May 1, 2015 - LaRouchePAC Friday Webcast - "What is the future of mankind?"

May 1, 2015

May 1, 2015 - LaRouchePAC Friday Webcast

Tonight's webcast includes Lyndon's response to our weekly, institutional question, and a discussion with the LaRouchePAC Science Team on the future of fresh water on earth. Governor Jerry Brown continues his push for fascist water conservation policies. We start at 8pm Eastern.

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it's May 1, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I will be hosting tonight's webcast here from larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the studio tonight by Benjamin Deniston and Megan Beets, both from the LaRouche PAC Scientific Research Team, who will be presenting an up-to-date report on ongoing work that they and their team have been continuing to develop.

As Mr. LaRouche specified during a meeting we had with him this morning, the theme of tonight's webcast is "What Is the Future of Mankind?" The topics which you will hear tonight presented will be ideas which will challenge you, and will challenge what you think you know about the world around you. They might not be ideas that are necessarily popular, or which you are personally familiar with as of yet; but after going through the process of tonight's proceedings, you will hopefully gain an apprehension, at least, of a universe beyond what you thought you knew before, and a reality beyond what you have previously accepted as self-evident experience. And in so doing, we intend to create in your imagination an image of the potential for the future which the options are available to us to create if we adopt those necessary actions. And from that standpoint, I'd like to emphasize that what Megan and Ben will present tonight is by no means a subject matter abstracted in any way from the great dangers facing mankind at the present time. But rather, they must be understood as an integral part of the great political and historical drama which the world is now engaged in. It must be seen from the standpoint of living history, a living history in which we — all of us — are actors; actively and willfully creating the future and the form of the options which are available to mankind. New principles, new modes of action which will dramatically change mankind's view of himself as a species.

Now, just look for a moment, before we get to that, at the crisis that is now confronting us. When you look out and you survey the utter devastation which we now face both in Europe and here in the United States; the drought in California, the riots in Baltimore, the drownings in the Mediterranean, the spreading war and terrorism across the Middle East, the rise of fascism on the borders of Russia — sponsored by Obama and Victoria Nuland — and the looming threat of thermonuclear war. The conclusion cannot be made more clear; we cannot continue to operate within the paradigm of this dying system. What has been accepted heretofore as tradition and popular opinion has absolutely failed; and only a handful of leaders, who have the courage to overturn those traditions and to confront the failings and the falsehoods of popularly accepted opinion, will be successful in creating the future. Civilization, especially in this part of the planet, can only survive if we can succeed in creating an entirely new paradigm; in choosing an alternative system which is now coming into being in China and the other nations associated with the BRICS. As Helga Zepp-LaRouche very clearly and beautifully presented in a short video presentation, which was posted on this website earlier this week, which is called "A New Paradigm for Civilization"; a video which I strongly encourage you to watch and to share as widely as you can.

Now, as many people know, V-E Day is a week from today — May 8 — on which day we celebrate the 70th anniversary of the defeat of fascism during World War II. In Russia, this is observed on May 9. Our allies in that war — especially Russia and China — were critical in securing the victory alongside President Franklin Roosevelt, who was the greatest President of the 20th Century. This was a war in which 27 million Russians died — which was 13% of the entire population of the Soviet Union at that time; and approximately 20 million Chinese, according to certain estimates. And the effect of this war remains vividly imprinted in the living memories of those who are alive today, but whose fathers and brothers and sometimes even sisters and mothers fought and died in that war. President Putin himself is counted among those; President Putin just published a very rare editorial piece in which he remembered his brother — who perished during the siege of Leningrad — and his father, who was nearly killed by a German grenade. So you can imagine the utter horror of the people of these nations, and which these nations feel when they see a resurgence of fascism in places like Ukraine; which is being actively supported and encouraged by Obama and members of his administration, who have subverted and usurped the office of the once-great institution of the Presidency of the United States. The same office which Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington once held.

Now, as we've elaborated on previous broadcasts here, the intent of LaRouche PAC at this time is to recreate the institution of the American Presidency in the image of what its founders intended it to be. I'd like to draw our viewers' attention in that regard, to an article which will be published soon in Executive Intelligence Review magazine, by Bob Ingraham, who is an historian and an active member of the LaRouche movement out in California. He vividly in this article elaborates the mortal struggle between Alexander Hamilton and his circle of allies in New York State, who fought against the traitors from among the Southern slaveholders and their allies on Wall Street, who began their attempts to destroy the constitutional republic which Alexander Hamilton and Washington had created, from the very first day of Washington's Presidency, if not before. And which they continue to do to this day; those efforts have not ceased. As Mr. LaRouche has repeatedly pointed out, only rarely have we had truly great Presidents who stand in the tradition of Washington and Hamilton, assume the office of the President of the United States. And it's only been through the efforts of those few that this nation has even survived to the present.

Now earlier today, we discussed with Mr. LaRouche an institutional question which came in for him this morning, and which is among the items that we discussed with him when we had our meeting. The question was simple and to the point, and I think germane to this subject. It read, very briefly as follows: "Mr. LaRouche, in your view, should Martin O'Malley announce his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President?"

Mr. LaRouche's response was that it was not necessarily his place to involve himself in the details and tell O'Malley specifically what he should do and when he should do it. But, that if you look at the process that is now underway, O'Malley's candidacy is extremely significant and unique; especially when you view his rise as counterposed to the accelerating rate of decline of Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Mr. LaRouche said, with her failure to be a credible candidate at this point, O'Malley comes up as presently the only viable and credible contender to the Bushes and to the Republican Party. And then, if you factor in to this the accelerating decline of Obama, with the trap which he is setting up for himself essentially with the TPP, where he's openly attacking leading members of his own party such as Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, and others, then it's clear that Obama can be taken down and a very credible team can be put together around an O'Malley candidacy — which is now beginning to take shape. And I should mention that the so-called "Manhattan Project" — this initiative in New York City which Mr. LaRouche launched in the fall of last year — is playing a very significant role in this process; as can be seen both by the introduction of a Glass-Steagall resolution in the New York State Assembly, which is gaining broad support, as well as the passage of an anti-TPP resolution in the New York City Council, which we just received news of earlier today. This resolution declares the City of New York to be a "TPP-free zone" and urges Congress to oppose President Obama's attempts to obtain so-called "fast track" authority to negotiate and approve the TPP with only the yea or nay of Congress. So this is clearly a major challenge to Obama, coming from the heart of New York City, and represents a very significant revolt from within the Democratic Party.

Now the point that Mr. LaRouche made earlier this afternoon, was that Obama was clearly crumbling, but he's not his own man. Obama represents his masters; and their effort will be to try to use him as an instrument to launch a world war, even as he's collapsing. He is increasingly losing his power, but as a result of this, his predisposition towards rage will incline him toward launching just such a world war while he still has hold of his Presidency. And Mr. LaRouche said that in his decline, Obama is becoming even more rapacious, and even more murderous, and even more of a killer, because of his rage at his own decline. And therefore, in light of the increasingly obvious failure as of now, of the Hillary Clinton candidacy, the most significant factor at this point, is the campaign being run by O'Malley and the O'Malley/Warren team, you could call it, who are clearly on the rise.

And for those who saw it, I think Martin O'Malley's statements on the riots in Baltimore were absolutely to the point on this. And I'd just to actually read a short excerpt from them. I think if people heard Mr. LaRouche's comments on this subject during our discussion with the members of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee on Monday, only a few hours before the violence broke out in Baltimore, what O'Malley had to say on this I think will resonate. O'Malley's statement reads as follows:

"As Dr. Martin Luther King once said, 'a riot is the language of the unheard.' This week, the people of our city and our entire country, were forced to listen; to listen to the anger of young American men who are growing into adulthood with grim prospects of survival, and even lesser prospects of success. To listen to the fears of young men with little hope of finding a summer job, let alone a job that might one day support a family. To listen to the silent scream within the vacant hearts of young American boys, who feel that America has forgotten them; that America doesn't care about them. That America wishes not to look at them; that America wishes they would go away, or be locked away. Surely, we are capable of more as a nation. But," O'Malley continued, "the anger that we have seen in Ferguson, in Cleveland, in Staten Island, in North Charleston, and in the flames of north Baltimore, is not just about policing; it is not just about race. It is about declining wages and the lack of opportunity in our country today. It is about the brutality of an economic system that devalues human labor, human potential, and human lives. It is about the lie that we make of the American dream, when we put the needs of the most powerful wealthy ahead of the well-being of our nation's many. Extreme poverty is extremely dangerous. This is about the country we are allowing ourselves to become, and the affront that it is to the country that we are meant to be. We are Americans, and we are still capable of remaking our future. And this generation of Americans still has time to be called great. But only our actions can save us."

So, I think this is actually very appropriate to the theme of tonight's webcast. What is the future of our nation? What is the future of mankind? And when everything is collapsing, when civilization is crumbling, when Europe and the United States are disintegrating and the lives of our people are getting worse and worse at an accelerating rate, what is the solution? How do we create the future? And the future is always defined not by what you already know, not by what you already experienced; but rather by what you don't know, by what mankind has never before experienced. So with that said, I'd like to hand the podium over to Megan Beets, who will deliver a short introduction to this evening's presentation by Ben.

MEGAN BEETS: Thank you, Matthew. Now as Matt just said, the mission at hand, the mission which all of us here in the LaRouche movement have taken up, and the mission which we pose to all of you, is to create a future for civilization. One of the most important people who will determine whether or not that effort to create a future for civilization will succeed or fail is the figure of Johannes Kepler, who died in 1630. So why is Kepler one of the most crucial human beings present — in a certain way — in society today? Kepler proved in practice, through his discovery of the Solar System, that mankind is not a species of animal. Now, Kepler lived 400 years ago, and he lived at a time in Europe which was engulfed in the flames of religious war for generations and in the midst of a dark age. Not unlike what stares us in the face today.

However, Kepler's legacy draws not from what he was surrounded by in his daily life, but Kepler goes straight to the Italian Renaissance and to the great mind of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, who was the founder of modern scientific method. Now Cusa posited the idea that man, being an image of the Creator, has a mind which can generate conceptions which are completely beyond and above the imaging power of sense perception. Concepts which have no existence in the realm of sense perception, and yet, are true hypotheses about the mind of God.

Now Kepler followed his teacher Cusa, and Kepler proved with his scientific work that man indeed has a mental life; has mental processes which are not derivatives of the information gathered via sense perception and observations. That man has a mental experience that goes beyond the furthest reach of sense perception. And this mental experience is the source of concepts about principles shaping the universe which are true. Now that is the essence of science. Kepler presents this in detail very clearly, in one of his last works, called the Harmony of the World; where Kepler begins from the knowledge of the nature of the motion of the planets which is based on a revolutionary conception that he had proven ten years earlier. That the Sun was a physical force; the Sun was not just a passive observer of the motions of the Solar System, as had been believed by all of his predecessors. But the Sun itself is the seat of the physical power which causes the motions of the planets; and the Sun itself is a changing physical process.

Now based upon that, Kepler was able to ask the question what is the unifying principle of the Solar System as a one. What is the single principle which unites the multiplicity of motions of the entire system as the unfolding of one single intention. Another way to say the same thing is, why are all of the motions of the solar system as they are, and not otherwise. Now, Kepler discovered that each of the planets' motions is not an individual motion. No planet is acting as an individual being, but that each planet's motion belonged to a set of tuned motions, much like the individual member of a string quartet isn't acting on his own, but is responding and participating in the unfolding of one unified tuned whole. Now. Kepler discovered this, not by calculation, not by mathematics, but by generating within his mind as an original idea — as if he had created the solar system from the start — of what the principle of the composition of the solar system ought to be. So he conceived of the physical power of the sun, serving the function of tuning and regulating each motion within it, to reflect a single tuned unity, which reflected a system of human polyphonic music. So in other words, Kepler re-cast the solar system as an object of human thought, as a human system. And he was right. And because of Kepler, for the first time man's mind encompassed the principle of the solar system. Now, animals don't do this. Animals are bound to earth. Animals are creatures of their senses. They respond to stimuli, they adjust their behavior based on stimuli, they adjust their behavior to adapt to the circumstances of the environment around them. But man is different. Man in his essence is a creature of a higher power.

So Kepler has left us with this legacy. He took the first step of discovery of the solar system, but as I think Ben will open up for us, what we know today is that the earth and the solar system are encompassed, subsumed, within an even larger system, and we know that the earth itself is part of this larger galactic system which has effects directly for everyone living on earth. And so the challenge and the mission before us, which I'm going to ask Ben to come to the podium to elaborate, is how do we begin to tackle that — mastering that principle of the galactic system and the legacy of Kepler.

BENJAMIN DENISTON: Thanks, Megan. Some of this comes directly out of our discussion with Mr. LaRouche earlier today, and his emphasis on including this as a featured part of our intervention in this point of the discussion. And I think as you just posed it very clearly, it needs to be clear to people that Kepler provides a reference point for the creation of the future, for where we need to go, as much as what he did to define this revolution of the past, so to speak. And this does not mean that he gives us, you know, some practical solutions or something, you know. The average person will say, okay, does he tell us, you know, where to get the water now, or something silly like that, you know. It's not — he doesn't give us like your playbook you can go run to. He gives us something more important than that. He gives us an understanding of how mankind is able to develop new solutions to new problems — a better understanding of, as Megan was discussing, how it is that mankind uniquely relates to the universe, and how mankind can change that relation. You know, these are the big question that we really are facing right now as a species.

In that context, an expression of that, we have this water crisis. We have a major crisis developing in California immediately, other locations in the Southwest are, you know, maybe one or two steps behind California. Other places around the world are also facing similar water crises. So let's take this in this context. The water crisis in California — first of all, there's clear levels to the crisis, it's not just one thing. On the first level, we have a drought. We have an immediate drought right now. It hasn't rained much, there hasn't been a lot of precipitation for the past years. So the amount of water coming into the state is lower. That's one aspect, but that's not the entire picture.

You go to a deeper level, there's been no development in the state for water projects, these types of things, for nearly fifty years. For nearly fifty years, there's been no major investment in developing the water resources that we knew were needed. Desalination was put on the table — it wasn't done. NAWAPA was put on the table — it wasn't done. And so for the past almost fifty years, we haven't even been operating at breakeven, we've been actually drawing down the system in California. We've been consistently depleting the aquifers in the Central Valley, for example, for decades. You know, this current drought is not a new, out-of-the-blue thing, we've been — we've known we've been operating beyond the capacity of the water system of the state as it existed, for decades now. We refused to take action. And now we have a drought hitting on top of that, so that's creating a certain culmination in the crisis.

But there's another level, there's another aspect on the water crisis in California right now, which is the response of the Governor. He is another layer to the crisis. Governor Brown is a crisis in California. The drought, and you have the Brown crisis — that's an additional aspect. You know, his response is to say, we're just going to impose a policy of — essentially, population reduction. You know, whether he is fully recognizing this or not, he is completely buying into the policy of the British Empire, the policy of Prince Philip, the World Wildlife Fund. He is fully on board with that entire program: genocide, population reduction. That's the policy response that he is putting on the table in reaction to this current crisis in California.

So, how do we handle this crisis now, what do we actually do, to address the imminent water crisis in California. Well, the first thing is obvious, we've said it, we're going to continue to say it: Get rid of Jerry Brown. If you have — the first step, you take out the trash, get rid of the problem, get rid of the active factor worsening the situation, now, which is Jerry Brown.

But, that aside, that done, as we want to really elaborate here today, we also need the positive solutions. We need to act human, we need to act creatively. We need to create new solutions, create in effect a new future condition which doesn't yet exist. Something which Jerry Brown either doesn't understand, or he doesn't want. But either way, he is right now acting to suppress the people of California, to deny them their natural human right for creative progress. He is acting as a modern lackey of Zeus. That is what he is doing.

So the only true real solutions, aside from taking out the garbage, getting rid of Jerry Brown, getting rid of his policy, the real solutions are, you know, as Megan introduced this aspect of the discussion here, are for mankind to create the new conditions which don't yet exist. The action of the creation of new states, new conditions in the universe which would never have existed without mankind's creation, now mankind's intervention. And the creation of these new conditions, new states, which are new to mankind himself — that's where the solution lies.

And that's what we want to discuss. You know, mankind discovers things. We discover principles, we discover insights into how the universe operates. But I would say that the clearest, the most pure expression of this process, is that by that activity, we are enabled to change our behavior as a result of these discoveries of principle, we are enabled to do things which we simply couldn't do before. So again, this is mankind: By his fundamental nature, mankind is a creative species in this respect. It's always doing something new, always going to a higher level. We're uniquely a species which continues to change how it relates to the universe. We're not defined by any particular relationship to the universe. We don't have an ecology, the way animals have an ecology. Human ecology is the potential to change our ecology, that's what makes us different from animals, that's what makes us human. So to deny that, to suppress that, as Brown is doing, as Obama is doing in a different sense, but in the same way, really, is true Zeus, it's a Zeusian genocide program. So that's the challenge we face right now in California.

But again, where do we find the solutions, true human solutions to this water crisis? How do we develop new ways to manage the water system, to deal with the water cycle, using methods which night not even exist yet, or haven't existed yet, or, if they exist, they only exist in very preliminary phases. How can we come to a new, higher level management of the system that we've never been able to develop before? Because if we're not doing that, we're not being human, we're not responding to the crisis as a real human species. We're just reacting, the way we did in the past.

So this is the issue, the issue that Mr. LaRouche has put on the table, or emphasized regarding this issue for a couple of years now, actually, when discussing the water crisis, discussing the situation. He was saying, forget just these off-the-shelf, old ideas; we're in an accelerated crisis, we've got to go to higher levels. Where are the higher levels. Where are the subsuming principles. What are the areas we don't yet fully understand, we haven't yet grasped, we don't yet fully understand?

And this takes us to the galaxy, to the galactic system, and it takes us to Kepler for how to think about that, how to approach that. So you can ask, how did Kepler discover the Solar System? What's the importance of referencing Kepler's work here? He asked how the planets moved, he asked why did the planets move? But what he showed was that nothing in domain of sense-perception could ever account for the planetary motions. He was not the first, as others had done before, Kepler recorded the motions, and he also used other people's recordings of the motions. He could catalogue the effects. A map can be developed, charting the motions of the planets, charting how they move through the sky.

But the map does not tell you how or why the planets actually move, why they move as they do. You're cataloguing an expression, you're mapping a shadow. The effect can be seen, it can be recorded, it can be mapped, it can be charted, but the cause of that effect, the source of that shadow can never be understood in these terms. That's what Kepler showed us. And he showed, and he even discussed very explicitly, as Megan referred to his last work, his Harmony of the World, in there is a brilliant exposition on not just the laws of planetary motion, but the laws of how human mind comes to understand principles.

He doesn't just talk about some formula that tells you how the planets move. He goes through a whole exhaustive development of how it is the human mind can even come to know that, from his own standpoint as somebody who, you should put some weight behind his idea, because he did it. So him expressing his own insights, referring to Cusa's work, referring to this method of thought, how he was able to come to his discoveries.

And he says very explicitly and clearly, it's an action of the human mind which enables mankind to understand causes. It didn't come from experience, it didn't come from data from observation. It was a creative action that he generated in his mind. Something he uniquely made which wasn't derived from the evidence, it was something he had to generate, unique and anew, and in certain cases, explicitly because the evidence he was presented with otherwise, was contradictory, it was inconsistent, it couldn't work itself in its own terms. So he was forced to come up with new conceptions, a new conception that he generated which couldn't have come from anywhere but his own action, his own creative discovery..

So this is a lesson for how we think about, how we relate to the system as a whole. As a human being with a healthy human mind, you observe things, you observe phenomena. You recognize these phenomena as effects, you hypothesize what governs these witnessed effects, and ultimately the demonstration of the validity of your hypotheses, is if they enable you, if they enable mankind to change how he operates in the universe. Do your hypotheses allow mankind to do new things? To create new actions? In Mr. LaRouche's work on economics, you can measure this in a certain sense even more clearly: Do they enable an increase in the potential relative population density of the human species? Do they enable a measurable increase in the power of mankind to expand its influence on the planet and beyond?

In this context, where do we find these types of truly human solutions to this current water crisis — the crisis in California, the crisis in the Southwest? It is by going to these higher levels.

Now it's never complete and final knowledge. You never have a complete, final solution to the entire system. You develop these hypotheses, you demonstrate the validity by showing it gives mankind an ability to be more effective, develop a greater power to act in the universe, but sometimes, we witness effects which we could say, violate our existing hypotheses. We see effects, we see phenomena which operate in a way our current hypotheses, our current conceptions, can't account for. And these are great. These inconsistencies, that's what we want. These are our ticket to the future.

These are indications not that we failed, oh, we don't get everything — these are indications that there's a new principle at play. There's a new factor in there that we didn't understand yet, expressing itself, in what we might call an unexpected deviation, an unexpected variation in the shadows, in how the shadows behave. We had some conception of what was casting those shadows, and we see they behave a little bit differently than we would have expected. That's what we want, those are the types of things that we need to look for, in these types of issues.

Then this brings us back to the water crisis, the theme here: How do we deal with water? How do we deal with the water situation in California? Again, you're dealing with a phenomenon, you're dealing with certain phenomena. We experienced aspects of this thing we objectify, we call as a "water cycle." We see the processes of the motion of water from one location to another; we see the transition of water from one state to another state, from liquid to gas, to ice, to solid, moving through these different states. We see water moving through different processes, through abiotic systems, through biological systems, through human economic activity; so you see all these effects, these phenomena, but no one thinks that the water cycle is a self-determined thing — maybe you find some people who do, but people don't think that this is some self-defined, self-determined process.

It's not hard to recognize, when you identify this thing you call a water cycle, you're looking at the expression of certain principles acting, certain forces at play: the role of the Sun. The water cycle wouldn't exist if the Sun didn't exist. The heat effect from the Sun, the electromagnetic radiation from the Sun powers the whole cycle; it evaporates ocean water, it gets the sky filled with atmospheric moisture. You have the rotation of the Earth, is a critical factor in determining how the system behaves, the motion of atmospheric water through the sky, related to the wind patterns and effects associated with the rotation of the Earth. You have the action of life: Plant life in particular plays a major role in putting water back up into the atmosphere, water that's on land that would have just remained on land, plant life is pumping it back up.

So we know that these — no one thinks the water cycle is some self-defined, existing thing; we already know it as a shadow, we know it's an expression of certain principles of action, it's an effect of something. But until now, we've defined the cycle as a shadow of these processes in particular, the action of the Sun; actions on the Earth, within the Earth, the ocean systems, what have you, action of life.

Well, what happens when we see evidence for changes, for variations which we can't attribute to any of these previously known principles? What happens when we see variations which we can't account for in our current hypothesized understanding of the causes governing the system? And this is really what we've been talking about for the past month on these shows, and on larouchepac.com. We're presenting you with these indications, this ticket, this wonderful deviation, this indication that something else is going on, which we can't account for in our current understanding, indications of another factor at place, which isn't currently in our hypothesized framework, which we used to define our understanding of the cause of this shadow we call the water cycle.

These are things we've discussed: You have our current understanding of our Solar System moves through our galaxy, through the galactic system: By the old framework, that shouldn't matter to the water cycle, that shouldn't matter to climate, that shouldn't matter to how water behaves on Earth. But we see records that there's a relationship there, we see variations, deviations in the climate records, which don't correspond to anything we can define in the prior system, the prior framework of the limitations of the principles at play.

But we do see it corresponds to this galactic relationship. We see indications, variations showing that as the Sun changes its strength, as the Sun gets weaker, as the Sun rises and falls in its amount of activity, and lowers its shielding of the Solar System from the influence of the galaxy around us, as the Sun lets in more galactic effect, so to speak, again, we see deviations, variations in how the water behaves, in how the water cycle operate — where you have droughts, where you have excess water; deviations, variations which don't correspond to anything in the previous system but are directly related to how the activity of the Sun interacts with this larger galactic effect.

And we see these on time scales of thousands of years; we see these in time scales of hundreds of years, we see these on time scales of decades, of tens of years. We even see indications of short time scales of days, when the Sun will release large outbursts of plasma, of solar activity, these explosive events just above the surface of the Sun that will release large structures of plasma, coronal mass ejections. When these things pass by the Earth, they can temporarily increase the shielding around the Earth, decreasing the amount of influence from the galactic system, and we see deviations, we see variations, in how water is behaving in the atmosphere, associated with the reduction of this galactic effect, this galactic input.

So these are things we've discussed, we've presented, we've written about, but they're all indications of something which exists outside of the current framework. And until recently most people have been operating under this earlier assumption, that the water cycle is defined by activity in the Solar System: What the Sun does, what the Earth's doing, maybe you have a role for plant life, various phenomena on the Earth affect it, but that's it. Influences beyond the Solar System have been excluded under that framework; galactic influences are believed to have no role under that framework.

But now, with the evidence we're presenting here, we're clearly seeing otherwise, we're seeing these deviations, effects which we can't attribute to the prior framework, and which directly point us to this galactic system. And this is not work that I'm doing, — this is work that's been done by a relative handful of scientists, who have the guts and the strength to pursue these frontier questions, who've been showing this for the recent years, that you do have these effects, you do have these deviations, it does point you to these larger cosmic processes. And what they provided us here, is this whole framework that we're pulling together that we can present to you, which tells us we can't ignore these deviations. We see that the shadow which is the water cycle, the effect of these forces as play, which we call the water cycle, is not cast solely by activity from within the Solar System. You have the casting of the effect of activity from the galaxy as well.

So we have to understand it from this higher perspective, we have to include the role of the galaxy. We have to think on the level of the galactic system when we think about things as we thought as simple as how the water cycle behaves. We have to recognize that this cast shadow which we depend upon, which we call the water cycle, is an expression of galactic processes, as well.

Just to be a little more specific: This changes in particular especially how we understand how water behaves in the atmosphere. The Sun is constantly pumping water from the ocean into the atmosphere through evaporation, filling the atmosphere, with water vapor. This is now giving us new insights into how that water behaves when it's in the atmospheric system, and most importantly, for the situation now, today, this gives us new insights into how we can begin to influence and control, what we should really call the cosmic environment of the atmosphere; how we can begin to influence and control, ourselves, the conditions of the atmosphere which we otherwise attribute to the activity of the galactic system.

And again, this is something we've discussed over the past month: We have these so-called ionization systems, these systems that have been developed and successfully utilized to affect and modulate these what I would call "cosmic" conditions or the "cosmic environment" of the atmosphere, to influence how the water behaves up there. We've discussed the success of these system, we've shown that we can increase precipitation; we've shown that we can bring in new flows of atmospheric moisture, over the land, bring it from above the oceans, above the land. We've shown that we can begin to tap into this vast potential of the atmospheric water system.

But the way we're doing so, is again, by controlling the conditions of the atmosphere, which are created by and associated with the effect of this galactic system, that we're affecting and influencing the cosmic environment of our atmosphere.

So I would say, look at this the way Kepler would. We've been discussing some of the effects here, some of the particulars, but how would Kepler see this? As Megan stated very well in the introduction, Kepler demonstrated, mankind is not an animal: Mankind is not bound by his sense-perceptual or biological experience, the way every animal species that we know of is. Mankind is gifted with a unique capability of the human mind, something which exists outside of and beyond the senses. And it's the ability to generate creative actions by the human mind, unique to the human mind itself, which is what enables mankind to make these changes, to fundamentally change how we relate to the universe.

Foolish people think, if you mention the Solar System, foolish people think of the Solar System as some array of objects individually floating around in some big void of space; that's their conception of the Solar System. What did Kepler show us? He said, that's a shadow, those are effects. They're the result of a cause. And it's mankind that can uniquely understand that cause, and understand that cause in a way that we can act in that domain, of cause, act in the domain of that which generates the effects, generates the shadows.

It's not about the size of the space or the scale of the time, the way people normally think of these terms. It's a different conception: It's about, where does the generative principle exist? What is it, how can we understand it? And how can mankind generate his own similar effects, and utilize them, and express himself as that type of force in the universe? How can mankind cast his own shadows of creative action, not just react to other shadows?

So I think this is the type of conception that Kepler gives us that we absolutely need today, because, you know, he didn't solve everything — and I don't think he would have wanted to solve everything; I think he would have enjoyed the idea of new challenges, looking to the galaxy, looking to the supergalactic structure that we're encompassed by.

Today, we've have to look to this next frontier, we have to look to the galactic system, as a start. Again, not as a collection of objects, a collection of different things, but we have to make an effort to understand what are the principles generating this system, this process, these effects, in the unique way we see it expressed. And how can we not just trying to define on some academic sense, but how can we look to act in that domain? How can we think of mankind as moving toward the potentials of casting shadows of creative action, associated with what we might call a galactic principle? That's the level that mankind is now looking at, the level that mankind can go to.

So if we want water, if we want water for California, if we want to solve the water crisis in California and other regions, other states, other parts of the world, we have to be human, we have to be like Kepler.

OGDEN: With that said, I'm going to bring a conclusion to our webcast tonight. I would like to thank Ben and Megan, both, for joining me here in the studio. And thank you for tuning in. Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com, and we'll see you next week.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Also Relevant