November 6, 2017

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.

November 4, 2017

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.

October 6, 2017

Lethal Pesticide Outbreak in India


At least fifty Indian cotton farmers are dead and over 800 have been hospitalized after spraying the pesticide Profex Super, a combination of profenofos and cypermethrin. The poison causes vomiting, dizziness, disorientation, trouble breathing, trouble seeing. These farmers grow Monsanto’s Bollgard II cotton which is supposed to kill insect pests and reduce the need for sprayed pesticide. But Bt cotton has been a complete failure all over the world, with target bollworms quickly developing resistance to every toxin the poison plant can serve up for them. Especially in India, there was at most a very brief spraying dividend over ten years ago, even as the seeds required neonic pesticide coatings to enable the crop to grow at all. Farmers soon had to revert to spraying many times a year as the bollworms became more and more impervious.
Bt cotton is perhaps the most notorious example of the basic failure and fraud of the entire genre of Bt insecticidal GMOs. It highlights how, contrary to the industry’s lies, GMOs increase pesticide use, and are designed to increase pesticide use.
Today we have a new development. Acute illness and sometimes death is nothing new among pesticide applicators, but such a big outbreak is. The system’s “experts” are doing their usual thing of blaming the farmers for not taking proper precautions. But the fact is that the Indian government provides vanishingly little institutional support to farmers. They get almost all their advice from the sellers themselves of pesticides and GM seeds, but such advice has little safety value. So the lack of proper safety precautions when spraying is a long-running chronic circumstance which often leads to acute illness (and longer term illness such as cancer) but seldom brings lethal outbreaks. And in fact the experts have ended up confessing that this outbreak is a mystery to them.
The proximate cause is a mystery, but there’s no mystery about the chaotic structural cause. Clearly this is the kind of engineering failure which is triggered by a special combination of circumstances, where such combinations have unpredictable but often extreme effects.
The circumstances going into the brew here may include some tipping point of quantity of poison sprayed, the weather and environmental conditions, some contaminant or simple change in production method of the poison itself, chaotic reaction with other pesticides, and/or any number of factors which may unpredictably combine to trigger such a chaotic effect.
The takeaway is that this kind of acute lethal outbreak could happen any where, any time that significant amounts of pesticides are injected into the environment. If the Bhopal disaster was a massive chaotic outbreak, this is a mini-Bhopal. We can expect more of them, as the poisonist system deploys ever greater numbers of pesticides in ever greater amounts, with ever greater chaotic effects reverberating among these poisons and between them and the environment.
In India there’s nothing new about pesticides causing mass death. Since corporate agriculture forced its globalization campaign upon Indian small cotton farmers, in their economically driven despair they have been killing themselves in vast numbers by drinking their own pesticides. These pesticides comprise the very symbol of their having been made a human sacrifice to corporate power and technocratic derangement.
The recent lethal outbreak is being called an “accident”, but like Bhopal such outbreaks really are hard-wired into the structure of poison-based agriculture, and of corporate-driven poisonism in general. The despair driving the suicide epidemic, itself an acute version of the languishing despair and slow death of the millions driven off their land and into the shantytowns, also is hard-wired. All these forms of despair and death are caused, for no reason, by a system which doesn’t work and has no goal but waste, destruction, and its own power. All these forms of death are, in the end, murder.

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.

August 19, 2017

A Case Study in the Pathology of the “More Testing” Ideology

Filed under: GMO Health Hazards, Reformism Can't Work — Russ @ 10:41 am


Syngenta’s products are no less purely cosmetic, and we don’t need “More Testing” to know it.

I’ve long criticized the rote call among GMO/pesticide critics for “more testing” when we already have far more than enough evidence. I diagnose this as a symptom of philosophical bankruptcy on the part of those who have no idea how to use the Himalayas of evidence we already have and no idea what alternative to poison-based agriculture to advocate. Most of them don’t really believe in the potential of agroecology, however much they pay lip service to it. Worse, most of them don’t really want to abolish technocratic control of food and the devastation of the ecology. Their aversion to GMOs is more of a fluke than a coherently principled position. Indeed, many of them openly say that they’re not anti-GMO or anti-pesticide at all, and merely want more tests in order to confirm that GMOs are safe.
Today GMWatch has reached a nadir. They’re so beholden to the “More Testing” dogma that they’ve seen fit to reproduce a paper put out by a Big Pharma front group called “Understanding Animal Research”. Looks like under the right circumstances GMW and Syngenta can see eye to eye; check the list of Members at the UAR site. Of course the purpose of this site is to prop up the increasingly discredited notion that corporate animal testing can guarantee the human safety of products. We know this is a lie on several levels: In principle it’s doubtful that animal testing necessarily gives human-applicable results; even assuming a test could in theory be valid, in practice the tests are designed to incorporate various methodological frauds such as irrelevantly short durations, wrong parameters, use of tricks like “historical control groups”; even then the tests are often shoddily performed in such disreputable laboratories as the notorious IBT.
GMWatch itself has helped publicize many of these frauds, which makes it all the more telling how they still close ranks with the corporate testing regime any time they can get establishment endorsement for such meager, lukewarm statements as this from UAR’s Abstract: “Currently, the scientifically-assessed direct hazardous impacts of GM food and feed on fauna and flora are conflicting.”
GMWatch is so proud of this Abstract that they don’t shrink from reproducing this triple lie from it, which they themselves have helped debunk so many hundreds of times: “Modern agriculture provides the potential for sustainable feeding of the world’s increasing population. Up to the present moment, genetically modified (GM) products have enabled increased yields and reduced pesticide usage.” Clearly, the fundamentalist commitment to “More Testing” drives one into bed with some strange bedfellows indeed.
It’s unfortunate to have to criticize such an often excellent information aggregator this way. But it’s not enough to do some good, we must especially refrain from evil. If the More Testing ideology requires one to make common cause with Big Drug and give aid and comfort to the false corporate testing regime which needlessly wastes so many animals for nothing but its worthless destructive unsustainable products, that should cause one to seriously question the path one’s on. The right path never requires such corruption.
To say again, we who reject poisonism have vastly more than enough evidence, affirmative and negative (Strict Proof), to convince any honest, rational person to become an abolitionist. If we have not yet motivated a sufficient number of people, this is from a combination of a lack of reason and energy on the part of the people, and our own inadequate communication and tactics. But under no circumstances is it from a quantitative lack of raw material. On the contrary, where we see anti-GMO people who keep mindlessly calling for More Testing we’re really seeing those who aren’t truly committed to abolitionism, to food sovereignty, who are not opponents of corporate control, and whose criticism of GMOs doesn’t necessarily reflect any underlying values at all.
Strictly speaking, this hasn’t been an “anti-testing” piece, though it is that also. But it’s primarily the insistence that we already know all the facts about corporate agriculture, have known all the facts for decades now, and that only procrastination, out of hopeless confusion or a lack of real commitment, could be the purpose of still pretending we don’t know the facts once and for all. And this procrastination, in turn, is part of what’s delaying the true beginning of the necessary transformation humanity must make.

August 18, 2017

The EPA Stalls for Monsanto


Stonewalling the people, building a wall against the future.

The EPA’s most common practice is to receive PR copy from corporations like Monsanto and launder Monsanto’s lies to the public with its own “regulatory” imprimatur. But sometimes the collaboration is more actively hands-on, as in this long-running delay of a toxicological review of glyphosate. The new review was promised for 2015. The delay leaves in place the EPA’s 2013 proclamation denying the fact that glyphosate causes cancer. This proclamation was a prime example of the stenography and rubber-stamping of the corporation’s own self-description I mentioned above. This new information about EPA/Monsanto collusion is the latest to come out of the many cancer lawsuits Monsanto is now fighting.
Note well, this is Obama’s EPA in action. The Obama administration was the most aggressively pro-pesticide and pro-GMO to date. Trump certainly will try to catch up and surpass Obama, but as with so many other crimes against humanity and the Earth, he has a long, long way to go.

August 9, 2017

“Impossible”, i.e. Fake Food, Fake News, Fake Media, Fake Regulators, Fake Humans


Corporate violence makes rivers of real blood flow

The New York Times has long been the premier purveyor of fake news, i.e. systematic lies, on everything from the Iraq War and “war on terror” to GMOs and pesticides to the housing bubble.
By now this corporate tabloid is so brazen that if you were to read a randomly selected paragraph from any issue you’d often have a hard time telling whether it came from a “news article” or the op-ed page.
Since the NYT’s coverage of genetic engineering is among the most corrupted, it’s unsurprising that an article has this corporate flackery and right-wing rhetoric spliced in:

Impossible Foods is finding out what happens when a fast-moving venture capital business runs headlong into the staid world of government regulation.

Investors like Bill Gates and Khosla Ventures have poured money into a variety of so-called alt-meat companies. Silicon Valley has noble goals, applying technological solutions to address major issues like climate change, farm animal welfare, and food security.

But food is not an app. It is far more heavily regulated by governments and much more heavily freighted with cultural and emotional baggage.

Ronald Reagan couldn’t have said it better. Of course the bit about Silicon Valley’s alleged goals goes beyond editorializing to being a flat out lie. The scribbler and her editors know perfectly well that Silicon Valley has no goals but profit and power and is just as opposed to real action on climate change, animal cruelty, and food security as the NYT itself is. This is proven by the fact that a core writing standard at the NYT is for reporters to regurgitate as “fact” whatever governments and corporations say about their own goals, regardless of how unevidenced or contrary to the evidence such claims are. In this case, the “journalist” goes even further and asserts the alleged goal on her own authority. This NYT paradigm, which is followed by the entire mainstream media, is a major constituent of how this media disseminates fake news.
Similarly, for corporate media like the NYT the most hysterical, hyperventilating exaltation of capitalism and high-maintenance technology (and the most shrill defenses of these) is considered the normal baseline while even the most moderate questioning or skepticism is branded “emotional baggage.” It’s like Chomsky’s observation that when the NYT says “the people” it means big corporations and the rich, and when it says “special interests” it means the people and the environment.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention what this is all about. You’ll have to forgive me, but by now all the particular GMO scams blur together into one fuzzy streak of lies and religious wingnuttery. Each new scam is just like all the preceding ones and musters the same canned lies which were completely refuted years, often decades ago. By now only the wicked and the morbidly, terminally stupid still support GMOs and genetic engineering. In this case, GM yeast generates a synthetic version of the heme protein found in soybean roots. This protein is then incorporated into synthetic vat meat to make it “bloody” like a rare hamburger. The target consumers are the kind of wingnut who wants a bloody meat look and texture but doesn’t want to eat real meat. Allegedly, many vegans fall into this bizarre category.
(The Gates Foundation is a big investor in this strange product which is certainly nothing but a boutique item. That’s exemplary of how all the Gates claims to philanthropic motivations are nothing but lies. On the contrary, this exemplifies how the Gates Foundation is motivated by nothing but profit, power, tax dodging, and technocratic religious fundamentalism. Bill Gates is the same as any other televangelist.)
This particular scam does engage some broader trends and pathologies. Is celebrating a literal blood-lust, just offering a substitute for real blood, the right way for vegans to go, in their personal actions and social advocacy? I condemn all forms of animal cruelty, not just the specially cherry-picked ones middle class vegans usually care about. Therefore it seems to me that it’s the blood-lust itself which should be criticized rather than appeased. There’s certainly nothing natural about it; it’s not “human nature”. Indeed, the blood-lust in eating bears an uncanny resemblance to the jingoism of chicken-hawks who have never been to war and would collapse in tearful hysterics at the thought of having to go to war personally. In the same manner, CAFO eaters never want to see how CAFOs and slaughterhouses work. Meanwhile I’ve read much that’s been written by farmers who perform their own slaughter, and though most enjoy meat, I’ve never read one who revels in the blood. Only some parasitic eaters do that. So to the extent we see vegans celebrating the “blood”, we see their affinity group.
(By no means do I mean to criticize veganism as such. I have great respect for vegans with political integrity, and animal cruelty is one of the several reasons I abominate CAFOs and call for the abolition of industrial agriculture. But I despise anyone who is nothing but a myopic, anti-political, generally ignorant “lifestyle” enthusiast whose objective action not only serves systemic evil but runs counter to their own alleged cause. This is the case with anyone who claims to care about animal welfare but opposes abolitionism and acts as a corporate operative, supporting any aspect of corporate agriculture and food. Like all agronomic, ecological, and socioeconomic crises, the crisis of the ongoing animal holocaust through factory farms, environmental poisons, and habitat destruction can be met only with a strong, coherent, disciplined, relentless movement for the abolition of corporate industrial agriculture in toto and the global transformation to agroecology and food sovereignty. But just as with the crocodile-tear climate criminals and de facto climate deniers, so any self-alleged animal welfare activist who claims to find common ground with the corporate onslaught is a liar and a fraud.)
As for the Impossible Foods, they’ve been wrangling with the FDA over the lack of taxpayer-funded, regulator-guaranteed advertising for their product. I’ve written before about the FDA’s fraudulent non-regulating “regulation” of GMOs, which literally is nothing more than a voluntary exchange of letters: The corporation asserts (it doesn’t need to provide any evidence at all) that its GM product is safe, and the FDA replies, “We acknowledge that you claim the product is safe.” That’s it.
The beef here is that Impossible Foods wants the FDA to go beyond this abdication. They want the FDA to state affirmatively that their blood-pack is safe to eat. So far the FDA has refused. (The EPA actually lies more aggressively than the FDA, which in this case prefers passive abdication.) Meanwhile Impossible has “self-affirmed” that its synthetic blood-letting proteins are safe by paying flacks impersonating scientists (they’re all contractors for Monsanto, DuPont, ADM, the Gates Foundation, etc.) to assert this, again with zero testing or evidence. Literally everywhere we look, whether it be to the government regulator, the corporations, the scientific establishment, or the mainstream media, we the same absolute lack of contact with reality – no testing, no evidence, literally nothing but lies made up out of thin air.
It would be rather comical, like a bad liar on a sitcom, if so much weren’t at stake: Page 1 of Impossible’s FDA submission has the usual rote citation of the FDA’s “substantial equivalence” religious dogma, while page 6 acknowledges that the GM product is a “novel protein”. (This self-contradiction is meant to justify the company’s patent. If the heme protein is “identical”, why should anyone be able to patent it? This kind of contradiction has been standard throughout the GMO/pesticide era. Dow even managed to spook the EPA, it was so brazen about denying synergistic pesticide effects in its regulatory application while celebrating them in its patent application.) Meanwhile their website touts the product as “identical” to what we eat in nature. Once again we see the congenital culture of the lie among technocrats.
GMOs are indeed impossible foods. Impossible to improve health and nutrition, impossible to improve food safety, impossible to improve food security, impossible for crop biodiversity, impossible for the soil, impossible for the environment, impossible for the good of farmers and communities, impossible for science and reason, impossible for any coherent human culture, impossible for animals, impossible. On the contrary, they’ve long been proven to be directly destructive of all of these values and goals.
PS. “I hacked my body for a future that never came”: This headline pretty much sums up all high-maintenance technological deployments. But this author and her self-mutilating brethren, with their “hi-tech” version of cutting, are especially mentally ill. Be aware of the level of physically violent dementia these creatures demonstrate.

June 10, 2017

Your EPA in Action


It’s been common knowledge for years that the EPA knew at least since the early 1980s that glyphosate causes cancer, and has been helping Monsanto cover up this fact ever since. Glyphosate doesn’t work in practice, and the brain-dead cult of it is driven only by profit and power.
The flood of cancer lawsuits now ongoing against Monsanto is providing more information about the EPA’s pattern of crime. In one of the suits the plaintiffs’ experts are reviewing one of Monsanto’s own original studies which found evidence of glyphosate’s cancerousness.
This 1983 study, entitled “A Chronic Feeding Study of Glyphosate (Roundup Technical) in Mice”, was conclusive enough that in 1984 EPA toxicologist William Dykstra wrote in a memo: “glyphosate is oncogenic…in a dose-related manner.” Other EPA scientists concurred over the next year. In 1985 they officially signed a consensus review classifying glyphosate as Category C, “possibly carconogenic to humans.”
In response, Monsanto cadre George Levinskas, the company’s cover-up artist who previously led the campaign to lie about the devastation wrought by PCBs, suborned doctor and academic Marvin Kuschner to whitewash the evidence. Levinskas assured colleagues that Kuschner’s testimony was in the bag even before Kuschner actually looked at the slides. Sure enough, Kuschner claimed to find a tumor in the control group which previous researchers, including Monsanto’s own, had not located.
At the same time as this alleged control group tumor was being “discovered”, Monsanto sent the EPA a secret report which blamed the tumors found among the experimental group on how the study allegedly used “aged mice”. Why, praytell, would a scientific toxicology study use “aged” experimental subjects such that tumor evidence, if found, would be overdetermined? Precisely for that reason – so that in the event of experimental trouble Monsanto could dismiss the evidence as caused by the age of the subjects. In other words, this is Monsanto openly admitting that its study was a deliberately designed to be a fraud, because they intentionally used experimental subjects which could not provide legitimate scientific evidence. In legitimate science, of course, the goal of experimental design is to isolate the experimental variable(s) and control for every other variable. Legitimate researchers therefore select their experimental subjects in order to prevent any overdetermination of the results. In a cancer study, the subjects would be selected from the demographic which has the least actuarial incidence of cancer. But if you select older mice who are statistically more prone to tumors in general, you’re intentionally designing a fraudulent study. Here we have Monsanto openly avowing that it perpetrated such a fraud, and claiming that therefore the evidence of its own study should be dismissed.
Any society which respected science would drive them out with a whip. But we see how things function in a system of establishment science dedicated to the corporate science paradigm.
Monsanto also bombarded the EPA with “historical control data”, a standard methodological fraud. Standard in industry tests, this tactic is designed to generate irrelevant noise in order to drown out any toxicity or cancer signal which does arise.
These Monsanto lies gave the EPA enough of a pretext to reclassify glyphosate into Category D – “not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.” But they still asked Monsanto to repeat the study, which Monsanto refused to do, thus implicitly validating the original results. In other words, Monsanto believed that even with all its chicanery and fraud, a new study would still produce evidence that glyphosate causes cancer. If the company didn’t think that, it would happily perform the study. The same goes for the fact that the GMO corporations have absolutely refused ever to perform a single safety study upon any GMO. This proves that the corporations and governments believe that such studies would produce evidence of the health harms of GMOs.
In 1989 the EPA dropped its request for a new study. The EPA was warming up to its whitewashing role. In 1991 the agency finally performed a complete inversion, dubbing glyphosate Category E – “evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans” – a bald-faced lie.
The EPA has held fast to this pro-glyphosate line ever since, reaffirming it most recently in 2013.
Meanwhile the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), one of the few public bodies dedicated to legitimate science*, has deemed this same study, along with a 1981 study finding evidence that glyphosate causes testicular cancer in rats, as evidence that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen”.
Since at least the early 1980s Monsanto and the EPA have known that glyphosate causes cancer. Every US president, agriculture secretary, and other government officials also have known this at least since then. All of them have systematically covered up this fact ever since. They are all complicit in mass murder by poisoning. This is indelibly what the EPA and other regulatory agencies are, just as it’s indelibly what the Corporate One-Party is, regardless of its fake “Democrat” and “Republican” groups. There is no path forward for humanity with these criminal organizations. The regulatory agencies are dedicated in principle to “managing” the infliction of deadly poisons upon the people, and in principle are supposed to keep the number of deaths and injuries at a politically tolerable level, thus the regulatory concept of “tolerances”. But in practice they make no attempt even to manage the death toll, but strive to maximize the use of every kind of deadly agricultural poison. This is indelibly what they are.
There is no path forward for humanity in seeking to “co-exist” with these poisons and poisoners. The only solution is total abolition. Therefore there is no path forward in trying to “reform” these indelibly poisonist agencies. They too must be abolished along with the vile poisons they inflict upon us.
*Although the WHO as a whole has been consistently pro-Monsanto, the IARC is out of step with the dominant corporate/reductionist ideological framework, instead emphasizing environmental factors in cancer causation.

Emphasis is placed on elucidating the role of environmental and lifestyle risk factors and studying their interplay with genetic background in population-based studies and appropriate experimental models. This emphasis reflects the understanding that most cancers are, directly or indirectly, linked to environmental factors and thus are preventable.

The proposition that cancer is preventable runs directly counter to the dominant “science” ideology which dogmatically views cancer as arising either from genetic determinism or “bad luck”, and which considers the only acceptable response to be massively expensive and interventionist cures supervised by Big Drug and other corporate sectors. This ideology is driven by the need of the poison-peddling corporations to obscure and deny the fact that profitable products like glyphosate are in fact major cancer drivers. The corporate flacks are abetted by scientism’s religious zealots who refuse to hear any evil spoken of their technological rabbits’ feet.
Help propagate the abolitionist idea.

June 5, 2017

The Regulator/Corporate Interest vs. the People’s Interest


The Greens/EFA faction of the European Parliament is suing the EFSA because the agency refuses to release secret documents from its 2015 glyphosate review. The EFSA always has proclaimed openly that it depends upon secret documents it is fed by the corporations. In other words, the regulator openly admits that it uses no science in its reviews, but only corporate innuendo. This is in complete contrast to the WHO’s IARC cancer research agency, whose guidelines require it to use only published studies. The IARC requires itself to stay within the bounds of legitimate science, while the EFSA and EPA explicitly disavow science and stay within the bounds of secret corporate decrees.
Under public pressure the EFSA did release a fragmentary, heavily redacted version of the corporate materials, and did find collaborators willing to provide political cover for this fraudulent “disclosure”. The EFSA now says no public interest would be served by full disclosure. In addition to being an explicit abdication of the canons of science, which by definition requires public perusal, this is the EFSA’s open admission that it does not view itself as acting in the public interest, since it explicitly avows that the public interest, at best, must be limited by the corporate interest. The Greens/EFA statement partially endorses this, agreeing that there’s a “balance that should be struck.” We abolitionists of course recognize no such fraudulent “balance”, but will never settle for anything less than the full public interest and the full publicity of anything claiming to represent “science”.
Once again we have the standard state of things:
1. The myth of the public interest regulator.
2. The reality of the regulator controlled by the corporation and ideologically committed to serving the corporation.
3. The regulator lies, claiming to be trying to “strike a balance”. This already partially abrogates the myth of the public interest. In reality, the regulator recognizes no public interest at all, except insofar as this may trickle down from corporate domination.
4. “Reformers” have already surrendered that far, and they abet that extent of the lie. So we can assume that over time they’ll continue to surrender ground and abet further lies as the corporate assault advances.
As the piece points out, the EFSA could, if it really were under legal constraint with regard to publicizing its alleged data, ask the court to order it to publish the data. But of course no regulator would ever make such a request, because they lie about being under such constraint. No regulator ever has its hands tied by intellectual property law. On the contrary, they ardently, actively, ideologically support the poisoner project and all its elements. This includes the “secret science” the regulators require in order to perform their sham reviews.
As I’ve written many times before, this strong regulator bias on behalf of the corporations and against the public good and against science does not arise primarily from superficial venal corruption. It arises from a far more profound existential corruption, a corruption of all canons of human morality and reason. While de jure corruption is common, it’s epiphenomenal compared to the overall ideological and methodological framework of technocracy and the corporate science paradigm. Cadres of an agency like the EFSA or ECHA, or the US EPA, FDA, and USDA, operate according to the corporate/technocratic template. Its three components are:
1. The corporate power/profit project is normative. It is the primary purpose of civilization. Under no circumstance can any other value or alternative project be allowed significantly to hinder the corporate project.
This has profound implications for actions like a pesticide cancer review. For technocratic regulators to acknowledge the fact that all synthetic pesticides cause widespread cancer would significantly hinder the corporate project. Therefore even the prospect of such acknowledgement is ruled out a priori. By definition it cannot be part of the review. Only the most grossly excessive and obvious cancerousness on the part of a particular chemical could be acknowledged even in principle. When outfits like the US EPA or the EU’s EFSA claim to believe that glyphosate is not cancerous, this is not according to any rational or scientific canon of evidence, and reformers who interpret it this way make a mistake about the fundamental character of these organizations.
Rather, technocratic regulators apply the canon of the corporate paradigm. According to this canon “causes cancer” is defined as: “So grossly carcinogenic that it’s politically impossible to deny it, to the point that lack of action would in itself be significantly bad for business.” For the government, just as much as for the corporation, cancer is purely political.
This leads to the template’s second component.
2. Given the strictures of (1), the regulator may if absolutely necessary impose limits on the most excessive harms and worst abuses. More often, it only pretends to do even this. Which leads to the template’s third component.
3. The regulator then puts its imprimatur on the corporate project as having been sufficiently regulated for safety. According to the ideology of technocracy and bureaucracy, the people are supposed to believe implicitly in the competence, rigor, and honesty of the regulator. They’re supposed to believe this for all measures of safety, public and environmental health, political and socioeconomic benefit and lack of harm.
All this is based on a Big Lie, since as we described above the regulator actually functions only according to the normative values of corporate power. But it fraudulently claims, always implicitly and very often explicitly, that it has acted on behalf of human values and to protect and serve the people. Therefore, the ideology goes, the people should repose implicit trust in the regulator rather than assert themselves democratically in any kind of grassroots way. Most of all, the people must not start to think in any political terms which would be based on fundamentally different values and goals, values and goals opposed to those of corporate rule and technocracy.
Thus we see how technocracy is an ideology, method, and form of government which is fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-political as such since it is dedicated to the proposition that the people should relinquish all political activity and passively receive and believe the judgements of technocratic regulators. This system is based fundamentally on the Big Lie that it actually is a form of democracy and a form of society which encourages the political participation of the people. But in fact it conjures only sham versions of these and seeks aggressively to discourage and suppress any true politics.
This ideology and method is especially critical for the poisoner campaign, whose continued domination depends upon the people’s opposition remaining strait-jacketed within the bonds of regulator-based reformism. It’s essential that no significant number of people attain an abolitionist consciousness and commit to the abolitionist goal.
We see how the corporate state and technocracy, along with their allied economic ideology of neoliberalism, exist as species within the same genus as classical fascism. This is the genus of pseudo-democratic forms bled of all real political content which then stand as cultural facades behind which exists only state tyranny. Today’s corporate state is the most fully evolved form of this tyranny.
Help propagate the abolitionist idea.

June 1, 2017

Fighting the CRISPR Lie


Meet the new GM, same as the old GM.

Here’s the latest addition to the already substantial evidence of the danger and shoddiness of the CRISPR “gene editing” technique. In a medical research study the researchers wanted to find out how many mutations CRISPR really causes. Therefore they sequenced the entire genomes of the mice subjects instead of the usual procedure of sampling them according to a computer algorithm which predicts where mutations are likely to be. They found thousands of mutations not predicted by the algorithm.
The algorithm procedure is typical crackpot reductive science with little or no validity for the real world:

“These predictive algorithms seem to do a good job when CRISPR is performed in cells or tissues in a dish, but whole genome sequencing has not been employed to look for all off-target effects in living animals,” says co-author Alexander Bassuk, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics at the University of Iowa….

“Researchers who aren’t using whole genome sequencing to find off-target effects may be missing potentially important mutations,” Dr. Tsang says. “Even a single nucleotide change can have a huge impact.”

We see how different the result is when the study focuses on something closer to reality, the whole genomes of test subjects.
Here’s the takeaways and talking points.
1. This is just the latest proof that gene editing causes an extreme number of mutations and therefore is unsafe.
The health dangers of the “new” GMOs are the same as for the old GMOs. Scrambled genomes, insertional and tissue culture mutations, and the effects of these: A gene producing too much or too little of a protein with toxic or other ill effects, producing the wrong protein with toxic effect, producing a misfolded protein with toxic effect (Mad Cow disease is caused by a misfolded protein), toxically excessive or foreign metabolites, gene or cell damage leading to cancer or any number of other severe and lethal diseases.
2. This is just the latest proof of how gene editing is highly imprecise.
Once again we see how any claim to precision will never be anything more than one of the standard lies of genetic engineering. And make no mistake – this is a willful, deliberate campaign of lying on the part of the scientific establishment, government regulators, and the mainstream media. We’re far past the point of it being possible to be honestly mistaken about any of this. Everyone knows “precision” was a lie from the beginning, so even those who willfully choose not to look at the specific evidence in the case of CRISPR still knows its alleged precision is being touted by the same old liars. We’re long past the point where it’s possible to have good faith trust in any corporation, or to advocate such trust. On the contrary, anyone from government or media who says or implies that we the people should trust any corporation is acting in the worst of bad faith.
3. In both these ways the “new” GMOs are nothing new. On the contrary they’re the same old GMOs. That’s why we should call them retread GMOs.
4. As in every other case, retread GM products like the Simplot potato and the botox apple are nothing but an inferior, more complex and expensive, less safe version of already existing non-GM varieties which are better, safer, and less expensive. Those are RNAi products; any future CRISPR products would be no different. We see how the retread GMOs, just like all previous GMOs, have no redeeming agronomic or social purpose. On the contrary their only purpose is corporate profit and control, and to feed the idiot fantasies of the scientism cult which worships inferior high-maintenance technology for its own sake. They believe because it’s absurd.
5. We must stress that there is nothing at all “unintended” about these effects. The effects of genetic engineering are grossly unpredictable, but this unpredictability is known and embraced ahead of time. “Unpredictable” has nothing conceptually in common with “unintended.” We can compare the typical operations of poison-based agriculture to spinning a roulette wheel where the various colors and numbers indicate various chaotic effects, many of them to be a surprise. Which number will come up is unpredictable, but one spins the wheel with full malice aforethought, full intent to trigger the chaos.
Genetic engineers and breeders involved in developing GM crops for commercial release have full knowledge of their inability to predict anything, therefore they intend chaotic results, just as they do with their broader mandate to drive climate change and pump as much synthetic poison into ecosystems as possible. The pro-GMO activists simply lie about all this when they make any claim to “precision” or predictability. No one who wanted stable, predictable results would still be working with genetic engineering. Where it comes to our food, agriculture, and environment, we’re not just spinning the roulette wheel. We’re playing Russian roulette, as Black Swan author Nassim Taleb put it.
Therefore I recommend to anyone interested in conceptual and terminological discipline that we discard the whole false notion of “unintended” effects of GMOs, pesticides, climate change, etc. This is factually wrong and morally far too lenient. Chaos is the predictable effect of genetic engineering, therefore the pro-GM activists intend chaos. That’s one of the purposes of this massive uncontrolled human feeding experiment, to log the unpredictable effects of the globally promiscuous deployment of GMOs in the environment and diet. They premeditate the chaos so they can hope someday to understand it, toward vastly further-reaching eugenic goals.
6. As a group the retread GMOs must be seen and publicly branded as nothing but a propaganda campaign trying to revamp the tattered image of GMOs, which are increasingly being seen in their true light as a shoddy, backward, regressive, reactionary technology dedicated to propping up the antiquated, proven failure of the paradigm of pesticide-based agriculture. Objectively, the retread campaign adds nothing new in any way at all.
The retreads also enable the legalistic and propaganda campaign of regulators like the USDA who want to abdicate all responsibility for GMO oversight. Lately I’ve been writing often about the need to relinquish all faith in government regulators and that this movement has the task of demolishing all public trust in regulatory agencies. Here’s yet more proof that the regulators are not on our side, serve no constructive purpose, and that we don’t need them: By the regulators’ own testimony they have no reason for being, since they themselves openly abdicate all responsibility for GM oversight.
Help propagate the abolitionist ideas.
Older Posts »