Volatility

October 4, 2017

The Anti-Spirit of Poison

>

Humans, get off our land, says the cult. Only corporate persons and elite technocrats are authorized personnel.

 
 
The most typical and extreme element of the great crisis of civilization and ecology is the technocracy’s campaign to pump maximal poison into our bodies, our environment, our food, water, air, and soil.
 
Poisonism is biological and chemical warfare. It drives toward the secular goals of disaster, profit, power, control, war. Unlike previous campaigns seeking domination, exploitation, enslavement of people, this campaign only wants to drive the people out. Capitalism’s attitude toward human beings is identical to that of the Nazis toward the Jews: One way or another, they’re supposed to just go away, permanently.
 
Instead of domination of people, corporate-driven productionism wants domination of land, resources, and genetics. The campaign drives toward the permanent eradication of everything that makes us human: The questing mind, our existence as part of the ecology, our community life, our ability to perform meaningful work for ourselves, our families, our communities, our physical and psychological well-being as healthy symbiotic organisms (in addition to afflicting us with cancer, birth defects, and other harms, poisonism wants to sterilize our microbiome).
 
Thus the industrial “food” disseminated by the corporate Feed the World paradigm is poison to us in every way including to our souls. This reveals how poisonism is a religious war. It becomes easier to understand the cultist drive to poison us when we understand that for the scientism religion poison is a sacrament. “I force you to eat poison because it’s poison” is the equivalent of “I believe because it’s absurd.”
 
The intrinsic authoritarianism of STEM types is mundanely careerist, but more profoundly it’s a manifestation of their religious statism and scientism. They worship the corporate technocratic state. This is why they define science as “the research and development of technologies which increase corporate power.” That’s the essence of the corporate science paradigm.
 
The cultists fear for the future of this technocracy, as they sense its physical and cultural unsustainability. The extreme energy system soon will run out of sufficient energy, and humanity increasingly realizes that this system meets no human needs but only destroys all hope for a human existence at all. Earthly and political upheavals threaten to destroy all that the technocrats worship. Therefore they seek an organizational principle, a way to bolster their own assurance and organize to crush humanity and Gaia. They’ve bet everything on the most typical and extreme manifestation of high-maintenance technology, the pesticide/GMO complex.
 
They politically and culturally organize according to the exaltation of the idea of this technology. Not the reality; the fact that pesticides and GMOs don’t work and are purely expensive, wasteful, and destructive is meaningless from this perspective of militant religious consciousness and organizing. That’s why pro-GMO activists are so impervious to evidence, that’s why they’re so shameless about endlessly regurgitating hundred-times disproven lies, that’s why STEM culture as such is primarily a culture of the lie. Their core faith is that given enough deployment of money, lab time, and ideological militance, they’ll empirically reach the point where, by brute force, they’ll be able to deploy enough poison to completely subjugate the Earth and humanity. This goal, this religious fantasy, they christen “science”, “truth”.
 
Thus “feed the world” via poison-based agriculture is the cult’s version of the miracle of the loaves. It’s the idea of the miraculous bread rendered earthly, provided magically by GMO/pesticides. This is really a decadent simulacrum of the Christian notion of the heavenly bread. In every way the “secular” scientism religion is an epigone of Christianity, a direct descendant of certain Christian tendencies as documented by David Noble in The Religion of Technology.
 
This sacralizing of poison is also their way of pretending, where necessary (for example, where they feed poison to their own children), that poison isn’t poison, even that poison is beneficial. They seek to substitute poison for heavenliness. Their cult is a metastasis of Christian snake-handlers and venom-drinkers. On this level they must believe that poison is not really poison. This is how they seek power and dominion, how they inflict poison (power) upon others while believing themselves immune. This is how they believe they experience specially “created” food, water, air, environment, which somehow has not been toxified by their poison onslaught. Yet at the same moment they exalt the GMO/pesticide food as the highest form of food and must ingest it as a sacrament. This is their test of strength, and just as with the Judeo-Christian god, so here they believe that those who falter, those whose “free will” isn’t strong enough to prevent cancer, have been judged and are rightfully condemned.
 
Thus we have the striving for a much greater, if more gradual, Jonestown anti-miracle.
 
For the scientism religion, descended from Christianity, the pesticides and transgenes are the equivalent of the body and blood of Christ, all the more to be exalted as these physically have been synthesized by the miraculous rituals of technological development. As always, the fact that these are shoddy products which don’t work and are only destructive is irrelevant from the militant cult perspective. They have their great leading idea and believe because it’s absurd. They’ve merely extended the mysticism of the Eucharist to the mysticism of the laboratory. The reality-based result is just as meaningless to them.
 
We reach the conclusion: For the scientism/technocracy religion and ideology, poison is a sacrament. Poisonism, the idea and deployment of the GMO/pesticide product, is the core sacrament of this religion, and fighting to maximize this deployment and its destructiveness of all of Gaia and humanity is the core organizational principle and goal of this religion.
 
To render this more tangible to the flesh, this religion’s anti-sacrament is literal poison, which is symbolic of its anti-miracle of corporate industrial food. The actual food is loaded with poison which gives us cancer and is intended physically to kill us.
 
 
While eventually Gaia shall put an end to this biological infestation which toxifies its environment, as she does for all other such vermin infestations, this may not come soon or comprehensively enough to save humanity. If we wish for a human future for our children and grandchildren, we must become fully ecological in every way including politically. This necessarily means organizing on behalf of humanity and the Earth to abolish poisonism, to abolish the scientism cult.
 
 
Help propagate the necessary ideas.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advertisements

14 Comments

  1. I agree with your sentiments regarding GMOs and pesticides, Russ, but I don’t believe arguing with a straw man serves anybody. I’d rather read you debating what proponents have actually said than read you explaining a belief system that nobody holds.

    Comment by VernonHuffman — October 4, 2017 @ 10:43 pm

    • This is their belief system. Their actions prove it, their words prove it. Read Noble’s book, read Pichot, heck read the reformist Kevles who still says the same thing. Educate yourself on the pro-GM activists’ systematic campaign of lies, and how they have been using the religious idea of genetic engineering to organize themselves ideologically. I’ve documented all this extensively for years now. I and many others have “debated” this to death. Now it’s time to synthesize what we know and find out who really wants to do anything about it, and who will never evolve beyond “debating” consumerist perspectives.

      My project is to describe and explain what’s really happening, not to remain mired in the consumerist/reformist comfort zone which guarantees death in the end. I’m an abolitionist.

      Comment by Russ — October 5, 2017 @ 4:22 am

      • If our goal is to abolish pesticides, Russ, what authority shall we rely upon to enforce the ban? What are the steps to bring that authority to our view?

        Comment by VernonHuffman — October 6, 2017 @ 4:49 pm

      • If you’re looking for “authority” up “above” somewhere, you’ll never find it. This system will do nothing but its worst until it collapses. I call upon humanity to build a true revolutionary movement dedicated to preserving and building food sovereignty however much possible during the transition, and doing all it can to weaken the system and accelerate its collapse through potent wedges like poison abolitionism and opposition to scientism/technocracy as such.

        The authority of this movement, like that of all previous true movements, will be a function of the commitment, action, and will of its members. Either this movement will exist and build its own authority, or it won’t, in which case there will be nothing but a vacuum to be filled by some other, far less constructive contender. But either way reformism has no future, and indeed no present. (Nor has it had a past for a long time now.)

        Comment by Russ — October 7, 2017 @ 3:40 am

      • How would you feel about a local initiative to ban GMOs and/or pesticides from a specific locality?

        Comment by VernonHuffman — October 7, 2017 @ 1:10 pm

      • I’ve always supported those and often written about them. Isn’t that how we first met (online), from my contact with the Benton County initiative?

        I like such initiatives as being on the vector toward abolition, and as good examples of unmediated participatory politics as such. Those are two criteria we must maximize.

        Unfortunately I’ve found no one in suburban NJ who’s interested in such political modes.

        Comment by Russ — October 9, 2017 @ 10:30 am

      • I helped to organize the Benton County initiative because of my faith in the ability of a democratic government to regulate corporations.

        Comment by VernonHuffman — October 9, 2017 @ 10:29 pm

      • The way you phrase that seems to contradict the rationale for bottom-up citizen organizing of initiatives, especially to ban products the “democratic” government actively supports. I have no such faith in regulation, which is why I reject all such co-existence notions and propagate the abolitionist idea. Corporations are inherently totalitarian and very aggressive in seeking total domination. Even in principle the regulation notion is badly ill-equipped to confront such an enemy. And of course in reality the “regulation” idea was always a scam, and regulatory agencies have always seen themselves as helpmates of corporate power. That stands to reason, since corporations are artificial creations of the government and really are part of government, extensions of government power. I’ve often called them the fourth branch of government. The corporate state is one holistic entity.

        That, according to most advocates of bans I’ve talked to, is one of the reasons they seek bans wherever it’s politically practicable to do so: They’ve lost the faith that one can just leave it to the government.

        Comment by Russ — October 10, 2017 @ 12:58 am

      • Semantics, Russ… In a democracy, the people are the government. Banning is a form of regulation. If you ban something, somebody has to enforce the ban, eh?

        Comment by VernonHuffman — October 10, 2017 @ 10:34 pm

      • That’s why I’ve long drawn the distinction between an abolitionist movement whose goal is abolition as opposed to those who want only a legal “ban” within the framework of consumer capitalism. That’s why I’ve always said a legalistic ban is on the vector but is no final goal. And of course I’ve always denied that “representative democracy” is real democracy. On the contrary, it’s at best a partial abdication of citizen responsibilities, a partial handing off of human political responsibilities to mercenaries, “professionals”. Same as abdicating citizen policing and militia responsibilities to professional police and military, and we see where that’s gotten humanity. Most of all, same as abdicating our food production responsibilities to corporate technocratic systems, and we see where THAT has gotten us.

        It’s not “semantics” at all, except to pro-system ideologues and post-modern consumer nihilists. On the contrary, it goes to the core of whether humanity will be able to redeem itself and rebuild our food security and ecological existence.

        I have no idea what you’re arguing against here, unless you too want to remain in middle class consumer limbo until you too are financially liquidated and thrust out.

        Comment by Russ — October 11, 2017 @ 2:10 am

      • I’m not arguing at all, Russ, just trying to understand your opinions. It’s very clear what you oppose, and we frequently agree, but I’m not at all sure what you propose. Must one agree with everything you believe in order to cooperate?

        Comment by VernonHuffman — October 11, 2017 @ 7:08 pm

      • You just said the difference between my idea of democracy and yours, for example whether the people must directly take responsibility for themselves or continue to vegetate in irresponsibility and abdicate all to mercenary “professionals”, is mere “semantics”, while I think it goes to the core of the problem. You also opened up by denying that the technocracy/scientism cultists act the way I describe. I took that as arguing. But no, one mustn’t agree with everything to cooperate. If people agree on a goal which is on the vector, they can form alliances.

        As for what I propose, I don’t know how I can make it more clear than I have in literally dozens of posts by now: Build a movement from completely outside the system dedicated to subverting corporate technocratic power (in this case, poison-based agriculture) and building the necessary new world (in this case, scaling up the community food sector toward the global transformation to agroecology on a food sovereignty basis).

        Comment by Russ — October 12, 2017 @ 1:47 am

      • The semantic disagreement I saw was based on my definition of democracy as government of, by, and for the people. It seems to me that any popular alliance that can ban GMOs is by definition a government.

        What does it mean to be “completely outside the system?” Need we eschew fossil fuels, plastics, steel? Is it possible to work toward a shared ideal from a position of compromise?

        Comment by VernonHuffman — October 12, 2017 @ 6:52 pm

      • I mean completely outside the mainstream political structure, starting from the grassroots and building whatever organizational and leadership structure from there. It means starting from the work of committed grassroots workers and finding a way always to rely primarily on the membership/constituency/supporters for finances. This implies that its members will mostly be people who were never previously involved in political action (I suspect most previously will have been non-voters), never worked for/with system NGOs, didn’t go to the “good schools”, aren’t personally part of the establishment network, etc.

        Such a movement will be committed to the necessary new ideas which completely renounce the evils and impossibilities of the corporate extreme energy system. As for the question of eschewing or not, such a movement would view all existing energy and “political” paradigms purely, solely from the point of view of strategy and tactics. For example, even assuming the money was available the movement wouldn’t be hypocritical and fraudulent about luxury flying the way “climate scientists” are. For example, this movement would know that history proves it’s impossible to build a new, independent political party except upon the basis of a large, coherent, committed cultural/spiritual movement foundation, and so it would eschew the notion of running candidates for upper-level office (or worse, endorsing some establishment party candidate) until much later down the road. To do otherwise is putting the party horse before the movement cart.

        Needless to say, as abolitionists of poisonism such a movement would draw an absolute line at poison-based agriculture and would never engage in or support it in any way.

        https://attempter.wordpress.com/2017/05/29/abolitionism-part-one-the-need-for-the-movement/

        https://attempter.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/abolition-movement-part-two-basic-goals-for-organization/

        https://attempter.wordpress.com/2017/06/03/abolition-movement-part-three-the-daily-action-of-pioneers/

        Comment by Russ — October 13, 2017 @ 1:43 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: