January 6, 2017

The Right to Judge What’s Right

Filed under: Climate Crisis, Corporatism, Mainstream Media — Russ @ 9:32 am


If we wish to do what’s right, we must have faith that we have a right to judge the right. Lacking this, no other “rights” have meaning.
We can sum up all of today’s indoctrination and propaganda, and almost all formal education: There’s the right way, the wrong way, and the corporate way.
This right-way-wrong-way-my-way template means it’s not your place to think in terms of right vs. wrong in the first place, but rather you must leave that to the Leader and do whatever he says without thinking. In this case, it’s not the place of the citizen to think, but to leave that to corporate and government elites. From there it’s meant to purge all thinking on right vs. wrong, except within the narrow frames allowed by the mainstream media.
To give an example very prominent these days, it’s allowable to think about the “right and wrong” of climate change in terms of self-proclaimed “belief” or “disbelief”. But any thinking in terms of right vs. wrong actions, any judgement on whether what a political organization or party or government or NGO actually does will be good or destructive, is not allowable. This is supposed to remain literally unthinkable. And as I can personally attest, for most Americans these days, at least for the ones still religiously committed to electoralism, it is literally unthinkable.
Which leads to another purpose of the indoctrination. Dissidents who try to publicize their ideas constantly encounter the abject conformists of orthodoxy to whom alternative ideas are nothing but thoughtcrime, to be rejected and shouted down in the most brainless, shrill way possible. This is an effect of being indoctrinated into the mode of thought that since it’s never the business of a non-elite to think about right and wrong, therefore by definition any dissenter must be some kind of rebel or criminal to be rejected out of hand. That’s the main reason it’s so rare to encounter a corporate system advocate who will actually engage on the level of argument. It’s not just that they tend to be stupid and are always utterly ignorant about the subject at hand, though these are also true. It’s that they reject in principle the very premise of non-elites having any kind of discussion or argument over right and wrong. That’s simply not done, according to the corporate indoctrination they have assimilated. And so it’s always been for every kind of authoritarian indoctrination.
This “pure” authoritarian mindset underlies and is prior to propaganda. Propaganda then presents the corporate way which is to be accepted and obeyed on faith, dictates the framing ideology, terminology, slogans, rituals, and prescribed actions. And it delineates the limits within which debate is “allowed” to take place. It’s axiomatic that the corporations regard this kind of “debate” as not harmful to their power interests, and usually actively helpful. Climate change provides a perfect example. Here system “debate” always assumes that business as usual (corporate globalization and the high-consumption lifestyle) can and will continue and escalate forever, that all policy proposals will never interfere with corporate profit and indeed will open up new profiteering opportunities, and that the true, necessary actions* will never truthfully be discussed. This is true of literally all system-approved climate change policy proposals.
What follows from this? The same lesson that follows from all dissident attempts to find truthful representation in the system media or to argue with system-loyal authoritarians: Either of these is a waste of time and effort which is doomed to failure. No one wants to hear it, but there is no substitute for gathering cadres, forming real organizations toward building a real social and cultural movement, every step of the way speaking directly to the people only. Only after what may be a long period of such work will the movement reach a level of cohesion and strength that it can force interaction with the mainstream and with the tribalists on its own terms.
But until then, talking to the system is as talking to a wall.
*There is one and only one way to avert the worst consequences of climate change: Greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, stop destroying carbon sinks, rebuild carbon sinks. Nothing more or less than that. All else is a lie.

January 3, 2017

For An Introduction, Poison vs. Evolution


The law and culture of Gaia’s ecology is the framework for human citizenship on Earth. Civilization enhances ecology where it upholds this law and embodies this culture. Today humanity and ecology alike stagger as slaves in a wilderness, beaten and insulted by the barbarism of a civilization berserk in its rebellion against the very womb which feeds it. This is a civilization gone mad.
This madness is driven by humanity’s depraved creation of “corporate persons” and the exaltation of these entities as tyrants over all actual human beings. By any measure, religious or secular, this has been a summoning of demons, and for as long as humans believe in them and worship them the demons are real with incredible power for evil. The evil they’ve done has been devastating, and the evil they yet intend is unfathomable.
Today the true human and citizen of the Earth is a voice crying out from the wilderness of barbarism. Today there can be only one call: Prepare the way of the Earth. Because all which is sustained by the finite and fleeting fossil fuel hoard, the entirety of the fossil fuel civilization, its energy and agriculture, cannot be sustained. All must soon collapse and destroy itself forever. If the faithful remnant of humanity prepares nothing, builds nothing in anticipation, the final immolation will leave nothing but the ashes.
What is fossil-fueled corporate civilization doing to Gaia’s ecology? We humans have always modified our environments with predictable as well as predictably incalculable direct and reverberation effects. Indeed, the grammar which makes us tend to separate “the organism” from “the environment” is scientifically and philosophically wrong. There’s no such delineation. Organisms interact with and change and are changed by their environments, which are inextricable working parts of “the” environment as a whole. Each species is an active participant in its environment, a participatory citizen of this ecological polity, an integral action amid the vast commonwealth of the Earth.
But the modification which industrial civilization has been able to undertake, afforded by the one-off spending of our inheritance, the fossil fuel residue of billions of years of extremely refined sunlight, is at such a higher order of magnitude than the historical norm as to be qualitatively different from this norm. The “Anthropocene” scam is designed to absolve industrialization and capitalism of any absolutely unsustainable level of destructiveness, and to justify continuing with business as usual. But to leap from a thousand foot cliff is very different from undergoing a two foot drop.
What are we doing to Gaia, this Earth, our only womb and home for the rest of our human journey? The environmental chaos of climate change is already rending the Earth and will only get much worse. This is the thrashing of a body trapped in an oven while the temperature rises and rises and rises. The physical and psychological agony is profound, and the potential chaos can only become more kinetic in every way as the system is ever more energized by the embodied violence our fuel-burning and soil-ravaging corporate industry keeps pumping into it.
All the networked organisms of the ecological system are always reacting to changes in temperature, and climate change has always occurred naturally. The organic reactions generally sum up to relative stability over evolutionary time, and this is part of the process of evolution. This evolutionary process, in climate and ecology, would have proceeded naturally in recent centuries as well.
But where the change radically overleaps the dampening effect of evolutionary time including its many safeguards and diminishing feedback loops, especially where this radical change is combined with many other drivers of chaos and destruction, the network becomes overstressed as many component organisms find it difficult or impossible to adapt. Civilized humans, and people subject to corporate imperial civilization, are the most vulnerable of these organisms. The emission waste from the industrial burning of fossil fuels and destruction of carbon sinks (natural processes generate little or no waste) comprises an absolutely different order of magnitude and a qualitative difference in the speed and extremity of modern artificial climate change.
Those who deny this, who deny the time element of evolution’s process of simmering and adjustment, are the most irrational and destructive kind of evolution denier, far worse and more ignorant than religious creationist types.
(Whether or not a process generates waste, defined here as a by-product the ecological system cannot readily assimilate, is a criterion for distinguishing ecological vs. anti-ecological processes. The more usual attempt to distinguish “natural” vs. “artificial” is an unfruitful diversion. While as a rule there cannot persist a natural process which is anti-ecological, artifices can be ecological or anti-ecological. As examples of the latter, human-artificed industrial processes often produce massive, toxic waste. Agroecology is the best example of an ecological artifice.)
Industrial consumption of water, especially for industrial agriculture, and personal luxury consumption are rapidly depleting the fossil aquifers which originally filled over geologic time. This depletion proceeds in the same way we’re depleting the fossil fuel principal. Since the water cycle can recycle only a finite amount of water, far less than we use, the rest is effectively lost to us after at most a few usages as it empties into the oceans.
Those who deny this, or who deny fossil fuel depletion, are simply denying the very existence of geologic time. They blaspheme against the actual Gaian creation with the exact same mindset as those who believe the Earth is 5000 years old. They’re the Oil Creationists, the Water Creationists. Again, their version of creationism is the most ignorant, irrational, and destructive. We do indeed need an evolution education movement, and its main target must be the false teachings of those who deny evolution because of corporate and techno-cultist faith.
We are decimating Gaia’s biodiversity and habitats. At any ecological level, from the microscopic to the global, from the most pristine wilderness to agriculture (these are all interlinked and are divided here only into broad, convenient conceptual groupings), the more diverse and multi-linked the networks, the more resilient, robust, complex, adaptable, and therefore healthy the organic network is. As we started out saying, the network itself is a collective organism. By contrast, the more denuded and simplified the interconnections become, the more they become vulnerable, inflexible, calcified, maladaptive, inherently unhealthy and exposed to predation and disease.
There’s another kind of Creationist (usually the same person, of course) who believes there’s the water he poisons, and a “different”, separate, Specially Created Water which is reserved for himself, his kind, their families. Same for the air they poison and the Specially Created Air, the Specially Created Food, the Specially Created Soil, and in general the Specially Created Earth, which is different and separate from the Gaia these Poisoners ravage and are attempting to murder.
Indeed they are attempting universal murder by poison. The entire corporate industrial system has a poison mandate at its core. Its core goal is to supply poisons and generate, by force where necessary, markets for these and deployment of them. This has many metaphorical applications, but today I’m speaking in the most physical sense. Poison-based agriculture is the core activism of corporate globalization, and in the end the entire structure will stand or fall based on capitalism’s ability to sustain this poison imperative. The proximate goal is to destroy everything which lives on Earth, figuratively and physically, except what’s functional toward corporate domination.
We’re already seeing the physical ravages, as the ever-compounding poison load destroys human, animal, and environmental health. Everywhere these poisons are deployed we see the surge of cancer, birth defects, every kind of reproductive and developmental disease, neurodisease, allergies and other autoimmune disease, respiratory and digestive ailments, hormonal and neurotransmitter chaos, genetic damage, and myriad acute symptoms. All these are iterated at every scale, from the bacterial, where antibiotic-resistant pathogens are boosted, beneficial gut and soil bacteria suppressed; to the complex organic, where the networked diversity of life has more and more of its bonds frayed and broken completely as the poison load accumulates in organic tissues and, as an expanded mutation load, in the genes, as well as wreaking havoc with the endocrine, neurotransmission, and immune systems of organisms; to the global, as vast amounts of arable soil and groundwater are toxified, their microbial ecosystems decimated, the oceans are blemished with dead zones expanding from the great estuaries, as just the most visible leading edge of the oceanic toxification, and all the ecosystems which ramify from these are crippled by the poisoning of the foundation.
All environmental crises and all hunger on Earth are driven completely by globalization, and most of all by commodity agriculture. There is no human or environmental problem which would not disappear completely or be greatly mitigated if humanity were to abolish corporate industrial agriculture. And we would prosper in every physical, psychological, and spiritual way. The abolition of the corporate demons is the great necessity, preliminary to the great affirmative preparation of the Earth for the ecological human age to which we must evolve or perish completely.
Corporate industrial agriculture seizes all the best land, drives the people and their food production onto marginal lands and into forests, or else off the land completely into shantytowns. Corporate agriculture is the worst emitter of greenhouse gases and destroyer of carbon sinks. Along with industrial loggers it destroys the rain forests. It destroys the grasslands. It is dedicated to maximizing the use of poisons which toxify the soils, waters, air, and food. Poison-based agriculture is the worst driver of climate change, the worst destroyer of forest and grassland and all other habitats, the worst destroyer of biodiversity and driver of the modern era’s mass extinction, the worst poisoner of every element of the environment right down to our very bodies. Poison-based agriculture is pure evil, has zero purpose, zero rationale, zero redeeming qualities. It must be abolished completely. There is no goal as critical, no need as pressing, no imperative as severe. This abolition imperative encompasses all other goals, all of which are in line with it or would be meaningless without it. Only the parasite squatters on the planet’s surface, those who have renounced their ecological and therefore human citizenship, would dispute this.
Capitalist industrialization, globalization, corporate rule, scientism and technocracy, most of all where these crystallize as the Poisoner and monoculture campaigns of corporate industrial agriculture, systematically and willfully destroy all biodiversity and the entire basis of organic resiliency and health. This will to destruction and monoculture has always been characteristic of tyranny, but only in the modern era have the aspiring tyrants been able to deploy such destructive force with the hope of wiping out everything which is not under the most physical direct control and manipulation of the tyrants and their engineer lackeys.
In all these ways corporate barbarism pumps ever more potential energy into the system. It pumps its poison, its greed, its powerlust, its gluttony, its violence, its sadism, its hatred, its anguish, its despair.
This, most of all, is the joint assassination attempt upon humanity and the Earth being conducted by the corporate and techno-cultist Poisoners. Humanity must act in the same self-defense vs. this murder attempt as any intrepid individual or group would against any other.
They are cancer.
What do you do when you’re suffering heat exhaustion? First thing, you stop throwing fuel on the bonfire. What do you do when you’re dying of thirst in the desert? You stop pouring your water out onto the sand. What do you do when you’ve ingested poison and become violently ill? You stop drinking the poison. When you’ve damaged or destroyed so many of the things you depend upon for your very life? And all the things you love? You stop destroying, and start fixing what you broke. And you seek the antidote for the poison. And you drink salubrious refreshing water. And you douse the flames and welcome a cool breeze.
These are what humanity must do in order to save the Earth for our time and prepare for the next age, the age of Gaia, the ecological age. This salvation is necessary for the entire weave of life, but most of all for its most frayed, vulnerable thread – our own species. In the long run Gaia will recover from us and continue as she was, whether we save ourselves or not. But unless we take the necessary cooperative action now, we shall not be part of this recovery. As I’ve written of many times before, the first step toward ultimate destruction will be the full dominion of the corporations. This will be political tyranny and economic enslavement. But this will be followed shortly by physical death.
Let us change from this future. We start by changing our minds. From there, as Shakespeare wrote it, “All things are ready if our minds be so.” All the ideas, the entire system of reason, science, and morality, starting with agroecology and food sovereignty, are fully demonstrated and ready for the entire human and ecological deployment all over the world. All the resources for today and the future are available and waiting. All that’s been lacking is sufficient will and organization. All that’s lacking is the spirit, the faith, the action of faith.

January 1, 2017

How to Read the Corporate Media and What To Do


There’s a new NYT piece about Syngenta’s control of research on the poisoning of honeybees. This and the paper’s recent articles about Kevin Folta and other paid liars, indicate that the paper believes the controversy over corporate control of “science” has become too alive among the public to continue suppressing discussion of it. Our efforts have accomplished that much.
So the NYT, and the corporate media which follow its lead, will now discuss the matter but in such a way as to minimize it, giving personal profiles showing what good people the corporate-funded researchers are, fraudulently claim skeptical scientists are equally compromised by funding from “the organic industry”, and where all else fails depict the most “corrupt” researchers as bad apples not typical of corporate-funded science.
In the case of the pesticide-driven mass destruction of bees, the NYT continues to propagate the lie that this is a new phenomenon and that there’s any doubt about the science. The article here is devoted to seconding Syngenta’s campaign to cast false doubt on what’s already known. But in fact the evidence that pesticides kill honeybees has been accumulating since the 1940s, and by the 1970s it was a well-known dirty secret among federal regulators which they collaborated to keep quiet. Read E. Vallianatos’ Poison Spring for a detailed account of the history of the scientific knowledge. Today corporate media like the NYT collude with corporations like Syngenta to suppress this history. In reality there’s no doubt about the fact that pesticides decimate honeybees, and there has been no doubt since the 70s. Of course they would prefer not to talk about it publicly at all, but we have forced them to. So they move on to public lies.
What’s the effect of this mass media discussion? The NYT hopes it’ll defuse the controversy. Their message: Corporate funding of science isn’t necessarily a bad thing, the practitioners retain their integrity, it’s a force of nature anyway which can’t be undone, and all that’s happening is a healthy investigation of areas where the science is still unsettled. So, as Neil Degrasse Tyson said, “relax”. Everything’s fine.
Anti-poison fighters must fight to make the effect the opposite: Any discussion casting doubt on the integrity of the scientific establishment and reminding people of the corruption of science, whatever this discussion’s immediate effect, will over the longer run continue to erode the legitimacy and authority of the scientific establishment as such. Any high-profile public discussion which acknowledges the controversy automatically puts the idea of “corruption” and “fraud” in the public consciousness. This is why the corporations and media would prefer never to have this discussion in the first place: They know how easily they could lose control of it, and how easily it can backfire on them.
So what to do now? We must cease from arguing piecemeal about things we’ve already forced into the mass media discussion. We must broadly assert what the fact of the mass exposure already proves: “See, even the New York Times admits the scientific establishment is corrupted by corporate money, and therefore you can’t trust anything establishment science says about pesticides and GMOs. They admit it’s all a lie on behalf of profit.”
And when the pro-poison activists try to dispute this, never let them draw you into nit-picking exchanges, always an infinite rabbit-hole. That’s their way of trying to keep sowing doubt and confusion. We’re reaching the point where we can turn the tables of political communication on them and use the psychology of politics to our advantage. The way to do this is to continue hammering away with the basic clear truths, now implicitly being acknowledged by the NYT itself, that the poison-peddling corporations control everything today’s “science” does and says. Leave the pathetic nit-picking to the enemy, while we keep our eye on the prize: Destroying the credibility of the corporations’ false “science”.
Say it again and again: “The New York Times itself admits you’re paid liars.” We’ve evolved, and the political situation has evolved, to the point that we can hone our attack to a few clear standards. This is one of them. Let’s stop muddling through, let’s get organized and disciplined.

December 21, 2016

The Abolition Movement is Needed


1. This morning for the thousandth time I read a piece giving a decent overview of the health, economic, agronomic, and ecological crises being driven by poison-based agriculture.
The conclusion was lukewarm as always: “Action is urgently needed to regulate and monitor corporate power to ensure that food sovereignty, the environment, and public health are not further compromised.”
And thus we can chalk up another one for reformism within the corporate framework, and implicitly against the necessary call to a fully committed abolition movement. Reformism is the call to “co-existence”, something we all know is impossible in the long run. Worse, it validates the corporate framework. I’ve described in dozens of pieces what I call the corporate triangulation template of regulators, the scientific establishment, NGOs, reformists in general. And as we see in the quote above, this reform call is always implicitly willing to grandfather in the existing level of how compromised those values and needs – food sovereignty, environment, public health – already are.
2. “Regulate and monitor” is the ideology and strategy of system NGOs which focus on petitions and public comments to regulators, lawsuits, and the apparently permanent and permanently vague campaign of “public education”. This has been ongoing for decades.
But look at the facts: At best this strategy has slowed down the corporate poisoner assault in America, but nowhere has it halted it and started rolling it back. On the contrary, slowly but surely the enemy gains ground.
Obviously the status quo is untenable as well as unacceptable on any agronomic, ecological, public health, economic, or political level. Ipso facto, any position thinking in terms of preventing “further compromise”, even if that were possible, is insufficient.
3. To be clear about my position: I’m a skeptic as to whether regulate-and-monitor could be effective even if this seemingly lukewarm call really could muster a fighting movement.*
But more importantly, this is not a call to battle which will resonate with anyone. The evidence is that this is the kind of call which, by its nature, implies that everyone should remain in their pre-assigned positions and roles within the corporate capitalist framework. Therefore it never can muster and organize the latent energies which sometimes inspire large numbers of intrepid, determined people to break out of these pre-assigned roles and form movements in opposition to the existing system.
4. Based on my knowledge of history, I think if the deployment of such a critically important sector as agropoisons were ever to be hindered severely enough (i.e., once Monsanto and the US government become fed up once and for all with the obstructionism of regulate-and-monitor), the system will become far more aggressive and lawless than it’s already been in forcing its poisons into the food and ecology. We already see the USDA in the process of abrogating the entirety of its oversight authority toward expanding ranges of poisons.
We can expect the Trump administration to step up the aggression and lawlessness.
When this starts, regulate-and-monitor will become untenable even according to its own diminished criteria, and the only options left will be a full-scale abolition movement, or else surrender.
By then it’ll be late in the game to be getting started building such a movement. The time to start is now, among those who can learn from history and prepare ahead of time for its cycles. Indeed the time was years ago, just as I’ve been saying all this for many years now.
There was a time for lawsuits and labeling campaigns. (Ironically, the Europe example labelists like to cite proves something different than what they think: The time for those was in the 1990s, at the outset of the deployment; America missed the boat where it comes to that.) There was a time for exalting the precautionary principle and calling for more and better testing. There was a time for educating the public within the framework of regular system politics and media. And there was a time for campaigners to educate themselves about all the facts of agropoisons and their role in agronomy, politics, economy, religion, science, ecology.
But today all these tasks are either complete, or are obsolete, or have been demonstrated to be ineffective, or need to transcend the prior political and philosophical frameworks.
Today and going forward is the time wherein humanity must find its soul and its will to organize and fight this global attempt to force an apocalypse of poisoning upon us, our children, our children’s children, and upon the entire life system of the Earth. From a purely secular point of view, not to mention the various religions, we see how the axis of corporate power, government power, and the scientism cult wish to turn the 21st century into a veritable end time for humanity and the Earth. Poisonism, extermination of biodiversity, and forced climate chaos combine to form what’s indisputably a willful, intentional campaign of global destruction for the sake of power. This century will decide once and for all the final question of power. Will humanity redeem itself, or will the corporate persons be the infinite tyrants of tomorrow?
Make no mistake: If you’re a flesh-and-blood human being, a corporate person regards you as literally nothing but a resource to be exploited where profitable, cast out to die where unprofitable, actively killed where a danger. How is it even possible for anyone to be so willfully stupid that in this day and age this isn’t universal knowledge?
And therefore we have the absolute need for a full scale social and political movement dedicated to the clear goal of abolishing corporations. This is necessary against every corporate sector. A movement to abolish agropoisons looks like the obvious place for abolitionists to commence and to set the standard for all the necessary action going forward. As for the public education, we see the great need to transcend anything redolent of “regulating and monitoring” so-called “abuses” perpetrated by alleged “bad apples” among a corporate system otherwise inertially and implicitly taken as normal and normative. By now this inertia and implication kills more surely than any physical poison.
On the contrary, the message which begins, suffuses, and concludes all thought and communication must be the need to abolish corporate power, in this context starting with poison-based agriculture, before it succeeds in its campaign to destroy us all.
*To clarify another point about my position: Although I reject liberalism/reformism on principle for many reasons, the main reason I reject it is that it’s cowardly and fraudulent even where it comes to fighting on the line it proclaims for itself. In theory it’s possible to have a “moderate” position but be a ferocious, uncompromising fighter at that moderate line. But in practice almost all moderates where it comes to theory are moderate really because they’re craven in action. The first example that always jumps to mind is the “Progressive Block” scam during the Heritage/Obamacare debacle. The “progressives” in Congress swore they’d reject anything without a “public option” (another scam), then unanimously reneged on their solemn promise. This kind of lying and cowardice is typical of progressives. That is, they become progressives in the first place because as people they are indelibly liars and cowards. They’re also not very bright, which is why they seem congenitally incapable of breaking free of the cult of electoralism, learning what corporate rule is, what the corporate state is, how it works, what it does, and how to fight it. That’s why we have the typical phenomenon among “anti-GMO” people of a progressive who actually does come to understand some aspects of corporatism where it comes to food and agriculture, but remains utterly incapable of inducing a general idea and applying it across all corporate sectors and to the US government and media as such.

December 19, 2016

The FDA’s “Substantial Equivalence” Big Lie Refuted Yet Again


Here’s the latest in the long line of proofs that the FDA’s “substantial equivalence” dogma has never been anything but a pure lie, from the very first day it was conceived (in the 1980s by a joint agrochemical cartel/FDA think tank). This is a core part of the proof that there is no such thing as a “science” of genetic engineering, but rather nothing but brute force hit-or-miss empiricism coupled with ideological lies masquerading as scientific theory.
This isn’t the first time Roundup Ready maize (aka NK603, the GMO which was the subject of the 2012 Seralini study) has been found to have major genomic and chemical differences from the non-GM isogenic equivalent. In fact ALL GMOs which have been subject to such comparative studies, including many of the most widely deployed – RR soy, Bt11, RR canola, MON810, MON863, etc. – have been proven to have such genotype and phenotype differences, many of these involving potential toxins. (See the “No GE Science” link above for links to these studies.)
And yet these kinds of differences, which are discovered by genomic, proteomic, and/or metabolite comparisons, significant as they are, are secondary compared to the self-evident, massive difference between a crop variety which expresses its own insecticide in every cell vs. one which does not, and a variety which has every cell suffused with herbicide vs. one which does not. Therefore it was self-evident from day one that “substantial equivalence” was an absurd lie. The fact that the US and EU governments and international bodies like the WHO and FAO went blithely ahead in propagating this absurdity is stark testament to how literally insane the institutions of modern civilization have become. It’s impossible to look for simple sanity, let alone any kind of real transformation, within such a madhouse.
To this day, in all seasons, rain or shine, Democrat or Republican administration (GMOs and pesticides comprise a bipartisan assault), the FDA continues as world leader proselytizing for what it has always known is a criminal lie.

December 10, 2016

Technocracy and False Technology Go Together

Filed under: GMO Contamination, GMO Corporate State, Scientism/Technocracy — Tags: , , — Russ @ 8:58 am


Here’s a good example proving yet again that the USDA and EPA premeditate the systematic contamination of crops and the overall ecology by GMOs.
It also provides a good demonstration of how these bureaucracies adhere to a pro-biotech ideology for its own sake. Indeed, just like engineers, bureaucrats will naturally hold a bias in favor of alleged “hi-tech solutions” because this dovetails with their cult of expertise. This is the alleged need for technocratic bureaucracy to exist and wield power in the first place.
Technocracy and high-maintenance technology each foster the other. The deployment of “hi-tech” is falsely alleged to require the existence of technocratic bureaucracy. And then technocracy sees its mission as to aggrandize hi-tech deployment, both for the sake of technology as such and in order to justify this bureaucracy. This remains the ideology and action of the bureaucracy no matter how irrational the technological deployment is in theory, and no matter how much it’s empirically proven in practice to be a failure and to be destructive.
This sums up the ideology and action of the EPA, USDA, and FDA. (It also means it makes no difference who the political appointees are within these cadres. The bureaucracy as a whole is united against humanity and the Earth.)
In reality neither the technological deployment nor the technocratic government are necessary. On the contrary both are harmful and destructive, and humanity will be much better off when it gets rid of both.

November 16, 2016

Formal Credentials

Filed under: GMO Corporate State, Mainstream Media, Scientism/Technocracy — Russ @ 11:44 am


This site rejects credentialism, i.e. the ideology that only those who have received formal credentials from establishment institutions have any standing to express critical points of view about technological and bureaucratic projects of the corporate establishment.
From this point of view cheerleading, of course, is fine, and therefore you’ll never see a pro-GMO activist saying a non-STEM type like Jon Entine or Owen Patterson should recuse himself from pontificating on what the cultists call “scientific issues”. This is one of the proofs that public STEM types have no moral integrity and are nothing but liars and hypocrites.
Well, we know that formal credentials mean nothing in themselves, and indeed that the more formal education one has, the more likely one is to have “learned” all the wrong things and to be arrogant in one’s ignorance. I think it was Mark Twain who said that the problem isn’t those who don’t know but those who don’t know but “know what isn’t so.” That sums up the West’s “educated” class perfectly. There’s no question that the higher one’s IQ, the more conformist and idiotic one’s likely to be where it comes to everything that’s important. Including being stupid enough to believe that IQ tests measure much more than one’s skill at taking such a test. I’m saying that as someone who scored 154 when I took the test as part of a middle school gifted-and-talented program. I also had the highest SAT score in my high school graduating class. But I’ve never been dumb enough to think my test skills were what proved my intelligence.
If I’m intelligent, what proves it is my willingness to see what is and not to lie to myself about anything. And then my willingness to learn for myself about anything which I consider important and which I haven’t previously learned. (I remain somewhat astonished at how completely ignorant electoral-type people are about the politicians they worship. I personally know many Clinton/Obama voters, and I doubt a single one could pass a high school-level quiz about what those politicians have actually done in their careers.)
I will say, however, that if a credential is to matter, then my BA in political science is the best preparation for understanding such a complex, 100% political/economic matter as GMOs. So if I were to be converted to the credentialist ideology, I’d then say that only myself and those who have a similar academic career have any standing to pass judgement about pesticides and GMOs, while STEM types must be ruled out as having no relevant knowledge.
Indeed, if we’re going to talk about expertise then to understand GMOs requires a special mix of knowledge. One must know political theory, economics, history, ecology, human medicine, and agronomy. Other sciences are far less important. Of course the whole thing is not a “scientific” matter at all, but a political controversy. Anyone who says science has anything to do with the economic deployment of GMOs is a liar or a moron.
The fact is that to understand such a vastly politically ramified matter as genetic engineering requires generalist knowledge most of all. This is precisely the kind of understanding which corporate education seeks to suppress and destroy.
And why do the universities and media hate and disparage this knowledge most of all? Because it’s the kind of knowledge necessary for true political participation, and the kind which tends to drive people to want to politically participate. The establishment is dedicated to discouraging such participation, and all its ideas and themes are committed to this suppression.
The takeaway from all this is that poison-based agriculture is properly a generalist matter, and most specifically a political/economic matter. Therefore the best credential for it is being an intellectually honest and adventurous person, while receiving the corporate/university STEM indoctrination regimen is probably the worst, most anti-intellectual way to derive an ideology.
Like I said yesterday, the corporate “scientific” establishment deserves zero trust or respect, and on the contrary should be driven out with a whip as the proven systematic liars and malign cultists they are.
If there’s to be an abolitionist movement, it’ll need to be clear about the absolute illegitimacy of the intellectual establishment, both in principle and in practice.

November 15, 2016

Break the Mammon Mindset

Filed under: American Revolution, Freedom — Tags: — Russ @ 12:57 pm


The standard mindset among system NGOs is: “First we need funding in order to subsist, then we need the mainstream media to take us seriously, then we need to get the establishment to listen to us.” The same is true of established churches and many other kinds of organizations, and this mindset percolates to individuals who become interested in politics. This mindset is part of the Mammon ideology, also called the “bourgeois” ideology.
Instead, picture this affirmative mindset: First we need to hold a true idea and commit to a real goal and must never waver from this core commitment. Then we seek whatever we can get in order to subsist and be heard and fight along the line to which we committed.
Compare the difference between the Mammonist “bourgeois” mindset and that of a public citizen. The former, whatever he superficially claims about his focus, really places his “job” and his car at the center of his life. Then everything else, including his political interests, is really a hobby at best. On the contrary, the affirmative citizen and faithful of God places her commitment and her faith-in-action toward this commitment at the center of life. And then a “job”, if one’s part of the majority who can’t “make a living” directly through our commitments, is just a way to pay the bills.
If everyone who claimed to care about certain ideas and to want certain outcomes were to liberate their minds from the Mammon mindset and live the affirmative faithful mindset, we’d have a very different political and cultural scene. It really is true that the first proximate obstacle is in our own minds.

There Are No Scientists Within the Establishment


(Perhaps some poetic exaggeration in that headline. But if we are to have a rigorous definition of a scientist, this must include the fraternity’s own criterion of speaking “as a scientist” only within the bounds of one’s formal discipline, and clearly stipulating where one speaks purely as an opinionated layman. That, of course, is always the case with STEM-credentialed pro-GMO activists, as I demonstrated in this classic piece.)
Besides the other things wrong with the pro-GMO activists – the fact that they’re liars in everything they say, that they’re corrupt to the core, that they’re factually wrong on every single point – it can’t be stressed enough that every time “scientists” publicly comment on pesticides and GMOs (and many other things), they’re proving they’re not scientists at all, but just typically stupid and ignorant blowhards. Just to cite the example of the ringleader of the “Nobel laureates” (as it pleases GMWatch still to call them) who signed a Syngenta manifesto on behalf of the golden rice hoax, Richard Roberts is not a scientist or an expert in any way relevant to almost any discussion of golden rice or GMOs as such. He’s a pure ignoramus and idiot who has zero credentials or knowledge of agriculture, ecology, economics, history, or political theory, yet who specializes in pontificating about these while the media fraudulently depicts him as some kind of expert on these subjects. See here for another typical example of alleged “scientists” (the AAAS), an NGO (Pew), and the media collaborating to propagate a massive intellectual fraud by fraudulently representing ignorant and corrupt laymen as “scientists”. Roberts, of course, is not a scientist but a profiteering biotech subsidy-miner, and is simply talking his book.
If there’s to be such a thing as a real anti-GMO movement, this movement needs systematically to discredit and de-legitimize the so-called scientific establishment, which we know is nothing but a propaganda front. We must systematically apply the standard that anyone who claims to uphold the credentialist principle is automatically being anti-science the moment he claims to speak with authority on any subject which is not part of his formal credential. We must publicly assert this standard at every opportunity.
(Meanwhile, ironically, for anyone who actually does care about science, Roberts is one of those who in his actual scientific work has debunked the entire theoretical basis of genetic engineering and beanbag genetics as such by contributing to the demonstration of how chaotic the genetic functioning really is. The fact that as a lying hack ideologue he misrepresents his own scientific work says it all about his absolute lack of integrity.)
“If Only the Czar Knew!” To toss in a related point, I’ve noticed people trying to exonerate pollsters for their rather poor performance in projecting the outcome of the plebiscite. They blame the media for dumbing down the intricacy of the statistical forecasts, the public for not reading the fine print, etc.
Now let’s get this straight. No one propagates the cult of any group of “experts” more relentlessly than the experts themselves. The mainstream media just follows the experts’ lead. As it must, since the media receives all its propaganda themes from the experts themselves. The most inveterate and reckless popularizers are always the experts themselves. The worst scientism wingnuts are the scientists themselves. The most demented theologians of engineering are the engineers themselves. The most arrogant pomposities of the economist priesthood are spewed by the economists themselves. And no one touts the infallibility of the polls more disingenuously than the pollsters themselves. The whole business of blaming things on the media, on popularizers, and of course on the people themselves, is just another version of “if only the czar knew.” But anyone who knows history knows that the most radical, aggressive, insane part of the autocracy is always the autocrat himself. And so it is with the many cults of the “experts” currently afflicting humanity like a plague. Here most of all we need the vaccine and the purgative.

November 13, 2016

What Shall This Man Do?

Filed under: American Revolution — Russ @ 9:26 am


I’m a farmer, and I do what I can to grow food, help others grow their own food, and build the Community Food sector.
And then I’m a writer. I write about the necessary new ideas and the ways it’s possible politically to organize to prepare for the necessary revolution of these ideas. I’m organizing all these ideas for my first book, and this blog has been, among other things, notes toward the coming books.
I’m not much of a public speaker (I can muddle through the infrequent times I have to) and I don’t thrive on having a hundred face-to-face conversations a day. Last night having one conversation about this stuff exhausted me. Therefore I’m not naturally a demagogue or organizer, and thus far I don’t have the touch of the real evangelist.
Nevertheless I’d do these things too if I had comrades, if we were building an organization together.
But for now, being totally isolated, facing a steel wall in every direction, and living among such people that even the seemingly decent ones are still all Good Germans, such that I feel I’m living, not even in a lunatic asylum, but within a cult compound; living amid such adverse conditions, it would be too demoralizing to do those things all alone and against such odds. It’s all I can do to keep up the prophetic writing. And I often wonder why I bother with that. I guess I have nothing left but the sense that some force always has driven me to the way I feel about everything I see, and I have no choice but to do the best I can to fight evil and build good.
I wish I had help, but so far there’s no one who cares about good and evil the way I do. This world cares more about the images of the propagandist. Thus the circus world, to give just the most extreme example.
Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.