New Paradigm for Mankind, May 7, 2014, Transcript
May 8, 2014 • 10:11AM

Watch the video here.

CREIGHTON JONES: Good afternoon and welcome. Today is May 7th, 2014, and you're watching the New Paradigm for Mankind. My name is Creighton Jones, and joining me today in the studio are Benjamin Deniston, of our Scientific Research Team, and, of course, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche.

Now, Lyn, recently, you've been really going after the way of thinking, particularly around this Ukraine crisis, that, in fact, what we're seeing unfold in Ukraine, is not a crisis of that region as such, but is actually a tipping point for what could become a World War III situation, driven by the British Empire, who, using their puppet Obama, and other snakes, like Victoria Nuland, have an intention of trying to draw Putin into a confrontation which could escalate to a world war-type of situation, potentially one which would include the use of thermonuclear weapons.

Now, what you've been saying is that we have to look at this, not as just an incident, as part of a linear timeline, but instead, have to approach it from the standpoint of strategy, and that's what we'd like to get into today: That in fact, strategy and science, are absolutely coherent ideas, that there's a coincidence between strategy and science. Now, both as to method and also practice: Method from the standpoint that, as you were addressing to an audience last night, strategy, like science, does not unfold in linear time, or should not be understood as unfolding in linear time, but, in fact, must be thought to operate from the standpoint of the future, that it's the future which determines how one must think scientifically, today, and how one must approach strategy today, in terms of where are we going, where must we be? And what are the principles which are organizing the process which is unfolding before us, of which we're a part. That it doesn't proceed, as we said, in linear time, but it seems that operate history, seems to operate according to a kind of a nested hierarchy of principles, not in linear events.

So, you have a coherence of method, when you think about science and when you think about strategy. But then, there's also a coherence in terms of practice, that real strategy when you're talking about politics, must be guided by a rigorous understanding of scientific principle. That you can not put forward a strategy for the nation or for the human species, without a real, competent understanding of what are the scientific principles that are play, and that science must guide the kind of strategy that you employ. And I think this will come up, that a failure to understand science, to understand, for example, where the Earth sits in relation to the Sun, to the Solar System, to the galaxy, a failure to competently understand the science, has led to the collapse of empires, has led to the collapse of civilizations; just as, in the inverse, the rise of civilizations, has largely been an effect of the appropriate application of scientific practice and principle. And so, science and strategy are intimately connected.

And I think this is no more clear than the kind of situation we find ourselves in today, which Ben will get into, in terms of the water crisis, the relationship of that water crisis to processes of the Sun, and how we should adequately address that issue, counterposing that to the insane practice of non-science in the green movement. We know, where things are pretty much on their head, in terms of what the reality is, as we have come to understand it, versus what the practice and intention is, of those who are part of the green movement, and who are behind the intention of the green movement.

Now, just to set things up, to give a historical anecdote, and this is something which, Lyn, you brought up again last night, which is the figure of Eratosthenes: He was a Greek who lived in the region of Egypt. He lived from 276-194 B.C. And he was able to determine, for pretty fair accuracy for his time, the circumference of the Earth. And effectively, what he was able to do, is that he knew that, in a particular city along the Nile, Aswan as it's known today, which sits roughly along the Tropic of Cancer, that during the period of the summer solstice, at 12 noon, the Sun would be pretty much directly overhead in that city, and therefore, if one were to look at an obelisk, something like a rod which was perpendicular to the Earth, you'd have no shadow cast, because the sunlight was directly overhead. Whereas, that same time, he observed, set up an experiment, really, to observe this, that at that same time on the summer solstice, at 12 noon, roughly 500 and some miles north of Aswan, in Alexandria, you did find a shadow cast. Which set up a certain kind of paradoxical situation. You had two different types of effects occurring at the same time. And he was able to show that the difference, the shadow cast, that the angle created was about one-fiftieth of a circle; so he was able to take that, look at the rough distance of 500 -plus miles, and was able to calculate, with fair approximation for the time, what the circumference of the Earth was.

The interesting thing, which becomes very relevant to our discussion here, and is actually relevant to the whole history of science, is that, in order to make this discovery, he had to, in effect, go outside of the Earth. He had to look at the Solar System; he had to look at the Sun and the relationship of the Sun and the Earth, and see what the relationship generated as effects, which then gave him the insight, and understanding, and discovery, of what the nature of the Earth, in fact, was. It was then this knowledge and understanding, of the nature of the Earth, via a relationship to the Sun, that led him to be able to, as Lyn was discussing last night, coordinate flotillas of ships, and this is where the strategy really comes in, which were then deployed from Egypt, which then sailed across the South Pacific and eventually made their way to Chile, which is not a story which is very well understood, or common acknowledged by most quote/unquote "historians" today, but is, in fact, a scientific truth.

And so, you have, Eratosthenes, with his understanding of where you find the true principle of science, then applying that principle, i.e., the relationship of the Sun and the Earth, to then, strategy, to organize these flotillas of ships, to then make their way, eventually to Chile, based on the kinds of maps he was able to develop from his discovery of the shape and the size of the Earth, and really revolutionized human civilization in this way.

So it really gives an example of the kind of method, and the approach that we need to apply today, to understanding the crises we face and for generating the kind of hypotheses that we're going to need, to move forward, to deal with the very real crises facing human civilization.

So with that, Ben, I think you have a number of things to tell us.

BENJAMIN DENISTON: It's a useful example. And people could certainly use the lesson of that today, and look outside of their immediate environment, get a sense of what the hell's going on, and what we need to do.

The other aspect, that I want to continue from last week, some of the discussion on the water crisis, and the fundamental issue that, people don't get today, that we need to confront, is, we still have a problem with people understanding the fundamental concept of progress. There's no steady state in society. Society has to progress. Human society is defined by progress, continuously, not in any given state, but continual development, and water development, water resources, control of water systems, is a very clear illustration and case study of that.

And if you just look at the United States, for example, just to set up what I'm going to go through here, a couple useful steps to get a sense of what we're dealing with: If you go back to Franklin Roosevelt's time, one of the global frontier projects at that time, in the '30s, was the Tennessee Valley Authority, where we took this region, that was subject to floods, dramatic variations in the water flows in the rivers, and we built the series of dams, irrigation systems, and tamed and very wild, and relatively unproductive territory, brought it under mankind's control, and made it one of the most advanced regions of the entire country, such that, the nuclear program, the Manhattan Project, actually, there's a key component that went on here in the Tennessee Valley, because the activity of the TVA created the potential for turning a region which was, before, relatively backwards, you had literally Third World conditions, and in a relatively very short timeframe, turned into one of the most frontier areas of the country, that could sustain some of the most advanced science.

But this then, didn't become the end-all and be-all of what mankind could do. We progressed to looking at larger systems. Instead of just dealing with one river, or one river valley, we looked at whole basins, whole river basins and interconnecting river basins, for even larger-scale water management and improvement of land and territory. So here, you have all the river and irrigation systems involved in bringing water down to Los Angeles, San Diego and the Imperial Valley. And you can see the whole area involved, stretches throughout all of California, including the critical Central Valley region, which grows a very large percentage of the nation's crops, today, thanks to these systems; and then, connecting over, with the Colorado Aqueduct, into the Colorado River Basin. So you see, some of this was done in Roosevelt's time, and then continued into the activity under Gov. Pat Brown, in California, the expansion of this concept of managing, controlling water flows, to completely improve and transform a whole region of territory.

JONES: It's very green in those areas, too.

DENISTON: Yeah, now it is. So this is the next logical step in the development of mankind's improving the land, through control of water.

The next obvious, clear step, which was already known, by the time these projects were being completed, was the fact that — you know, you're dealing with two river basin systems here, in a certain limited territory of the West, but the next logical step was, that if we're actually going to continue mankind's progress and development and improvement of the territory, the idea is, we need to go to a continental system: The NAWAPA system was designed, based on the recognition that you have a huge disparity, and a very unproductive natural state of the Western water system, where you have large precipitation in the north, very little precipitation in the south. So the idea was a major continental management system, that, if it were built then, we would be in a much better position today, to handle the challenges that are coming, through changing solar activity, for example. And we wouldn't have the immediate existential crisis of the drought and the threat to the food supply.

But this was not built, because, what you had instead was the elimination of progress, with the green movement, following Kennedy's assassination, and you had the introduction of a policy of no-growth, environmentalist policies, the brainwashing of the population to say, anything mankind does to change the environment is somehow inherently bad. It's really an anti-human movement, not a pro-environmentalist movement.

JONES: A brown movement.

DENISTON: And the idea was pushed on the population that no matter what people do, somehow it's going to have a terrible effect, and it was really pushed from the top down, as a strategic policy, by the British Empire, as part of a population control, and population reduction program. The idea was to stop progress, stop development.

So, this was killed, and you can see this very clearly in a feature video that Michael Kirsch and others produced, called NAWAPA 1964, where they went back through the original letters and correspondences between Frank Moss and other Senators, and other leading figures in society, who, prior to the insanity of the environmentalist shift, were the leading proponents of this project. And you can see in their personal discussions, the shift that occurred, to this green cynicism and pessimism, where the discussion of any large projects like this was taken out of the picture, and the discussion became all this insanity of overpopulation, worrying about the "environment," and this whole crazy paradigm.

So, because of this, because progress was stopped, we're in a much worse situation today, than we were when NAWAPA was originally designed. We've discussed, a lot, the immediate crisis. Texas is in a major drought; Texas has lost 20% of their cattle in the last five years; you have towns that are literally running out of water in Texas. A huge percentage of the water distribution systems are stressed and in danger in Texas. California, you already have over half a million acres, over 500,000 acres, of some of the the most productive farmland in the entire country, that just can't be planted this season! That's being left to have no production, they just have no growth because of the drought crisis. So we have an immediate, existential crisis, which is not localized, because it hits the food supply of the entire nation. So this needs to be dealt with in the short term.

You have an additional factor, which is the factor of attrition, physical attrition. We didn't just "pause" the situation in the 1960s, in the late-'60s, early-'70s, and we can just resume where we were back then. Because of a lack of progress, we've actually built in a physical attrition into the physical economy, and one clear example of this — I mean, you see this in infrastructure, you see this across the economy as a whole, take in the water crisis, you see this in the amount of groundwater depletion in aquifers. Here, the yellow and the orange and the red, indicate regions where you have very severe depletion of water from these groundwater stores. So you have entire regions, we've discussed the Ogallala Aquifer, up through northern Texas, up through central of the country there, the Central Valley of California; southern California and Arizona, many of these regions had agriculture and activity that's solely dependent upon pumping out a finite supply of groundwater, and removing it at a rate much faster than it gets replenished, so we've built up a major deficit, and in some of these regions, you've had a dramatic lowering of the land. The land's dropped feet, many feet; you can go into the Central Valley of California, and they'll have a poll, that goes up 10, 15 feet, and there's a line that says, this is how high the land used to be, and you're standing 10, 15 feet below that, and that's because the ground has actually fallen, because we pumped out so much water from the ground.

JONES: Right, the physical costs increase, because the deeper you have to go, the more gas you to run the pumps and whatnot is required to get the same amount of water.

DENISTON: Exactly. It's become a physical increase in cost, because we didn't progress and move to a higher order system, where we were managing this larger continental system.

So those are factors we have to immediately deal with, but what we've been looking at in more detail recently, is a larger factor, which you hinted to, in your opening remarks, which is solar activity, and the types of changes in solar activity that we're going to have to live with and deal with over the coming period. I want to take a few minutes to go through the evidence, for what we do and don't know about what the Sun is currently doing. So we have, at least four independent lines of investigation, that look at different processes on the Sun, that look at different historical records, that all, independently point to one general conclusion: The Sun is getting very weak. It could be going into a period of very weak solar activity.

Now, to state outright, no one understands the Sun, currently, so no one can predict with absolute certainty, they know exactly what's going to happen. But what we do have, is four different lines of evidence, based on different areas of study which indicate the same general direction, a weakening of solar activity. Now, the first thing that's been studied, is the strength of the magnetic fields around sunspots. These are the image of a couple sunspots here. And what scientists at NASA and different universities can do, is they can actually measure the strength of the magnetic field around these sunspots. And they've also been able to look at, there's a certain threshold, if the magnetic field isn't strong enough, you won't get a sunspot at all. Now, what we've seen since 1990, consistently, is year, to year, to year, the sunspots are getting weaker, and they're converging towards a point, where if they continue this trend of weakening, they're converging to a point where we wouldn't get any sunspots at all, because the magnetic processes involved in creating a sunspot wouldn't be strong enough to actually create the sunspot.

So this was, in 2006 and 2008, this investigation was one of the lines of evidence used, by certain people to forecast, that the next solar cycle — so, in 2006, 2008, they were looking at what was going to be the next solar cycle, which we're currently in, and they were say this next one, solar cycle 24, is going to be very weak. And this actually went against the standard prediction that was being held up by NASA for what they thought the Sun was going to do. There were actually headlines — I was just looking this morning...

JONES: Yeah, I saw some of that.

DENISTON: Yeah, there were headlines in 2005, 2006, saying "the next solar cycle is doing to be a big one, it's going to be a whopper," but they were basically just going off of curve-fitting. There was no real investigation of real process, they were just looking at the trend of previous cycles, and saying, well, we've had a few big ones, looks like it's going to be another big one.

Some of these other guys came in, they were very much a minority at the time, and they were saying, well, the magnetic field around the sunspots is weakening. Other processes are weakening, we could be going into a period of low solar activity. And they've been shown to be right: We're at the peak, now, of the current solar cycle, and it's the weakest solar cycle in over 100 years. And these guys are openly saying, now the headlines are, "this is a weaker Sun than any of us has ever seen in our lifetimes," is what these scientists are now saying. So that's one line of investigation.

The second one is rather interesting: Looking at structures beneath the surface of the Sun, and looking at how these subsurface structures, change over the course of the solar cycle. Now the way they do this is kind of interesting, they actually look at ripples and waves on the surface of the Sun, and then use some advanced analysis to try and figure out what must be going on beneath the surface, to cause these fluctuations we're seeing on the surface. So it's kind of a way to peer into the Sun. And this is something they were using, for example, 10 years ago, to look at the ripples on the side of the Sun that we can see, and they were able to use the motion that we could see, to then, say, well, are there any sunspots on the back of the Sun? So they were using ripples on the side of the Sun that we could see, to try and look at what was going on on the side we couldn't see.

And they were playing with this for a number of years. A few years ago, we finally got a spacecraft that could look on the other side of the Sun, and they showed, that yes, indeed, this method was relatively accurate, in being able to show you, based on the fluctuations on the surface that we can see, it can tell you what's going on, what kind of activity is happening on the back side. So it's not a fully untested method; they've had some success in using these systems to get a sense of what's going on.

Now, the Sun is a very — if anything, the more we look, the more complex and interesting and structured this whole thing, this Sun, is. What they've noticed is that, at the beginning of the solar cycle, as you can see here — this is the status on the left here; you get these high- and mid-latitude streams of like a flow, like a jet stream type process, beneath the surface of the Sun, rotating around. And I don't think we even fully know why it happens, but we see that, a solar cycle will start with this process; that as the solar cycle progresses, this band, this jet stream, will split into two, and one will migrate towards the equator and one will migrate down towards the poles. And this actually precedes some of the sunspot activity you see. The sunspot cycle will tend to following this jet stream type structure, in the Sun. And so, we've been able to observe this occurring for a few solar cycles now, so we've been able to watch this relationship between structures, and the sunspots.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: It's like a magnetic storm.

DENISTON: Yeah, like a magnetic... yeah, it's a magnetic process, that's part of the whole cycling of the solar cycle.

JONES: Is it related to, then, the changing of the magnetic poles of the Sun?

DENISTON: Yeah. This then flips every 11 years to reverse the polarity. But this was also looked at, around 2008, that period, and they noticed that the activity that was going to correspond to the next solar cycle, the one we're currently in, was, again, anomalous and weak. They noticed that the migration of these structures towards the poles, was actually very much delayed. Some of the structures weren't seen at all, and when they were seen, the most has been very slow.

So again, they were saying this looks like it's going to correspond to a weaker and prolonged, weaker solar cycle for the next solar cycle — solar cycle 24. And, again, that's what we've seen, so it was another forecast, based upon looking at these processes, which as of now, appears to be pointing in the right direction.

A third line of evidence was looking at changes in the coronal structure, now. Now, you're looking at the atmosphere of the Sun. So it's very interesting, because we're looking, actually, at different layers and different processes: We were looking at the surface with the sunspots; we were looking beneath the surface, with these jet stream type structures. Now you look at the atmosphere, the corona, this plasma, very hot, gaseous atmosphere, above the surface of the Sun. That also changes in correspondence with the solar cycle, and part of that change is the motion of coronal structure also towards the polar regions, which, again, precedes the development of a new solar cycle. And again, this was delayed and weak and late. And based on that — there was another line of evidence, forecasting that this current solar cycle was going be a weak cycle.

As of recently, based on this line of investigation, they're saying — and again, nobody really knows what's going on with these things — but they're saying, based upon how we seem to understand these processes so far, the current activity of the corona indicates that the next cycle, 25 — so we're in 24 now, we're in the peak of 24; before 24 started, these lines of evidence were used to forecast that this current cycle 24 was going to be weak.

Now some people are looking at the coronal structure, and they're saying, based on how we're seeing it behaving now, the next cycle, 25, the one that had hasn't started yet, looks like it's also going to be weaker, and it could be very long. These solar cycles average about 11 years, but they vary, they can be 8 years, they can be 12 years. They're saying that the way the corona's behaving now, if that is an accurate way to forecast future activity, it would indicate the next cycle 25, which is going to start in about 5 or 6 years or so, something like that, would be a cycle of about 18 years in length, and the last time we've had a cycle that long, was during these grand minimum periods, the Dalton minimum, or the Maunder minimum, where you had very, very low sunspot activity, very low solar activity, and a major climatic changes on the Earth.

So these are all studies being done by scientists in the U.S. There's also been studies by Russian scientists, out of Pulkovo Observatory, I believe in St. Petersburg. And they were also forecasting weak solar activity, and coming global cooling, due to weak solar activity. And one of the things they're looking at, is just basic cycles: They're saying, yeah, you have an 11-year cycle of sunspot activity, but if you take a longer trend, like here, you're looking at the past thousand years, here you have this Maunder minimum I just referenced, where you had, over a series of decades, a succession of very weak solar cycles, or not even appearing sunspots.

JONES: This is what, sunspots, that this curve is measuring?

DENISTON: Yeah, it's a proxy for solar activity. Because we weren't observing the Sun in great detail, back a thousand years. But what we can look at, is evidence on Earth, that is related to changes in the relationship of the Sun, and galactic cosmic radiation. So we know the Sun acts as a moderator of galactic cosmic radiation. So we can look at the evidence of how much galactic cosmic radiation is there, or not there, and based on that, it can help us provide a reading of how active the Sun has been or hasn't been.

And they've compared this method of looking at these proxy data, with current sunspot data, and you can see that it does correspond. Because now we can look at both the cosmic radiation effect, and look directly at the Sun. So we have an idea that it is an accurate representation.

LAROUCHE: And the Solar System is a victim of the galaxy. Its migration through the stages of the galaxy are a very powerful force in shaping how the Sun behaves, and it's one of the key factors we have to ask questions about.

DENISTON: Yeah, absolutely.

LAROUCHE: And I think there's not enough attention to that particular problem. Because we know the galaxy's a very complex structure. It's much more complex than anything like the Solar System.

DENISTON: Right. And it's completely not understood. I mean any attempt to — every time you look a little bit more at the galaxy and structures in the galaxy and motions in the galaxy, you just run into anomalies. They can't explain this, they can't explain that, it's just outside of our current understanding.

LAROUCHE: But the migration of the Solar System through the galaxy is somewhat tracked by astronomers, and that gives you an idea that there are different field changes, in the conditions of the Solar System, as it goes through this track, through the galaxy. And if we don't pay attention to that, we'll be left with a lot of questions, for which there are no answers.

DENISTON: Yeah, right. And we'll be ready to be blind-sided.

LAROUCHE: Yeah, and the point is, mankind has to shift his attention, from the idea of being pragmatic, which is the greatest stupidity of humanity, is being pragmatic. You have to realize, we're living inside a universe, and the universe is containing the Solar System. And the whole system of the Solar System, which for us is awesomely complex, in terms of direct observation, it's actually a minimal kinds of structure, in terms of a much larger, much more complex universe. And therefore, we're not independent of that, but the problem is, is the psychological one, because man could have done better than man has done. But the psychological problem, is people believe in sense-perception. And by the emphasis on belief in sense-perception, they assume that, they don't recognize what has been recognized by real scientists, is that you can not think of the Solar System in these kinds of terms. It has an evolution, there's a lawful process in the evolution. But mankind sees itself in terms of Earth experience, the Earth environment experience, so they try to project the Earth environment experience, as a container of variations, when the fact is, it works the other way!

DENISTON: Yeah, this is a perfect example of that. It's exactly inverted.

LAROUCHE: Yeah, exactly. And that's why this kind of consideration is so important. Because what you have to do, is get mankind to get out of this idea, of his own stupidity, the presumptions which mankind accepts, which are actually stupid, blind mankind — and this is like the difference between in various theories of mankind. Once you begin to look outside the Solar System as we know it, or look outside Earth as we know it, you find that you're in a different world, than if you think of yourself from the standpoint inside the Earth experience. Because man's sense-perception system, is confined. Man's sense-perception system is the thing you have to escape from, as a limitation, and you have to think about, and find out how to think about the universe outside. Now, this has been what's been the great accomplishment in all science, has been breaking free, of thinking in terms of the Earth itself. And once you go into nearby space, even just outside Earth's orbit itself, you find yourself, that the measurements we're able to make, in terms of astronomy, in respect to outside the Earth's system and beyond, into the larger part of the Solar System, relatively, you find that, now mankind is no longer limited to ideas limited on biological sense-perception. And one you go beyond biological sense-perception, you find yourself in a completely different kind of universe. Which is what the significance is, of this thing you were discussing, hmm?

Once you get outside the Earth as such, outside the limitations of the kind of environment, the green environment, when you get outside the green environment and go into nearby space, and now begin to correlate everything you've see on Earth, and say: Wait a minute, what we've seen on Earth is simply a delusion. It was something caused by something. What caused it? When you start to look at solar processes, you have a completely different view, than looking at it from Earth processes. Because now you see a way of looking at how it's happening in the universe, without relying upon sense-perception. It was the breaking free of sense-perception, which actually created all competent modern science.

And there were efforts to do that, suppositions in that direction by mankind, earlier. Mankind's doubt, of the authority of sense-perception as the standard of truth, was the beginning of, really, the development of the human culture in a progressive form. But you still have people living on Earth saying, "Be practical." People who call themselves practical, are stupid. Because their tendency is, sense-perception, for them, is everything! The stupid person is a sense-perception-driven person!

DENISTON: And now, their stupidity is literally threatening all of civilization. Because if you look at, this is the perspective to take, this water crisis, and this drought situation, because what we know from the records is that these changes in solar activity, this is what determines climate change. This is what determines major drought periods, this is what determines major cooling periods. So if we're going to be able to handle the water crisis, we're going to be incapable, unless we start from this standpoint.

LAROUCHE: Well the green policy, from the standpoint of mankind, is a form of clinical insanity. Anyone who believes in a green policy, should be put in an insane asylum for curative treatment! Because the effect of what they're doing, is destroying mankind. So it's a kind of criminal insanity, and the best term for describing the green policy, is, criminal insanity.

DENISTON: Yeah! I mean, take the quotes people are saying about California and the drought, now. People are literally saying: Well, if it's going to get drier, we just can't support that many people, and we'll just have to get rid of them, we'll have to move them out. They're talking about a policy that would have detrimental effects on the food supply, that would displace millions of people, and they're just going to say that without any concern at all! They're openly saying: if we can't support them, the water's not there, we'll just throw 'em out, and let the crops die.

LAROUCHE: Without interrupting unduly, the line of what you're reporting now, this actually represents a criminal problem.


LAROUCHE: And therefore it has to be treated as a criminal problem. These people are criminally insane. They have a right to live, but they don't have a right to impose insanity, upon people who are not insane.

DENISTON: Right. And that's what they're talking about doing with the policy: They're openly saying, we should just let the food supply just disappear in California. We should just let millions of people be complete displaced and try and let them find some other home across the country. I mean, people claim they have rights to opinions, but you don't have a right to impose a death-suffering on other sections of the population.

LAROUCHE: Well, this is the Zeus principle, that's what the policy is. All predatory — all imperial systems were based on the Zeus principle, of preventing progress in the population in general, controlling and reducing the human population, that is the actually human population, and letting the oligarchical class, be the only class allowed to live. It's like the Roman Empire collapsed, because the Roman Empire itself decided to collapse its population! And then they moved the population of Rome, which were wealthy, moved them up to the north end of the Adriatic, where they lived in a swamp for a period; then became the Venetians, as they built up power in the northern part; then they became a power which influenced this whole corruption, the Venetian influence, in terms of all of Europe.

So, the point is, the lesson we have to take is, there are two systems: There is the system which we represent, and the enemy of mankind, which is the oligarchical system, or the Zeusian system, the Roman Empire system, and the British Empire system! We're ruled as a whole, by a British Empire, throughout the planet today! The British Empire is the controlling influence throughout the entire planet for the population. That is the enemy, that's the Zeusian principle. That's what the Roman Empire represented, that's what the British Empire, which is a very large system, which extends is claws and paws all over the planet, and it's that system that's crushing the entire world, and its population. And the key thing is, once we recognize, that is the enemy of mankind, that the oligarchical system is the enemy of the human species: They're like a madman, reigning over mankind. And they always die.

It's like the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire conception, which he got from the Romans, and the British adopted their whole policy of imperialism on the Roman Empire!

DENISTON: Right, Gibbon, who wrote the whole piece on this study, of how to sustain an empire.

LAROUCHE: Yeah. And he got to falling down, too, because he got so damned weak from his laziness in exercise, that if he just walked the wrong way, he would fall on the floor. But here he was, inside his head, was this monster who had this whole image of the Roman Empire, and it was a fairly good one! A very good description of those circumstances. But here he was, and the British Empire was designed on the basis of Gibbon's representation! It was a systemic thing, which is still running today!

But the people of the world, don't know, or don't recognize efficiently, the fact that this is a form of clinical insanity, which is of the Zeusian form, the so-called Zeusian prototype.

DENISTON: The point is that mankind can not continue to exist in this universe, under that mode. These types of processes we're talking about, will make — will make it impossible to sustain society, under that type of imperial system.

LAROUCHE: And the first satellite that gets ambitious, exterminates the human species.


LAROUCHE: That's the mentality of the Zeusian!

DENISTON: And the other thing, with this decline in solar activity is the direct effect of cooling on food production. You know, there's just historical records, saying, with 1 degree Fahrenheit change in temperature, in the general climate of North America, the boundary lines for where you can grow corn will change by 150 miles. So a few degrees change, and you can have dramatic shifts in where you can and can't grow food! We already have an incredibly fragile food supply; we already have major regions of starvation going on around the planet. So, because of this Zeusian policy, this green policy, mankind is incredibly weak, and vulnerable, and susceptible, to the types of fluctuations and changes that we absolutely know will occur, have occurred, and will continue to occur.

JONES: And you see with that, the upside-down insanity of the green movement. I mean, one example is Michael Kirsch yesterday, was pointing out the fact that, one of the solutions being put forward to the water crisis, in conjunction with quote/unquote "global warming," is that they'll move food production more up towards the north, because it'll be warmer! Which is the complete opposite of what the actual effect will be, which is that, where you can grow food, will continue to move farther and farther south, because of cooling!

LAROUCHE: Those are only sophistries. Those things are only expressions of pure sophistry! "Well, we can explain to you how this works. We can explain. No, what you're saying is not a problem."

JONES: Right. And behind the curtain, the real intention, obviously, is massive population reduction. Just like with the windmills and solar panels and whatnot, the intention that they put forward as a solution to a fake problem, is actually one that accelerates the rate of genocide!

LAROUCHE: Well, the plausible solution is to collapse the civilization of the trans-Atlantic system. Because if the British Empire system were to collapse and lose power, then it would not have a government power. What you would have, then, is the Eurasian system, the trans-Pacific Eurasian system, would then take over the world, if there were to be any survival of humanity as a result: Now, that is what the reason for the British determination to have a general thermonuclear war, now, and that's what the little errand boy of Satan, Obama, is doing. Obama is simply a little Satan, running around, trying to set fires. But the real monster is the British Empire, embodied in the Queen herself, and the Royal Family, who are the really Satanic forces behind this thing. The others are evil gangsters, but she is Satanic. And what happens if she were to continue, to control the trans-Atlantic region, even if it didn't get destroyed with a thermonuclear war, to destroy the planet, the entirety of the trans-Atlantic region, would go into a catastrophic collapse, almost immediately: We're on the verge of the threat of a catastrophic collapse of the entire trans-Atlantic system.

And that's what's going on. And we have to, in a sense, emphasize this fact, in order to hit, right in the middle of their damned nose!, the fact that that's what's coming to them, if they continue to play this game! We're on the verge, and we're already seeing it, since about 1890, to about the first part of the 20th century, there was a change in direction in global cultural developments, especially in the trans-Atlantic region. And this led into the series of world wars, as a byproduct of this process, which were organized largely by the British Empire. If you take the full extent of the British Empire at that time, you see it.

Now the British Empire's wars, were first to get consolidation over the thing, to consolidate power over Europe, to break up every part of Europe that was independent of the British Empire, and make it a real slave of the British Empire! The United States was then gobbled up! What they did, is they destroyed, by killing Presidents, they did processes by controlling our government, by controlling our processes, by going into the financial accounting system, which destroyed the economy of the economy of the United States, back about 1912-1914: That was the destruction of the modern American...

DENISTON: With the Federal Reserve System coming in.

LAROUCHE: Well, it was managed — it coincided with the Federal Reserve System coming in. But it was the mechanisms, of the accounting profession, the creating of the accounting profession was the instrument by which the United States was destroyed.

JONES: So, that system is actually one which denies a future. Everything is based on accounting for the past, and denying the idea of a future directing things.

LAROUCHE: Well, productivity — Hamilton's system, which was suppressed because of corrupt Presidents, in particular, corrupted Presidents went along with the British system. And they did that, by saying, you must not have, a national system of the U.S. economy. You must have a state-by-state system! And the introduction of a state-by-state system, instead of a national system, which was in the Constitution, that was destroyed! And every President in that period, since Washington, up until Monroe, every President was a traitor to the United States. Because they were playing on their speculation, on financial gains, and they wanted their individual state to acquire control over the national economy, by participating in the chaotic system. The British Empire gobbled up, the United States, by playing on the states' rights program. It was the states' rights program that destroyed the sovereignty of the United States! Corrupted it and then destroyed it.

So, to understand this process, you have to look at the larger implication, that we're on the verge: The success of the British Empire, in controlling the trans-Atlantic system, which was the most powerful system on the planet, destroyed the trans-Atlantic system, in fact, in terms of reality! So now, what you have, is the emergence of China, Russia, possibly India and other countries, come up, not as victors, in the process, but as the alternative to a self-destroyed part of the world, which is the trans-Atlantic system.

And that's where the danger of thermonuclear war comes, right from there. The Zeusian rage factor, the Roman Empire, the decline and collapse of the Roman Empire, it's right there. It is hitting us right now, and the problem is, we've got a bunch of idiots, in our government and elsewhere, in leading institutions, which have no conception of what idiots they are! What suicidally inclined idiots they are! They want to assert: Well, this is our opinion.

We said, "That's why you're going to Hell!" [laughs] And this is the irony of this thing!

And mankind obviously, is not a species intended to live, mentally, only on Earth. Mankind is a species of Earth, but mankind's power, is an intellectual power, not a biological power. The biology is actually essentially a force of the intellect. And therefore, if you go outside the Solar System directly, or going into the outer areas of the Solar System, you come to a completely different game to play. You play at much higher orders of energy-flux density. Mankind, by increasing the energy-flux density by man's efficient self-development, is able to control more and more of the Solar System, even though mankind himself, is not suited, yet, with any perspective of being able to live outside Earth! But we get the power, to reach beyond Earth. It's the idea of the egotistical earthling, which is the great threat. If you say, look, I'm only an earthling, but I know how to control these areas around my Earth. That is what mankind's destiny is, is to rise to be able to control larger parts of the Solar System, probably try to control the system as a whole; then to get into understanding how to deal with the galaxy, which means, we're just going to have to increase the energy-flux density that mankind is able to exert, in times of the system.

If mankind is successful, ultimately, mankind will snicker, when you talk about the power of the Sun. He'll say, well the Sun, that's our Sun! We control that. But, we also control much more powerful sources. We use the Sun, we'll maintain the Sun because we need it. But we're not going to depend upon it! We're going to control its destiny: And all that means is, rising in energy-flux density.

And our study of the relationship of the galaxy and the Solar System, is going to be crucial in our coming to an understanding of this thing. And the laggard attitude, about dealing with the migration of the Solar System with in the galactic track, is the one thing that is the most important, to look at intellectually. You have to think in those terms, just as we had to think about the Solar System, in looking at beyond Earth as such, so, we have to look beyond the Solar System.

Now, that isn't going to happen soon, but we have to have a perspective, and a way of thinking which is looking for that.

JONES: Well, on that, something which I think is interesting which comes up, because, as we've been discussing, we're looking at this phenomenon of a weakening and a change in the magnetic properties of the Sun. And we see that in the sunspot activity, etc. Coincident with that weakening of the Sun's magnetic field, there's also been a lot of reports that the Earth's magnetic field, has been weakening, and it's been an accelerating weakening, along with an accelerating movement of the Earth's North Pole. So you seem to have a correlation, that it's not one affecting the other, but, as you're saying, as a system, the system as a whole seems to be going through some sort of change, which is reflected in this coincident change in the magnetic structure of the whole system.

LAROUCHE: Think about the Russian nest eggs, the egg inside the egg?

DENISTON: The dolls? The doll inside another doll?

LAROUCHE: Yeah. It's one flank, isn't it?

JONES: Yeah. So you see the whole system is going through a change. Whose cause can not be found within the system itself, but which must be somewhat an effect of something occurring on an even grander scale, a galactic scale at least.

LAROUCHE: Mankind has to grow up, intellectually, and understand that we are part of the universe; we're not some kind of wild animal, loose on the universe.

DENISTON: Right. And the sense-perception issue, the idiocy of thinking — that people think what they experience is just determined locally. I mean, all these things, it's already, in a sense, physically we're already living in the interconnection of the Solar System and the galaxy. The processes that we experience day to day, I mean, cosmic radiation's a constant — galactic cosmic radiation — there's a constant input in determining the character of the Earth's system. The Sun is the driver of the entire climate system. What people experience, in reality, scientifically, is already determined and subject to these intersections of these larger systems. It's only this insane delusion, that people think that, "well, that's over there," and the empty space between me and there, and I'm just living in this local self-determined environment.

This idea of, conceptually living in the higher system, and mankind conceptually, mentally, and really, culturally, thinking on these levels, is going to be the critical determining factor. Because it's going to be impossible to ever address people, your local conditions, your local climate conditions, your local concerns that people have to deal with in a regional or even a global basis, we're never going to be able to figure that out, or even have an influence on that, unless you're working from a different standpoint.

LAROUCHE: We will never figure it out, unless we get into the understanding of the intention of Vernadsky! Because what Vernadsky did before he died, and he sort of came to an end, where he had completed what he was capable of doing within his life-span, but what he was in the process of doing, was devising a new conception of mankind, what mankind's role in the Solar System is, in particular, and the question of the nature of species, all these kinds of questions.

But it got lost, with Vernadsky's death, and with the conditions in the Soviet Union that developed after that point, and Stalin's death, because Stalin was actually an advocate of Vernadsky in his work, and protected him against the British-minded Marxist nonsense — that the failure to recognize, not what Vernadsky had accomplished, as such, but what Vernadsky had implicitly brought into consideration. When you try to interpret what somebody has achieved, as a scientist, and you think that's the legacy, it is not the legacy. The legacy is what you set into motion, by which his creative capabilities, are projected and still growing. In other words, people who don't just admire him, — and he should be admired for what he did — but the point is, you've got to say, who is going to continue the noëtic process, of ideas, when he's dead?

JONES: Right. And that's exactly what he was investigating: What is the power of the noetic process? What is the role of the noëtic process, in the universe?

LAROUCHE: And his immediate associates were full of this kind of thing on experiments, looking at different aspects of nature, different principles of nature, in terms of a natural principle. And making these discoveries. And the point is, that has stopped — that was stopped. It was stopped, and one of the reasons the Soviet Union was treated as it was treated, was exactly to prevent this kind of thing inside that part of the world, from breaking free of the British-centered control system.

We see these things clearly, then we have a guide, as to what we should be looking at, and recognizing what was important, that has been suppressed? Especially in the domain of science? We do not understand mankind, we do not understand the definition of life. And Vernadsky's concentration was on the issue of life: First, he went at the question of animal life, and they did a lot of work on that. But, then, he was going into the question of what is human life, that is, what is the function of powers implicit in the human mind? And because until you get to that, you have not defined man, competently, scientifically. And that has not been continued.

And that's what we have to do. We have limited abilities, but we can have abilities to provoke. And provocation is the first step, to success.

JONES: Well, I think we've done quite a lot today towards that goal of provocation, and I think that's a good place to bring it to a conclusion. I would just say, that people should recognize that the medical remedy for gangrene, is amputation. And I think we can carry that forward with the green disease in general.

LAROUCHE: I think Ben has done an excellent job in the report today, in that direction. It does quicken, shall we say, or accelerate, our understanding of some of these processes, by getting some of these details straightened out.

JONES: Thank you all for joining us, and we'll see you all next week.