In the build up to the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris (December) the British Royal family and their associates (such as John Schellnhuber) are escalating their campaign for a massive population reduction program. The claim of a coming man-made climate change crisis is a myth, but the deeper issue is the fraudulent ideology permeating the entire green movement: the belief in sustainability, the claimed limits to growth, and the failure to understand the principled difference of mankind from the animals. Contrary to this fraudulent belief system, science tells us that the only thing natural in the universe is progress, development, and change. For mankind today this means looking to the galaxy.

TRANSCRIPT

Jason ROSS: Hello, today is July 8th, 2015, and you're joining us for our Weekly New Paradigm for Mankind Show.  I'm Jason Ross.  In the studio with me today are Ben Deniston and Liona Fan-Chiang and we work with the LaRouche PAC Science Research Team, The Basement.  A quick bit of book-keeping or announcements is that we are encouraging questions and comments coming in during the shows, instructions for doing so are in the video description that you see there.  As for the political context that we're meeting in the really excellent development that has just occurred is that the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act has been introduced into the U.S. Senate by Senators Elizabeth Warren, Maria Cantwell, John McCain, and Angus King. This is a major development to go along with the bill that has been introduced into the House.  And I don't think it's too much of a surprise that it comes in the context of the eruption that's taking place around Greece, where there is a turmoil between people who are saying Greece should pay all of its debts, and those who recognize that the model of the 1953 Debt Conference that was organized to re-organize Germany's debt after the war would be the appropriate model for today, to write-down the un-payable aspects of the debt.

On that front, the New Development Bank, the BRICS Bank, is officially open.  It's begun after a meeting with the Finance Ministers the other day and both the LaRouches had comments on these.  Lyndon LaRouche believed that the introduction into the Senate of the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act could be an igniting process and is crucial, he said, "for preventing war, that without this financial re-organization, without a shift on this front, the pressure for war will not be able to be stopped." He said, "Only Glass-Steagall can prevent world war.  It is the only sane solution.  You have to bankrupt Wall Street and London and Glass-Steagall is the only way to do that.  Either we get Glass-Steagall now or there is no answer to the international money system.  Glass-Steagall is the only way to defend lives. It is essential."

Also, Helga Zepp-LaRouche was interviewed for 20 minutes, broadcast prime time in Russia on Radio Sputnik, where just to read a short excerpt of this really excellent interview, I encourage everybody to listen to.  She described how to think about the New Paradigm.  She said, "The way to look at it is not from the standpoint of the present interest of one country or a group of countries, but how do we define the future of humanity. Where do we want to be a hundred years from now?  Do we want to be extinct, or do we want to grow up as a human species?"

So, within that context I believe that the smashing of the Green Idea that we should all commit suicide is an appropriate topic to get going on the front to science.

Ben DENISTON: Yeah, I think this is a dramatic convergence of events we're looking at, and part of the whole picture of the war front on the old paradigm, the dead paradigm, that we need to throw off is this whole Green Movement, this whole depopulation policy by the British Royal Family and all their official orders and dominions of the British Empire and all their official titles they give to their operatives and agents like Schellnhuber and the like.  As we have covered, this is picking up steam in the build-up to this Paris Conference the very end of November into early December this year, which is the official UN Climate Change Conference, where they are going to try to get a new treaty signed, a legally binding agreement where nations will commit to saying we are going to reduce our carbon emissions, save the planet, dance with polar bears, whatever fantasy they propose at these things.  So there is obviously a major escalation to push this thing through.  As we have covered and Mr. LaRouche high-lighted is a very dramatic development and they've somehow moved in and convinced the Pope to go along with this thing, which is a huge blow to the human race to have the head of the Catholic Church now signing onto a policy which is effectively a depopulation genocide program.

But the point is, in all this, the issue is not climate change.  The climate actually hasn't been changing that much the past 18 years or so, the so-called global warming actually hasn't been occurring for almost two decades.  The temperatures have been flat-lined.  And all this talk about major storms and flooding, it's all crazy, it's all way over-blown, but the people who fight it on those levels don't get the real issue.  The real issue is, the fact that you have this Zeusian ideology in the British Monarchy and they think that the vast majority of people, first of all there shouldn't be that many of them, they're talking about reducing the world population to like one billion people in that range.  And most of those people that would be left, assuming you could even do that, which you probably couldn't, would under their idea would be kept in the same state that Zeus kept the peasants, the common people, in his time, according to the tales of Aeschylus, uneducated, lower class, kept the same way you might keep a herd of sheep, or cattle, cows, or something.  So this is the real ideology that we have to root out and as we have discussed, that is the most extreme satanic expression of that by these British Royals and their associates.  But it has also permeated society generally, this belief that mankind is somehow unnatural, that mankind's progress is somehow unnatural, that we need to stop progressing, we've reached the limits to growth, we need to stop growth, we need to reduce the population.  It's just genocidal, it's going to destroy the human population and it's unnatural.  The natural world as we know it has a certain characteristic towards progress, it's just inherent in the natural world.  All this talk about being in harmony with nature and making human society stable with respect to the natural world.  I mean it's just a crazy idea, because the natural world itself has been characterized not by stability but by change, by progress, by development.  That's something we have discussed on these shows and in other locations that the whole evolutionary process is characterized by change, by development, by increasing energy flux density and species that don't increase their energy flux density go extinct.  That's the principle that characterizes evolution.

Liona FAN-CHIANG: Unless there's a more dramatic change.

DENISTON: Yeah, right.  The biospheres change, the climates change, the idea that somehow this type of change is unnatural is insane.

This is expressed in this whole climate issue, it's also expressed in California, as we have been discussing with this water crisis, this so-called water crisis.  This idiotic idea that California has now reached the limits to growth, the limits to water supplies, that we need to reduce the water use, we need to reduce the population of California effectively.  This is the policy of Jerry Brown, when it's just utterly crazy.  There is plenty of water in California.  There's plenty of water available to the whole Southwestern Region if we develop the right capabilities to manage it, to develop it.  I think that this is clear useful case study for what we are actually talking about is a real substance of the fight which is understanding what mankind's true nature is as a species which is uniquely characterized by the fact that mankind creates his own future, and mankind creates his own future by a specific quality of action unique to the human mind.

And today that means we have to start looking to the galaxy, that the type of changes that mankind can make that allow mankind to transform the characteristics of society, to uplift the population to allow a greater population to exist at a higher standard of living, a higher level of education, the type of progress we used to be committed to before the Green Movement increasingly took over policy in the west.  That type of process, to continue that, means we need to be pushing to the frontier to things like the galactic system, to understanding this galaxy that we are a part of.  And not just viewing it and describing it as just a collection of objects or something, but what is the governing principle?  What are the principle or principles which underlie the whole existence formation development of this galactic system which subsumes our solar system, and implicitly then subsumes the earth as lower order processes that were created by this higher order galactic system?  That's the frontier for mankind right now and the frontier expression of the type of uniquely human progress that need to be vectored towards right now, uplifting mankind's existence from the standpoint of basing mankind's understanding and actions on higher level principles of organization of the universe.

So, we've talked about this galactic system.  We've talked about how the galactic system relates to climate, relates to weather, and relates to water.  The largest changes in climate that the earth has experienced are connected to the changing relation to our galactic system.  That's like the top influence on affecting climate change on earth and if we understand how that works, as we are beginning to look into mankind's understanding of that is opening up new potentials for things like weather control, weather modification, managing rainfall, increasing rainfall, by controlling certain ionization characteristics of the atmospheric system which are a major factor influencing how water vapor behaves in the atmosphere.  So this is stuff that we've covered, we've presented, we've discussed on this show, we've written about that the solution to the drought, the ability to bring the water needed can be provided by mankind reaching to this galactic perspective on the nature of the water cycle, on the nature of the water system on earth.

But I think that's kind of just scratching the surface, so to speak.  That's just one indication of looking at how, we're not on some isolated body, we're not even in just an isolated solar system, we're part of this whole galactic system.  That's the higher order organization which subsumes what we are a part of, what we exist in.  And our ability to move through those levels will allow us to move mankind forward in completely new ways.  So you have this water case study.

But I wanted to take some time today to go through some other kind of more frontier areas to kind of tease our imagination a little bit about what this galactic principle is, what we should be moving towards.  Some indications about showing us that there is much that we don't understand about the fundamental nature of organization of our galactic system, how galaxies work.  And what I think points to potentially a whole new level of science which could be as unknown to us today as things like nuclear reactions were to the people in 1800 or something — a whole new domain of activity that we currently could just be outside our complete framework of science because it's associated with or tied to a higher order of principle which we haven't yet discovered.

Now, for the evidence for this.  I'm going to go through a few studies which define some of these very fascinating anomalies and indications pointing in this new direction we could be looking at for this galactic system.  The first step in this takes us to the ,very, very center of our galaxy, our galactic system.  This is an artist's rendition of the Milky Way Galaxy. Nobody's gone out and taken this picture yet.  It would be a very long trip.  You'd have to wait a very long time for the image to come back.  This is based upon scientific measurements, assessments, it's thought to be one of the most scientifically valid illustrations what people think our galaxy currently looks like.  We're somewhere kind of on the outskirts, maybe around two-thirds, three-quarters of the way out from the center on this system.  But when we look at the very, very center of the galaxy, the very central region over the past two decades now, give or take, we've been able to see some very fascinating activity going on.  We've been able to see — I'm going to play — we've been to actually observe entire stars orbiting a very specific small region in the very center of our galaxy.  So I just switched here from this huge picture of the entire galaxy.  We are zoomed way, way in now and now we are looking at actual images, observations taken by telescopes on earth over the course of over a decade and then brought together to make a time-lapse video of stars orbiting in the very, very central region of our galaxy.  So I'm going to play this video here.  You can see the years are being counted up in the upper left there.  It's repeating going through — so it goes from '92 to 2002.  (pause to watch)

So that first one was images taken by the European Southern Observatory with their Very Large Telescope array is the official name.

Here we have other images, it's obviously false-colored, they obviously did some touching up of what the images looked like, but this is based again on actual data, actual observations.  And again we have the years running down the upper right, and this was done by  a different telescope, by a different team, the Keck Telescope on Hawaii.  So, we'll play this one through.  Again we're looking at entire stars orbiting some relatively small point at the very center of our galaxy.

FAN-CHIANG: Which we can't see.

DENISTON: Right.  They've added a white star there to show you where the location is, either that or the little cross to show you where the location is, so that's the thing.  So now we have, when we look there we don't see anything there.  But now we've been able to observe entire stars orbiting this region and we saw a star make a complete orbit there over the course of a decade and a half of observations.  So this is not a huge time scale.  This is relatively rapid motion and the question then becomes: what could cause an entire star, an entire series of stars to orbit so rapidly around some one location?  When we look at that location, as you said, we don't see anything there.  We don't see a huge bright shining star.  We don't see any visible evidence of any object at that location, but we see stars making orbits around this point and from what we can tell relatively clean nice elliptical orbits indicating this kind of one centralized concentration of mass that's causing these entire stars to make these orbits

FAN-CHIANG: There is one that swung by like it got a gravity assist.

DENISTON: Yeah.

FAN-CHIANG: In the other one, the Keck Observatory.

DENISTON: Play that again.

FAN-CHIANG: Seems to be very strong.

DENISTON: Uh-huh.

FAN-CHIANG: Incredible.  See that?

DENISTON: These orbits are pretty elliptical so they have a big change in speed when they get to the, I'm not exactly sure what you would call it.  It's not perihelion.

ROSS: Periapsis

DENISTON: Periapsis.  So there is something there that has this super massive effect on these stars, and based on the work of Kepler in terms of what he looked at with the relation between how large an orbit is and how long it takes  that body to make that time around the orbit.  Based upon that work, but then looking at that from the standpoint of other systems, you can get an estimate of the mass.  What amount of mass is acting on the body making that orbit, such that it orbits at that speed at that distance.  And based upon some estimates of the distance, how far away we think this is, how large we think the orbits are, they've come to the conclusion from a few different independent methods, but they get very similar results, that whatever is acting here seems to be acting with the effect of something like four million times the mass of our sun.  So an incredibly massive phenomenon, we don't know what it is.  This is taken to be the best evidence of so-called black holes, super massive black holes which is kind of an element I'm really not going to get into because that's a whole another subject of discussion of exactly what is a black hole.  You have certain conception that comes out of the mathematical framework of Einstein's general relativity, which has certain implications and theorists try and derive certain properties of what they think these objects would be.  But the theory aside, what we see here is evidence that there is some kind of super massive thing going on there, which appears to have the effect of something like four million times the mass of our sun, which is causing entire stars to make relatively rapid orbits around this point.  So there is something going on there. Whether it's a super massive black hole, the way some people define black hole, that's an open question, exactly what it is. But there is something occurring here which is anomalous, which is outside of our current understanding, which we just don't yet understand.

Now, I'm going to take another step, which I think ads another interesting element to this whole question of what is the principle organization of galactic systems.  Because this is some type of super massive phenomenon.  We're looking at the very, very, very center of our galaxy here.  If we step out.  Oh, here's the illustration of the different orbits of the stars orbiting this super massive object.  So "S 2" is the name of the star that we have seen make the complete orbit and it took about 15 or 16 years to make that orbit.  So again that was zoomed in incredibly far, incredibly close, and you saw this super massive effect on a very, very small scale compared to the scale of the whole galaxy.  So now we are going to zoom out.  This is an artist's rendition again, a side view of what they think our galaxy would look like from the side.  Now people have shown that in a number of galaxies there appears to be a very interesting relationship between this central super massive phenomenon, which we don't just see in our galaxy, we see in pretty much every galaxy we look at.  It always seems to have this central massive phenomenon acting in the very center.  And people have shown that the properties of that central object seem to consistently have a very tight relationship with certain properties of the galaxy as a whole, which might seem to make sense at first, except where the scales are so different it is completely outside of our current ability to explain how that relationship would exist.

Now just as a quick comparison, so again we looked at the orbit of this "S 2", this star that made a complete orbit around this super massive object in the center of our galaxy.  Just to get a sense of the scale, the size/distance comparison, if that orbit around, that "S 2" orbit was say the size of a city block, a standard city block, the size of the galaxy as a whole would be something like half the distance to our moon.  So a very small region we are talking about in the center there compared to the size of the galaxy as a whole.  In particular we are going to be interested in what they call the central spherical bulge region, which is kind of this glowing region that kind of pops up and down below the disc in the center there.  They talk about the disc part of the galaxy in the central bulge region.  Now again if the orbit of this "S 2" star, which itself is significantly bigger than whatever that super massive phenomenon is, but if the orbit of that star was say the size of a city block, then the size of this bulge would be two and a half times the circumference of the earth.  So again just to get a sense of the huge distance scales.  Now the galaxy as a whole, our galaxy is thought to have something like 200 to 400 billion stars, which is a huge number, so even though this phenomenon appears to have the technical term super massive characteristics, something like 4 million times the mass of our sun.  That's not a whole lot compared to the galaxy as a whole, which is a couple hundred billion solar masses times the mass of the sun at least, more than that they think, but at least there's hundreds of billions of stars.  And then the scales are so big that the gravitational effect of this super-massive object, although it controls the stars very, very close to it, its gravitational influence just by gravity as we currently understand it, completely falls off by the time you start to move to any decent percentage of the way out away from the center.  So under the current understanding there is really not a reason why we would expect or really could explain any kind of intimate relationship between the central super massive object, which is itself totally anomalous, and certain properties of the structure of the galaxy as a whole. The scales are too big.  You might expect a very general relationship.  Bigger galaxies may be bigger central objects in terms of their mass effect, but you wouldn't expect any kind of real tight coherence.  However, that is what we see.  There's been a number of studies done looking at different galaxies, different galactic systems, and what they have been able to consistently show is that there is a relationship between how massive they think this super massive phenomenon is at the center, and how massive they think the bulge structure is of the galaxy which contains it.

This is a plot from one study with data from actual galaxies showing that as the galaxy gets larger, has larger bulge structure, you get a very clean linear growth in how big they think, or how massive they think this super massive object is at the center.  Here's kind of more general illustration of the principle of that actual data, just an illustration of the general relationship they've seen and demonstrated in a number of studies.  So this is totally anomalous.  This is something that is an open question in astronomy and astrophysics.  How it is, despite the fact, one, what this super massive object is alone is an unknown question.  Two, how you get a relationship between this thing and this global characteristic of the galactic system as a whole, why there would be a relationship there, how can we explain that?  There's not really any accepted clear way that that can be explained with our current understanding of physics, there's a current framework of science.  So this is an open question, it's an open anomaly.  I want to add just one other element to it, which I think adds another twist to the mystery of galaxies, what are galactic systems, what are the principles governing galactic systems, and what indications we have that there are probably principles which exist completely outside of our current framework, which is a phenomenon referred to as active galaxies, or more specifically, active galactic nuclei, active nuclei galaxies, the nucleus being the very center region of the galaxy.

Here is a series of images of the same galaxy, "Centaurus A", taken with different telescopes, so you get different slices of the picture of what the heck's going on with this phenomenon, this galactic thing.  And this is currently thought to be the closest galaxy that has this so-called active characteristic. And so what they see when they look at this galaxy is that they see a lot of energy emitting from the very central region of the galaxy, more energy than they can account for in terms of how many stars they think are there.  Some of these are very active, some of them are very active across the whole spectrum, from radio, through infra-red, through optical, through UV up to x-ray, even gamma-ray activity.  They can be very bright, very active, some are brighter than the whole galaxy itself coming from a very small region in the center of the galaxy again.  So a galaxy of hundreds of billions of stars is being out-shined by something going on in the very center, based upon as far as we can tell, they think that the energy can't just be coming from a bunch of stars.  It's different types of emissions than you'd expect from just stars alone.  So there is something causing incredibly energetic, what is in fact, the most energetic activity we see at all in astronomy, at least in terms of sustained activity.  You might have like an incredibly large supernova or something that puts out huge amount of energy at one instant,  but some of these galaxies seem to be shining incredibly actively for not just for one brief minute, but they seem to be just emitting this huge energetic activity from this very, very central region.

What this series of images really illustrates is something that can sometimes be associated with this activity, this incredibly energetic activity at the centers of some galaxies, which is the production of what they call jets or lobes of plasma, of material.  You see these, the image on the right is kind of a synthesis, a combination of x-ray, optical and radio images put together.  And then the x-ray and the radio you can see these jets kind of shooting out from the very center of the galaxy creating these lobe structures, creating a structure of plasma structure of coherent jets and lobe structures bigger than the whole galaxy itself, coming from some very tiny region in the very center of the galaxy.

Here's another one I think is a very impressive image of another galaxy, the Hercules Galaxy, which is also an active galaxy.  The very center there, the fuzzy blob is the galaxy as it's seen in the optical, regular optical telescope, you look at it, that's what it looks like.  When you look in the radio, you see these giant massive jets and lobe structures, which again dwarf the size of the galaxy itself.

ROSS: Do you have a sense of what scale are we looking at, how large are those jets in this one?

DENISTON: Well, I'm not sure how big this galaxy is compared to our galaxy, for example.  But you can see the size of the galaxy there in optical, so they are larger than the size of the galaxies we normally see and that is consistently the case with a lot of these jets and lobes that they will stretch out 3, 2, 3, 4 times farther than the size of the galaxy emitting at itself.

ROSS: So they weren't made over the course of a decade?

DENISTON: No, certainly not, no, unless there is some process that can go orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light. There is no way.  Yeah, and that is another reason why we would think these are very sustained activity too, so it would take a long time to produce structures this big.  So it couldn't just be a very quick outburst.  So we think these things are not just incredibly energetic, but incredibly energetic and sustained.  So the current belief is and there are certain indications that do show, that it appears that this incredibly energetic activity which is tied to these jets and lobes just shining sometimes outshining the entire galaxy all across the spectrum is again coming from a very, very tiny region in the center.  So a lot of people think that the best hypotheses that exist is that this activity of these active galaxies looks to be associated with, or tied to, this super massive phenomenon, which itself is an anomaly, we don't know what it is.  And itself seems to show an association with the structure of galaxies as a whole, but also appears to be able to be, in certain cases, able to produce incredibly active and energetic activity, these active galactic nuclei, these jets, these lobes, etc.  There are certain theories that people have put out, the very general idea is that this is a so-called super massive black hole.  Its gravitational pull is so strong that as it's pulling stuff in, before the stuff reaches the point of which it can't escape, it gets really, really hot and energetic and then shines in all these parts of electromagnetic spectrum and shoots out these jets and lobes from kind of a bi-polar axis from the rotation of the stuff moving into the black hole.

So there are some general theories about how they think maybe these phenomena are created, but they are very sketchy.  No one pretends that they're conclusive, no one pretends we actually have any real idea of what's going on here.  But what we know is that we see some type of super massive phenomenon showing some relation to the galactic system as a whole we can't explain, and sometimes being associated with the most energetic activity that we see anywhere in astronomy.  So I think this defines a certain fascinating area of research when we ask about what are galaxies, what are these galactic systems?  Because here we have a whole array of phenomenon, of activity, which can't really be explained or incredibly difficult to try and explain with our current set of physics, our current set of mechanisms, with our current level of science.  And they appear to be connected and related and they are governing characteristics or principle characteristics of these galactic systems.  And these are the types of things that indicate that there are a whole new levels of principle of science that is currently outside of our present domain, and this is the type of activity that is truly human to seek these anomalies, seek these frontiers, define them and then set out real programs to figure this stuff out, because this is, I would say, one of the next steps in what is natural about mankind to constantly seek.

You go back a couple hundred years, we didn't know about nuclear processes, nuclear reactions.  We didn't know about that matter and energy were connected.  We didn't know that space and time were connected.  We went through a whole revolution and what we knew about the fundamental nature of the universe.  Some of that was tied very intimately to understanding how our solar system works, how these higher processes work that subsume the earth.  Now we're looking at this galactic system and we're seeing, wow, our earth is not isolated, our climate and weather are affected by this galactic system.  Other processes on earth are affected by this galactic system.  What is this system as a whole?  How do we understand it?  As we try to understand it we get all these wild anomalies that just completely stretch, if not completely break, our current ability to explain things.  So I think this is a clear expression of why the whole green movement and the people who created it and are pushing it are satanic, because this is mankind's true nature, to reach to these higher organizing principles and reshape mankind's activity to be accordance with or increase our potential for action based upon going to these higher principles of organization of the universe. That's something unique about mankind, and that allows mankind to grow to increase his population to support more people to a higher living standard.  So when these people are saying that we need to stop human growth, human progress, they're denying the very fundamental essence of mankind as a creative force, as a potentially galactic species.  Really. This could be said to be the deciding point of whether mankind will choose to move in the direction of a galactic species, or fall to the Zeusian satanic genocide program of this oligarchical class.  Those are the two directions before us now, and I kind of wanted to just give a taste of some of the fascinating anomalies and frontiers which exist in trying to understand these higher order galactic systems.  Who knows what this will mean for mankind when we really discover what's going on.

FAN-CHIANG: It's not even the fact that we can measure and go to these places, but it is the fact that you can act on that level, with that understanding.  So as you say, we had a big breakthrough with nuclear processes, with relativity, that led us to understand the universe in a completely different way and act in that domain.  And now you see the results of that revolution. Prior to that really Kepler made a huge revolution in just defining that the basic principle of the universe is change.  And that itself which seems to be so minor today was this huge revolution.

Obviously there are other things we have gone through which are very important, about what Kepler did, but when you were describing this whole galactic process, I was imagining all of our measurements and all of our science to be this little tiny, linear approximation of the whole process.  It's as though we have only measured a little part of the arc, and decided that that was our description which fit that perfectly worked, for everything.  If we just stretched that out, that would then give us our whole curve. (laughs)

ROSS:  This thing, what you said about how there aren't answers to these things, that these things, some of them are so difficult, these two examples, these super massive phenomenon in the center of the galaxies being related to the size of the bulge as a whole, no explanation.  How on earth is spinning that stuff around that is creating these jets, there's not a work-through explanation, makes you say that obviously this is the sort of thing that would be where a new idea would come in.  You said linear, linear in respect to what we currently think principles are or how can we based on our current explanations explain what's happening here?  It's like the wrong idea, I think it was Kelvin who got wrong idea about, I might be wrong about that, who had gotten the estimate for the age of the sun that was way off, because he said, well, it must be burning something, must be chemical burning, and therefore, here is my conclusion, if that's how it's operating.

DENISTON: Right.  Yeah, I think it goes to the work you are doing on the whole 1900 thing, because why would you assume you would have to approach it from the standpoint of the current framework of science, and not just say, well, it's probably stuff we just don't even know yet going on here.  That is a totally controversial idea and people get their asses kicked in academia for even trying raise that.  People who are called fringe scientists and other things who pose just basic hypotheses saying well there is stuff going on here that we just really can't explain with our current activity.  Maybe there's these new principles acting.  And they just get crushed by this legacy of this Hilbert/Russell effect.  This attempt to say that science is done, we've got the complete framework, maybe we need to work out the details of how certain laws or mechanisms produce things that we see. But there is nothing fundamentally new to be discovered, it's all going to be able to be derived or deduced from our current set of principles or our current set of mathematical laws.

That's just totally dominant still in academia and science, these types of activities, people just get driven out.  We talked about the work of Halton Arp before.  He had certain ideas that contradicted the mainstream scientific astronomical views.  They just stopped him from being able to use the telescope.  They just started denying him access to using the instrumentation to do his work, because they said, you're not in line with our fixed view of how things are and you're posing some wild new ideas that are outside our current understanding, therefore you are denied, you are out.  And there are a bunch of cases like that.  Whether the individual is right or not, that's not decided; but the point is we're looking at totally new processes, you are having activity that you never would have hypothesized under your current limited framework, but it's occurring, and then you're going to attack the people and try and deny the people who want to just take some fresh, honest hypotheses and know what's going on.

ROSS: You see it even on a much smaller scale where people studying the impact of the galaxy on the weather, trying to understand the impact of galactic cosmic rays, trying to model past cosmic ray environment that our solar system and the earth had passed through to get a better understanding about changes in climate trends over time and how that gets attacked dramatically. I suppose that's a clear example where there's a fanatical insistence that the science is settled on global warming even though there is no field in which the science is ever settled.

DENISTON: Well, they took a vote and they settled it.

ROSS: I am so glad that some people took a vote and decided to speak for everybody.  The same people who told Kepler that the earth didn't move because they took a vote and it was settled. It's a foreign idea to science, it's interesting that you see it there as well very strongly in that field.

DENISTON: Yeah.  Just how rabid it is, people just fanatical.

FAN-CHIANG: We did get a question in I think is actually pretty appropriate.  I'll read the whole thing, and for our viewers you can find it on Facebook.  OK the question is:

"It is difficult to understand the level of cognitive dissonance which a mind requires in order for a person to believe that the very concept of their existence is a negative because they exhale carbon dioxide, and that a reasonable solution to this problem is mass death. How can people believe in the greenie environmentalist fraud and its mass-population reduction agenda, without understanding that they will themselves be the target of depopulation? Has the modern mass mind become so stupefied, so perverted, that underlying all pretenses, it actually seeks to murder itself? If evolution is predicated upon the development of mind, then perhaps an anti-mind philosophy does indeed seek to murder itself. How do we prevent these minds from harming the rest of us? This anti-existence sentiment seems to have infected itself throughout the scientific establishment, mass culture, and now within the Vatican.

"In some other circles, the concept of a Meritocratic government, a Meritocracy, is deemed the solution to mankind's ills. However, the problem here is that most people cannot identify what is meritocratic—most people, including those whom society ostensibly considers to have merit, i.e., the scientific establishment, do not actually have merit considering that the scientific establishment is the main source of support for greenie environmentalism today. Most people, including most of those who are deemed to have merit by mass society, would indeed believe that it is meritorious to simply let people starve-out and die for the sake of reducing the concentration of a gas insanely deemed to be a pollutant when it is actually fundamental plant food and which the biosphere is currently starved of! Referring of course to carbon dioxide. And so are either a Democracy or a Meritocracy even equipped and capable of solving this insane problem?

"LaRouche PAC and the Basement Team are the only place where the concept of "Merit" has been objectively, scientifically, mathematically defined. One will not find this definition clearly stated anywhere else. And that objective definition of "what is meritorious" is found with the principle of Energy Flux Density, and the increase thereof. That is, any process, thought, and activity which increases the flux density of man's production and utilization of energy is what is meritorious. Merit is the increase of man's mastery of energy flux density, and this can manifest in technology, but originates firstly in the structure of man's mind and in the quality of thoughts within man's mind itself. This connects back to a decrease in the degree of Cognitive Dissonance a mind or the mass mind holds within itself, and this is a negentropic activity. So, merit is that which is negentropic, that which decreases cognitive dissonance and that which increases the potential power of man's mind, and is that which leads to an increase in the flux density of man's production and utilization of energy. As an equation from physics, it can be likened to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, where the energy flux density of electromagnetic energy, that is of light, is proportional to temperature (its fourth power).

"How can we reorient society around such a principle in the midst of being faced with such oppositional insanity at almost all levels? And if you care to speculate, if we succeed in this, what would society and human life look like in 200 years? What will it look like if we fail?"

ROSS: Wow, that sets a high bar to our viewers for the kind of questions.  That's a very good example.

FAN-CHIANG: There are a few questions in there.

ROSS: That's a good one.  Well I suppose, I don't believe that the willingness to commit self-murder reflects a great sense of nobility on the part of people who are gone along with it or something else.  It's a great question, what is merit?  This is one of these, you think like that is where half of Socrates' dialogue ends up getting into, when you are trying to discuss something else and you end up saying, like discussing well, how are we to engage, what shall our military policy be?  How shall do all of this?  And you realize well you have to just have an idea of what relations among nations ought to be to answer that question and to do that you have to say, what's mankind's purpose?  And how do we be good, what is virtue?  Or merit?  It's one of these things that lives everywhere.  And I think that some of these aspects of this question point to the impossibility of creating rules about it, at least ones that will last forever. And for example, what is the role of government with regard to bad ideas?  It doesn't make sense to ban people from saying things.  That's not acceptable.  How does government pay a role then in inoculating against stupidity?  Currently it's playing a role in inculcating it.  The educational system is obviously related to the government, it's terrible.  I mean it's just terrible.  If you are trying to prevent people from thinking creatively, you couldn't really do a better job than teaching to tests.  You couldn't do a better job than leaving out actual discoveries and to the extent that you have any at all only teaching results and formulas that you could use on a test or that sort of thing.

FAN-CHIANG: Not even taking the music program now.

ROSS: Oh yeah, if you even still have music in your school, you are one of the lucky ones who still has that.  Let me compare it to Humboldt 200 years ago was Education Minister for a short period, and he had an idea about what the role of education was for society, for the state, that there was knowledge that people had to develop and rediscover from generation to generation, but that also the role of education was in creating a moral and a virtuous, educating the soul, making people for whom doing right would be a burden, but would be natural to what they had discovered their own virtue to be.  It's hard to think about where we would be in 200 years, well, if we fail, I guess in 200 years people would re-discover the steam engine, it's hard to say what's the world going to be like after a thermonuclear exchange. Will people still survive?  It's going to be pretty bad obviously.  Where could we be now?  Let's take it back, let's say where could we even be, we could think of where we will be 200 years from now.  I think we could also say, where might we have been today had the shifts that started occurring, I mean it has never been all great.  We have never had a period where civilization was absolutely perfect and wonderful in all respects.

It has been a continuing fight, but to look to the 1800s example when we had a massive increase, massive development economically and in science, just a real flourishing, a tremendous period, and if you look at the policies of Lincoln and of Grant in promoting that, Bismarck in Germany at that time. You know LaRouche has pointed to the ouster of Bismarck as being essential for understanding the later 20th-Century shift, as being what made it possible to, for one thing, for people to have what became World War I, and the tearing apart of Europe and potential for cooperation that that was.  But if we hadn't had Boer and the Solvay Conference.  If we hadn't had Hilbert and Russell.  If we hadn't had Bertrand Russell who did a lot of work for evil, if we hadn't explicitly pushed for an end of knowledge and end of future discoveries, which is what the Hilbert/Russell program was, which is what the Solvay, the Copenhagen interpretation put by Boer and his friends at Solvay to try to beat up Einstein and to giving up on the idea that we would actually be able to make more discoveries.  Boer said, you know what, we're done, Copenhagen interpretation, we're done, we're not going to know any more about the quantum world, we've really figured it all out.  And to the extent that the parts of it that don't make sense, well, stop worrying about that, because all you can ask for in a theory is how does it talk about the things that we could observe?  The idea of knowing what's behind it has been eliminated.  But what does that do?  That eliminates, that says the human nature isn't part of nature.  That's what it says. Because we never discover principles that are separable from ourselves in a way that we can say we've discovered things that are about the world out there.  Never happened.  It's not actually even possible to state that.

One demonstration of it is the fact that our knowledge is always provisional, preliminary, it's always on-going.  None of the things that we've ever thought in the past have been wholly true in any field.  It's never happened.  It's not going to. What that reveals is that the extent in the past that we've thought we've got something that we know about that world out there, given that it's always wrong, has been revealed to be wrong in some respect.  The reality of what we have is these discovery is the reality of our, the power that we have developed to understand and act on that world out there.  That's what's real in them and they of course have a coherence with mind.  So this is what was under attack very explicitly in the 20th Century, with Hilbert and Russell saying, that no new types of thoughts will ever occur in knowledge, in science, in mathematics very specifically they worked on it, but the same approach was taken to physics, as well.  Is everything that we might think in the future just an induction expressible in the current language about new things that we might happen to observe, but without requiring any change in the language or the concepts that would underlie the relationships that we believe could exist.  Oh, no, I forgot where I was going with that.  Had we not had that where might we be now?  If we had not said keep the mind out of this. You would say, hey, new thoughts which of course they are always mental, they are always human in a sense, so they consider questions about where we could go in astronomy.  Or, you think about infusion for example, now it just might be the case that we're not actually going to get fusion with the current kinds of plans that we're doing, that there is a fundamental discovery to be made.  I don't actually know.  But that there are fundamental discoveries to be made about plasma, etc., and that with those, fusion won't be as difficult as it currently seems.  But had we not had these shifts, including these political shifts, I can't imagine that we wouldn't have figured it out in this century since Einstein, that we wouldn't have a fusion economy right now, that constraints that we have about resources, physical resources such as water, or the idea about running out of water?  That should be just as ridiculous as you can imagine.  It makes as much sense as saying we are running out of air when you're living next to the Pacific Ocean.  Making water is no problem.  Other raw material, resources, the elements, mining, of that sort. These would be absolutely no trouble at all.

So a lot of the things that plague us today, that physically hold people back, there are physical sources of poverty, simply there is no need for them to exist, so you can imagine a world without poverty, that's absolutely do-able.  And then think also, what kind of culture could we have had, had culture not been killed?  Brahms was the last real Classical composer.  Did that have to happen?  Did music occur in stages where that's just over and now we are in a new world and time itself has decreed that we are now going to have modern music?  No, it didn't have to happen.  You can't imagine because it didn't occur, the creativity didn't occur, but music that Beethoven would say, wow, that's really fantastic, if that was being created right now, etc.  It's awfully hard to say where we could be.

FAN-CHIANG: That's just one hundred years, that you described.

ROSS: Or at least some period.  It's hard to even really imagine that because the world.  Another way—Go back 200 years, not from today — but go back to the 19 teens.  We've got Einstein, we've got relativity.  Go back 200 years before that. 1715. what's the difference in the world between 1715 and 1915? Or, how about between 1815 and 1915?  Tremendously new world, and then where have we gone in the last century?

DENISTON: And that rate of change has been increasing with human development.

ROSS: Yeah, it had been.  So that's the thing, sometimes like changing the direction, it can take a long time to play out by many physical economic measures, rates of poverty and things like this.  There are improvements even today in areas.  There were clearly improvements in the first half of the 20th Century, even though the basis for it had been turned off and turned around.  There have been a lot of .....

FAN-CHIANG: Well that's the thing that is hard to see I think is because there is always progress, in all sorts off fields.  But if you look at it from a longer arc, then you see the progress is like this.  It starts to flatten out and then fall.  You don't see that until you, if you take this even 400 year scale.

ROSS: Then like a hundred years going into the 19 teens what did we, electromagnetism, chemistry

FAN-CHIANG: Electricity.

ROSS: The advent of what became nuclear science, the principle behind which it could have occurred, Einstein and Planck's work — in a hundred years, wow.

DENISTON: What the questioner said on the scientific definition on merit I think is also worth just highlighting.  I think it gets at what Mr. LaRouche has said that mankind is the only species that creates his own future.  That's a scientific conception, that's not an opinion, that's not a religious belief, that's what we know about mankind.  Animals don't do that. Mankind does that, that's something that mankind has.  And it defines something very specific for what the individual does or does not do in terms of contributing to or participating in that process.  There's a clear way to have a rigorous clear conception what morality really is for mankind.  It's about creating something fundamentally new which didn't exist in a prior state, something that is the substance, the cause of society to move to a higher level.  That's what makes mankind unique, that's what we can do and I think that's, to me that's the deepest root of evil, this whole green ideology, because you are killing that, you're saying, don't do that, you can't do that, we're not allowed to do that incredible culture, denying people the right to do that

ROSS: You say that and we'll throw you into a volcano.

DENISTON: What does that do to children?  If you completely cut them off from access to the natural human process of what makes us human of creation, of creating the future.  It's not creating a future that's just done, we didn't just create a future and that was it.  It's the process of creating a future, always creating.  Creating is not just being born, living and doing a 9 to 5 job and dying.  Creation is contributing something fundamentally new, and when people do that, there life becomes the cause of future generations, actual real change which is attributed to that action of individual.  And so you deny that to people, it really is and you can see that process of degeneration rooted in that.

ROSS: And I guess that's one thing that makes it difficult to think about falling into the future because the questions that people will be working on in terms of more and more people having access to that in terms of society as a whole, people being more connected to that ongoing development.  The kinds of questions that would be asked, it's sort of unimaginable what they might even be, that far into the future, things, problems we don't even realize are problems yet.  Good.

So, I think that will draw our conclusion today to a close. Thanks very much, Joe, for the question, and again to our other viewers, send them in advance to the next show, etc.  The instructions are in the video descriptions, certainly like to hear from you and get more discussion.

DENISTON: Or send them in live while the show is going on.

ROSS: Yeah, good.  And look forward to being in touch in the near future.