Join us for our weekly discussion between Mr. LaRouche, the LPAC Policy Committee and members of the LPAC Science team as they discuss the week ahead.
Transcript— DIANE SARE: Good afternoon, and welcome weekly LaRouche PAC Policy Committee discussion. Today is Monday July 20th, and I am Diane Sare, filling in for Matt Ogden. And we are joined via Google Hangouts by by Bill Roberts, from Detroit, Michigan; Dave Christie, from Seattle, Washington; Kesha Rogers, from Houston, Texas — a little warm down there, I’ve heard; Michael Steger from San Francisco, California; and Rachel Brinkley is returning to freak out Barney Frank in Boston, Massachusetts. And here at the table Ben Deniston and Megan Beets from the LaRouche PAC Science Team and of course, Lyndon LaRouche.
Lyndon LAROUCHE: Yes, I think the time has come to make a certain change. It’s actually an upgrade. It’s like going from a silent movie to a movie-movie. Because the assumption is that one thing happens, and another thing follows from that, and that the choice of sequence of these different things is treated as being the course of history.
Now, if you take the case of what happened to Hillary Clinton, just recently, where she was out there and refusing to mention the word “Glass-Steagall” but one of our young men said, “What about Glass-Steagall?” and reiterated it. And the whole thing went wild. Hillary sat there saying nothing, but what happened was, suddenly — he didn’t have to say anything at that point; he said it. But suddenly, you have a swarm of people from the press and so forth coming around this thing, and they all want to know about this, this event.
And so, what happened was that Hillary Clinton went to what she intended to be the close of her argument; but she never got a chance to do that, didn’t close. She was closed, because she no longer is likely to be elected as President. Her Presidency was wiped out, in one minute — one minute! — when the question of Glass-Steagall was suppressed, the press around there went wild, with some jubilation kind of wildness.
And so, in that case, if you try to take the sequence of events, and take her speech, there, in Manhattan on that occasion, history changed. Which means her plan, and the plan of most other people in politics, was suddenly changed! It’s a complete change. And the problem is that we try to say one thing after the other, but that is not the way society functions; it functions on the basis of interruptions, or abominations, or whatever you put in there.
So the point is, if we talk about how things work, and it’s like the idiocy of mathematics. When mathematics is used falsely as science, it’s crap. That’s not real. And thus the problem is that most of mankind and most of the population of the planet, especially, notably in the trans-Atlantic region, that the basis of measurement of what the future will bring, on any basis is up for grabs. A mere incident like that, “what about Glass-Steagall?” repeated a second time, that changed the whole history of the campaign features for the next coming Presidency. It changed.
And what happens, is, what I always do, I don’t like to take things in the order they’re dictated. They’re wrong! Because what happens is, if you are enslaved to saying, “we made this decision, now next we’re going to do this, and then, next we’re going to do this,” that’s idiocy. It’s absolute incompetence when it comes to anything that’s serious, particularly social processes. And so therefore, the way that even we do here, is we often try to follow the leader kind of thing: We do this, and then we do this, and then we do this, and then we do this, and you don’t do anything else until after you’ve done that.
And that doesn’t work. And it’s not working at all, not only in the case of Hillary Clinton, it’s going with other things as well, at the same time. The history, if we get a thermonuclear war between Russia and the United States, that won’t happen in a neat sequence of events. And nothing that is in the policy of government in terms of economic policy or almost anything, is always subject to abrupt interruptions; interruptions which may change the entire direction, of the action which had been going on before. And therefore, we’ve got to understand these matters, because how, then do you control the process of society, if interruptions made by mankind, for example, which is the likely case, or some accident, storm, tornadoes, something like that, that is interruptive; but, voluntary human interruptions are the essential characteristic, they’re the required characteristic, of a sane society.
And that’s where Einstein was the only scientist of the 20th century, who understood what science is. We had a number of people who were scientists who made great achievements in science. But! when you try to say, what is the flow of the process of scientific advances, that does not submit itself to what people assume are the measures of practical standing. So today, we or in any other situation that we’re in, we have to apply that to ourselves, and say, “wait a minute, yesterday we said this was going to happen, or this should happen”; and then somebody comes up and wins the argument by saying “no, that’s not right. It’s not going to happen that way.”
And therefore, when people get in the idea that there’s a certain order, which is a predetermined order that mankind must follow, in proper order. “Well, this is scheduled next week, so don’t bring it up this week.” And how Hillary lost her whatever, is an example of this: Here she is, she’s marched in, everybody’s assumed that she’s going to march in and envelop the whole question around this audience in Manhattan. And it didn’t happen, at all! And it will never happen!
So what was supposed to be the next thing on the agenda — who’s going to rebut her? There was nobody going to rebut her! She’s wiped out already, she doesn’t exist any more as a candidate; she’s lost.
So we have to think about ourselves, you know, we do it in our discussions here, in meetings such as this. We have to keep our mind open, to the fact that lurking right around us, is evidence which we may have overlooked; and if we discover that evidence which we have overlooked, if we’re going to survive, we’re going to change our opinion immediately. We’re going to drop the idea we had going, and you’re going to introduce an idea which fits the reality requirement instead. And of course, what I did, in terms of just an example of that, I did that Saturday in terms of all the leading discussions we had, is to try to get people to see things in those terms. And the fact of Hillary Clinton’s goofball operation, is an excellent example of how “neat planning” and schedules and so forth, really are never secure. They’re always up to question, either by making mistakes or succeeding in making discoveries.
SARE: Well, I think that is definitely really provocative, what you’re saying. And you know, this comes up all the time in the organizing. One thing you made very, very clear, Saturday, interwoven throughout is this threat of thermonuclear war . We have this new intermediate-range missile, which can be made very small and very accurate, and apparently the Congress did not fund it in the past, because they said, correctly, that since you can make it so small and so accurate it lowers the threshold at which someone would consider using it; it makes nuclear war more likely. Therefore, Obama has to be thrown out of office. And everyone says, “well how’re you going to do that?!” because we know the schedule: we have primaries and you have elections, and we have these candidates that we hate, and this is how things are going to go. And what you’re saying is, “Not necessarily.”
LAROUCHE: That’s right. That’s how you win wars. [laughter] By not submitting to those. When you see that something is a mistake, for example, just an ordinary mistake, are you going to live it out? And make a fool of yourself? How would a King — well, what’s happening to the British system now, the British Queen? I will be free to say more on this after a certain passage of time, because we’re not going to discuss it publicly, in order to let the Queen of England hang herself by her own rope. We don’t want to interfere with that charming occasion.
So but the problem is, our own organization is absolutely incompetent on that count; they always think about the agenda: “this comes first, this comes next, this comes next”; or “this is the thing you do instead, this is the thing you do instead.” Like Hillary. And the fact that Hillary was a fool, is a warning to other people, well, you’re going to be another Hillary if you choose to be a fool.
But that’s the big problem we have in our own organization, this idea of having schedule order, or order of importance, all these kinds of things. And what we know in history, that in warfare, for example, if you’re going to stick to a plan as such, literally, you’re going to lose the war!
Ben DENISTON: Well, especially at times like this, I mean, look at what’s happening in the world. The whole trans-Atlantic system is accelerating towards a breakdown. How is that going to play out? We don’t know, there’s a whole number of way that could play out. Russia, China, India are rising in a new alliance, the whole world’s in turmoil. Fundamental things that have been shaping these processes for decades are now being thrown out the window and changing.
So at a time like this, when everything’s going through this much of a process of shift and change, is the worst time when you can have some predefined plan about how you think this is going to play out, or how you can intervene.
LAROUCHE: I think you’ve done in, you know, what you did with the galactic question on water. You changed the agenda. And by changing the agenda itself, without actually going far in realizing what the intention was, you changed everything, for anybody who’s thinking. We have similar kinds of things.
Now, this new thing in the extended part of our Solar System, we don’t know much about it. We suddenly are informed, of our ignorance! That what we assumed, was not true. We don’t have the answer to what the truth is, entirely. We can’t put down that. But we now know that we should be forewarned, that something new is going to happen that wasn’t on our schedule! And that’s what that thing poses.
And all these kinds of things: Get rid of mathematics. Mathematics is for lunatics. These are the kinds of issues which are crucial for us. Because here we are, you know, we’re a small organization. How can we, being so small, as an organization, change the course of the history of the gigantic United States? Or, the fate of the British Empire, which is now in jeopardy! The continued existence of the British Empire, is now in immediate jeopardy! Wait a couple of weeks, maybe; maybe less. And you’ll find out, you will say, “whatever happened to the Queen of England? Whatever happened to her?”
Well first of all, brother, she was sent out, already; and her husband was also sent out already. But then, other factors came in, and they said, “well, we don’t want the Queen any more. We’ve had enough of this Queen — look, she’s really a Nazi, isn’t she?” Well, she is a Nazi, in fact. She has all the credentials of a Nazi; her whole family is a bunch of Nazis. Her husband is a Nazi — of course, he’s senile now, and his functions don’t function, but that’s — that’s the kind of thing we have to focus on is exactly that.
And it’s how we think about ourselves. Generally, the standard practice, what kills us, is the fact that people still believe in mathematics. Because mathematics gives you a predetermined order, and although many of the scientific specialists, in my age were actually — they did things that worked. But on the question of principle, no, they didn’t understand how things work. They knew something, how to make something work, but there was too much emphasis on mathematics. If you rely on mathematics, you’ve lost history. Because a true principle of physics, physical principle is never mathematical. The process of creating it is never mathematical. Someone will say, “oh, that was mathematic,” but nobody ever discovered it from mathematics. Mathematics discovered the solution, for this — and that’s what I think we’re stuck with it.
Look, we’re going to have everything is going to change. We’re not going to have nations in the old sense any more, if we survive; we’re not. China exists, India exists, other nations will exist; but they won’t be in the kind of national organization among nations which we’ve been accustomed to. You will find, there’s more and more, you have a different language, or we have another language which is different than another one; but we’re bringing this whole process into an organized process. And that’s a new kind of world that we must be living in, or should be living in, is that. Mankind is going to be more unified, if this works, it’s going to be more unified than ever before. The separations of populations in a crucial way, will disappear, gradually disappear. New principles, the old mathematics systems will die out. New systems which are based on principle per se.
Like this little thing we’re looking at, is an incomplete thing which used to be called one thing, and we don’t know what we’re going to call it now, or what it’s going to call us! [laughter]
But this is the point: We’re coming into a new era, for mankind. We can’t say we know that we can force what mankind will become, but we can know what we should be able to look forward to for mankind, and get rid of all this junk. Because, as I’ve said many times before, just been repeated all over the place, is that beginning with the 20th century, mankind had become since time, overall, increasingly stupid.
It’s a fact! mankind has become increasingly stupid. And you see that in terms of the condition of education of people, in occupations; the idea of Classical music is dead, which was one thing that really was real, and should be fixed, in a certain sense.
So anyway, these are the things I think you have on the table in general is a set of options which demand more serious consideration.
MEGAN BEETS: You’re bringing up something about the nature of human beings in general, and we see it in science and we see it in history, which is that man is not of the same nature of any animal species. Man doesn’t act out predetermined events, man doesn’t act out the passage of time. But that history itself, just like science, is a creative process. And I was thinking of the example of Kepler, and his discovery of the Solar System, which was not the addition of the facts of observation. In fact, there was no possible way to adduce from the facts of observation, relief of discovery, the creation by Kepler’s mind of a new principle.
And I think it’s the same thing in history, and it’s absolutely challenges the identity of the majority of human beings on the planet now, especially Americans, who think “I have this assigned identity, this is who I am, this is how things work, this is how people with power accomplish things”; but I think what you’re pointing to, is that history itself is of the same creative nature as the process of discovery you see in Kepler.
LAROUCHE: Absolutely. In the case of — there are a number of cases I could use of that sort of thing. But Bismarck is the best one, because Bismarck was actually a part of a process of Abraham Lincoln’s process. Because there was one agent of Bismarck’s who was active in connection with Bismarck in supporting Alexander Hamilton, among other people in his work and things beyond that, and also Lincoln, of course. And so behind Lincoln was him; and then you had that sort of process; this was wonderful period of progress up to that time. And then we lost it. We lost it.
And we lost it because we did not recognize the ability of discoveries of principle which we’re able to make as purely discoveries of principle, and we didn’t rely on those things. We relied on being practical. As a result of that, actually, since the beginning of the present system, of the European model, there’s been a general, long-term decline in the intellectual and other related capabilities of the human species.
Dave CHRISTIE: Well, Lyn, I think to me, what you’ve been raising so far, it goes to the heart of what people want to deny is the determining factor, which is intention. For example, people come to us, and say, “oh, you guys are going to get Glass-Steagall passed, well, how’re you going to do it? What’s your step-by-step” in in terms of how to create this? And you say, “well, we intend to do it,” and I think Daniel’s intervention on Hillary Clinton, could that have been planned? You can’t plan that, but it resulted as an intention.
And similarly, frankly, what we see of the brutality of the British Empire, when people don’t recognize that, that that’s their intention, then they get thrown off by what they think are the “trends” and — “well, they wouldn’t dare do that,” — like take Greece for example, the kind of brutality, that the Queen goes to visit Germany, undoubtedly not a pleasure to her, other than maybe their trip to the concentration camp; maybe that was the pleasure part of their trip. But obviously, at that age, they’re not just gallivanting around, there’s an agenda that they had, and clearly that agenda was played out as this brutal, just crushing of Greece.
And I’m sure many in the European system or in Greece in general, are saying, “we didn’t expect this, this isn’t part of the step-by-step kind of process of negotiation,” and so on and so forth. Well, that’s because they don’t understand what the intention is of the British Monarchy. And so I just think this question of intention, if you don’t get that, you’re stuck in a kind of predetermined, as you were saying, a mathematical outlook.
LAROUCHE: Well, one thing, I don’t want to keep getting in here, but one thing is the British Monarchy is, first of all, is intrinsically Nazi. That’s the fact; it always has been, particularly this particular slate under her administration. Also her husband and she are in a relatively advanced state of loss of the power of thought; they are really pretty stupid. They are not capable of judging things themselves. The only way they judge things is that people tell them, that this is what you want to say; this is what you intended to say.
And so, this is the kind of thing we have to take into account. And this is what he brought up in this case; it’s important to get these things on the list of things that give you examples of how this thing works. It’s just to get an array of things that you can identify as relevant, and then operate from that arrange. And then try to figure out what this array really means.
It’s going on right now, it’s going on, actually, right now. There is a process which you will hear about, probably a couple weeks from now, about how the Queen was overthrown: because everything is in that direction right now.
It’s been, that is the British Isles, the whole idea of the British Isles and so forth, this thing is over, essentially over; it’s not durable. The Royal Family is really essentially bad stuff; it’s incompetent; it’s degenerate; they’re all essentially Nazis, in the literal sense. And like the Nazis we have in Ukraine. There are actually real, living Nazis who are controlling Ukraine, as the manager of Ukraine. Same thing. So therefore the way we have to look at these things is in that way. We have to remove certain things, and we have to also recognize things that are legitimate and that we didn’t expect that we needed.
SARE: I think, over the weekend we had a memorial service for one of our members who passed away recently, and that opened and closed, actually, with Brahms, who was one of the great composers of the Classical tradition who died in 1897, right before this turns. But, the Four Serious Songs [Vier Ernste Gesänge], which were sung at the beginning, really get at this question that you’re talking about, from the first, which is what distinguishes man from an animal; well, really nothing, except his works. So just do your works, and that’s what you’re going to leave behind. Through a development of what’s the question of life, what’s the question of death, really, and then, the last on the question of agapë, and what it actually means to be a human being, which he also captures in the development of the music. I mean, it’s extremely profound, extremely challenging.
LAROUCHE: Yes. And what’s happened with the case of Paul, the Apostle Paul, and his famous Corinthians I [whose words Brahms used in the songs].
LAROUCHE: Yeah, exactly. That’s normal, what Nicholas of Cusa did, the same thing. He went out to visit the Greeks and he went to this shrine-like organization which had been very important for the Greeks earlier, and when he got there, he realized that the books were good that they had; the work was good, what it had been. But the Greeks were doing that any more. So he started an organizational process which went through a whole process of ups and downs in history over that period, and then along came — after Kepler; not long after Kepler’s death, came Leibniz. And Leibniz from that point on, shaped the direction of development of civilization, up into the first quarter of the new century.
And it was from that thing which came from Leibniz that the principles of the foundation of the United States were made possible.
Michael STEGER: Lyn, I think this is why it’s so important you raise the question of the 1900 cultural change. I mean it stands why you built a movement, because the culture today is so vicious against the creative individual that it attacks it, it destroys that creativity in the individual. It makes it very difficult for one individual to sustain a certain commitment to truth. There has to be some social process, there has to be some collaboration and effort and mission. Perhaps, even after World War II there was something there as a mission, but today, in a culture, there’s nothing! Nothing in the music, nothing in the politics, nothing in the science that actually nourishes that creative individual; and why it’s so important, that then this cultural question is part of the political fight, and to the extent people ignore that, you don’t really have the ability to create the changes and the interventions that are required, by people, like what we saw with Leibniz or Cusa, in their time.
And that it’s unique that what you created in terms of the process of the movement, it’s also similar to what we were facing yesterday; there’s even a fight within our own movement around what the culture of our movement is. That’s the same question as the fight in culture of our nation, that really represents and defends these individual contributions of creative genius, which then define history. And this question of the collapse in 1900 becomes even more relevant, I think, in that context.
LAROUCHE: Actually, there’s a factor in this process, which you referred to, which is frankly, without exaggeration, Satanic in its nature. In other words, an absolutely destructive force: “No, you can’t do that. No you can’t do that! No! you can’t do that. You can’t be allowed to do that. You’re don’t have the authority to do that. You don’t know what you’re talking about.” And this sort of stuff.
And thus, the point is, you have to say, “well, this guy’s saying this, this guy’s saying this, this guy’s saying this. How do you sort that out?” Is it just opinion? Or, is there a standard for opinion itself, human opinion itself? And thus, it’s very clear; history has made it very clear. That’s what works for mankind. If you follow that road, you can succeed, mankind can succeed.
So there is a law, which is not a deductive law, it’s a creative law, not a deductive one. And by inspiring people to break free of routine, or old things, that’s what makes progress. See mankind is not an animal; or mankind has qualifications where some people think like those of an animal, and maybe people will be animals, whatever they think they are, if they behave in a certain way. Like most of our young people, say in California, these young people who are actually degenerates; they have a degenerate lifestyle. Well, they are not really human; they’re human in the sense that they have the attributes of possibly becoming human, effectively. But they didn’t want to take that job.
So therefore, what happens? You look at the United States: You see the degeneration of the minds of people. And what do you measure it in? You measure it in ages; in other words, people are born, they become, say 6 years of age, or something like that, 7 years of age; they go through another process of maturation about the age of 10, approximately something like that; and they get into the next stage, the next decade. And what happens? Is mankind improving? Does mankind have more power? Is mankind able to solve problems more freely? And these are the considerations.
And if we don’t use that standard, then we’re just making a mess of things. Actually since the last decade of the 19th century, was, on the one hand, you had great scientific movements among a few scientists at that point; but at the same, at the exact beginning of the 20th century, the culture and the thinking power of human beings has generally gone down, at an accelerating rate, up to the present time.
And so these are the kinds of things that have to be taken into consideration.
How can we imagine, since, you know, mankind is immortal, because the function of mankind is always for mankind, to make discoveries which have the implicit value of scientific discoveries, and scientific principle discoveries, and it’s these discoveries and their use, which define the future of mankind, or what mankind’s future should be. And that’s what our problem is before us today: We’ve got to get rid of the mathematicians, the idea that you can use mathematics which is only a deductive method; the deductive method will never give you a discovery as such. And therefore, mankind has to be inspired. And we know the history of, you know, Nicholas of Cusa, for example, and some of the people who preceded him.
Then you had a downturn because they wanted to get rid of Cusa. So what they did is, at the turn of the century, they went into one of the most ugly, Satanic kind of thing imaginable. And it was at this point that Kepler died; and delivered his product, the same thing. In a short period of time, there was a reversal; the reversal was Nicholas of Cusa, but also Leibniz. And Leibniz went into the first quarter of the following century.
So these are the standards we can always use, and should be using, to determine exactly how does mankind progress. Why is mankind not an animal or like an animal? Because mankind has an unending opportunity to progress, in qualitative increments. And that’s the point.
SARE: Qualitative and unpredictable.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, yeah. It has to be. Because it wouldn’t be a discovery. [laughter]
SARE: Right! Uh-oh, we cannot hear Rachel. Kesha were you going to say something, maybe while Rachel tries to figure out how to be heard?
Kesha ROGERS: I was just going to say, that what you were just speaking of gets back to what Dave brought up on the question of intention. Because it’s the intention of human beings, in referencing what Mike just said, for self-actualization, for self-advancement; or, should the intention be toward the advancement of society or the progress of mankind as a whole? And I think that that is the evil that you’re running up against in terms of the fact that people are looking for, they have an intention of, not the understanding of this advancement of a process of society a whole; and I’ll just make an example of what I’m speaking of.
I was just thinking about: What was the intention of John F. Kennedy in terms of moving society toward higher states of unification and development, with the vision of the Moon mission, and that later being carried out. Well, what you see right now, is that the country which actually has figured out what that intention was, and was actually continuing to carry that out, is what China is doing with their space program: That they’re not just looking — and Kennedy didn’t just look at the Moon landing, or the Moon mission as just a single event that was going to happen, as a process of some self-actualization or some self-advancement. But he had a different understanding of where society needed to be taken. And right now, we have to get more people to understand that that’s the point we’re at, that there has to be a different understanding of mankind, and what needs to be the progress of mankind, and more people fighting for that. As you’re seeing right now, through developments of what China’s doing with their space program, and what the potentials are of that advancing and creating a whole new potential for mankind, which is truly going to unify mankind.
CHRISTIE: You know, on that note, I decided to reach Bertrand Russell’s ABC of Relativity, just I thought to maybe see what the emphasis obviously that you’ve been putting on Einstein, so I thought I’d see what the most evil man of the 20th century had to say on the matter: And it’s kind of interesting, because as far as I can tell, the whitewash isn’t so much on what Einstein did, but rather, on how to think about what Einstein did, and there’s a point where he comes up to the idea that this is yet another expression of the principle of least action, which has been discussed from Cusa to Leibniz, and really all the great minds at some point have this. And in terms of what Vernadsky, how he discusses the evolution of the species, that everything is maximizing its potential, given its constraints.
And I think Lyn, this goes to the core of what you’ve done around economics on this question of energy-flux density, that actual progress has a directionality to it, and that, for us, that’s a decision we have to make, which goes back to this discussion of the idea around intention.
But what Russell does on this discussion of Einstein, is he says: Well, yes, these are the principles, but how do you come about them? Well, you simply deduce from observation. And you kind of realize that that’s what he’s doing, is he’s trying to undercut the process of hypothesis, that there is some idea of intention and you just simply just observe, and compile your statistics of your observations, and then you come forward with the principle. When of course, that’s not how it happens.
LAROUCHE: [laughs] Yes, precisely.
Rachel BRINKLEY: On this point, one of the biggest ways where the increase of the population to survive through these discoveries, is seen, is in farming. And that, right now, is being attacked by the monarchy, through this ongoing policy around the Pope. There was a recent conference with National Farmers’ Union representatives visiting a conference at the Vatican, calling for the policies of Schellnhuber to be applied to farming. So what does this mean? Reduction in farming: They’re trying to go for so-called sustainable farming.
This is just an attack, obviously, on food production, on the ability of the population to produce what it needs for its sustenance, and I just wanted to point this out as another Satanic denial of this quality of mankind, when, as Ben has made the point, what would the implications of the galactic discoveries we’re making be for farming? What are the implications of what we’re understanding about the water cycle, that would that be for farming? How could we actually transform the qualities of our farming through this scientific process, as opposed to intentionally destroying it, and through this bestialization of mankind, denying our ability to make discoveries, which is what the Encyclical does.
DENISTON: Well, it goes to a point, you’ve been saying here, and you made last week, Lyn, which is that for mankind if you’re not progressing in this qualitative way, you’re degenerating. So that’s one of the root axioms that we just have to destroy in society today, this idea of “sustainability.” That there’s some “state” that we can just reach and balance at and exist at — it doesn’t exist! The history of the universe is not characterized by “steady state,” it’s characterized by change and development. Animal life the same way, but in a different way.
But for mankind, it’s what we’re discussing, this ability for individuals and generations to act, to create a new future, to create a new, higher level of society that didn’t exist before the intervention of those individuals in that generation. So as soon as you deny that process, you get degeneration, because you’re denying people access to practicing their humanity.
LAROUCHE: Well, look at this thing, what you’re saying, — look at it from this standpoint: Mankind thinks that the solutions to problems are located in what mankind thinks are the existing principles. Now, what we know now, more clearly than ever before, is, when you go to the galaxy, and you take, well, mankind depends on the galactic development process; the future of mankind depends upon that. And you have similar kinds of things.
Now, you have this remarkable development which occurred all the way out by Pluto, same thing. So what the point is: Where is the locus, of the creative person’s idea of what reality is? It is not located in deduction, and the poison in society is the use of deduction, as a standard for science. But in point of fact, the progress of science has been based on discoveries, which went outside any previous knowledge! Like the galactic mission. Or like Kepler, same thing! The entire work of Leibniz, same thing!
So the actual ability of mankind is located in mankind’s ability to create effects in the Solar System and beyond, which no animal can do; no fixed system can do. If you start to say, “our principle is this.” We have an experiment, we conducted these experiments. They work. They seem to work, we keep doing them, mathematically or something like that.
But that’s not the way mankind functions. Mankind functions by being creative, where mankind as mankind creates, voluntarily, states of the universe or parts of the universe, which have never been known before, until man discovered them and developed them. So mankind’s natural tendency is a creative one, not a deductive one. Yeah, deduction is a very sloppy, little easy way to get some dirty — push the dirty dust under the rugs or something rather than clean the floor; or something like that.
But the idea is, when mankind thinks, in terms of creating something which is needed, by looking at what mankind has not seen before, that’s what the whole process has always been; I mean, the development of processes: Mankind does that — no animal can do that!
But mankind often acts like an animal, by proving that he’s not mankind.
ROGERS: That is certainly what’s needed in terms of a fight in this Presidential process, because there has yet to be a real scientific policy coming from any of these Presidential candidates. And I think what we’re presenting and have been presenting from Ben and our Science Team, is absolutely unique to the understanding of how we’re going to shape a Presidential process that takes up this very question of the identity of man.
I’m just reflecting: There was a Presidential candidate here in Texas yesterday and they talked about Glass-Steagall and they can talk about all of these other things; but if you’re still going with the green, genocide policy, and talking about how we have to have carbon reductions, and the green agenda is the best method for scientific policy, this is very detrimental — to say the least. [laughter]
LAROUCHE: To say the least!
DENISTON: And this is the Royal policy that you’re pointing to. This is the present-day Nazi policy is “deface the name of green”; it’s the same, just expressed in a new clothing. This is where it came from, this is how it was created, and look at the creators of the environmentalist movement, the green movement.
LAROUCHE: Look at remarkable effect in Britain, of the process which now is getting rid of the British Monarchy. Now, why? Well, because mankind often gets into little niches and things, and these niches become fascinating to mankind, and sooner or later, mankind realizes those things don’t work. And then they revolt; if they’re smart, they revolt. And what’s happened is what’s happening right now, is the British Monarchy, the monarchical system which is really a Nazi system; everything about the Queen, in this present and earlier periods, is Nazi! All Nazi! In the United States, we have a Nazi organization, under Obama. Look at what’s going on in Europe, look at what’s going on Ukraine. And this is Nazism — this is actual Nazism! And the fact, it is not an imitation of Nazis; what it is, it came right out of the Nazi system, because the successors of the Nazis which still existed, and they were protected, they are now running Ukraine.
And so therefore, the question is, you see something like this, you look at the British Empire, you say, this Ukraine operation which is a mass-murderous operation, get rid of it! There’s no solution, you can’t “explain” that, you cannot find a way to squeeze the good juice out of it, certainly. It doesn’t exist! The British Monarchy is being threatened with destruction, that is, by termination — by British society itself! Right now! Now, what people will pick on is the little incidental things, and the Queen was criticized for this, she was criticized for that; her husband was a little bit stupid; he was already nasty, but now he’s still nasty, but now more stupid. He can’t do anything. She doesn’t function, she’s sort of bblhhllahheh, you know, they don’t know whether her wig is on, or where her face is, or something like that. [laughter]
But so therefore, what’s happened is you see now, in the Europe system, centered, you see, get rid of the British Empire! Get rid of the British system! It’s a disease. And this Nazi thing — everything is coming out, and the way it’s going, I can see the incendiary effect of what’s going on: They’re finished. It could be a very remarkable thing that would change the direction backwards. And the only way that would happen is this idea of the crazy idea of killing people, reducing the population of humanity to less than 1 billion people, that sort of thing.
So the fact is, now there’s a natural tendency, to get rid of the British Empire and what it represents. It’s a serious one. I have some actual information on this thing, that I’m not going to voice it, until it’s cleared to be said. But, it’s there. And we are looking at the prospect of the elimination of the British Monarchy. Remember the British system was established, guess when? Within the period of Leibniz. Because Leibniz was a key factor in trying to get a monarch in there, and that was screwed up, and that was how the British Empire system was started.
So these are the kinds of things I think, which if we think in those terms, mankind must always be trying to discover something beyond what our predecessors have ever known. It is that, like the galactic system, the fact that we talk about the galactic system now, as a practical thing. It’s not something we wish it from a distance; it’s something we say, “we got to get control of this thing.” Same thing with Kepler: We got to get control of this thing. And that’s the same thing we have to do now.
We have to become the creative force operating within the Solar System, within the universe. And we’ll find out what the universe is about, later. Later! We’ll find out what it means; what we will do, by the yearning to break free, of what we know is some underwear that needs to be changed, [laughter] I mean, when it gets beyond that. But that’s a good impulse, under the circumstances. [laughter]
But as mankind becomes better informed, through this process of discovery, mankind’s power of creativity, is increased a magnitude. And that should be our confidence, that it’s true. We see the same thing with Leibniz and his whole operation; it’s the same thing.
SARE: Well! I think you put something very exciting on the table today.
LAROUCHE: I hope it tastes good. [laughter]
SARE: I think that’s a good place to close, unless anyone there has anything else they’d to add. I’d also say that the people listening should join us, and join you on Thursday night [for the [url:”node/1605”]”Fireside Chat” at 9 p.m. Eastern