Volatility

April 11, 2017

Free Your Mind. Let the EPA Go, and Good Riddance.

>

 
 
Free your mind, if it needs freeing, from stale faith in the regulatory ideology.
 
At best (and I stress, only at best; most positions are worse) to still repose faith in the regulatory model like that incarnated in the EPA assumes the primacy of corporate rule and corporate poisonism, and indeed the continued dominance of productionism and consumptionism. This faith merely still clings to the fantasy that there can be meaningful “management” of such things as cancer agents, according to technocratic “risk-benefit” equations and other numerological “assessments”, and that certain “tolerance” levels for cancer, birth defects, etc. can be established, along with a certain baseline for how much of the overall ecology can be sacrificed and destroyed.
 
But in reality the ecology is one irreducible whole, and you can’t sacrifice any significant part of it without severely harming the whole. And this is emblematic of the pathology of the whole EPA-type mindset, that in all these ways humanity and the Earth can “co-exist” (to use the biotech sector’s preferred term) with corporate psychopathy. The EPA of course is a capitalist organization and was designed to augment capitalist action, never to hinder it. So faith in the EPA is identical to faith in the essential goodness of corporate rule. It’s a transmuted form of this faith, but it remains the same faith.
 
Of course we’re not talking about anything hypothetical here. The EPA has compiled a history of nearly fifty years, while the paradigm of “regulation” it represents goes back much further. Those who know the history (E. Vallianatos’ Poison Spring is a good place to start) know why the EPA was established in the first place (under duress and largely for political misdirection purposes), how it was originally staffed (largely by ex-USDA cadres bringing the desired pro-corporate ideology, lest the few “idealists” get the wrong idea), how it commenced action (helping to cover up PCB and dioxin pollution and running political interference on behalf of the polluters), and how throughout its subsequent history it has consistently done all it can to assist the corporate poisoners, cover up the evidence of corporate atrocities, and discourage grassroots political action among the people. That’s the EPA’s record.
 
But the pro-regulation cultists remain willfully ignorant of this history, just like every kind of fundamentalist dodges knowledge of every kind of history – because the history always disproves their faith. Same as how cultists of electoralism evidently intend to keep reprising forever the role of a circus geek knocked back and forth by Republicans and Democrats. Indeed, all the Pavlovian dogs drooling to the “Save the EPA!” bell today (the same EPA which spent the previous eight years, and nearly thirty years prior to that, denying that glyphosate causes cancer, just to pick one of its crimes) are simply acting as the mindless geeks the corporate system assumes they are. This is a fine example of how the voters voted unanimously for Trump. This means they voted unanimously for the deranged system of which Trump is the logical product.
 
Just as corporate capitalism itself is proven by history to be a purely wasteful and destructive paradigm, so the “regulation” of capitalism has also proven false. It can’t be part of any constructive way forward, and continued faith in it can only be reactionary. Where it comes to corporate poisons the truth is beyond all doubt – they are unnecessary, are politically and economically destructive, and are purely destructive of human and ecological health.
 
These two truths combine to prove that the necessary position toward poisonism, the only rational and sane position, is total abolitionism.
 
Self-evidently, abolition cannot co-exist with any mindset that a little bit of corporate poison, for whatever tendentious definition of “a little”, can be “regulated”.
 
 
 
 
Help propagate the new and necessary ideas.
 
 
 

March 25, 2017

Scabs

>

 
 
The EU’s Green Party, they of learning to love nuke waste trains:
 

We are convinced that strong and truly independent European institutions like the EFSA (the food safety authority), EMA (the medicines agency) and ECHA (the chemicals agency) are crucial for defending public health and building public trust in the EU.

 
We abolitionists are committed to demolishing all public trust in Monsanto and its allied globalist agencies. We see here how so-called electoral “alternatives” are offering no alternative whatsoever. The problem is religious belief in corporate normative regulators as such. The problem is fundamentalist belief in “regulating” corporate cancer poisons rather than abolishing them. These people are not part of the solution. They are part of the problem.
 
Never has it been more true of anyone than of today’s civic flat-earthers that they learn nothing and forget nothing: They still want “public trust in the EU”, public trust in the EFSA, and in the EPA, in corporate electoralism and the technocratic regulatory state as such.
 
It’s congenital with them. Humanity must find the wellsprings of its resurgence elsewhere.
 
 
 
 

March 18, 2017

The Vote Was Unanimous for Trump

>

 
 
The status quo is impossible.
 
1. Fossil fuels are finite, and this one-off ahistorical extreme level of energy consumption is now reaching its end, never to be repeated. Humanity soon shall resume historical levels of energy consumption. Therefore the extremely expensive, luxurious, high-maintenance civilization dependent upon this extreme energy consumption will collapse. In particular, industrial agriculture will collapse, thereby dooming to famine any civilization which has not transformed to agroecology.
 
2. Ecosystems at every scale are at their breaking point. Climate change, poisonism, and the general destruction of biodiversity are reaching their kinetic climaxes for civilization. This fragile hothouse flower shall not withstand general ecosystem collapse. Again, the most directly catastrophic effect will be the collapse of industrial agriculture, dependent upon the environment as it remains in spite of all its attempts to lift itself outside of the Earth.
 
3. The corporate technocracy system is committed to totalitarian tyranny. Even if capitalist civilization were physically possible to sustain, the people are being liquidated politically, economically, and eventually physically. We see the global campaign to drive all people legally and physically off the land. This portends their literal disappearance from the planet. This campaign has been most aggressive across the global South but increasingly is liquidating the Western middle class as well. Their liquidation may be more gradual so far (but it’s accelerating), but their final destination is the same as that of the South’s people of the land: Famine and pandemics amid the shantytowns.
 
Therefore the rational, sane course of action is to commit to building movements toward the necessary new cultural, agronomic, socioeconomic, and political forms. The rational, sane course is to build Food Sovereignty and agroecology.
 
Conversely, any mode of action or support for the status quo is irrational and insane. Any such action or support, however superficially “moderate”, implicitly seeks the most extreme insanity since in its death throes the corporate system will resort to literally any measure it can, no matter how extreme in its violence, to maintain its power and existence. Prior to these death throes the system’s attempts to prop itself up will manifest in ever greater political and economic volatility, which comprise a direct cultural mirror of the ever greater physical volatility generated by climate chaos and poisonism.
 
 
In all these ways the masses feel the ground shake beneath their feet.
 
And they feel how the corporate system is destroying their economic existence.
 
And they sense how the system itself is tottering.
 
All this musters tremendous free-floating fear. Left to itself this fear-itself makes most people inherently timid, conservative, desperate to believe in the very status quo which afflicts them. Most are desperate to believe the very thing which is most insane and self-destructive for them to believe, that they don’t feel the ground shake beneath their feet. This desperate will to self-delusion drives the masses to their own volatility and implicit extremism corresponding with that of the elites and the physical environment.
 
This was the situation for the 2016 US plebiscite on the corporate globalization system. One’s choices were to vote Yes to the status quo in all its chaotic extremism, or No.
 
 
Let’s look at the major subdivisions among the Yes vote.
 
*The Clinton vote was the most conservative vote. Superficially this was the most acquiescent status quo Yes vote. This was the most obvious way to say “I like the status quo and want nothing to change.” This most pure status quo vote seemed the safest, most conservative way to vote Yes and refuse to acknowledge the ground shaking. Thus the voters refuse to face reality, they flee into fantasy, and they vote for the system’s volatility, which led to Trump.
 
*Most absurd were the Sanders and Stein fantasies. Ironically this mode of voting Yes indicates the most active, conscious affirmation of the status quo, since it takes the form of constructive criticism. One votes this way to say, “I like the status quo but have thought about it and want some changes.” These voters are more likely to pay lip service to reality, but are still unwilling or unable truly to face reality, reject the status quo, and commit to what’s necessary. Thus they too ultimately refuse to confront the crises, they flee to fantasy, and they vote for the status quo volatility which created Trump.
 
*Then we have the de jure Trump vote. Some of the wealthy and some die-hard cultists may fail to feel the ground shake and voted only for a change of parties. Some feel the ground shake and may vaguely want some kind of change but are uncommitted enough that the corporate system still could manipulate them into voting Yes to it. Most are like the others and refuse to face reality, and these voted most directly for the most volatile manifestation of the system-driven chaos. Regardless, the de jure Trump vote was the same vote as the others, the refusal to deal with reality and the will to prop up the fantasy, and the binge, to the bitter end.
 
All three of these Yes modes are modes of the refusal to liberate oneself, refusal to acknowledge and confront reality, refusal to commit to the necessary ideas and actions, and the desperate clinging to the electoral religious fantasy. Thus they all voted for whatever result the plebiscite coughed up. They voted unanimously for it.
 
It wasn’t inevitable that the wheel would land on Trump and not Clinton. The vote was close enough, a few breaks this way or that and it could’ve landed on her. But all the voters voted Yes. This was the only vote possible.
 
 
And then there’s the No vote. There may be some non-voters who are so vegetative that they don’t feel the ground shake and don’t care. Most of the No voters recognize that there’s no point to the rituals of the system and have given up on these. But they haven’t committed to the necessary movement action.
 
Then there’s the small group of affirmatively conscious anti-voters like myself. Most of these also haven’t committed.
 
Objectively the people are aware that it all matters, it all counts, abstention is not an option. The Yes voters are those who react by doubling down, digging the hole faster, “committing” by denying reality. The No voters are those who have stopped digging, even if most don’t yet exert themselves to climb out of the pit. But in principle it’s they who may be able to climb, whereas those who can only look downward and dig faster are unable even to think of climbing.
 
They’re the ones who dug up Trump. All of them. And what will they dig up next, if we don’t climb up out of the pit and fill it in behind us?
 
 
 
 
 

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.
 
 

December 21, 2016

The Abolition Movement is Needed

>

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

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 25, 2016

The Reason: The Police State, Drug War, and Prison Complex

>

According to the tenets of the cult of electoralism, the voters enforce their will at each election and get the policy they voted for. Therefore, as we’ve previously discussed, the overwhelming majority of American voters are pro-war, want to poison their own children’s food and water and escalate the control of all agriculture and food by agribusiness, want to continue and escalate the finance sector’s domination of the economy and politics, want to push the climate crisis to its worst possible extremes, and want a health care system which delivers awful care at horrendous prices as long as this is profitable for the health insurance companies. Their votes for, just to name a few of the most recent, Bush, Clinton, Dole, Bush, Gore, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney, Trump, Clinton, consistently prove they want all these, since a vote for any of these criminals is a vote for all these crimes. The same would be true for any alleged “dissident” or “alternative” within the Corporate One-Party.
.
Today we’ll add four more which go together.
.
.
1. If everyone who claimed to oppose police brutality and militarization and the surveillance state would refuse to vote for any police totalitarian, America would not be threatened with such an anti-American, anti-freedom internal enemy.
.
The reason the US government has enshrined police militarization, the surveillance state, and systematic racist and classist brutality is not because of those who are openly fascist. It’s primarily because almost all who claim to oppose police totalitarianism and systemic brutality are frauds who really support these. Their vote proves it.
.
2. If everyone who claimed to oppose the Drug War would refuse to vote for any Drug Warrior, America would abolish this idiotic, irrational, immoral campaign which worsens all the phenomena of the police and prison state and benefits no one but corporations and thug bureaucracies.
.
The reason the US government continues to wage this war of aggression against the people and the environment is not because of those who are openly bigoted against a few arbitrarily selected “illegal” drugs (of course almost all of these bigots get loaded on various kinds of legal dope, and many on the illegal as well). It’s primarily because almost all who claim to oppose the Drug War are frauds who really support it. Their vote proves it.
.
3. If everyone who claimed to oppose the prison-industrial complex and privatization of prisons would refuse to vote for anyone with a gutter jailor mentality, America wouldn’t have by far the most imprisoned population in human history, a pure totalitarian metric and an absolute obscenity against any notion of human freedom.
.
The reason the US government continues this obscene imprisonment offensive and escalates the enshrinement of prison and the corporate enslavement of prisoners as a profit-generating system isn’t because of those who openly worship the prison system and shriek “Lock ’em up!” the second they hear of a jaywalker. It’s primarily because almost all who claim to find the prison system inhumane, cruel and unusual, and who deplore the privatization of the system, are really frauds who support all this and want it to continue. Their vote proves it.
.
4. If everyone who claimed to oppose the accelerating destruction of civil liberties would refuse to vote for anyone who holds these liberties in contempt, America would be strongly committed to cherishing, protecting, and exercising these liberties.
.
The reason the US government continues to destroy all civil liberties isn’t because of those who openly despise them. It’s primarily because almost all who claim to value civil liberties, including almost all who pose as civil liberties activists, are really frauds happy to see these wiped out. Their vote proves it.
.
.
Police militarization, police surveillance, police brutality, police racism, the Drug War, the pandemic of imprisonment, the general assault on civil liberties, all these being both government and corporate assaults, the corporate state being a monolith: These all go together, and every system politician is an aggressor against the people in all these ways. The politicians of the Corporate One-Party fear, loathe, and despise human freedom with every fiber of their being. Their actions prove it. And in turn the action of voting for any such totalitarian proves that the voter is a supporter of this totalitarianism.
.
.
And these are all of one piece with war, environmental and agricultural assault and destruction, climate change, Wall Street’s intentional destruction of the economy and stealing of literally trillions of dollars from the people, the captivity of the health care system by the insurance racket. The corporate system is dedicated to total corporate domination and the general destruction of the entire human endeavor of society and civilization, in order to debase these to the status of nothing but a predation range for corporate gangsters.
.
The Corporate One-Party in both its “Democrat” and “Republican” flavors is absolutely, unequivocally, uncompromisingly committed to this vision of humanity and the earth as nothing but a resource mine and waste dump. There is no shade of gray here, no spectrum of nuance, no trade-off to ponder. All that is evil lines up completely on one side, the side of elite institutions including the single political party they field and the fraudulent elections they put on.
.
While this fact in itself doesn’t prove what is good, it does prove that there is no good to be found in this political system, nothing to redeem, nothing to reform, even in principle. It proves that it’s impossible to take part in these sham elections other than as an enthusiastic agent of evil, as the premise of the electoral cult and this series of posts would have it, or as a cheering-for-evil but powerless extra, which is the reality.
.
.

October 23, 2016

A Political Party Can Arise Only From A Movement

>

What does the discriminating voter look for in a political party these days, where it comes to candidates for central government offices?
.
The Greens are a commonly touted alleged alternative, but if by some miracle their candidate were elected, what do you think she would do?
.
As with Bernie Sanders, the Greens’ website is no help, expressing lots of pleasant-sounding boilerplate but nothing clear. (Along with several instances of pandering to mainstream corporate lies.) While it’s true that real dissidents shouldn’t let themselves be drawn into providing too many specifics of what they want to do since it’s in the nature of radical change that you have to improvise most of the details, you do need to be stark and unequivocal about what the end results will be. “As president I’ll tear up the TPP, NAFTA, and every globalization pact in between” is the word of a real anti-system candidate. A vaguely expressed opinion that the TPP might not be such a good idea doesn’t cut it. (That’s also all I found at the Sanders website when I looked earlier this year.)
.
(I’m aware that the vast majority of Stein supporters are supporters only out of a vague tribal feeling and that in spending ten minutes at the website I’ve already done far more than the vast majority of her voters will ever do. I used to be astonished at how rare it was to find a supporter of Obama or anyone you care to name who had even the slightest idea what their Leader actually does or has done or specifically promises to do. Elizabeth Warren is a perfect example, a pure projection fantasy. We’ve seen that across the board this year with Sanders, the Greens, and of course Clinton.)
.
In Stein’s case, for example where it comes to the pesticide/GMO complex she seems vague and tentative, doesn’t know much about it, ergo doesn’t consider it very important. She thinks there may be some problems and that America needs “mandatory labeling” and more study. Needless to say the “anti-GMO” crowd considers her a real anti-poison leader. (Of course in 2008 Obama also promised labeling, one of the few things he actually lied about.)
.
Does that sound like the kind of revolutionary who would appoint an anti-corporate attack dog as Agriculture Secretary, who would eviscerate Big Ag subsidies, impose a halt on GMO registrations and field trials, fire all the Big Ag propagandists and lackeys? And when as a result of this a thousand lawsuits are filed, would her administration actually stand on the law, and when this doesn’t work in the corrupt courts, stonewall and obstruct and smash up the machinery and defy? And would she appoint another attack dog at the FDA who would suspend its prior approvals and illegal GRAS designations and begin enforcing existing law (for all these things you don’t even need anything new to take action within the bounds of legality, you just need actually to apply the existing law; the same is true in many, many other contexts) on regulating GE products and suffused pesticides as the food additives they are, which would immediately halt all sales of any product containing any such additive?
.
Because for those who haven’t gotten the news, that’s what’s necessary. It’s necessary in every sector: I just gave one example, but we can apply the same across all executive bureaucracies. (Of course I’m sticking with things the executive can do unilaterally, without having to “work with Congress”. But does anyone seriously think Jill Stein would have any other attitude than great angst over “how am I going to work with Congress??”, however impossible that would be if she really wanted to accomplish any part of a radical program? A progressive of course assumes you have to, no matter how impossible. And therefore, even assuming Stein is sincere in the first place, the caving in and selling out would begin right from the transition period. We saw what happened with the Greens in Germany once their establishment was given a share of power.)
.
Do we see any alleged alternative party which would do this? Or do we see only a party wanting a Democrat do-over, but honest and for true this time? In other words, the exact same scam just starting over with a new name.
.
.
My conclusion is that electoralism is a fundamentalist cult whose devotees worship elections and the vote as such. They care zero for results. Results, for them, have nothing to do with reality, only with fantasy.
.
But America needs a movement which exists only of reality, by reality, and for reality. Only such a movement could ever possibly be of the people, by the people, and for the people. And only a political party which sprouts from such a movement can live up to such an aspiration and attain such a goal. I didn’t write this piece just to rag on Green supporters, but to insist on the fact that there is no way forward under conventional electoralism. By now belief in electoralism is a disease. It’s a delusion to believe in the efficacy of anything but building a new extra-legal movement starting completely outside the system. It’s hard work, with much blood, toil, tears, and sweat, and little in the way of instant gratification. But it has to be done.
.
As for a political party of true protest, opposition, and regime change, such a party can never be cobbled together on the fly, or out of the hurt feelings and earnest sentiments of idealists, or built on an individual’s ego trip. It can grow only out of the soil of the true spiritual, cultural, political movement. But as any grower worthy of the name can tell you, building soil takes work and time.
.
I write this so people who aren’t full-blown cult members might begin to comprehend ideas that seem to be literally inconceivable for most Americans so far.
.
.

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 14, 2016

FDA Temporarily Backs Down on Food Control Campaign

<

.
.
Thanks to large-scale organized pressure from the community food sector, including organizations like the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF), the FDA backed down and has issued a final rule under the so-called “Food Safety Modernization Act” (how’s that for an Orwellian jawbreaker?) which is more reasonable in defining a “retail food establishment” which would be exempt from the most onerous regulations under the Act. Artisan producers didn’t fare as well.
.
To recap the history, prior to the FSMA sufficient laws already existed for the USDA and FDA to effectively regulate the big corporate producers, manufacturers, and retailers who are the source of all significant food outbreaks. But the regulators almost never enforce these laws against these corporations, only against the rising community food sector which is challenging corporate agriculture and food.
.
Nor will the FSMA be used against these big corporate actors. The purpose of the FSMA is to give the FDA much greater discretionary power to attack community food.
.
We see how craven these regulators are where they’d have to take the offensive and are faced with real opposition. (They’re far more comfortable empowering the corporations’ own campaigns and regurgitating corporate lies.) Of course they won’t give up but are now regrouping. But let this partial victory be a lesson in the need to organize and fight. We’ll need to do far, far more.
.
To be clear, food production and distribution naturally have a local/regional basis. So it follows that an alien central government like that of the US could never conceivably have any legitimate authority over community food. Conversely, the kind of globalized commodity systems which would theoretically come under the purview of such a centralized government are clearly unnatural, irrational, anti-ecological, and themselves have no legitimate basis. Nor would we expect such systems, which are designed to produce commodities, not food, to deliver anything other than low-quality, poisoned, and immorally distributed food with resultant mass hunger, malnutrition, other dietary diseases, environmental diseases like cancer and birth defects, and every kind of environmental and socioeconomic pathology.
.
And that’s exactly what the FDA’s notion of food production brings.
.
Of course this still hasn’t put a damper on the idolatry of the FDA among “anti-GMO” types and others involved in food campaigns. Let’s never forget that most of the food NGOs supported Monsanto’s FSMA and even kept prodding the FDA to get on with the assault when it was dragging its feet. That’s the kind of evidence which proves we the people can never trust system NGOs. We need our own organizations, period.
.
.
.
.
Older Posts »