Ecological Thanksgiving

>

 

 

The Earth is a fount of great abundance.

 

Human ingenuity can render this fount even more abundant. Agroecology is the supreme example, the greatest human accomplishment.

 

Nature’s bounty augmented by human thought and labor provide all that humanity needs and all it can sanely want.

 

The only problem, ever, is human insanity, human depravity, which convinces itself it wants more than the abundant Earth ecologically offers. This has always been the source of all human evil and all human destructiveness. This insanity is pure nihilism, pure loathing of the womb and of oneself.

 

Temporarily aided by the one-off fossil fuel binge, this anti-human loathing of humanity and the Earth has been able to ramify itself in the form of the corporate-technocratic extreme energy civilization. As if their insanity and evil weren’t enough, they even whine that not everyone shows sufficient “gratitude”.

 

On the contrary, it’s these traitors against Gaia and humanity who incarnate the blackest ingratitude, the most capital treason, against all that this wonderful, beautiful, magical Earth has offered us. If only all people had been willing to live in peace, we could all know peace and happiness. But there are such vermin who refuse to live in peace, and humanity and the Earth will never know peace until Earth is purged of this infestation.

 

 

Ecological history will prevail, and Gaia shall impose the correction she always does in the end. Humanity can participate by building the abolitionist movement.

 

We can best live our thanks to Earth by propagating the necessary new ideas and building this movement. This is the great focus of human life for the next two centuries.

 

On this day of Thanksgiving we can thank abundant Earth and consecrate our lives to our gratitude. Earth is the basis of life itself. Only those who choose to march with death deny this.

 

There’s nothing left but to reclaim the land, build the soil, and fight for life. This is the only positive action left in the terminus of the extreme energy civilization where Politics is Dead.

 

This action is the expression of thanks, today and every day. This is the way to make every day a thanksgiving, and to prepare a world where humanity finally shall live its great gratitude in faith, every day, in all the peace, prosperity and happiness Earth’s abundance can provide. That’s why I write, in prospective thankfulness for this coming movement and this coming ecological peace.

 

 

Propagate the necessary new ideas.

 

 

 

 

 

Mammon and Work

>

 

 

Another piece laying out the rationale for a shorter work-week.

 

There’s two reasons people have to “work” so much in order to get the money to participate in Mammon’s religious rites.

 

One is that most of the wealth nature and labor produces is stolen by a small gang of criminals, i.e. “elites”. The second is that people have been brainwashed into grinderism and into thinking they need to buy a limitless amount of worthless expensive junk.

 

And of course the elites have done all they can to impose a planned economy which requires one to buy expensive junk in order to be functional at all, most obviously the car.

 

The fact is that the vast majority of human societies, including most civilizations, did not force people to acquire money in order to function economically. They were organized in better ways. An economy and society which forces all human-to-human and human-to-nature relations into the money strait-jacket is a Mammon theocracy. That’s what this place is, a theocracy fixated on the worship and rites of a fake thing called “money”.

 

A necessary step toward human liberation and ecological restoration is to free our minds of this religious enslavement, become atheists toward Mammon, and envision a world where we’re not money’s slaves.

 

 

Propagate the necessary new ideas.

 

 

 

 

 

Trickles and Blasts

>

Life is complete right here

 

 

Picture a steady trickle of water from a faucet. Now picture this trickle, over hundreds of millions of years, filling a cistern whose walls gradually close in. Eventually the water would be so compressed that if you could insert a pipe the water would blast out with great force.

 

So far the analogy with an oil well is fairly direct. And for the sake of argument let’s go further and say the compressed water could be extracted and its force used in all kinds of ways. So we have an analogy with fossil fuels.

 

Now instead let’s say we want to go directly to the trickle and extract force from it. Immediately we see the problem. Yet the cultists of industrial renewables – industrial wind farms, concentrated solar panels, the whole notion of using solar power for consumerist electricity generation – think that the concentrated solar energy of hundreds of millions of years, compressed into fossil fuels (and of course it took vastly greater energy to concentrate fossil fuels in the first place than is contained in the fossil fuels themselves), can be replaced by tapping the present trickle. This is an example of the religious insanity of the modern ideological complex of productionism-consumerism-technocracy-scientism-progress-corporate rule.

 

It’s no wonder the apostles of a renewables-based “future” always support the fossil fuel status quo in the present. Just as almost all who verbally deplore climate change support this climate-wrecking status quo. And as a Green Queen might say, it’s “fossil fuels today, renewables tomorrow, never renewables today!” Because deep down they know that the great renewables Millennium, like all utopian techno-hype, is a pipe dream. The idea of powering the extreme energy civilization on renewables is only that: An empty idea, a propaganda campaign. Like all other such propaganda, its purpose is to prop up faltering faith in the model of civilization based on fossil fuels, extreme energy consumption, productionism, and high-maintenance technology. Its purpose is to keep the gate against any thought of an ecological future. Keep “civilized” (i.e. technocratic) thought and action in, keep ecological thought and action out.

 

But the faith continues to falter, because deep down everyone knows fossil fuels are finite, these cannot be replaced, the Earth is not an infinitely disposable waste dump, Gaia shall impose its correction, there will be no technological savior and there are no “stars” to go to (i.e., no god will descend to save us, which is what both of these really mean). The extreme energy civilization, having bottlenecked all human potential and driven humanity into a socioeconomic and political dead end, now drives itself into its own terminal bottleneck.

 

Anyone who feels bottlenecked, whatever the surface reason seems to be, must understand that yours is a symptom of a global ecological crisis. You cannot solve your crisis within the bottleneck which causes it any more than the civilization can pull itself out of its own bottleneck.

 

There’s only one liberation, for all of us, for humanity, for the hope of an ecological civilization. This is to liberate ourselves from the decadent barbarism of the corporate-technocratic extreme energy Babylon. We must liberate ourselves first in thought, and propagate the necessary new ideas. Then we must organize, taking all actions possible within the existing framework, while preparing for the coming physical, political, and spiritual tribulations as the extremist civilization begins its collapse in earnest.

 

Renewable energy offers great benefits for the coming transformation. We must think in terms of passive solar heating, rebuilding and improving wind energy for pumping water and other on-site and local uses, small-scale electrical generation, and similar uses. In the same way many of us are working on agroecology, many are working on a truly rational theory and practice for renewable energy, starting with off-grid development today. These are thoughts and actions toward a human ecological future.

 

But typically extreme, gigantist, megalomaniacal notions of renewables powering vast cities floating on the sand are nothing but typical desert mirages, as often occur in the minds of those crazy from the heat. We must renounce such dinosaur notions ourselves and counteract them by propagating the necessary new ideas, the ideas of an ecological way of life, which is the only possible human way of life.

 

The trickle is indeed more than enough for all we need and all we could sanely want. For four billon years now it’s been more than enough for all life on Earth. All we need is to give up the insanity of thinking we need the blast.

 

 

 

 

 

Corporate Liberals Want to “Put You in the Ground”

>

 

 

 

California’s Jerry Brown, liberal hero, speaks for climate-denying, car-worshipping corporate liberals everywhere:

 

The banner-carrying protesters yelled, “Keep it in the ground” and other chants, referring to the governor’s strong support of fracking, both offshore and on land in California, and cap-and-trade policies that could prove catastrophic to the Huni Kui People of Acre, Brazil and other indigenous communities around the globe.

“I wish we have could have no pollution, but we have to have our automobiles,” said Brown as the activists began disrupting his talk.

“In the ground, I agree with you,” Brown said. “In the ground. Let’s put you in the ground so we can get on with the show here.”

 

This is the way all the liberal climate frauds think. The quotes could be multiplied, e.g. this typical corporate-environmentalist shill. They’re liars to the core. They’re corporate flunkeys and racists. They hate democracy (cf. Brown in the same piece describing critics of his Big Oil-written legislative collaborations as engaging in “forms of political terrorism that are conspiring to undermine the American system of governance”), they hate the people, and they especially hate indigenous peoples and food-producing communities who really ought to just surrender their lands and cultures and assimilate already: “Let’s put you in the ground.”

 

 

Here is one of the core truths of our time:

 

There is one and only one way to avert the worst of the climate crisis and adapt to the level of crisis already locked in: 1. Greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 2. Stop destroying carbon and nitrogen sinks. 3. Rebuild sinks on a mass scale.

 

Anyone who says anything different is a liar and denier. They want to poison and salt the ground, and put humanity in it.

 

 

The climate crisis cannot be confronted, the worst of climate chaos cannot be averted, through the actions or the politics that have driven this very crisis. Liberalism, like all modern political ideologies, is an ideology of climate crime and ecological destruction. (The same goes for “leftism”.) Nothing short of a new consciousness and a new human movement, different from and opposed to the pathologies of productionism, shall suffice.

 

 

 

 

What is Promethean?

>

The fire Prometheus brings us today.

 

 

The cultists of scientism and technocracy like to compare themselves to the fire-bringer of Greek myth, Prometheus. (Of course our alleged rationalists are supposed to have long since dispensed with appeal to mythology and religion, but we’ll leave that aside for today.)

 

But much like Cassandra, Prometheus seems to be misunderstood by many who evoke him. Indeed, anyone not ignorant of who Prometheus really was might think twice before touting him as one’s hero. That is, unless the techno-cultists are giving us a unique insight into their real psychology when they exalt the Promethean myth.

 

As depicted in Greek myth, Prometheus perfectly incarnates the stereotype of the revolutionary nihilist out of sheer malcontentment and lust for destruction. Prometheus was a titan; he became disgruntled with the order of the titans and helped the gods overthrow this titanic order. But he soon became disgruntled with the order of the gods and tried to help humanity overthrow the godly order as well.

 

So what would Prometheus be doing if he were around today? He’d certainly be disgruntled with the order of humanity and would be seeking to destroy it. He’d be doing things like giving the bomb to al-Qaeda or a universally lethal virus to ISIS.

 

Or….would he be giving these things to the scientists and engineers? Precisely because he sees them as the ultimate bomb-throwers, the ultimate terrorists? And perhaps this is how, deep in their vile recesses, the cultists see themselves: The ultimate nihilist destroyers who will eradicate all humanity, all ecology, all evolution. This, perhaps, is the real key to understanding why they idolize Prometheus. Perhaps they don’t misunderstand him at all, but on the contrary understand him all too well.

 

Now if they’d only understand that they’re really more like Icarus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another Day, Another Monsanto Poisoning, Another Streicherism in the Media

>

 

 

Monsanto admits it’s delaying the commercial deployment of a nematocide after the poison caused skin rashes among users in field trials.

 

In its report Reuters takes the poisonist paradigm as given and therefore suppresses the context that nematodes can sustainably be controlled only through soil-building and other agroecological practices. The poison treadmill has been a proven failure for over 60 years. By now the continued media and academic campaign on poisonism’s behalf is, by Nuremburg standards, a willful campaign of crimes against humanity.

 

The campaign continues to advocate the wholesale poisoning of the ecology and destruction of biodiversity. Poison-based agriculture long has been proven an agronomic failure, and it’s long been proven to increase hunger rather than alleviate it. Therefore we know Monsanto, regulators, and the mainstream media don’t advocate poisonism for agronomic reasons. We know they’re willfully, intentionally committing ecocide and giving people cancer for the sake of nothing but power, profit, and destruction of biodiversity for the very sake of this destruction, since monoculture in itself (political, cultural, and biological) is a totalitarian goal of the system. In 2017 the Monsanto Tribunal condemned Monsanto for these crimes, including ecocide.

 

 

The proposition that ecosystems have the same rights as humans, long touted by pioneering thinkers including supreme court justice William O. Douglas and more recently by the community rights movement, has not gained much ground within the system’s legalism. But rationally it follows from any coherent concept of human rights, such as that upon which the Nuremburg tribunal based its jurisprudence. This is because humanity is inextricably part of the overall ecology. Therefore it’s both rationally and morally meaningless to conceive any human right, on a community or individual level, other than as part of a combined human-ecological right. (Meanwhile “the individual” is a false construction in itself, but also can exist only within ecological and community contexts. So individual rights can exist only within the context of ecological rights.)

 

(Douglas also pointed out that unlike purely artificial, government-created corporations, which have had legal and constitutional rights bestowed upon them by the system, ecosystems and natural features actually exist. This total inversion of all reason and morality, where everything that truly exists, including flesh-and-blood human beings, is denied all rights or effectively stripped of what rights they nominally have, while the most totally fake things like money and corporations are empowered with all the “right”, practical and legal, the system can give, gives us profound insight into the elemental falsity of corporate technocracy and scientism, its culture of the lie, and its will to eradicate all naturally evolved reality and replace it with a purely static artificial one. As I said above, this is the totalitarian goal of the monoculture campaign in agriculture and every other form of culture and ecology.)

 

 

Propagate the necessary new ideas.

 

 

 

Superficial and Systemic Corruption Among Regulators

>

You’re Pre-Approved, if you’re a big corporation.

 

 

Ex-GM developer turned critic Belinda Martineau is intrigued that the New York Times, in discussing Henry Miller’s role in Monsanto’s regulatory ghost-writing, doesn’t mention that Miller was an FDA cadre in charge of biotech regulation from 1989-1994. She’s right, the mainstream media systematically avoids placing any “abuse” it’s forced to acknowledge into any broader context.

 

But by the same token I’m similarly intrigued that Martineau, along with most other GMO critics, still thinks that the main problem with regulatory agencies is particular “corrupt” cadres like Miller or the EPA’s Jess Rowland (or, to add everyone’s favorite, Michael Taylor), rather than the congenital institutional structure of an agency like the FDA or EPA. But these agencies were designed to “manage” poisons (and the politics of poison), not to protect the people and environment against poisons. The only thing distinguishing the likes of Miller or Taylor from a regular career cadre is that these are examples of de jure “corruption” who transcend the standard institutional banality-of-evil structure. But this de jure corruption is only a minor if more politically visible appendage to the systemic corruption.

 

Therefore, while reformists by their nature will be content to emphasize only the superficial appendage, since they want only superficial reforms (i.e. they agree that poisonism should continue, it merely needs more and better “management”), abolitionists must highlight the inflammatory yet superficial corruption only as an introduction to the facts about systemic corruption.

 

 

Propagate the necessary new ideas.

 

 

 

 

The Lies of the CRISPR/Gene Editing Media Campaign

>

 

 

The allegedly “new” GMOs are nothing but retreads of the old in every way. This is the case no matter whether the flacks call them by a technical name like CRISPR or Zinc Finger Nuclease, “gene editing”, “new breeding techniques”, or the more internet-colloquial GMOs 2.0 or what have you. The alleged novelty of these retreads is just the latest lie designed to rehabilitate all the same stale old lies.

 

GMO critics often have noted the self-contradiction between the original lie that genetic engineering was “precise” and the more recent hype touting CRISPR as “more precise than earlier methods”, thus conceding that these methods weren’t all that precise. This Wall Street Journal piece goes further, openly acknowledging that the GMO cartel wants simply to start over and “reset” all the lies. It doesn’t even say “more precise” but that “gene-editing technology…enables scientists to make precise changes to plants’ existing DNA”, thus admitting the complete lack of precision of the earlier methods. They’re also simply starting over with the lie equating genetic engineering with conventional breeding. The idea, evidently, is to pretend they never deployed these same lies for the earlier generation of GMOs, and that these lies weren’t all completely debunked.

 

Of course the same liars who tout the alleged greater precision of the retread GMOs still claim in other contexts that the old GMOs are “precise”. So we have two mutually exclusive versions of the “precision” lie being double-thought at all times by the same pro-GM activist liars. Then there’s the stealth version of the lie where a pro-GMO activist, pretending to be reasonable, concedes the failure of GM-based agriculture and pays lip service to emphasizing better farming practices over technological magic bullets, but in the very course of this smuggles in “gene editing” as “…a very different thing to GM [which] will change the whole picture.” This is the furthest I’ve seen a pro-GMO activist go in denigrating earlier GMOs while stealth-touting gene editing as something completely different and with completely different future prospects. In the same way as the more brazen liars he’s trying to get a do-over, a new beginning, for the products of genetic engineering. This fits with my analysis of agricultural GMOs as a stalking horse and preliminary experiment toward GE human eugenics, with animal modification a mid-point. And indeed pseudo-precise gene editing already is being used in human eugenic experimentation.

 

There’s more propaganda along those lines in these pieces, including a typical, indeed standard example of the reporter himself asserting “CRISPR is a far more accurate method of modifying genes than scientists have had access to before” instead of reporting this as a claim being made by the developers and sellers, the way a bona fide journalist would. This and other installments comprise a coordinated mainstream media propaganda campaign dedicated to ensuring the retreads are exempt from the meager, usually farcical regulation earlier GMOs were subject to, and to persuading the public to rescind its suspicion of GMOs as such by trying to convince them of all the same “precision” lies which were so evidently false the first time around.

 

This campaign also is a good example of a much greater confusion and lie. In principle science and technological development (engineering) are two completely different, although often related, things. I stress often but not necessarily related, since in the case of genetic engineering we have one of the cases where the technical deployment has nothing to do with the state of the science and indeed runs counter to it. Genetic engineering is based on nothing but determinist junk science and brute force empiricism (best symbolized by the fact that they literally shoot the transgenes into tissue cultured cells with a gun; read Lords of the Harvest for the image of how gene gun experimenters literally got splattered with onion gore; “precision” indeed!) and has almost nothing to do with science. Indeed, the more the actual science of genetics learns, the more geneticists realize how basically ignorant they are about how the genome works, and how impossible it is to attain any kind of “precision” with artificial genetic manipulation. Here’s a recent book (published in 2016) on the state of genetic science, written by a geneticist who is typically pro-GM. That is, no one could accuse her of slanting anything in an anti-biotech way. And yet the book completely demolishes any claim that genetic engineers could ever have the slightest idea what they’re doing and what the effects will be. (The author seems unaware of this; she’s an example of the double-think I described above.) Yet the propaganda of genetic engineering always systematically has conflated engineering with “science”. The media’s propaganda campaign touting gene editing is a typical example.

 

This leads to one of my basic points, that today’s establishment “science” is indeed nothing but the corporate science paradigm. (Cf. Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for his use of the terms “science paradigm” and “normal science”.) Under the corporate science paradigm, “science” is indeed defined as nothing more or less than the development of profitable technologies. From that point of view, GMO deployment would be called “science”. But this has zero to do with the mythology of the scientific method like we were taught in school, and in fact directly contradicts it. Yet the professional liars depend upon the average pseudo-educated reader to conflate the two in their mind.

 

The CRIPSR media campaign boils down to one of the fundamental political lies: [Insert failed policy] had this-or-that problem the hundred times we touted it before, but THIS time we really promise it’ll work, so believe us again and keep submitting. The most amazing thing is that this self-evident mode of lying works, so long as there’s enough people who are still desperate enough to believe the lie. In the case of genetic engineering, the idea and its toolkit of canned lies comprise a proxy for the crumbling, ever more desperate religious faith of middle class Westerners in technocratic “progress”. As I’ve long said, GMOs are most of all a propaganda campaign. Until enough Westerners are willing to face reality and psychologically burn their ships, the GMO idea, and from there the real-world deployment, will continue to have traction. That’s why the “anti-GMO” people as well are so peculiarly ambivalent and modest in their prescriptions: Most of them too are pro-technocracy consumerists whose opposition to one facet of that system (GM/pesticide food) is more a personal fluke than anything based in a coherent opposition to the system of which genetic engineering and eugenics comprise the supreme idea and product.

 

 

Propagate the necessary new ideas.

 

 

 

 

The Need to Renounce All System Hierarchies (EPA-Monsanto Example Again)

>

Basically a symbiotic creature.

 

 

The notions expressed in this article aren’t factually false, but it remains amazing that anyone ever could have been surprised, as these authors profess to be, at such a phenomenon as “When questions have been raised about [glyphosate’s] safety, Monsanto has ensured that the answers serve its financial interests, rather than scientific accuracy and transparency.”

 

The system based on productionism, technocracy, and in particular the capitalist mode of these chose to develop profit-seeking corporations as the main organizational mode for this paradigm of civilization. Corporations, a creation and extension of government, were explicitly designed to be sociopathic and totalitarian, exalting profit as the one and only value. They were designed to enshrine a Mammon theocracy, which means the total domination of all human-to-human and human-to-ecology relations by reducing these to monetary exchanges.

 

Implicitly, corporations were designed to become the repository of all real economic and political power, while nominal “public” government is retained only as a facade. That’s the procedure and goal of neoliberalism as a system of power, while the ideology of neoliberalism is based on the notion that this is how things should exist, and the only way they can exist. The historical record is unequivocal.

 

Therefore it’s also no surprise that the EPA consistently has covered up and lied on behalf of Monsanto and other poisoner corporations, or that

 

The record suggests that in 44 years — through eight presidential administrations — EPA management has never attempted to correct the problem. Indeed, the pesticide industry touts its forward-looking, modern technologies as it strives to keep its own research in the closet, and relies on questionable assumptions and outdated methods in regulatory toxicology.

 

But the authors are naive to attribute this to “capture”, as if there was ever a pristine morning where the EPA was born innocent and pure of heart. On the contrary, regulatory organizations like the EPA are designed to serve corporate imperatives, organizing the government subsidies and exemptions from legal responsibility upon which all corporate sectors are 100% dependent, and helping to pilot them through any hazardous political shoals. Of course the strong pro-corporate bias is hard-wired into the very principles of regulatory ideology, based as they are on “managing” poisons and ecological harms, always assuming one can find the right “tolerances” for these. To put this in perspective, all one need to ask is what’s the right tolerance level for child molestation, rape, murder? Do we assume there’s a non-zero “tolerance” for these? In action, yes, the US system assumes exactly this. But not in principle. Yet the regulator ideology assumes in principle that every corporate action has its proper tolerance. This tendentious ideology, in turn, is then stretched and “abused” in practice the ways this article describes. But these pro-Monsanto EPA actions aren’t really abuses; they follow logically from the original principle.

 

Anyone interested in the history of the EPA would do fine to start with E. Vallianatos’ Poison Spring. Vallianatos was an EPA cadre who for years was maverick enough actually to try to carry out a public health mission, and his book details the institutional rejection of any such mission. For example, he describes how, when the EPA was originally founded with such fanfare in response to public outcry about several high-profile environmental disasters, it was staffed by imports from the USDA in order to ensure that it understood its real pro-corporate mission, which had nothing to do with the pro-environment, pro-public health propaganda.

 

Because people refuse to understand these realities, we continue to be mired in the slough of such reform prescriptions as this:

 

The only way to establish a scientific basis for evaluating glyphosate’s safety, as a group of 14 scientists suggested in 2016, would be to make proprietary industrial studies public, put them up against the peer-reviewed literature and conduct new studies by researchers independent of corporate interests—in other words, force some daylight between regulators and the regulated.

 

But the scientific establishment is no more capable of avoiding “capture” than the regulator. Parallel to the inherently pro-corporate, pro-poison regulatory ideology, system science is completely beholden to the corporate science paradigm which directs it to the exact same biases, cover-ups, frauds, political lying, and similar “abuses”.

 

Therefore it’s of no avail to correctly renounce the regulator but immediately repose the same vain faith in the scientific establishment. When you finally realize this establishment is equally pro-Monsanto, to which system hierarchy will you turn next? And how many times must you repeat the religious experiment before you realize the evil (the corruption, the capture, or however you choose to see it) is congenital and universal to the corporate-technocratic system?

 

The only solution is to renounce this system completely, based as it is upon a totalitarian will to destroy humanity and the Earth, and commit to the abolitionist necessity in thought and deed.

 

 

Propagate the new and necessary ideas.