Hello, today is April 23rd, 2014, you're watching the New Paradigm for Humanity show. My name is Jason Ross and I'll be hosting the show this week. Joining me in the studio are, as always, Lyndon LaRouche, and Megan Beets, of the LaRouche PAC Science Research Team, also known as "The Basement."

We are speaking today at a time of great crisis in many respects: There's an intense political crisis, which anybody following this site is well aware of. What we're going to be focusing on today, is the physical economic crisis, that, in particular is striking the Western part of the country, but whose solution really involves the country as a whole.

Right now, the entire state of California is in a state of drought, with over 70% of regions in a high state of drought, a large percentage in a very exceptional drought; in Texas, water systems run the risk of running dry all over the state, cattle herds are being sold off to early slaughter, without the feed available to maintain them; in California, the California Water Project, which provides water for the needs of 25 million people across the state, is projected this year to have zero percent of its usual water available.

There's a killer shortage of food brewing that's brought about by the drought, by fracking, — and fracking's a great name for it — and multibillionaire Warren Buffett's plans to help, along with some of his other billionaire friends, reduce the world's population. In particular, he's doing that through his control of a major part of the nation's infrastructure, specifically our railroads. So, out in the Central States, where much of the 2013 harvest is still sitting in local regions and farms and local warehouses and elevators, and has yet to be transported out, because the railcars are simply not being made available, while they are being made available in record numbers of the hundreds of thousands, for operations for fracking, for bringing in fracking materials, and for bringing out the hydrocarbons.

So, the only way to reverse this involves throwing out Obama, and using Federal power to immediately end fracking, stop using up water in these water-short areas, and insist that our transportation network be used for things that are essential, such as, the million tons of fertilizer the Dakotas need every year, and the transportation of food. The long-term survival of course, is the NAWAPA program which Megan will be addressing in more detail in the show today, driven by fusion power.

So, in looking at all of this, not only is there an intent on the part of Warren Buffett, among others, specifically headed by the Queen of England, to reduce the world's population, but also, things get presented in a funny way about money, where the argument might be made that a railcar full of oil is worth more than one full of grain; or perhaps shipping fertilizer's just not as profitable as supplies for a fracking well — who's going to pay more money? Under that argument, people would say, it's great if food prices go up, because then, they'd be competitive, shipping them would actually make economic sense, and until that happens, they just won't be on the railroads.

You can see how that's a crazy idea, when you measure everything in terms of money, instead of in terms of its value for the economy. This is also being presented as the U.S. becoming a "new Saudi Arabia," a goal that Obama has trumpeted, that lunatics in the Congress, or people at least who act like lunatics on this, like Ed Royce, who look at the potential for the U.S. to be a "geopolitical power," that the way we're going to show Putin who's boss, is by destroying our farms and driving up prices for fuel oil in the U.S., in order to export it to Ukraine: This is totally crazy!

Instead, we have to develop, and move upwards to higher forms of power. We had the opportunity to develop fission much more than we have now, and thanks to green opposition — which is hardly green, it's much more brown — we're now pursuing a policy of fracking, instead of nuclear power, and fusion has been held back, and we don't have it now, even though we should have.

Overall, this development, of what we ought to be doing, is very much like that of life generally. Just to make a short statement about this: Life generally has shown an increasing, you could say, independence from the environment; or, perhaps you could put it better, it brings its own environment with it. It creates its own environment, it shapes its own environment; the biosphere shape for life as a whole, by life as a whole. One example of that is the creation of oxygen in the atmosphere, by the early photosynthesizers, which, although a poison — pure oxygen is a poison; it's very chemically reactive. Yet, the development of life to a higher stage, with animals that use the oxygen was a revolution.

Another one, the move of life to land from the oceans. In the oceans, you don't have to worry about maintaining your body temperature — good luck trying for the most part; you don't have to worry about keeping moisture; reproduction's very different among these earlier aquatic species, where different organisms would just squirt their gametes and then they'd mix in the water, that doesn't work on land. So, with the move to land, what did you need? You needed skin, you needed new types of reproduction, you needed temperature regulation.

Look at human beings as a whole. Look at our increasing independence from nature, or better said, our increasing control over it and the shaping of it, to meet our human needs. Irrigation, this is something that humans have done for thousands of years, or 10,000 years. The use of animals as beasts of burden; the use of water for water wheels, for milling; windmills. Then the real development of the use of fuels, with the steam engine, the development of metallurgy, of our understanding of electronic processes, nuclear processes.

Today, to really be safe from these vagaries of nature and long-term droughts, we need to be able to modify the weather, we need to be able to control the continent, and the urgency of this is made even more clear by the fact that while some people might think, eventually this drought will end, it might not. I mean, really, how much time had modern civilization existed in California, to measure water flows and things like this? A few hundred, a couple hundred years? How old is the Earth? How long are the long-term cycles of water, of rainfall? Scientists in California, some believe that actually, the most recent couple of centuries were the wettest in the past 7,000 years. If this is true, the drought is not something that will go away, and we have no alternative, except for the very wonderful chance, to reshape the continent to our needs.

I think we should get into some more detail on that.

MEGAN BEETS: Okay. I just want to pick up on the point you made, Jason, about the natural action of life, that throughout the period of biological evolution taking place on the planet, life has developed as a system to higher and higher degrees of complexity, and has exerted its independence from the surrounding environment, which is dominated by the principle of nonlife, or the lack of the principle of life. You had the move of life onto land, developing new biological systems, to actually be independent of the impingement of nonlife on it.

Human beings do this too. Human beings exert the principle of creative discovery, to reshape the environment, and actually reshape both the nonliving and the living. That's natural, and that's exactly what the NAWAPA, or the North American Water and Power Alliance, was designed to do. And I can just show our viewers the concept of the North American Water and Power Alliance was developed in the early 1960s. Now, this was a decade when you had Kennedy in the Presidency, you had the idea that man can, and should exert power and take action to change nature, to make the conditions of life more suitable, not only for himself living now, but the perspective was to do this for decades or even longer, into the foreseeable future, for the generations yet to come.

Now, you think about why was that the idea with Kennedy? Well, you see the legacy of what was done with Franklin Roosevelt and the Four Corners Projects: man had just proven that he could do this on a larger scale, than ever before in history. You also see something funny, which was the powers exerted during World War II, where, though it was for destructive causes, you had the most enormous powers exerted by man ever before in history, and the idea, moving into the decade of the 1960s, was that these enormous powers at mankind's fingertips, could actually be utilized for the good of all of mankind.

And so you had the conception of the NAWAPA project, which was designed to address the fact that we had great developments taking place in the Western States of the United States, we had new dams being built, we had created the Imperial Valley and the great agricultural potential of southern California and the West, throughout the period of the Depression and FDR's Presidency. But it was recognized that if man continued to develop and grow in this region, at the rate that he could, that he had the potential to do, there was simply no enough water in the Southwest to support this. There would be no reallocation of water within the region, that could possibly meet the needs of a growing and expanding mankind.

And so, the original project said, okay, we're not going to look at managing the water cycle of the region. You take one evolutionary step forward, and you look at the water cycle of the entire continent. So, if we look at the water cycle of the continent we see a couple of things. One is that the water as it's distributed across the North American continent is actually in a great imbalance. The design as given to us by nature is actually very poor. And that's for a couple of reasons: One of which is that if we take the run-off from the Western part of the North American continent, it runs off into the Pacific Ocean. Roughly two-thirds of this, when it falls again as rain on the continent, doesn't fall in the "lower 48," but falls up in Alaska, Yukon and along the coast of British Columbia. So the water that had come from the continent now falls again up in the north, where it falls as rain or snow and remains frozen up there, or, in the spring melt, runs back off into the ocean. That's one imbalance.

The other imbalance is that if you take the amount of water which exists in the different regions of the continent, there's roughly eight times as much water per square kilometer on the land of the Northwest going down in the Washington state and Oregon, eight times as much water per square km, in that part of the land, when compared to the Southwest, including California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, and so forth.

Now, there's another imbalance, which the NAWAPA project actually utilizes to our great advantage, and that come up in the issue of the productivity of the water. So, if we look at the water that exists on different parts of the continent, it doesn't always do the same amount of work, and we can measure this in a term called "net primary production," and what that measurement looks at, is, what is the rate at which the biosphere, the plants are actually using the process of photosynthesis to crease new biomass? So it is a measure of the upshift of the energy potential on the continent, because you're measure how much life is taking the nonliving elements, and actually turning them into a higher chemical potential by creating new biomass out of them.

So, if we look at how much water is participating in the process of photosynthesis on different parts of the continent, the water which exists in the Southwest region, even though there's much, much less of it, each drop of water is more than five times more productive, than the water up in Alaska and Yukon. So you have an incredible discrepancy in the power of the water which exists in the Southwest, but there's not much of it.

So what we do with the NAWAPA program is we take the water cycle of the entire continent, which mankind has never done before, and we bend it: We actually build a single infrastructure system, to bend the water cycle, bring the water from where it's abundant, down to where it will be much more productive, and we raise the productivity of the water on the continent as a whole.

Now, what I'd like to do, is just look very briefly at how this project is going to impact, specifically Texas and California. This is another view of the project. So, the NAWAPA system stretches up from the far northwest of Alaska and Yukon Territory; we collect roughly 20% of the run-off of the major rivers up in this area, and we reverse the flow of that run-off, which wants to go out to the Pacific Ocean, without doing any work, and we make it do work. We reverse the flow of that water, which is roughly 180 million acre-feet per year [MAFY] and we reverse it. And we bring it down through British Columbia, and we hook it into a natural reservoir, called the Rocky Mountain Trench, which is hundreds of km long, and we make that water come down into the continental United States. Now, some of it does get diverted to move east across Canada, which I'll get to in a moment.

This gets pumped up to very high elevations, using very high energies, when it enters Montana and then down into Idaho in the Sawtooth Mountains; now it's at an elevation where it can flow by gravity and be directed via a series of canals and tunnels, down into the area and get potentially very productive Southwest.

So, let's look more specifically, for a moment, at California. We have the water, coming down across the Canada- U.S. border, up into the Sawtooth Mountains in Idaho, where it's pumped up to high elevations. Now, it can flow down, and what I'm going to talk about here, is how we're going to get the water into California. With the NAWAPA project, California stands to gain 220 MAFY, of new, permanent supplies to California, which means that per year, we're augmenting the amount of water that can be involved in agriculture and industrial activity in California by more than 50%. So this water gets directed through Idaho; we direct it into a new, man made reservoir on the eastern border of Nevada, just east of Elko. We direct that water west, via the Humboldt River, where it turns south, servicing parts of Nevada. We direct it south, and begin tunneling across the Nevada-California border, into the Owens River Valley, which is a very potentially, and formerly, productive agricultural land, which is now very much dried up. The water begins to refill over time, the Owens Lake.

The second way we're going to get it into California, is again, coming down through near the eastern Nevada-Utah border, we're going to tunnel it down, and create a new reservoir, called Lake Vegas, which currently doesn't exist. It would be positioned north of Las Vegas, and it would be a reservoir which is larger than Lake Mead. So we're going to create this. The water is then going to flow, via tunneling through the mountains, it's going to flow south into southern California, reaching the land down there; we're also going to allow it to flow south into Baja California, and then tunnel back up into San Diego.

Now, the third way we're going to get water into California is via the Northwest, via the Columbia River Basin. Now, this the high-energy consumption part of the project, but we have the potential, by coming down through northern California and hooking into the Sacramento River system, to bring 10 MAFY of water to California.

So now let's talk about Texas: In Texas, we're going to utilize the Colorado River. Now, back in the 1950s and '60s, you had agreements of the states of the Southwest to allocate the water of the Colorado River, and we're at a point now where, with the existing agreements, the Colorado doesn't have enough water to meet all those agreements. So there's just simply is not enough water there, and so you have water-rights fights. What we're going to do is use the water from the NAWAPA system, to replenish the Colorado River and make it flow once again.

The water's going to come down through Utah, south by Lake Powell, into the Colorado River system; we're going to tunnel down east of Flagstaff, Arizona, we're going to hook into the Salt River and the Gila River, which runs in the southern parts of Arizona and New Mexico, and we're going to begin to bring this water east.

Well, bring it east via the Gila River, and Las Cruces, we're going to tunnel into the Rio Grande system. Now this is going to service Texas. From there, we tunnel east, underneath the Sierra Blanca Mountains, and we tunnel east to the Pecos River Reservoir, which is going to be augmented to be larger than Lake Mead. This hooks into the Pecos River and flows southeast, servicing basically the whole northwestern and western part of Texas, which is currently incredibly, incredibly dry, which is wracked by the additional crime of all these fracking wells. We're going to turn this again into productive farmland.

We get 12 million acre-feet which is most of the water we're going to bring to Texas. Just to mention, Texas, from the NAWAPA project, is going to receive 14 million acre-feet more water per year, which is a 78% increase over current supplies. So you're getting somewhere in the range of doubling the amount of water that's available to Texas, just through this single project. So that's where most of it comes from.

Now, if we look back, as I mentioned, to the original project, most of the water is going to come down from the North and flow directly West, via the Rocky Mountain Trench. Some of it, in British Columbia, we're going to start diverting east what would be a new, manmade, navigable Canadian Prairie Canal, and will bring, with some additional collection, will bring 50 million acre-feet east, via the Peace River, across the Canadian Prairie, entering the United States in the Dakotas. And so, we'll have about 20 million acre-feet that's going to be made available via the Dakota Canal, to the Missouri and the Mississippi River systems. One possibility for getting even more water to the Great Plains States of the United States, including Texas, is to bring the water, via the Dakota Canal into the Missouri River system, west over the Niobrara River through a series of reservoirs and dams on that river, and we'll bring it west into a newly create Great Plains Canal, which basically runs the entire length of the much-depleted Ogallala Aquifer. So we bring that water into northwestern Texas, near the Panhandle.

The other possibility, is to bring water via the Dakota Canal, into the Mississippi River system, which some years floods — so giving us the possibility, with the additional water, to utilize that excess water, to bring it west across northern Louisiana, and then down into eastern Texas, where it can be distributed along the eastern coastline, the north and eastern coastline of Texas.

Now, I don't have a map of this, but we also have the potential — basically, the NAWAPA project will take a number of years to complete. We're probably looking at something like 25 years for the whole project. You can have parts of that online sooner, in something like 10-15 years. But we need water immediately, and we need to begin gearing up the energy densities available to us, to continue to build the NAWAPA project. So we also have a proposal, which we laid out in the Nuclear NAWAPA XXI pamphlet, which goes through this program in more detail, to bring more than 40 desalination plants to the United States, most of them concentrated in this region of Texas, the Southwest, out to California; which would be a series of many, possibly nuclear desalination plants along the coastline, along rivers, to clean up and recycle the water that's flowing through rivers, and also through heavily farmed areas, to clean up the run-off and excess water from agricultural sites so, that it can be used again.

So by having an accelerated program to build this series of desalination plants, number one, you begin gearing up the nuclear industry again. Many of these probably should be nuclear. And you have the potential to add much, much more water into the NAWAPA system, but in the immediate period.

What we're proposing is a program which is immediately available to be implemented. We're proposing a program, where, for the first time, man is operating on the basis of controlling a system of an entire continent, taking an evolutionary step that should have been taking decades ago. But what we're also discussing is making a complete revolution in the way that people think about economics and life. Because what you're discussing, this project is very expensive. Not monetarily, I mean, that's sort of a — but what we're talking about is a project that is incredibly energy-intensive and energy-expensive. We're going to be bringing in more farms and more people to this area. The amount of power, that's going to be applied in the building of this project, in the maintenance of this project, and in the expansion of life in this area, means that for every human being living in this area is going to be consuming and applying magnitudes more power than they do today!

Now, this is the complete opposite of what's claimed today to be the direction we should be headed. What's claimed by everybody is that, oh, if you want to survive, you have to "conserve" energy, you have to decrease your footprint on the environment around you, and basically do the best you can to disappear. Well, that's the hallmark of civilizations which have collapsed, as we are today, as you see happening right now in California and Texas. That system, that ideology, brings death.

What we need to do, is reassert the natural condition of man, which is to go application of higher and higher amounts and forms of power applied to change nature. And what that means for us today, is that we have to immediately return to a serious program for the implementation of nuclear fusion.

Nuclear fission we have. We have to immediately lift the restrictions, and move with that, today. But the only way to sustain this is to move for the early discovery and implementation of nuclear fusion. Now, the United States has, and has had for — oh, 60 years, now, a serious nuclear fusion research program. This came out of same scientists that worked on bringing the world the power of nuclear fission; they immediately moved to make the breakthrough for fusion. The United States had it classified, but then unclassified crash program, in the 1950s, bringing the best minds in the nation together, to make the breakthrough in fusion. We had serious investment programs.

We had a plan, which you see represented in this chart here, we had a plan, that was laid out in 1976 with very detailed studies, laying out how we would actually go from the experiments being done in the national labs, to having a demonstration fusion reactor that put power on the grid and could be used for industrial uses. And you see, different possible timescales, the most conservative of which would have had fusion online in 2005! But we could have had it as early as 1993!

So this is the direction we need to go. Now, if you look at the current funding of fusion, as it's actually occurred, as opposed to what should have happened, you look at the levels, which peaked in the early 1980s — fusion funding peaked in the early 1980s, and we've been collapsing ever since. This President has done nothing but cut the fusion budget, and again, the budget which was submitted a few weeks back, again, slashed the budget to really, levels which would destroy the entire program! So this has to be reversed.

And this is what people need to join us in fighting for, is this vision of mankind, this representation of human reality and human nature. And once again become a species which is representative of this creative, noëtic power in the universe.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: This brings two big issues. First of all that the human species ability to exist depends upon energy flux density applied by human beings. Now this is the natural condition of the human being, but not of animals: Animals have no willful capability of increasing the energy flux density that flows through them. That density is determined by the biological determination of the species.

Now, the human species is not an animal species. And when you classify the human species as an animal species, you're making a very fundamental mistake, in terms of scientific conceptions. Because the human species' difference is, the human species has a voluntary ability to increase its per-capita energy flux density. This is done through the discoveries we call of energy discoveries; increases of energy flux density. Only the human species has that ability.

Now, what you're up against is a culture, a cult of evil, which is called the Zeusian cult, which is the cult of the Roman Empire, and the cult of the British Empire. And to the degree that the British Empire has dominated the planet, which has happened through assassinations of Presidents, for example, of the United States, through that process, we have curtailed the development of the human species to higher and higher energy flux densities. For example, in the year 1900, a program began, to cancel thermonuclear fusion, implicitly. Not only by name, but by intention. Because the intention of thermonuclear fusion, is that mankind must rise to higher energy flux density of its power to act upon the Solar System and on our Earth as such, and that's what the principle is.

And mankind therefore increases the power of mankind, in terms of energy flux density. That mankind turns to use heat, controlled heat, controlled by mankind, and to raise that to higher energy flux density. This enables mankind to achieve many times the power over the Earth that was achieved in earlier generations.

The enemy has been the Zeusian conception, that mankind must be kept stupid and kept as a slave of a ruling class which sits on top of, regulating the subordinated classes. And so, that's the Roman Empire and the British Empire, both have that characteristic. Both the Roman Empire and the British Empire are the enemies of the human species. And once you see things in those in terms...

Now, what are we? Nicholas of Cusa and others, his immediate predecessors, recognized the solution to the great horrors that mankind had gone through before. And that meant that Nicholas of Cusa, and others before him, Brunelleschi and so forth; and then, again, you had another range since that time, since the first cycle of the Renaissance. Remember, the change in the direction was in the Renaissance, the movement out of Europe, into North America, in particular, was the driving force which saved us from Hell. Without the colonization, in Massachusetts Bay Colony, first, which was then crushed by the Dutch bastards; and then you had the crushing of the American Revolution, first of all by subversion, and many of our Presidents were actually subversive agents working for the British interests against the United States itself — and most of them were. They didn't know that, but what they would say, they wanted a system in which states would have power to regulate the nation. And it was that system, which corrupted the United States. We had great Presidents who did exactly what they should have done: to have a driver program for higher energy flux density, they understood that. We had Lincoln understood that; he was assassinated. We had John Quincy Adams who understood that, he was almost assassinated, virtually assassinated by an operation run by the British, through the British channels in New York City, which was this crap. And we've had it again and again. Most of the Presidents of the United States were not fit to be Presidents. But through British influences, the British influence was exerted, through corruption and other means on the United States.

So, we've had great Presidents, but these have been relatively episodic: John F. Kennedy was one of the last of those who was really significant in that. He was assassinated, because he was a threat to the British Empire! And take the kinds of people like the people who are running the fracking on the northern border of the United States, they're evil! But they're British controlled. And the policy, the green policy is an evil policy based on a Zeusian conception, of degrading mankind to reduced population, which is the British right today. It's the policy of these two Presidencies we've had, you know the first and second Bush, and now we have the Obama administration. These things are actually enemy agents operating inside the United States, with the powers of the Presidency! And with the buying out, through Wall Street, which is the main instrument by which we're destroyed in the United States.

So therefore, the issue is, you have to go to higher energy flux densities. This is the characteristic of the human species, it's the characteristic of the human mind. The human mind is not simply a vegetable, it's not simply a nervous system. The human mind is a voluntarily developed power of creativity. And only the human species is able to do that.

Now, say, what's the destiny of mankind? Well, mankind has one characteristic which is very disturbing: Death. Death by age, for example, and death by circumstances of culture, these are very significant. But, you say, what is mankind? And here's where the real problem becomes clear. People say, well, people live and sometimes they achieve something, sometimes they're successful, but then they die! And we say, "Oh, terrible, terrible!" But the death of people is not necessarily the death of humanity. There's a difference. The question is, do the people who live and die, is the meaning of their life real, once they've died?

So, when mankind is actually developing a higher level of technology, of science, knowledge, mankind is doing something else. Mankind is not only increasing our power to exist on this planet, increasing our power to influence the nearby parts of our Solar System, so that when you look at the effect of the mankind's progress in terms of scientific discoveries of scientific principles, you realize that mankind is an immortal species, unless you kill it. And the Zeusian, like the British Empire, the British Bitch who's now sitting on top of the British throne, these are the enemies of mankind. Because mankind has an immortal purpose, the individual dies, but the meaning of their life does not die! And the meaning of their life is the progress of humanity to go to higher levels of achievement.

Because, for example, let's take little objects like satellites, floating out there, around there that threaten us. Well, we could — the whole human species, could be wiped out by one satellite, if it hits just right. And these things re floating around all the time. So therefore, the question of the meaning of the human species, depends upon our ability to defend the human species, against big rocks in space. So therefore, if you're not developing the capability to deal with the big rocks in space, you are actually a traitor to the human species. And therefore, those who abhor, resist, the increase of energy flux density in man's capacity, are the enemies of the purpose of the existence of mankind. And should be treated accordingly!

Therefore, the laws have to be changed. Now, for example, we have in the history of our United States, we have a history from Alexander Hamilton, who was the one who actually defined, in fact, defined the principles, on which our economy is based. The principles of our Constitution. But we had a lot of Presidents who were actually opportunists, after George Washington, after Hamilton's death, assassination, the United States went into a desert period. Until Monroe came in as a President and actually pulled the Presidency back together again, and then John Quincy Adams, both in serving under Monroe, and as President in his own right, actually produced the greatest advanced in the United States: The 48 states of the United States, were created as a result of what was done, essentially by John Quincy Adams. That's how the 48 states were created; then you got Hawaii and Alaska after that; but he did that! He did in the context of the Monroe Presidency, in which he served, and as President himself; and he continued to serve, even after, he was sitting up on the House of Representatives. And up until the time he died, in 1848. And he created Abraham Lincoln. He created that process. Then they killed him.

You find the assassinations of Presidents of the United States generally coincide with British imperial interests. Now, in many cases, like some of our early Presidents, John Adams was a fool! Because he had a fishing interest offshore in New England, and the fishing interests were his secular interests! Every one of those Presidents actually sold out, and the principle of the Constitution of the United States was never put into effect, not permanently! You had some Presidents who would put it in.

For example, the dominant feature today is, "who's got the money?" I would say, well very simply: bankrupt Wall Street. They don't have any right to that money. Who gave them the right to set the money? What was our original Constitution? That the productive powers of labor, and the increment of the productive powers of labor by human ingenuity, applied, is our nation. They say, "No! Money, world money, the money system of the world is what's going to dominate."

So what happens, you get the corruption of Europe, led by the British Empire, now says what is important is money, and what is important is the value put on money. Well, who's putting the international valuation on money? It's being done by the British Empire!

So therefore, if we had, under our Constitution, as defined accurately in principle by John Quincy Adams and others, but also Alexander Hamilton first, that principle is the principle we have to restore. We will not succeed in anything, unless we get rid of that problem now. We shut down Wall Street: They've got nothing coming to them, they're totally bankrupt, you have all these people paying rents in San Francisco, for shacks; which were classes as shacks earlier, now they're considered luxury apartments: What nonsense is that?

Why is that money given to them? Why are those prices given to these things? Because it's a fraud, it's a Wall Street fraud!

If we were to put Glass-Steagall into place immediately, that would not be an adequate measure, but if we put it into place, we'd just collapse all these values. We don't care if we wipe out the values. I mean, we're talking about people being condemned, not to have housing, because the prices have been risen, to meet the market standard. No! We'll bankrupt those guys! Wall Street is bankrupt! We have to foreclose on it, shut it down: because, it's a violation of our Constitution. People talk about Constitution principles? Where's the Constitution? The Constitution is based on a conception of the definition and creation of the United States.

And so that's what we're dealing with here. And once we realize that we, as government, are responsible to forfeit the claims of Wall Street, to forfeit the idea that foreign money defines productivity in the United States. That investment is based on foreign money's considerations. No, we say, no: We have our currency, we have our productive capability, we have what we can do, our science, and we understand, this is based on the principle of humanity, the principle of the difference between humanity and Zeus, between humanity and Roman Empire, between humanity and British Empire, and every tyranny like it! We are going to have to make a clean-up, of our Presidential system, to return to the original Presidential system, for which the specifications were given quite precisely by Alexander Hamilton, in his four measures of the Constitution, that he introduced into the Constitution.

And under those conditions, then we say, "well, we don't owe anything to the frackers! They got nothing coming to them!" And the application of a principle of law to the practice, we foreclose them! Because the purpose is, what does the nation do for its people. The frackers are destroying the people. And, what we have to do is take these considerations which we've been discussing here, so far today, those considerations must be brought to bear, as the authority of lawmaking. And challenge the fraudulence — how do we do that? Well, they say, "all these laws are passed," well, many of these laws are junk and frauds. Well, how do you deal with that? We have a Constitution. We're a constitutional nation.

Therefore, if there's an injustice is being done, against the people of the nation, the lawmakers of the nation must enforce justice! They can not enforce money, they can not enforce wealth. They must enforce the development and security of the people of the United States.

And what we need to do right now, is use that. The campaigns, we have two of them, Texas — and what I've insisted upon, this argument in Texas by this crazy swindler, this dentist who pulls everything, including probably teeth, or everything but teeth, but he pulls a lot of things, [laughter] that I don't want to talk about. He's a thief. But this swindle, the money swindle, what is this SOB worth? Where'd he get his money from? Why did he get paid — how many teeth did he pull? Huh?

So the issue here, is that these issues, of the question of water, must be resolved to the question of the money question, on the basis of what is the principle of mankind. Mankind is not an animal. No animal can do what mankind can do. Mankind is the only species that can protect Earth from an asteroid, and we better get ready to do that!

And therefore, everything else has to be judged by the same statement. The idea of the money system, which is a European Roman-based kind of system, Roman Empire tradition, the British tradition, these are the things which we fought against to create what became the United States. Now we have the curses of these characters, coming on and imposing this on us, and all the things we're discussing, that you've been presenting so far, here, all pertains to that. Where is the will power, to say, what is the honest principle of law: Let's go back to Alexander Hamilton, as the Treasury Secretary of the United States, and his reforms, which completed the reforms intended by Franklin and others. And those reforms are the foundation, those reforms are expressed by what Monroe supported, in terms of John Quincy Adams, what Abraham Lincoln represented, what John F. Kennedy represented, and what Franklin Roosevelt represented, and so forth: These people represented true law.

And what we've had, in the most part, is contaminated law. And we've for the past two Presidencies is out-law! And that's what it is. The Bush Jr. administration and his fracking friend, and the Obama administrations are an abominations! They're abominations of evil against the United States and its people, and implicitly against the entire human species. And what we have to do, is go at this directly, and say — they say, well the laws' on the books now, say, no, we're going to have to change those laws, they're not consistent with our Constitution. They are unconstitutional.

Because it's not a formality of law, it's an actuality of principle!

BEETS: Well, they change the laws anyway. I mean, the only reason fracking is able to occur in the United States, is because they changed the law, the Clean Air and Water Act, to make an exception to allow fracking to occur!

LAROUCHE: Yeah!

BEETS: And so, you take — it's Wall Street! You know, most people in the United States today defend Wall Street! Not because they say they love Wall Street, and they think what Wall Street's doing is good for them, but they defend it in the sense that, "they're too powerful and you'll never actually win." But what they don't see is that they're defending a system which was never part of our system! Wall Street was not an outgrowth of the American System, it was not some brilliant people that found a way to play the American System and built up this Wall Street empire. It was left here, when most of the British soldiers left, Wall Street was left here as a disease that was left in the United States and has been maintained by British agents ever since, like Aaron Burr — who killed Hamilton!

LAROUCHE: Yeah. Well, think about one other thing: How did this happen? How did this happen. It happened, because we lost the connection of the actual principle which underlies the Constitution. The principle was, to recognize, it comes from Nicholas of Cusa, and Brunelleschi. These were the people who came out of an orgy of evil, and formed a new system, until the old Roman type of system came back, by using international warfare, to destroy what had happened in the Renaissance.

But everything that was good in the United States, everything that was good in any nation in Europe, was based on the Golden Renaissance, where new standards of principle were established. And since that time, the imperialist types, the new Roman Empire types, the British Empire types, the Dutch Empire types, these guys, all created a counter-system, to restore imperialism. And we're living under an imperialist system. And the United States, the Constitution of the United States is based on what was started with the Massachusetts Bay Colony. And this is the Constitution.

And we simply have to go up, and raise our voices, and say, we are not going to be killed, we're not going to mass-murdered, and if you say "the laws' on the books now," and say, "we have to do that," we'll say, "screw you, we're going to overturn the laws, and we're going to get new laws, laws that conform to our Constitution, and we're going to make a fight about that!" And say, "These are constitutional principles, innate to the human species, and its rights. And you can not have a constitutional provision and call it constitutional, if it's against the nature of the human species." And any laws that get in the way of the human species should be suppressed.

But we're going to have to make a fight about it.

But the point is, the fact that people are not fighting, that they don't think they want to fight it, means that if you don't fight to defend your rights, you lose them! And particularly human rights.

ROSS: Yeah, we can bring the concept of law, that properly exists in science, that has to be the same standard in politics.

LAROUCHE: Exactly! Except by the year 1900, they....

ROSS: Yeah, it's not in such good shape in the science world, is it?

LAROUCHE: Since we don't have scientists, much any more. We have very few scientists.

ROSS: The whole idea of what the nature of reality is, had a huge shift in 1900: If you compare the — I think Bertrand Russell at earlier parts in his life attacked Leibniz quite a bit. You know, in the usual way Russell writes things, very condescendingly, everything bores him, and he's so intelligent. And he said that Leibniz had the characteristics you would appreciate in a good employee: He showed up to work on time, he was tidy, etc.

But, then, later in life, Russell said that he actually agreed with Leibniz, specifically on Leibniz's trying to develop a universal characteristic. Now, what Leibniz meant by that, Leibniz had this idea of a universal characteristic being something that would do for thinking what telescopes had done for vision. In other words, it would make thinking much clearer. In other words, Leibniz had an idea of somehow creating a language or developing language to make it impossible to say things that weren't true, just like there are ways that... anyway, this was Leibniz's idea.

But his idea in it, was that, his logic, his idea of logic, Leibniz says, is of a metaphysical nature, that his idea of logic is the art of invention in general, is discovery. Now, Russell's got the exact opposite thing. For Leibniz, the fundamental building block of everything, was discovery, was there's always a greater richness within it, is discontinuity. If you look at what Cusa had done, it's through these negations, that Kant would have said were impossible, — or Kant later said were impossible; Aristotle said it's impossible. Like A and not-A, can't both be true. That's a basic of Aristotelian or Russell's logic. A and not-A are true all the time! That's what look for! That's what it means that you are using a wrong language to understand things. That's where the truth gets out of logic and gets into meaning.

So for Cusa, these negations had a very positive meaning. It was the definition or the prompting to discover a new principle. And from the outlook of Cusa, and then as later defended by Gödel against Russell, the fundamental building block of reality, is that when you try to look into the small, and you say, what's reality really made out of? You find yourself looking at the mind. Because there's no way that you can ever create a system of physics or of anything else, that's done. And if you try to do that, then you're always missing something. The most fundamental thing that exists, is always the fact that there's more there. That creativity exists, even if you try to exclude it.

LAROUCHE: Take what you just said, and let's put it in a slightly different posture. All right, mankind is a creative species, and we know, for example, the very fact that we are now talking about defending Earth against satellites, means that mankind has adopted the recognition of a principle, of which he was not aware at an earlier time, at least not in a systematic way. And thus, the law of mankind is changed by mankind. In other words, the universal physical principles are those things which are known as the practice of mankind! And which are known in accord to their importance as opening up opportunities for mankind which otherwise would not exist.

So that's the permanent part. That the creative personality is one who creates a new state of awareness of the universe! It may be only a small corner of the universe, but it's a new establishment. And therefore, that is truth. Truth is the ability of mankind to increase his power to exist, the efficiency of its power to exist, to increase the meaning of its existence, to get beyond sense-perception. For example, sense-perception is the thing that imprisons man the worst.

And mankind confined to — look at our education system. What I lived through, even in the times which were not as bad as these now, every class was taught, the teacher tells you what the principles are. If you recognize as you are prescribed, then the teacher gives you a good mark. If you don't agree with the teacher, you get a bad mark! Now, take the case of Euclidean geometry, which is one of the bugaboos which I keep talking about, hmm? If you believe in that system of geometry, you're an idiot! You're a liar and an incompetent! You're a menace to the human species. As was demonstrated in the Renaissance: One greatest achievements of the Renaissance to thoroughly destroy everything to do with this nonsense! Which is really Zeusian! It's a Zeusian principle.

And so, the problem is, therefore, our educational system stinks. Why? Because the school system, whether the teachers know it or not, are by and large, even in better times, are by and large, imposing predetermined universal principles on the mind of the student. When the progress is, to make breakthroughs to things that the teacher had not yet learned. And if you can get students who can educate the teacher, now you have a real society! In other words, if you have a student, who is a so-called "bright student," who recognizes that the course that's being taught, has got a real defect in it. And the student says, "yes, but what about this?" Everybody looks around in shock. I had one of these shocking things I got, on the question of Euclidean geometry, when I was first confronted with it. And they asked, "what's geometry about?" and I told them what geometry was about, what I knew from my experience in terms of high steel construction, going from the carbon kind of construction to the high steel construction.

And this was considered a great scandal, that I would utter this idea! Attack Euclidean geometry! Why did the student believe in Euclidean geometry? Because the school system, the education system, taught him: That's what you get a mark for. If you go against that, you get a D mark! And the teachers and the faculty members go whispering around you, against you, that "this guy's a little bit... you know, not so good. He doesn't conform! He doesn't conform."

And so therefore, the idea of conformity with previously taught established opinions, which are still the trait of people today: What makes our people drug addicts? Why do we have so many drug addicts among young people? Because they were told, they're confined, they can not be creative. They're confined to predetermined standards. And when you get into a society that doesn't work, and the predetermined standards don't work, either, what do you get? You get the mess you've had, since the Bush administration!

BEETS: I think that's one of the key things, because people often ask us, people often recognize the rot in the education system, they see their own children coming home and what they're not being taught. And so people recognize that there's a problem, but here's the issue: The education system isn't going to solved in a vacuum as the education system per se. That has to exist within a nation which is taking on a national mission for humanity. The student has to actually see that he exists within a country which is progressing. And in which he could play a leading role in leading the progress of mankind.

When you have a collapsing society, you start to get this complete disintegration...

LAROUCHE: You go right to the whole with my whole experience with this business. And I got into a fairly high-ranking position scientifically in this process, by going through a whole series of things. But the problem is, is with those things which I saw clearly had to be done, were negated. What does it means? It means you're destroying your own society! What you do, therefore, is instead of being in the United States, we've become a British colony! And when British colony standards of international standards, so-called, global standards, then take over, then you destroy our people, because they're not allowed to develop! They have to conform! You deny them the right to do this. You tell them you have to do that, you legalize drugs, you legalize all kinds of afflictions.

And the purpose of this whole thing, drugs — why is the Queen, the biggest crook on the planet, why is she the biggest whore on the planet? Her policies! Her educational policies. Her drug policies! She's the biggest drug-pusher on the planet! She's a criminal! So we have a criminal standard of international law. And all kinds of weird kinds of new laws come in, new cultural patterns come in — they're all destructive.

And only if you stand up on your hind legs, and two are required, you bring two, and you stand up on your hind legs, and you say, "We don't accept this," and you make a fuss about it. You say, "Look, our educational system stinks," and the corruption of our educational system, and I saw it, for example, in the postwar period. People were going back to universities, or going into universities, after World War II, forget it! Forget it! You would get exceptional people who would get out, but they would be diminished in number, in ratio.

So it's only when we actually go out to attack, directly, like in this case of the Texas election and the California election: You have to go in against every kind of standardized standard of law, on the books now, in order to save the United States. In the case of, say, Texas and California. You have to get rid of fracking! But the fracking is already there! It's already legalized, the policies are legalized. You have to delegalize them. So you have to go out and demand, and you have to inspire the majority of population to revolt against these injustices.

And only when we get to the point — see, if we say we're going to defend ourselves against the attempt to crush the campaign in Texas, or by implication, California, if you try to conform to what is the accepted standard, you're going to fail. And what I've insisted upon, you have to go beyond that: Do not allow yourself to be confined to the topics which the so-called authorities are willing to discuss. You bring in the topics which have to be brought in, to upset the whole argument. And therefore, you can not have a Texas program, for a Texas election program for Senate, you can't have that unless you take on the California question. And the question which comes in, from the California connection, and that's the whole Western States problem: so, California and Texas are the two largest states in the United States as a whole. They're also the major components of the entire Western half of the United States, and beyond. Therefore, you must have law, which pioneers to solve that problem, to break through!

And you can not limit yourself to the agenda that's on the table. You can not take a fixed agenda set. You've got to go outside, attack the thing — always attack the enemy from the outside. Always understand the principle of the flank. You never go by the standard rules. You go outside the standard rules, to find the right rule to apply, and you bring that to bear: That's the only way you succeed. That's the only way we can be assured of a possibility of winning a Texas election, or later a California election. Unless we go outside the agenda.

In the Congress, they'll always try to stifle you, by saying "that's not on the agenda." You say, "That's why it should be on the agenda! Because you dumb bastards weren't smart enough to do that!" And that's what my concern is on this item on the table today, that you have to go outside, always go outside the given agenda. Take the total agenda, look at the total agenda, and then say, "what is missing?" What must we do? How do we deal with the fact that you've got all these people living in shacks, which would have been called shacks in San Francisco earlier! They're simply shacks! But what happens is, they just raised the price on shacks!

ROSS: It's amazing what a coat of paint will do.

LAROUCHE: Even without it — they won't even bother! And our problem is, in our campaigning, in our own organization, the tendency is to try to say, "what are the agendas, what are the facts?" and if you don't look and see what's outside the facts, as defined, and see what the problem is, and define what the solution is to the problem, you're not leading anywhere. You're just stirring the mud.

BEETS: And you see that, because of everything you've just outlined, a victory in Texas and California redefines, it's a breakthrough which overturns all of these illegal laws, and ways of operating for the entire nation. It completely changes the circumstances.

LAROUCHE: But you have to do the things that do that specific result. And this question of this subject, which is why I thought this subject is so important, let's go at this water question! Which is a life or death question for mankind — go at it! we know what the solutions are, we know what can be done; we've outlined a good deal of the tactics, strategy required for this operation for this, on this table, today. But that's what has to be there. You have to get outside the so-called rules of what's on the agenda. Don't let yourself get trapped in the fixed agenda, or prefixed agenda, not what are the issues. The issues should be left in the toilet bowl, — and then flushed.

ROSS: There you go! All right. Well, with that view on issues versus principles, in our minds very firmly, that seems like a good place to end it for this week. And we'll see you next time.