Volatility

February 22, 2018

What’s Really Indicted by the Indictment

<

 
 
On its face the indictment of some Russians for internet trolling sounds just like all the previous “evidence” for Russian perfidy: A big nothing. Certainly all the attempted manipulations of every country on Earth add up to nothing compared to the daily manipulations all over the world engaged in by the US corporate system. It’s the field against Tiger Woods in his prime. But the real goal of this indictment is the subsequent criminalization of anti-corporate dissent as such. The key part isn’t the allegations about “foreigners”, but about what kind of speech they engaged in which allegedly is criminal: Regular, run-of-the-mill political speech.
 
The mainstream media is sounding the toy bugle of judgement day for Russia’s day that will live in infamy, while our earnest “progressives” are engaged in microscopic parsing of the statues invoked in the indictment, trying to discover whether this is “real” evidence that Putin is the Antichrist. Reading them, a visitor from another planet would think there’s such a thing as a “rule of law” here. But in reality there’s nothing but Might Makes Right with the law being nothing but a weapon to be deployed however power wants to deploy it.
 
All one needs to know about US concepts of “citizenry”, “foreignness”, who is and isn’t “alien” etc., is that in the US/globalization system corporations are considered legal persons as well as given priority over all nominal “law” at globalization tribunals, and that in principle and practice big money is the only real right. The most direct legal application of this to elections is Buckley v. Valeo and its appendix Citizens United. These are just logical extensions of the Mammon ideology as such, which believes money is a real thing and that all human-to-human and human-to-Earth relations should be reduced to money relations. All forms of liberalism (and conservatism) and the mainstream media agree with this and are components of it.
 
So it’s easy to see that the “rule of law” exists nowhere but in the minds of regressive progressives. Money also doesn’t really exist, but unlike with rule of law, the rule of money is enforced aggressively enough that it has become the real power.
 
So all one needs to know about these Russian allegations is what a piddling amount of money is involved, even according to the indictment. That says it all about the real effect of Russian trolling if it ever existed, how much attention anyone should pay to it, and how the real purpose of the indictment lies elsewhere: Part of the ongoing campaign, supported across the mainstream political spectrum and by all mainstream institutions, to criminalize any real dissent on the part of Americans themselves. From the corporate mainstream’s point of view, including the Democrat and Republican Parties, we are the true foreign criminals.
 
 
 
 
 
Advertisements

January 15, 2018

The Action Spirit of King

>

 
 
In April 1963 Martin Luther King and his fellow Birmingham direct actionists sat in jail. They had expected such a response from the segregationist power structure. It was also predictable that they’d be hearing criticism and condemnation from most of the people who in theory should have been on their side. King anticipated this, and responded immediately with an eloquent refutation and exposure of this collaborator position. This was the Letter From Birmingham Jail.
 
In the letter King refutes those who object to demonstrations, boycotts, sit-ins, civil disobedience in general, those who reject anything but the most lukewarm, “civil” criticism which is guaranteed to remain impotent. He opens up with their standard objection to any real resistance, that it’s “unwise and untimely”. Today this could be the signature of all who are lukewarm.
 
Protest is always timely and wise in the broadest sense. As for the specific timing, we who want humanity and the Earth to have a future must recognize when the time has come, and when today is the day. Our task today isn’t the same as that of the civil rights movement. They sought a specific set of reforms. They were up against an obsolete set of attitudes and practices which for the most part were an embarrassment to corporate power, and the reforms the movement sought wouldn’t interfere with corporate imperatives. Indeed, the end of segregation was put to good political use by corporate power. It has helped render racially astro-turfed divide-and-conquer even more insidious and harder to counteract. It also generated the terrain for anti-political “identity politics”. This isn’t the fault of the civil rights movement, but rather these are crimes of the corporations and the rich and the fault of malingering racists and corporate liberals themselves. But we should be aware of this history of corporate domination.
 
Today we need to abolish poison-based agriculture and transform food production and distribution on the rational, scientific basis of agroecology and the social basis of food sovereignty. We must build this alternative to the corporate agriculture and food system, counter to it where possible, in resistance to it where necessary. This is a permanent necessity whose goal is the eventual complete replacement of this world of waste, bottlenecks, and destruction by a world of socioecological health, well-being, and freedom.
 
We’ll constantly be propagating the need for total abolition. Along the way we’ll encounter many opportunities for the kind of direct action and civil disobedience campaigns King led. We’ll likely have to engage in civil disobedience on behalf of the Community Food movement which the corporate system is trying to repress as an economic and political threat to its domination. Up against these assaults, we’ll often encounter the same sort of opposition, including the opposition King specifically addresses in his Letter.
 

I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds. You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations.

 
When we speak of the global ecological and human network and the global corporate assault upon it, in particular the global onslaught of poison-based agriculture, we know that anyone who lives as part of Earth can never be considered an outsider anywhere upon it. Conversely, corporations and the hominid functionaries of corporations are purely alien to the Earth, nothing but parasite squatters on the planet’s surface. They never can be considered part of Earth or humanity. They themselves proclaim this with their ugly foreigners’ disdain for what they call “the rock” with its “messy nature”.
 

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham.

 
1. The injustice is clear.
 
There’s many reasons to abolish poison-based agriculture. It’s agronomically and environmentally totalitarian. It poisons the soil, all crops and the environment. It accelerates soil, water, air, and habitat destruction. Industrial agriculture is by far the worst driver of the climate crisis. The longer humanity remains in thrall to industrial agriculture, the more abject its dependency shall become, the worse the environmental destruction shall be, and the more profoundly the global ecology shall be chaotically wrought.
 
Poison-based agriculture also is destroying our health. All pesticides cause cancer, infertility, birth defects, organ damage, and autoimmune disease such as allergies, asthma, autism, disease of the gut, and gastrointestinal inflammation which leads to every other kind of disease. These are just the best documented effects. It’s likely GMOs themselves also cause these health harms. Glyphpsate-tolerant crops are nutritionally denuded, and eating the processed foods made from them merely adds to the nutritional deficiency already inherent in diets centered on such “foods” and the many diseases this can cause or exacerbate.
 
The most amazing thing is how all this is over such a pathetic, worthless product. Pesticides and GMOs are shoddy, antiquated, failure-prone products based upon the backward, luddite mental framework of dealing with crop pests and disease with poison. Agricultural poisons and GMOs don’t work for any purpose which could actually help people. GMO yield is poor, no improvement over non-GM conventional agriculture. They require far more pesticides than non-GM conventional agriculture. By helping weeds and insect pests build resistance to pesticides, they generate pest resistance against themselves, uncontrollable by the same poisons which were supposed to be the reasons for having these GMOs in the first place. The ”special” GMOs – those for drought resistance, vitamin fortification, nitrogen-fixing, etc. – are all media hoaxes.
 
These factors build the despair, anger, and the sense of social, political, and economic bottlenecks which are driving the rising global will to rebuild the community food system and abolish the industrial food system.
 
 
2. We the people owe don’t it to those who in principle are our public servants to negotiate with them, but nevertheless we have done so ad nauseum. Citizens have fought for and passed anti-corporate legislation at the local level. Citizens and farmers have filed lawsuits like OSGATA vs. Monsanto. Almost everyone involved with the rising Community Food movement has wanted to do so with the blessing of the power structure and has been appeasement-minded about it.
 
No, we’ve done all we can to negotiate. The fact is, representative democracy itself with its elections were supposed to constitute such negotiations. But this always was a sham. System politicians have done nothing but lie to the people and have never felt the slightest obligation to live up to their promises after the election. Indeed, ideologues of fake electoral “democracy” have explicitly argued that the “representative” has no obligation to his constituents at all after the election is over, but is free to “vote his conscience”. In this case conscience is a euphemism for corrupt personal interest.
 
The “negotiation” failed. We can never have a responsible, responsive, legitimate government in its current form. In his reform context Martin Luther King came to a similar conclusion.
 

As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community.

 
All that’s left to us is self-purification, and then to go out there and do it.
 

You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

 
This is a direct rejoinder to those who want to keep we the people kettled inside a polity-wide “free speech zone”.
 
King goes on to discuss the change of governmental administrations which never constitutes a structural change. He agrees with the anarchists: Only direct action ever accomplished anything, and it did so with nonviolent force.
 

My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

 
We have not only the right, but the obligation, to disobey unjust laws:
 

One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an “I it” relationship for an “I thou” relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man’s tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

 
Today things are even worse than Buber’s “I-it”. Mammon and the corporate technocracy seek to reduce all relationships to purely technical and money relationships. This system does not recognize the existence of human beings, only technology and money. It views all relationships as “it-it.” Corporate personhood and patents on life, two kinds of demon worship, represent the most clear distillations of this.
 
On the contrary, the only relationships are ecological relationships, most importantly to us the relations of human being to human being. Therefore the only just laws would be laws in harmony with ecosystems and interrelating constructively with them, since the only thing which biologically exists are these ecological relationships. Agricultural and ecological pioneers long knew this intuitively and empirically, and over the course of the 20th century science has confirmed it. By contrast, poison-based agriculture, genetic engineering, “intellectual property”, property in land, the corporate-held agricultural system, segregates we the people from our work, from our land, from our food, from our own bodies. The whole ideology of productionism, consumerism, scientism, technocracy, instrumental reason, arises out of a fundamental self-loathing and hatred for the physical earth and the physical human body.
 
The “I and Thou” invoked by Buber and King also signifies the human affinity with the Earth, its natural ecosystems, its soil, its crops, its food, and especially the earthly human labor which indelibly interacts with these. The “I and it” indicates our sundering from all that makes us human, our forced exile driven by corporate agriculture. Alien, anti-human corporations and all that comes from them render human society a destructive and self-destructive parasite squatter on the surface of the earth, no longer a constructive part of it. With every action corporate industrial agriculture expresses its contempt for the earth. It insults the soil as the cradle of all complex life, treating it as nothing but an inert medium. It insults the seed as the universal embryo, treating it as a commodity to be painted, pimped, and most of all controlled. It adds the obscene injury of its wholesale poisoning of the soil, air, water, crops, and environment.
 
Legally and ideologically also this is a surface squatter regime and an obscene alienation of humanity. The land, the soil, the very seed are “owned”, which word we must render in all corporate contexts as controlled and dominated by an alien, anti-human entity. Indeed, a patent on a seed is alienation squared, since the patent is an abominable segregation and sundering of we the people from our common heritage, and it’s “owned” by an alien, anti-human entity whose very existence is also an abomination.
 
Economically as well this is a surface squatter regime and an obscene alienation from humanity. Growing our food is the essential human labor, the core human economic activity, the primary economy, a deep cultural and spiritual endeavor. It’s the main form of our communion with the Earth and our thread of its harmony. We’re now to be alienated from this, driven off the land. For the Western middle class, into spiritual ghettos. For the global South, into physical concentration camps called shantytowns. And soon this bell tolls also for us in the West, as our economic liquidation proceeds and the capitalist era deteriorates to a more brutally direct mode of tyranny.
 
We’re all too familiar with this type today:
 

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

 
Today the “moderate” isn’t an outsider with a shallow understanding, but either a predatory collaborator or a willing part of the prey herd himself. His moderation and lukewarm stance are homicidal and suicidal. He sides with the oppressor against those who would fight.
 
King describes how the inertial mass deplores those who fight as “extremists”, as instigators of violence, and as being too impatient. But these charges are false. It’s the enemy who’s extreme, it’s the enemy who’s violent, and we’ve been far too patient for far too long.
 
But in all the things we do, we aren’t the ones generating the “tension” so unpleasant to conformists. Where it comes to that, we’re merely symptomatic:
 

Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

 
This is the only path forward.
 
King describes how the early Christians were sustained by their faith and their relentless will against long odds.
 

Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.” But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests.

 
The hardest thing is to overcome this feeling of astronomical intimidation. The mission is daunting, and existing institutions can play no constructive role.
 
 

Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world.

 
 
This will ring true for us today wherever we transpose it to any institution of the corporate-dominated system.
 
Today in the West the conflict isn’t over de jure slavery (but there’s still much of that worldwide) nor de jure segregation (but land policy is very effective at “segregating” out of existence small farmers who produce food for the community and do so without poisons; and in general we’re all being driven off the land and segregated into ghettos, shantytowns, tent cities, cemetaries), we are being economically destroyed and physically malnourished and poisoned. We are being given cancer. Ecosystems, carbon sinks, arable soil all over the world are physically poisoned and destroyed. New crop deployments based on massive upsurges in dicamba and 2,4-D will turn vast swathes of US cropland into the equivalent of Times Beach, while the “New Alliance” plan to recolonize Africa coupled with corporate-driven climate chaos threatens to turn all of sub-Saharan Africa into a literal desert. Does the Earth have the luxury of the “patience” King discusses here?
 

I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: “All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth.” Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

 
 
Time itself is neutral, and the flow of time itself has no characteristic independent of what we choose to do with it. Abolitionism is a way of life. It’s not just labor toward a goal, let alone the ideas contained in the goal itself. Most of all it’s a way of life. The goal is most realized in the here and now, every day. This way of life means not only exercising ecology and freedom in any way we can but also fighting for it everywhere we must. This adds to the challenge and striving, but this challenge is the challenge of being human at all. In the context of King’s struggle he was writing of direct action in the most literal sense. Abolitionists of agricultural poisons will certainly have all too many opportunities and needs for such direct action as well. But primarily we rise to the direct action of rebuilding our agricultural and food systems, building agroecology and food sovereignty, propagating far and wide the ideas of these while rejecting the poison systems on a personal and group level and propagating the demolition and condemnation of the ideas of these.
 
The essence of humanity is to take responsibility for oneself within the community and ecology, to achieve power over oneself, to exercise one’s responsibility, combining one’s personal strength in free cooperation with others to build a free and prosperous human community. Only in such a community can we then create the space for the essence of humanity, positive freedom. This is spiritual freedom, creative freedom, political freedom, participatory freedom, ecological freedom. These can exist only on the basis of the cooperative prosperity which affords the time and opportunity for this freedom. Only this deserves the name democracy, and only this can be called in the most profound sense civilization.
 
Today corporate-technocratic barbarians seek to destroy democracy, civilization, agriculture, the world ecology, humanity itself. These barbarians are the opposite of the original tribes raging out of Central Asia. Those were the vigorous barbarians of ascent toward a richer civilization. Today’s barbarians of decadence are rotted and malevolent, ugly and stupid, meanly wicked. Their technology and wealth renders them the most powerful ruling class in history, at the same time that their utter lack of any redeeming quality whatsoever renders them history’s nadir, history’s most degraded, nihilistic, parasitic, worthless ruling class. They represent not a stage of Western Civilization but its final self-cannibalization. This is the end of this pseudo-civilization, for better or worse. The corporate barbarians certainly intend the worst: The full reinstatement of a slave economy, through economic liquidation, debt indenture, and corporate domination of agriculture and food.
 
We can defeat this satanic plan if we redeem from the wreckage of the corporate industrial agriculture system the greatest treasure we’ve won: The consciousness that we the people can feed ourselves and rule ourselves. We can realize and fulfill our freedom, well-being, and strength through full ecological democracy.
 
All we need is to accept this fact, believe in it, take responsibility for it, take action upon it. The true Human Renaissance beckons. This is the same human evolution and salvation for which Martin Luther King fought, for which he sat in jail, for which he wrote a letter from that jail.
 
We shall live up to the standard he and so many other great fighters for humanity have set for us. It’s a very high standard, and the forces ranged against us are powerful and evil. But we can do it. Freedom is ours wherever and whenever we want it. The time is ours whenever we choose it. Our freedom will assert itself as soon as we freely choose to fight for it.
 
 
Propagate the necessary new ideas.
 
 
 
 
 

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.
 
 
 

April 19, 2017

The Call to Justice is the Call to Build a Movement for Justice

>

Only we the people can fight back and win.

 
 
The Monsanto Tribunal has rendered its verdict condemning Monsanto for crimes against humanity and the Earth. The verdict also criticizes the existing institutions of international law for their insufficiency against the great crisis we face. As the judges point out, the existing system is designed to maximize corporate power and action and gives short shrift to all other values. Implicitly the existing systems of politics and international law are designed, not to prevent and punish crimes against humanity and the Earth, but to abet them. This judgement is more profound and vast in its implications than the specific judgement against Monsanto, which is just one example of the vastly greater system of corporate organized crime and the crises caused by it.
 
 
The tribunal’s findings are clear and stark:
 
1. Monsanto systematically attacks the health of our food, human access to food, the health and robustness of the environment, human health and well-being in general. Monsanto systematically attacks and degrades the integrity of science and freedom of scientific research and works to suppress freedom of thought and expression in general. In these ways Monsanto violates existing international human rights law.
 
2. The tribunal finds that ecocide should be encoded in international law as a crime, and that if it were Monsanto’s anti-ecological campaigns would be formal crimes. This includes defining Monsanto’s propagation of Agent Orange and other herbicides as war crimes. (The tribunal punted on the war crime question relative to existing international law. But it’s clear that military use of herbicides in Vietnam, Colombia, Palestine and elsewhere comprises the use of chemical weapons. Going further, there’s never been a clear dividing line between chemical weapons in war, military use of herbicides, and their “civilian” use. Same personnel, same mindset, same ideology, ultimately the same goals. Only criminal hypocrisy would cherry-pick a few uses or alleged uses of chemical weapons but give a legal and moral pass to such vastly larger WMD deployments as the Vietnam Agent Orange deployment, or today’s massive intentional poisoning of human food, drinking water, ecosystems, and arable soil with pesticides.)
 
3. The tribunal makes special note of the tremendous imbalance between law and enforcement regarding human rights, vs. the enforcement of globalization “law” where it comes to corporate “rights”, which means lawless corporate prerogative and license. The tribunal holds that corporations should be held to the same standards of international law as government, political, and military cadres who are sanctioned by human rights tribunals.
 
 
In its ruling the Monsanto Tribunal has followed the premise and procedure of the 1946 Nuremburg Tribunal which dealt with similar criminals against humanity. The two tribunals conceive human rights the same way and condemn in the same way the crimes of those who assault humanity. The Monsanto Tribunal’s call to apply the rule of law to the crimes of corporations is the same as Nuremburg’s condemnation of the SS, Gestapo, and Nazi Party leadership as criminal organizations dedicated to committing crimes against humanity. This call applies even more profoundly to the very essence of a profit-seeking corporation, which is anti-human, anti-social, and a mode of organized crime in principle.
 
This judgement is nothing new but restates the truths of natural law, the moral and biological truth known to all of us, even those who sin against these truths. (The culture of the lie endemic to technocracy proves that the technocrats know deep down they are criminals and therefore are driven to lie about their crimes. They lie to the world and most of all to themselves.) This tribunal has only restated the eternal truth. What’s lacking is the will to exercise this truth in reality. One obvious problem is that the reason Nazi leaders or cherry-picked defendants like Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein were put on trial for their crimes is that they had run afoul of the US- and corporate-dominated globalization system. But multinational corporations like Monsanto comprise the core of this system, which is dedicated to aggrandizing these criminal organizations. So there’s an obvious contradiction in calling for Monsanto’s own lawyers, bagmen, and thugs to arrest and prosecute it. The same goes for corporate rule as such.
 
To apply law and order to the crimes of ecocide and to all crimes against humanity cannot be done within the framework of a civilization dedicated to exploitation, waste, and destruction. The laws of such a civilization and the way these laws are enforced always will follow from this underlying dedication. Even the Nuremburg Tribunal was lenient with corporate criminals and didn’t dare to ask whether particular corporations were criminal organizations. Even the break-up of the IG Farben cartel was done in a way assuring the continuation of its constituent companies including today’s agrochemical giants BASF and Bayer. The latter which currently is in the process of buying Monsanto. We see how the unfinished business of Nuremburg merges seamlessly with today’s business of the Monsanto Tribunal. Indeed a living holdover of the Nazi era (and of the general history of chemical warfare, in which IG Farben and Bayer as well as Monsanto play a big role) is now merging with Monsanto to formalize this historical continuity. WWII never ended but only was transposed temporarily to agriculture and genetic engineering.
 
 
To make the call to justice real requires the movement dedicated to realizing these truths and values. We cannot carry out the tasks of necessity and justice within the framework of a system dedicated to every anti-human and anti-ecological action and institution. We can do it only through the action of a movement dedicated to abolishing these crimes and abolishing their ideological and institutional basis. This means above all the total abolition of corporate industrial agriculture and all of its poisons. The Monsanto Tribunal, in its compilation and assessment of the evidence and the history, has only provided the latest demonstration that humanity and the Earth cannot “co-exist” with these poisons, and therefore cannot continue with a regulatory and legal model dedicated not just to this co-existence, but to co-existence on the basis of corporate profit as the great normative purpose. The Tribunal itself identifies this as the core of the crisis, even if it doesn’t draw the necessary strategic and organizational conclusions.
 
Morally, rationally, and legally the ruling of the Monsanto Tribunal is true and follows from the ruling of the Nuremburg Tribunal. The only difference so far is the force to put the truth into effect. Only the abolition movement can muster and organize the strength and the will to realize all the necessary truths. We have to begin.
 
 
 
 
Help propagate the new and necessary ideas.
 
 
 
 

March 9, 2017

Glyphosate Reviews Within the Corporate Science Paradigm

>

One World

 
 
Greenpeace is accusing the European Chemical Agency (ECHA), whose opinion on the cancerousness of glyphosate is supposed to be imminent, of “conflict of interest” because its panel members also operate as “risk assessment consultants” for the industry.
 
As a system NGO, when Greenpeace says “conflict of interest” they’re referring to conventional corruption of “public servants” who are paid also by the industry they’re supposed to be regulating in accordance with scientific method.
 
Our abolitionist analysis is much deeper and more comprehensive than this, of course. While this kind of 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 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 carcinogenicity 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.”
 
This is 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 people should repose implicit trust in the regulator, not assert themselves democratically in any kind of grassroots way, and most of all 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.*
 
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.
 
This site’s ultimate project is to oppose this tyranny. One prerequisite for such opposition is to understand what modern regulatory agencies truly are, and to renounce all faith in and support for them. As abolitionists one of our goals is completely to demolish all claims to legitimacy and authority of such agencies as the ECHA or US EPA. The destruction of such misguided faith is necessary for the people to conceive and commit to the necessary new ideas.
 
Toward that necessity, we need to substitute the more comprehensive analysis for the superficial and shallow “conflict of interest” and “corruption” notion. Corporate regulators, by their inherent nature, do not have conflicts of interest because their one and only interest is the corporate client. Everything else they claim about themselves is a lie.
 
The same Big Lie encompasses their ideology and propaganda of “science”. To take today’s example, the Greenpeace indictment specifically focuses on the ECHA panelists doubling as industry “risk assessment” consultants. We can leave aside the more vulgar modes of corruption though these too are common. Far more important, the entire concept, ideology, and methodology of “risk assessment” is based on the corporate profit endeavor as normative and therefore thinks, at most, in terms only of worst-case scenarios, never the omnipresent, chronic, daily harms and crimes of the corporate project. The official ideology of the US EPA is based on managing the human cancer and other tortures it and its corporate client inflict, via the concept of pesticide and cancer “tolerances”. This word should be taken literally: It means how much cancer can the corporate system cause before the magnitude becomes politically dangerous enough that the regulator needs to take evasive action, starting with sham reviews and lies meant to put the people back to sleep.
 
The European and US government establishment, along with the corporate media, reached this crisis point with glyphosate in 2015 because of the rogue action (from the corporate system’s point of view) of the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The IARC, like some individual scientists, acted according to canons of the scientific method instead of the corporate science paradigm. This caused them to issue the scientific judgement that glyphosate causes cancer. The EFSA and EPA since then have carried out their propaganda function. They’ve lied about the evidence and lied about their canons of evidence.
 
(Although the WHO as a whole has been consistently pro-corporate, 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 views cancer as arising from genetic determinism and which conceives the 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 objects of cult worship.)
 
The IARC also is a pro-science renegade in that it assesses only the scientific public record, which according to Popperian canons is by definition the only scientific record. But the EFSA, EPA, and (we can expect) the ECHA adhere to an exactly upside-down, anti-scientific canon of “secret science”. Secret science of course is a contradiction in terms. By definition, if it’s not part of the public record and open to public perusal, analysis, and debate, it’s not part of science.
 
Today’s corporations, governments, universities, the mainstream media, and the scientific establishment all exalt the perverse notion of “secret science”. This means that we can reject their entire paradigm as, by definition, anti-science and not part of science. This underlies any specific evils of the lies being protected by the secrecy.
 
We abolitionists, in response, assume that anti-scientific secrecy automatically indicates the corporation and/or regulator has zero scientific evidence which supports them, and that what evidence they do have must prove the extreme harmfulness of the corporate product. In this case, the evidence for glyphosate’s cancerousness which Monsanto and the EPA actually possess is likely far worse even than the conclusive amount which has leaked out.
 
 
We see how technocratic regulators, in general and where it comes to specifics such as “risk assessment”, the cadre as a whole as well as specific agents, whether or not particular agents have conflicts of interest and/or are conventionally corrupt, all are part of the corporate science paradigm and therefore are anti-science and anti-democracy, according to Popperian canons of scientific method and the open society.
 
 
*This same corporate-technocatic template can be applied to the STEM establishment, the mainstream media, much “alternative” media, system NGOs, system political parties, and electoralism as such. The details may vary, never the broad function: To conserve the indoctrination that corporate rule is normative, as much as possible to render this water in which we swim implicit and imperceptible, where necessary to reinforce the indoctrination with propaganda, where necessary to offer sham “reforms” and sham pseudo-political “options”, all toward the goal of rendering truly political thought and action extremely difficult, preferably unthinkable.
 
 
 
 
 
Help propagate these ideas.
 
 

November 12, 2016

What is “States’ Rights”?

>

And so once again we see lots of rhetoric about “states rights”. What does this term mean? I’ll begin by describing the principle of it, insofar as I can deduce any principle from the rather inchoate rhetoric of its proponents. Of course what it’s really supposed to mean in practice is something different, i.e. the usual collaboration with corporations.
.
1. It makes a fetish of lines drawn on a map rather than any value derived from morality or reason.
.
2. It does not want to be rational and base political units on watersheds or foodsheds.
.
3. It is a form of pure statism which wants arbitrarily to centralize beyond rationally defined boundaries for no purpose other than to concentrate power.
.
4. It differs from other pure statists in that it wants arbitrarily to halt the centralization at some point rather than expand this indefinitely. Lacking any other basis for where to call a halt, it chooses the arbitrary borders* of US states as the place to do this.
.
[*There’s a few state borderlines which run along the crests of mountain ranges where streams divide, and thus in themselves are rational. But these are never organically part of any larger rational system of borders. Meanwhile far more common is the actively irrational practice of using rivers themselves as legal-political borders. This is worse than purely arbitrary; it aggressively splits reason in half.]
.
.
So there it is. States rights ideology is based on two arbitrary leaps. First, it arbitrarily wants to centralize beyond rational boundaries and without regard for any rational or moral value. It has this in common with other forms of statism. Second, and contrary to conventional statism, it arbitrarily wants to halt the centralizing process somewhere short of however far power can concentrate itself.
.
Some may say I’m leaving something out, that states rights does have a value, the value of constitutionalism. Allegedly, in exalting the tenth amendment this is trying to recapture the true spirit of the 1788 constitution.
.
The most obvious refutation of this is that states righters, like everyone else who claims the constitution as a value, seem to care little to nothing about other core elements of the constitution such as those which would make the imperial army, the police state ,and the prison-industrial complex impossible, nor do they seem concerned to take back the constitution from corporate abusers. (For this, one must look to the community rights movement.) So in idolizing the constitution the states rights types are really just cherry-picking.
.
And indeed, should the 1788 constitution, conceived by elites for the avowed purpose of quashing the American Revolution and building a continental empire (both Hamilton and Madison say so in the Federalist papers), be an object of idolatry in the first place? The fact is that constitution-worship is no value in itself for anyone, but rather is always a stalking horse for other, usually pro-corporate agendas. Of course the constitutional conventioneers accepted the Bill of Rights in the first place only under duress and only because they were confident that the authoritarian centralizing campaign enshrined in the main articles of the document wouldn’t unduly be hindered by what they saw as a pointless sop. And so it has been.
.
Nor do I see any reason to think the states rights people have any greater respect than conventional centralizing statists do for the vastly more rational and morally coherent philosophy of community rights. If anything, the states rights types might be even more aggressive in wanting to allow/help corporations to devastate communities.
.
Obviously in practice the notion of state rights is just like the constitution, or law, or property, or “free trade”, or “science”, or “the free press” or what have you. It’s propagated by corporate elites and meant to be used and abused, regarded and disregarded, in a purely cynical, tactical way according to whatever maximizes corporate domination.
.
By fetishizing a purely arbitrary legally-defined border and caring zero for reason or any moral value, the “state rights” notion is especially useful for this corporate purpose. In this way it goes well with the most vile feral scam of all, “libertarianism”, which wants direct corporate dictatorship and uses the rhetoric of “freedom” to mean “freedom from all mutual responsibility, freedom from all human community, from all moral and rational values, license for total exploitation and theft, for those who are already rich.” Of course corporations are nothing more or less than creations and extensions of government, so to be for corporate power is by definition to be for big government, while to be against big government has to mean wanting to abolish government’s corporate power. That’s why it’s called the corporate state, a monolith. How in principle libertarians can be simultaneously for and against the most vile extremes of big government remains one of the mysteries of the universe. Of course the simple truth is that they’re liars. If they weren’t they’d be anarchists.
.
Getting back to the state righters, I suppose many of them have the temperament which, among national groups, tends to manifest as nationalism. But, in spite of lots of idiotic rhetoric from conservatives and liberals alike, there is so far no such thing as an American nation, nor can a new nation ever cohere under the conditions of corporate globalization. Indeed, globalization’s basic thrust is to eradicate all human modes except that of the atomized individual, all alone in body and soul, facing the awesome might of the corporate demon. Never forget, anyone who in any way speaks against movement solidarity and organization as such is doing the work of the corporate Satan. (It should be needless to say that any political philosophy which explicitly or implicitly says voting is the be-all and end-all is part of this corporate assault.) Anyone who dreams of an American nation must commit to the total abolition of corporate rule as a prerequisite.
.
It’s possible such an abolitionist movement itself can be a strong point where such a national consciousness can begin to cohere.
.
Humanity and the Earth need a new movement based on a complete organic embrace of human values and reason, on the new idea necessary for a new beginning as natural history soon resumes after the berserk digression of the fossil fuel binge. And we need a movement basis which totally rejects and condemns all the lies and stupidities of the corporate global “order”. We must form the adamant core of the affirmation and the inexorable force of the negation. Anything which can be used toward these great goals may be used, but only in the right ways. The wrong ways also are for the flames.
.
We have a long, hard road ahead. The necessary work is only beginning. It will continue at its necessary pace without regard for the idiocies of superficial “politics” and false “culture”. There we see nothing but decadent barbarism. The corporate age was always evil, and now it becomes ever more rancid. Sometimes it seems human beings need gas masks. It’s hard to tell what’s worse, the physical poisons or the spiritual ones.
.
But the eternal wind, the wind of the spirit which nourishes and cleanses and carries us always between and through the home to which we’re heading and the home we never left, never stopped flowing. Briefly amid the din of Babylon we were unable to hear it and lost knowledge of whence and where it blows. But the strains of the new song are starting to come through.
.
.
.
.
.
.

October 27, 2016

The Community Food Sector Must Fight to Survive and Win (Also Some GMO Comments)

>

Have to be hid in attics from Big Ag.

Have to be hid from Big Ag in attics.

.
.
1. The case of Mark Baker may seem to be extreme, but it’s also typical of the attitude of corporate agriculture’s servant bureaucracies toward the rising Community Food sector, the most clear and present danger to the continued domination of poison-based agriculture and corporate “food”. What Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources is trying to do to heritage pig farmer Baker is typical of many other cases of federal* and state thugs attempting, legally and illegally, to destroy our movement. In their minds the bureaucrats, from the lowest state thug to the federal agriculture secretary himself, are completely eradicating Community Food by whatever means necessary. In practice they’ll do so by whatever means are possible.
.
This means whatever’s politically possible. The measure of that will be how intrepidly growers and citizens of food (that ought to be all Americans, though so far it’s still far too few) affirmatively organize ourselves to take back the land and grow real crops and distribute real food, and how fiercely we fight back against the corporate state’s attempt to destroy all we’re building.
.
.
*For example the FDA, which bizarrely is much beloved among “anti-GMO” people and among the NGOs which usually claim to support Community Food but which turned around and abetted Monsanto’s “Food Safety Modernization Act.” (FSMA).
.
2. From the outset of the pro-marijuana movement there were many who strongly insisted on the word and concept “decriminalization” rather than “legalization”. In addition to the philosophical implications of the difference, we see the very practical, big difference between legalization under corporate control only vs. true decriminalization, i.e. control in the hands of the people.
.
This distinction can be applied very widely. For example, GMOs don’t naturally exist nor is it a simple, inexpensive thing to create them. Rather they had to be very aggressively legalized through corporate welfare, radical changes in patent law, changes in regulatory law and disregard of existing law by regulators. They could easily be abolished simply by removing the Rube Goldberg legalization structure they depend upon. No corporate welfare, no GMOs. No patents, no GMOs. In that case a legal ban would be redundant, although a legal ban would simply de-legalize something that was a purely fabricated, “legalized” government confection in the first place. This also shoots down the dumbest objection to labeling, that it’s “government interference”. No, the government massively interferes by artificially building the astronomically expensive structure that sustains GMOs in the first place. Think of it as a trillion dollar greenhouse the taxpayers pay for. Is the hothouse flower being grown within a natural creation of a “free market”?
.
Here I’m applying to GMOs an analysis I first developed for everything Wall Street does. (I wrote about it in dozens of posts, go check ’em out. Like this one.) Un-legalize the legalized gambling the big banks do, and Wall Street will cease to exist. Finis. The same goes for much of the rest of Mammon’s evils.
.
.
3. With this conventionally bred “orange maize” we once again have proof of one of the iron laws of GMOs, proven anew every time: Where it comes to any GMO touted for its alleged “product quality” (nutrition, taste, storability, etc.) or “agronomic trait” (drought resistance, etc.), there already exists a better, higher quality, safer, less expensive non-GM version. There are no exceptions. (And then the GM version is more often than not a hoax anyway. “Golden rice” in particular is one of the most flamboyant media hoaxes in modern memory.)
.
The piece I linked demonstrates the pitfall of wanting to imitate the corporate hype surrounding techno-miracles, merely counterpoising “alternative” miracles which are otherwise just as unanchored, uncontexted, and imply that silver bullet solutions are possible. (The piece and GMWatch’s commentary keeps calling such varieties “enriched” and “fortified”. If they inherently contain the nutrient out of conventional breeding they’re neither.)
.
It’s constructive to talk about these non-GM anodynes only within the context of stressing that all problems of diet and hunger are caused completely by poison-based commodity agriculture itself and can be solved only by restoring community food production and distribution, as is ecologically and economically natural. But then the orange maize is a product of the corporate state’s CGIAR “HarvestPlus” project and therefore is designed to be perceived only as an anodyne within the context of continued globalization.
.
As we see with these examples, this kind of project can bring results which the people can then put to good use, and indeed the piece says the Zambian government claims it will prevent export commodity production of the orange maize but instead reserve it for national food production. That’s an excellent idea, and a motivated, well-organized, vigilant people can maintain control of such agronomic research and development and see to it that these products truly are advances. But a prerequisite is to understand clearly that where it comes to a putative public-private partnership like this, the developers themselves regard everything we’re talking about here as a transitional stage and fringe benefit at best, and more likely a propaganda front. The real goal, as with every other globalization project, no matter how ostensibly “public” and “national” in its form, and no matter what the PR presentation, is patent-based, profiteering commodity production. Again, golden rice provides the original template, with Syngenta claiming it would forego its patent prerogatives (but with lots of fine print the newspapers didn’t mention), while at the same time the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), the “public” front of the Syngenta/Gates campaign and actual developer of the pseudo-rice, has explicitly reserved the right to take out patents of its own. This too is just another permutation of the corporation retaining all control and freedom of action.
.
See here for the same dynamic in the case of the African project to develop “drought-resistant maize”, another Syngenta/Gates campaign.
.
The takeaway: Don’t trust anything the corporate-controlled system does, because it’s not meant for us, and by us I mean humanity. The projects of the corporate system, no matter what the nominal form of the organization leading the project or performing the action, are corporate projects being done under corporate control toward corporate goals. No self-respecting big shareholder would ever settle for less in any of these cases.
.
The takeaway: As always, we the people need our own organizations, our own projects, our own actions, our own movement.
.
.

October 16, 2016

Black Horse Chronicle, October 16th. The Sin Against the Earth (With Special Reference to Monsanto)

>

Can Wormwood baptize? I think not.

Can Wormwood baptize? I think not.

.
.
A sin against the Earth is a sin against Humanity is a sin against God, just as a good work for one is a good work for all. “As you did for the least of these, you did for me.” (Matthew 25.40,45)
.
In the West we no longer have the concept of crimes against God (although there’s plenty of passion for criminalizing contempt of the idols of the various pseudo-secular religions of the day), but we do have the concept of crimes against humanity. These crimes are being documented by the International Monsanto Tribunal, just as they have been documented abundantly for over eighty years.
.
But as yet we don’t have the concept of crimes against ecology. We must understand, punish, and prevent such crimes, for Gaia’s own sake and because humanity is inextricably bound up with regional and global ecologies. This means that any crime against ecology is automatically a crime against humanity as well and must be dealt with as such.
.
Only a movement dedicated to such necessary redemptive ideas fired by the faith and will to see them through to the end can be adequate to the crisis of the age. One of the potential blessings of this trial is its opportunity to name Monsanto’s ecocide a world-historical crime and to propagate this name and this truth, and the truth of the idea of crimes against the Earth as such, as a spiritual and political necessity.
.
Some of the organizers and witnesses do seem to view this as a preliminary to eventual force-of-law tribunals. It would be even better if people viewed it as a fully legitimate tribunal in the absence of Babylon’s abdicated “law”, promising to apply the judgement as soon as true law is constituted by God and the people. Of course the moral legitimacy of the tribunal can be established only by the integrity of its procedure and its self-confident willingness to follow through to the end.
.
Globalized organized crime against the Earth is standard for Babylon, whose criminality is based always on robbery. A small gang of thieves steal massively from humanity and even more from the earth.
.
We must learn and live the truth that the ecology itself does almost all the work for humanity, which we then supplement. This sums up the infinite depravity and sinfulness of Mammon, for it rewards only the most useless and destructive sliver of what’s a small input of work in the first place, while taking the bulk for granted, and more often actively degrading and destroying it.
.
This sin against the Earth is sin against Humanity, and each is sin against God, for these three are unified in one Ecotrinity.
.
.
.
.

October 3, 2016

GMO Labeling Post Mortem, October 2016

>

I don’t expect to write much going forward about GMO labeling. This is a post mortem, as labelism is dead and well buried, though it still may persist as an undead notion. By now we’re clear it was always the wrong idea and the wrong direction. Only various mistakes kept it in play at all. I myself was supportive in public beyond my stage of ambivalence in mind, and ambivalent in public beyond my stage of opposition in mind. I did this out of a misguided wish for concord, and the misguided belief that rational debate was possible on the subject.
.
But it turned out such debate was always impossible, as I could never find anyone who was willing to defend the labelist position with argument and evidence. As for concord, I finally realize that concord centered upon a false idea is merely false concord which accomplishes nothing. (In all this I’m talking about people who embrace error as an article of faith and treat reality-based evidence accordingly.) On the contrary, one must insist first upon the right idea, then seek agreement upon it. Agreement centered upon error is simply error. It’s worthless and worse than worthless.
.
Thus to reprise. These ideas predate and put in context the summer’s DARK Act debacle, always predicted by me and a few others. Fighting on an untenable line, refusing to move to more secure ground, they got the worst of all results. But this goes far beyond the DARK Act.
.
This is an synthesis of what I’ve seen with my own eyes but doesn’t necessarily apply in toto to any particular rank and file person, though it certainly does apply to various system NGOs and especially to fraudulent corporate labelists from Big Food and Big Organic. Take this as a broadside against the “movement” Leaders and all who follow them.
.
1. In my experience labeling advocates give every indication of wanting a label only, and as a rule will say “label then ban” only when ban advocates speak up. It seems very much an afterthought.
.
2. As far as the canard that no one has a plan, if I must say so myself I’ve presented the only fully developed and coherent strategy which I’ve seen for how to accomplish the necessary goal of abolishing GMOs and pesticides. Meanwhile I’ve seen nothing but magical thinking from label advocates regarding how labeling is supposed to lead to ending GMOs. At most they offer a poorly drawn analogy with Europe. Of course they have zero idea where it comes to the more important necessity of abolishing pesticides.
.
(In fact I don’t believe most labeling advocates when they claim to care about eventual abolition. I think they fantasize about real labels which would tell us everything that’s in a food, and advocating for this makes for great do-gooderism, but from there they’d leave it to the marketplace. If you have money to buy the good stuff, great. If not, tough. So, much like with many who say “let them eat organic”, I suspect many of the labelists of having the standard attitude “I’ve got mine Jack, screw you.”)
.
3. Indeed, labeling advocates offer zero reply when you ask how we’re even supposed to get real labeling. Even Vermont’s law was full of loopholes, and GMOs are a very fast-moving target. What about NBTs? What about the fact that the “adventitious presence” which will be allowed before a label has to be applied will keep being raised by the label regulator in the same way they mechanically raise pesticide “tolerances”? These are just two of the things which render effective labeling impossible in practice. But ask label advocates what THEIR plan is to counteract this and you’ll get only crickets.
.
4. To the best of my knowledge, I’m also the only writer who has published an analysis and theory for why, after the labeling idea always polls so well at first, people end up voting against it. Needless to say the answer isn’t “because of the GMA’s money”. That’s just begging the same question rephrased – why do so many people believe such obvious lies? The answer goes again to the inadequacy of the labeling idea as framed by these campaigns, a political inadequacy. But invite labeling advocates to respond to this and there’s nothing but crickets.
.
5. I guess this inability to reply to questions is why the GMO Free USA Facebook group <a href="“>refused to publish several of my pieces. That’s when the term political monoculturist first occurred to me to describe most labelists.
.
Here’s a basic question for everyone: Do you believe the anti-poison movement needs to thrash out all its questions in order to reach the right ideas and goals, or is labeling just a God-given dogma never to be questioned? Labeling of course is an idea which made some sense back in the mid 1990s, but seems to incarnate an extreme rut by now. Does this movement have any ability to learn and develop?
.
Related to this: Do you believe the anti-poison cause thrives by driving controversy as hard as it can, or do you agree with Mark Lynas, the Cornell propaganda alliance, Vilsack and the Faber-types that the goal must be compromise and co-existence?
.
6. My own position since I published my first series on labeling in 2013 had been: Support the state level movement, but labeling is insufficient and therefore labeling campaigns and/or policy must be seen only as partial steps toward abolition. But preemption seeks the death of the movement, and anyone who wants a preemptive FDA policy is Monsanto’s friend. Labeling, in principle, in practice, and in the act of fighting for it, can be worthwhile only in its state-level form. No one should want the federal government involved at all, and I don’t see how it’s possible that anyone who actually knows the slightest thing about the FDA, or who is the slightest bit sincere about principles like a “right to know”, would regard FDA preemption as anything but anathema.
.
7. Thus my final disillusionment with most labeling supporters came when they slobbered all over the Campbell’s scam, and it turned out that almost all of them want a preemptive FDA policy just as long as the shiny dangly word “mandatory” can be put on it. Never mind that the FDA is 100% pro-GMO and would never under any circumstances promulgate anything but a weak, sham policy whose main purpose would be to preempt any better policy. The FDA would of course do nothing but enact the GMA’s proposed fake standards.
.
That in turn led me to revisit the labeling idea as such, where I analyzed the many ways in which it’s just a bad idea and a rat trap for movement energies, to the extent those energies really exist as a political, democracy force, and not just as consumerist whining within a technocratic mindset more in tune with Monsanto than with any real vision for a transformed agriculture and food system. Even though most people claim to disparage Scott Faber, there’s a reason he and the likes of him are nevertheless able to function as labeling movement “representatives”. It’s because they are truly representative of most labeling advocates. They represent the technocratic ideology and the basic will toward “compromise” and wanting to believe in “co-existence”.
.
Everyone claims to agree that co-existence with GMOs and pesticides is impossible. But people’s actions contradict this. Labeling in principle is part of a co-existence framework.
.
8. Would someone please explain the bizarre cult of the FDA among labeling advocates? As best as I can piece it together, they believe there’s two completely different FDAs, the “bad” FDA of substantial equivalence and GMOs-are-GRAS, and the “good” FDA which they want to put in charge of labeling and give preemptive power over states and counties. But in reality there’s only one FDA, and it’s extremely pro-GMO right to its ideological and institutional core. It’s pure lunacy (or treachery) to want ANY kind of FDA policy, including the soft-DARK Merkley version of faux-mandatory federal bills.
.
9. As for the canned talking point that “the DARK Act and TPP would prevent bans too”, number one this implies another falsehood. Abolitionists don’t say “don’t bother fighting the DARK Act”. We do point out that evidently labelists intend to keep fighting this same war of attrition over and over again ad nauseum until the thing inevitably passes one of these times. [As it did in summer 2016.] Is that really where people want to remain, perpetually on defense? Again we see what a rut the whole thing has become. Number two, it demonstrates the extremely narrow, legalist, consumerist ideology of labeling.
.
When the DARK Act and/or TPP pass, that’s when the real nullification struggle would have to begin. That’s how a real pro-democracy and/or abolition fighter would see it. When the DARK Act passes, who would then be willing to fight it in terms of constitutional defiance and civil disobedience? And who would be willing to fight the TPP? Only those who were real grassroots fighters in the first place. The same grassroots who seem to be so despised by most labelists. On the other hand, the kind of person who’s so exhausted by the labeling campaign that they want to wash their hands of it and hand it over to the FDA is an unlikely candidate ever really to fight for anything.
.
10. I have to mention that when I first started learning about GMOs and found that labeling was the near-consensus goal, I was taken aback by the extreme contrast between the dire forecasts about the dangers of pesticides and GMOs, and such a lame proposal as far as what to do about it. It seems hard to believe people really believe all the things they’re saying.
.
Do you believe Roundup causes cancer or not? The actions of labeling advocates seem to contradict their words on this.
.
The fact is that compromise would be impossible even if anyone on the pro-GMO side, such as Vilsack or the FDA, really wanted to compromise. But they don’t want to, and all their versions of “compromise” are lies. Co-existence is impossible, physically or politically. Pesticides are literally murdering us in real time. The fact is that total abolition is the necessary goal, and anything else, including labeling, must never be viewed “in itself” but only in terms of “does this help or hinder us in the necessary motion toward the abolition goal?”
.
There’s no doubt whatsoever that ANY FDA policy which would preempt the states or anything else below the central government level would be a great hindrance. The entire history of grassroots movements proves this. Lynas and Campbell’s fully expect that a preemptive sham-“mandatory” FDA policy would destroy the movement once and for all. Many labeling advocates seem to agree that they want the whole controversy and struggle to just “end”, no matter how.
.
So I look again at the position I developed from the start: Abolition is the necessary goal, the state-level labeling movement can help toward this goal, FDA preemption is absolutely wrong and evil in every way. So my only “anti-labeling” action is my opposition to any FDA preemption. But since support for preemption is tantamount to betrayal of everything which labeling advocates themselves claim to want in principle, it’s they who are splitting from the movement, or hijacking it, and seeking some kind of meeting of the ways with the likes of the GMA and Lynas.
.
Today I modify this since I recognize that labeling was always the wrong idea in principle, and that it was always a vain hope that activists and advocates would treat the campaigns as abolitionist consciousness-raising events, as opposed to exalting the labeling fantasy for its own sake. Most of all, it was a fantasy on my part to think that any significant proportion of labelists would firmly reject FDA preemption. After all, the kind of person who would reject this would have been unlikely to commit to such a picayune consumerist program in the first place. The real abolitionists, if they’re ever to exist in the West, will have to come from elsewhere.
.
So I now reject labelism in principle and would teach anyone to embrace a more holistic, fully ecological philosophy, based in knowledge of history, politics, science, and human psychology, which would compel the one and only idea of abolitionism and the one and only prescription of fighting relentlessly for abolition, with no compromises.
.
Of course I respect the decision of anyone who opposes preemption and wants to continue to fight for labeling at the state level. Although it seems like that position is no longer around. I never saw anyone who had fought in Vermont giving their viewpoint on the near-consensus, among both labeling opponents and advocates, that their law represents some kind of loathesome “patchwork” which needs to be purged one way or another. Was I alone in sincerely wanting the Vermont law to go into effect? It seems like I was.
.
Well, this whole FDA/Scambell’s/DARK Act debacle is all the more reason to grow out of the entire labeling concept and move on to more practically aggressive and politically smarter ideas and modes of organization.
.
.

October 2, 2016

Moonshine Eugenics

<

Heard of bathtub hooch? I like the Simpsons episode where Marge has to complain, “Homer, your homemade liquor is exploding again.” And then there’s the way it strikes drinkers blind or gives them lead poisoning.
.
Well, looks like we’re going to have lots of Homer Simpsons whipping themselves up some bathtub Frankenstein monsters – plants, animals, their own children, even the sky’s no limit, as the scientism cult chants. According to the hype for these Do-It-Yourself Eugenics kits, random scumbags will be able to take a break from their meth labs to tinker with genetic engineering and environmental release right from their basements. (Not that corporate deployment is any less sloppy or reckless.) In discussing a lukewarm UK “bioethics” report, GMWatch gives as one of the reasons for the lameness of the recommendations: “tighten[ing] regulation in this field….would increase public alarm about the risks of gene editing at a time when the UK government wants to reassure people of the safety of the technology…”
.
It’s probably true the British government, media, and science establishment are concerned about this possibility. But it seems to me that we could turn that around on them, saying to the people, “You were already worried about the corporate system’s GMOs. Now look at what a chaotic, deranged free-for-all genetic engineering is becoming. It’s like you feared all along – it’s complete recklessness and chaos, there’s zero controls, and literally no one has the slightest idea what they’re doing, how extremely dangerous this all is, or how horrific the effects are going to be.”
.
The most vile thing is that the kits are designed to generate antibiotic resistant E. coli, just for the fun of it. If you weren’t already convinced by systematic antibiotic abuse in CAFOs and regular genetic engineering, are you now convinced that governments, corporations, and scientists are systematically working to eradicate antibiotics as an effective medical treatment, because they want this type of medicine to cease to exist.
.
I say each and every person involved in any aspect of any of these campaigns to eradicate antibiotics is guilty of first degree murder in each and every case where someone’s death is related to antibiotic resistant bacteria, and of assault or attempted murder in each and every non-lethal case. I also apply full civil liability to each and every individual involved. These criminal and civil liabilities follow from strict application of conspiracy law. Certainly each and every one of them knows exactly what he or she is doing.
.
Where it comes to all these crimes, we are far, far past the point of ignorance or honest confusion.
.
.
.
Older Posts »