Volatility

December 24, 2018

Green Deal, Big Deal, Same Old Deal

>

Feel the burn

 
 
Why is the green deal a scam? Because like every other corporate “solution” it assumes productionism, consumerism, capitalism, industrial electrical generation and consumption (the great majority for industry), and the dominion of The Car. George Bush said the proper response to 9/11 was to Keep Shopping. And today’s climate scientists, Big Green NGOs and “progressive”/”socialist” politicians say the proper response to the climate crisis is to Keep Shopping. More and Better Capitalism. And of course Keep Driving.
 
But these are the very things driving the ecological crisis. More of the same ecological assaults cannot result in anything but more of the same ecological destruction.
 
There is one and only one way to avert the worst of the climate crisis:
 
Stop industrial emissions; stop destroying sinks; rebuild sinks.
 
And this is the only way to avert the worst of the general ecological crisis.
 
But all corporate system “solutions”, including the “green new deal”, propose to continue massive emissions (industrial “renewables”, to give the most egregious example, can exist only on a foundation of fossil fuels and are ecologically destructive in themselves), continue the massive destruction of sinks (one of the main purposes of the Paris scam was to enshrine the carbon-hemorrhaging “biomass” assault as a system-legitimated climate action), and pay only the most modest lip service to rebuilding sinks.
 
 
(Check out Bernie Sanders’ “Feel the Bern” website for a typical example of all this: Lip service to “family farming” alongside proclaimed support for the centralized corporate poison-based agriculture which is the #1 driver of the climate crisis. (Support for industrial agriculture automatically makes one a climate denier.) He proclaims his support for GMOs (and therefore for the entire pesticide, consolidation, and commodity speculation paradigm) and regurgitates several of the standard canned lies about them. Lip service to the climate along with support for the biomass assault and other scams, and of course support for the military which is a massive emitter. (I didn’t see the military mentioned anywhere on Bernie’s climate pages. Nor do any other green new deal advocates ever seem to acknowledge how the climate crisis and the US military are inextricably conjoined.) Meanwhile elsewhere he’s babbling idiotically about NASA and space travel. There’s just a few typical examples of the typical climate crocodile. With this kind of ideology, the climate will feel the burn all right.)
 
 
 
 
 

June 15, 2018

More Electoral Foolishness

>

I voted No because I’m not yet in my grave. You voted Yes because because you’re buried in yours.

 
 
Ralph Nader, like Jill Stein before him, is sucking up to the Democrat Party establishment and parroting their Russia Derangement. No surprise there.
 
Nor is it surprising that he, like Stein and the rest of the so-called “alternatives”, understand nothing about the increasingly extreme political situation. They want nothing but a Dem do-over, with fake promises that they will be honest-and-for-true unlike those corrupted Democrats.
 
But the problem is with the liberal ideology itself, not with bad apples who were personally “corruptible”. The superficial de jure corruption follows from the systemic ideological corruption. The system evil is the necessary foundation for any personal venal evil.
 
“Trump believes, as president, he can fire anybody and pardon anyone, including himself.”
 
Trump, like any other president these days, can do this and much more as long as the people allow him to do it. Wonkish babbling about courts and constitutions is meaningless on the street.
 
“Remember the vestigial Electoral College that selected Trump against the popular voter’s verdict.”
 
Well, let’s consider the popular voters’ verdict.
 
1. The fake election was a plebiscite on the status quo corporate-technocratic productionist imperial system and its Corporate One-Party. 53% of the electorate trudged out to vote Yes. 47% voted No by shunning the fake election.
 
2. Of the Yes voters, 48% voted for the overt status quo candidate Clinton, 46% voted for the fake populist Trump, and 5% voted for various “alternative” scammers like Stein and Gary Johnson.
 
3. Therefore no candidate attained a majority even among the 53% of Yes voters. And when we consider the entire electorate, we find that Clinton got 25% of the vote, Trump 24%.
 
Hardly the kind of resounding voter acclaim and stark margin that would lead any sane person to waste energy whining about the Electoral College.
 
Speaking of remembering institutions that selected against the popular voters’ verdict, I also remember the vestigial Democrat primary system and convention which selected (rigged, cheated, stole) the establishment candidate Clinton over the popular vote for Sanders. Funny how those whining about the anti-democratic Electoral College have nothing to say about equally anti-democratic Party “super-delegates”.
 
Not that the con artist Sanders was worth supporting. He said explicitly from day one that he was a loyal Dembot soldier and would do all he could to deliver his supporters to Clinton, and he lived up to that promise with gusto.
 
Nevertheless, Sanders probably would have beaten Trump. Meanwhile while all sentient observers, including myself, anyone who didn’t listen to the fake media, predicted a Trump victory over Clinton. That’s for anyone who regarded the defeat of Trump as the Alpha and Omega. The Dembots claim this has been their all-encompassing focus, yet their actions in 2016 and since have indicated otherwise.
 
In 2016 the Democrat Party and the Dembot horde preferred to lose, even to Trump, with their hard-right corporate status quo candidate rather than win with their pseudo-socialist. This tallies with their consistent record: They hate progressives like sin and would rather lose elections with corporate candidates than win even with fake progressives. Hillary Clinton was unequivocal: She wasn’t willing even to pretend to care about the voters, but openly, unequivocally said: “If you’re not rich, drop dead.” Her party cheered her on precisely because of this psychopathy, not in spite of it. Hatred of the people clearly is a matter of ideological principle to the Party.
 
And since then they’ve learned nothing and forgotten nothing. They are hunkered in the bunker and are dead set on repeating every stupidity. The Democrats clearly are anti-human, anti-Earth on principle, every bit as much as the Republicans. The Democrat destruction principle merely is more politically incompetent and stupid than the Republican version.
 
 
Just a casual survey of how absurd US electoralism has become. There’s no there there, and no way forward there.
 
Don’t vote – it only encourages them. (H/T Terry Pratchett)
 
 
 
 
 
 

August 20, 2017

Odd and the End

>

The Corporate One-Party

 
 
*Example of a “historic climate victory”, according to Big Oil, the mainstream media, and US mainstream politics. Of course this is just one facet of the general corporate climate scam. The Paris Accord and its forerunners are broader scams.
 
For the handful who truly care about the climate crisis, there’s one and only one solution, both for mitigation and adaptation: Tremendously reduce GHG emissions, stop destroying carbon sinks, and rebuild sinks on a massive scale. Anything short of this is a lie.
 
*As for those liars, this is correct about Trudeau, and Australia’s Turnbull. Now let’s hear McKibben be honest about the exact same genre in the US, epitomized by Obama and Clinton. Such crocodile-tear climate criminals are vastly more pernicious and spiritually odious than the de jure Trump type.
 
*Amid its general shilling for corporate globalization, the corporate media especially loves CAFOs.
 
(To be fair, almost all Westerners love this Auschwitz-type system, including and especially the hypocrites who cry crocodile tears about animal welfare, climate change, and the environment.)
 
*Here’s some good books on what’s necessary. Regarding the fact that humans naturally are far more cooperative than competitive, I’ll add that one need only look at at how, even though in this society children are so intensively indoctrinated into the competition ideology, the system still requires such a massive, unrelenting campaign of propaganda, inducements, threats, and violence in order to get significant numbers of people to act in even a semi-competitive way. That right there proves what our truly natural cooperative tendencies are, and how readily we revert to them as soon as the artificial pressure lets up even a little. This Sodom and Gomorrah can’t keep it up much longer.
 
*This is true, and exactly parallel in every detail to GMO/pesticides and corporate industrial agriculture as such.
 
*According to the ideology of the car, Suburbs = Cities.
 
The ideology of the car is a malignancy which crosses all fake partisan lines and reveals the system’s “politics” to be an Earth-destroying, climate change-denying monolith. So there’s one litmus test which defines the real line: Is one for or against the model of “civilization” based on the barbarism of the personal car. Squabbles within the car paradigm, on the other hand, are nothing but fake politics.
 
*Here’s an important report from 2016 on how courtroom junk science stacks the deck in favor of bogus prosecutions. Just one of the many ways scientism is poisoning civilization.
 
*As always in the corporate media, corporate elite interests are represented as the only legitimate interests that exist. Therefore the only legitimate controversies, besides partisan political squabbling within the Corporate One-Party, are where oligopolists are at odds. As Chomsky wrote, when the New York Times says “the people” it means big corporations and the rich, and when it says “special interests” it means the people and the environment.
 
*Like this:
 
MacNeil: Thank you, Mr. Ginn and Jim. The secretary of the Committee for Regulatory Reform in Slavery is Eric Halfmeasure. Mr. Halfmeasure, give us the other side of the story.
 
Halfmeasure: Robin, I would like to make one thing perfectly clear. We are wholeheartedly in favor of slavery. We just see abuses that diminish productivity and reduce incentives for free men and women to compete in the marketplace. Lynching, tarring and feathering, rape, lack of holidays, and that sort of thing. One recent study suggests that regulation could raise productivity by 15 percent.
 
If only that really were a joke, but that’s a sober depiction of exactly how almost all mainstream media “debate” is done.
 
*Google’s part in the corporate media’s assault on reality-based journalism. Trump and the liberals, on behalf of their identical corporate masters, are in full collaboration against the people and the Earth.
 
*The New York Times continues to set the standard for fake news.
 
Speaking of that, and for those who have been shrieking idiotically about the fiction of Russian meddling in their phony election*: You mean like what your government, led by your Hillary Clinton, did in Honduras? You mean like what you did in Ukraine? (And where US liberals and the mainstream media are allied with a truly powerful neo-Nazi movement, no less.) You mean like what you’re doing right now to Venezuela, and your long, long record of manipulating elections and overthrowing governments all over the world? Fact is, no government on earth has remotely the record of such crimes as your US government, and the way your ilk now howls like a stuck pig over this (completely fabricated) allegation of foreign manipulation of one of YOUR phony elections is really rich. But then no one howls worse at getting a taste of their own medicine than fat, privileged, hypocritical, cowardly thugs like you.
 
[*Even if furriners did interfere in your kangaroo election, what difference would that make? It couldn’t make it any less fraudulent, since you’re already running a one-party system heavily rigged to keep any potential alternative off the ballot. Even your own con man Bernie Sanders was too much for you, precisely because he would’ve beaten Trump, who you all really wanted, as proven by your actions. That’s why the Democrat primary had to be specially rigged to steal the candidacy for Clinton.]
 
*Continuing with MSM abetting of fascism, here’s a good survey of the corporate media’s anti-democracy agenda which it deploys in the service of corporate technocracy and kleptocracy. One thing this leaves out is that the real affinity is between “mainstream” capitalism and the neo-Nazis. The historical record proves that the capitalist establishment, including liberals (i.e., pro-capitalist technocrats), publicize and empower fascism in proportion to how threatened by the exploited people this establishment feels.
 
Their entire system is based most fundamentally on war. War purely for its own sake, prior even to any power goal. This is proven by the fact that there is no politics left in mainstream US ideology. There’s nothing but partisan celebrity worship. Substantively, there is zero difference between the Democrat and Republican shades of the Corporate One-Party. Substantively, there is no difference between Trump and Clinton/Bush/Obama. On the contrary, Trump seamlessly continues along that exact vector.
 
*Good piece on the WWIII-mongers and fracking shills (the proximate profiteering purpose of the sanctions bill is to try to coerce Europe into dependency upon US fracked LNG). We see the most vile dregs among Democrats and Republicans coming together in their determination to utterly destroy humanity and the Earth.
 
*The liberal/neocon WWIII-mongers want nothing less than the complete destruction of human life itself. The most vile part is how it’s in the service of nothing but pure hypocrisy.
 
*How does one “bypass the Democrat party”? Exalt a con artist whose entire record has been to serve as a sheepdog for the Democrat Party! And of course these organizers also are such sheepdogs.
 
But seriously, any such notion to organize an honest-and-for-true-this-time progressive party is putting the party horse before the movement cart. History proves that once an electoral system is in the stranglehold of a de facto one-party system (this usually takes the form of a “two-party” scam), any attempt to cobble together a “third party” without first having built a solid, coherent cultural movement foundation, and then extruding the political party from this movement, is doomed to collapse or co-optation. Just look at what happened to the People’s Party, prematurely built on the culturally unripe foundation of the Populist movement in the 1890s. The movement felt forced into premature electoralism because only attainment of power could enable them to enact the subtreasury plan, which was necessary to rescue the Farmers’ Alliance co-op system which was being strangled economically by a total credit embargo on the part of the system banks. (We who are building the Community Food sector and Food Sovereignty have an advantage over the cotton farmers of Populism, in that as commodity farmers they remained dependent on the commodity system in a way we, who grow food for human beings, are not.) The new party was co-opted by the Democrats (the Democrat Party has been dedicated to destroying democracy for much longer than a hundred years now) and then pathetically died. The same is guaranteed to happen to any half-assed attempt to build a new party today, without first putting in the necessary hard work of building a true anti-system movement.
 
 
 
 
 

May 8, 2017

You Can’t Get There With Existing Electoralism

>

 
 
People who say they want radical change are complaining about the French election. But why would you expect any such change via electoralism? Electoralism is an entrenched institution and establishment religion which inherently encourages a conservative mindset and attracts conservative people.
 
(Here I’m using the word “conservative” not to denote a particular political ideology, but rather the overall mindset which is timid, fears change, and above all doesn’t want to rock the boat. Of course today’s liberals and “progressives” are by definition conservative in this way, as well as sharing the same ideology and policy array as the nominal conservatives. And the actions of self-described “leftists” and “radicals” proves that most of them as well are such conservatives.)
 
This is part of why superficial alternatives such as Melenchon or Corbyn or Sanders have the system stacked against them. There’s a mismatch between the self-claimed will to disruption and the inherent conservatism of today’s electoralism as such. It’s why such alleged alternatives are likely to be frauds, as Sanders telegraphed from day one of his campaign with his unconditional pledge to support Clinton and to work to deliver his supporters to her. And it’s why even where the alternative wins an election, such as Syriza in Greece, they turn out to be a combination of con artist and coward: They can “come to power” in the first place only through such a compromised and compromising process, and almost no one has the single mind, the will, and the guts to use a compromised tool to get part of the way toward where they need to go and then discard it as soon as they reach that intermediate goal.
 
As always, we see again that it’s impossible to build a truly revolutionary political party other than by growing it from the soil of an ongoing, coherent, active cultural and spiritual movement.
 
This is why there will never be an authentic candidate of change arising from the existing system. I’ve always said this, for both “left” and “right” alternatives, and I remain perfect in my record of predictions.
 
 
 
 
 

November 13, 2016

Whose Pipeline

<

Letter to all the people exercised about the Dakota Access Pipeline and cheering on the fighters, but who also support the Democrat Party and are even asking questions like, “Where is Obama on this?” (And of course those who voted for Clinton.*) :
.
Those are Obama’s cops, in case you were too clueless to notice.
.
Of course energy projects of this scale require all kinds of federal regulatory approval. And it is, of course, impossible for a significant energy project to exist without massive federal subsidies. So in both ways, it’s impossible for such a project to exist against the will of the president. On the contrary, it requires lots of action from the executive branch to make anything happen at all. All that corporate welfare doesn’t hand itself out, and all those federal thugs and federally subsidized and equipped thugs don’t outfit and deploy themselves. You do know, right, that there’s barely a cop in America who isn’t dependent upon the federal gravy train. Certainly not the kind of cop the corporations deploy against the faithfully active people at a place like this.
.
But then, we know that almost everyone engaged in social media meta-“activism” on the occasion of the pipeline fight, which basically means circulating memes and clicking on the “Angry” button, really supports Big Oil and voted for it this last circus as they’ve voted for it every previous circus. After all, progressive opinions are fine to have, but those personal cars won’t fuel themselves.
.
Of course I’m not talking about those who understand and fight on the basis that the fossil fuel system is unsustainable, destructive, and evil, and are struggling to bring to light the need to break free of it while we can. But I imagine they’re not doing much better than I am with poison-based agriculture, including having to face the impenetrable bubble of idiocy within which the president idolators vegetate. In the case of pesticides it’s the FDA-worshippers who comprise the plague, with fossil fuel extraction they fetishize the Department of Energy.
.
(For those who care about “property rights”, the entire project is also a perfect example of how there’s no such thing as property rights in America, but only the right of the stronger as this private corporate project had its physical way cleared through eminent domain. Governments of course provided administration and thug services.)
.
I wrote this post, like some other recent ones, thinking about the fact that a president has almost unlimited latitude to do whatever it wants. I want to drive off the earth with a whip any of the liars who claim the president doesn’t have complete control of the executive branch (which includes every kind of triage where it comes to enforcing/respecting laws and court decisions) where it comes to anything the president really cares about. Just one of the many reasons I have infinite loathing for corporate liberals, that they base their existence on this lie.
.
.
*Bernie Sanders also supports the pipeline. I just went to his website to see if he’d changed his position at all, and found that although “the revolution continues” and will accept money, the site no longer has any content. Kind of self-contradictory, wouldn’t you say? Of course anyone who knows the slightest bit about politics could peg Sanders as a fraud from day one, precisely because he wasn’t building any kind of outside-the-system movement. If I was wrong about that, wouldn’t today be the day for Bernie to be proving me wrong? Wouldn’t the aftermath of this election be the time for a true movement to go into hyperdrive, capitalizing on the evident failure of status quo liberalism? Any Bernistas out there who can explain?
.
And forget the Green Party. Their vapid “issues” page gives zero details on what it means for Jill Stein to “Oppose” something, obviously by design. Would she halt all illegal pipelines and cease all the necessary subsidies for “legal” ones? (And for that matter halt the “legal” ones too?) Or to put that in a more vague, politician-friendly way, does she at least promise that one way or another these projects will cease to exist? Obviously not.
.
Nor do I see any movement call there.
.
The fact is that my despised and rejected blog, with almost no hits and zero commenters, nevertheless represents more of a movement and revolution than all these frauds put together.
.
.
.
.
.
.

July 14, 2016

On Bastille Day: The Idea Vs. “The Leader”

<

The core problem of our politics today is the chasm between those for whom an idea and goal are primary vs. those who, above all else, seek a Leader.
.
Although the German term Fuhrer, literally “Leader”, has long had a more narrow association for most people, the term generically means any leader in whose leadership one invests a mystical significance prior to any substantive content which could be found in the actions of this Leader. Fuhrerprinzip, “Leadership Principle”, means that the most important thing is to find such a Leader. This is primary over ideas, values, principles, goals. All these, however loudly advocated by the Leader-seeker, are really secondary to simply finding a Leader who provides a simulation of cherishing these ideas and seeking these goals. Actual belief and actual fighting are secondary at best, and never necessary.
.
When people who do hold ideas and fight for goals misunderstand this, we make an error. To give a typical example from today’s headlines, when someone who truly wants to abolish corporate globalization and austerity points out to a Bernie Sanders supporter that Sanders is a fraud and has always been, this is usually irrelevant since the average “Feel the Bern” type doesn’t really care about these ideas or goals but only wants to exalt the Leader who mystically embodies the simulation of these.
.
This explains what one finds when one goes to the official Sanders campaign website, as I did a few months ago, to find out exactly what he was promising to do if he became president as far as nullifying the TPP. I wasn’t surprised to find that he was promising nothing whatsoever, but instead was expressing only what amounted to a personal opinion that he didn’t like such globalization pacts. This is inexplicable if we were theorizing that Sanders and his supporters were real anti-globalizers, but easily explained if we go with the theory that Sanders was never any such thing but only a Leader-figure embodying a vague anti-TPP notion, and his followers only Leader-seekers whose secondary ideas included such vague notions. Otherwise why wouldn’t his supporters have demanded a clear commitment to action? But in fact 99% of Sanders supporters neither know nor care exactly what he was promising about this or anything else. This is typical of Leader-seekers in general – they’re usually amazingly ignorant of what their Leader has actually done or promises to do. The 2008 Obama cultists provided perhaps the ultimate example of the syndrome. This is proof that any action is of minimal importance to Leader-seekers, compared to a foggy but strongly felt emotional bond with the Leader.
.
Then we may be confused when we see how Sanders followers always seemed oblivious to the fact that right from the start Sanders gave an unconditional pledge of loyalty to support the standard right-wing, pro-corporate, war-mongering, police statist Democrat Party program. Of course this was always objectively obvious since Sanders said so and since that’s what the Democrat Party indelibly is. It seems bizarre that many of them now act as if Sanders’s warm, unconditional embrace of Hillary Clinton is some kind of betrayal, when he always promised to do exactly that. Most bizarre of all, some of them still act as if they haven’t heard any of this, and still insist on seeing him as some kind of constructive figure.
.
All this is confusing if we make the mistake of thinking these people really care about the ideas and goals Sanders claimed to care about. But it all becomes clear when we understand that they never really cared about those things, but cared only about finding a Leader to take them through at least part of the presidential campaign and give them the mystical feeling that something good was happening, regardless of the reality. That’s the Leader’s job.
.
(Meanwhile a different group of Leader-seekers is doing the exact same thing with Donald Trump, and a significant portion of Clinton’s support also comes from such seekers, no doubt soon to be joined by most of the former Sanders seekers. But Clinton is also supported by the liberals who consciously embrace the status quo, while Sanders could not have had any such supporters. The Green Party may have some supporters who truly embrace reform goals and would fight for these, although the desire of at least some among the Greens to make Sanders their candidate indicates that Leader-seeking is rampant among them as well. Of course all Leader-seekers of any stripe implicitly ratify the status quo.)
.
This also explains the common pathology of people’s inability to break free of the instant-gratification mode. To embrace a new idea and make it real requires long, hard work. But seeking a Leader can and does give instant gratification as soon as the seeker achieves this cathexis. In this case there’s no point criticizing the desire for instant gratification since, while such a desire is toxic for movement-building, it fits perfectly well with Leader-seeking. Whichever comes first, the infantile impatience or the Leader-need, the two reinforce one another.
.
It also explains the persistence of the religious cult of electoralism and voting. Again, while the cult of voting (as opposed to viewing elections in a purely tactical way) is toxic for any new idea, it fits Leader-seeking like a glove since the potential for finding new Leaders to vote for is infinite. As long as votism gratifies you, even if followed each time by disillusionment, you’ll always be able to get high again. (“Feel the Bern” does indeed sound like drug lingo.)
.
Leader-seeking props up superficial belief in everything from the Democrat Party to electoralism and capitalism as such, since ideas involving these will always be secondary to exalting the Leader of the Month upon whom the Leader-seekers can project such ideas. The likes of Obama, Clinton, Warren, Sanders don’t really deceive anyone, indeed they deliver fully, at least for a time, exactly what the seekers crave. Paradoxically, as long as the Leader can deliver the instant gratification of Leadership as such, the seekers will have literally infinite patience as far as waiting for the reforms and revolutions allegedly promised by these Leaders and the parties they represent.
.
It’s true that for some of the Leader-seekers the secondary ideas and goals are important enough that the Leader figure eventually disappoints them to the point that they renounce him. But they seldom generalize from this disillusionment to a rejection of the Leadership Principle as such. Instead they drop the particular disappointing Leader and seek a new one.
.
All this is why it’s fruitless to make the call to build a movement based on a new idea and goal, if the audience is an atomized collection of Leader-seekers. Probably the easiest litmus test for distinguishing an establishment-figure Leader who has grouped a Leader-seeking rabble under him, as opposed to what could be the rudiment of an anti-system movement, is whether the people involved are building an extralegal organization completely outside any existing institution, or whether their “campaign” is completely ensconced within existing establishment channels such as the Democrat or Republican Party. Applying that test from day one, I could always easily peg Sanders and Trump as frauds, and their respective followings as superficial Leader-seekers.
.
.
What follows from this.
.
1. Our ability to build a movement based on a new idea and necessary goals is a function of how many people are ardent to work and fight based on the primacy of the idea without reference to our immediate ability to incarnate these in the form of a Leader figure, let alone one who’s running for president.
.
Those who superficially share some ideas and goals but who really seek a Leader simulating these comprise a different group, and it’s a deadly error to confound the two based on such superficial similarities. The true fighters for the idea first must clearly identify one another and begin by organizing themselves on that basis.
.
2. Then, the core movement will be in a position to make the appropriate strategic/proselytizing appeals to the broader mass of sympathizers, including the Leader-seekers, and to form any appropriate tactical alliances.
.
But the current preliminary confusion between these two radically different commitments, one to an idea and the other to Leaders who fraudulently simulate such ideas, has to end.
.
Of course, a truly organic movement based on a new idea will give rise to its own indigenous leadership. But these will be a very different kind of leader supported by a different kind of constituency. They will be appendages of the true idea, the idea’s servants, rather than con artists fraudulently simulating a pseudo-idea. They will append from the organic body of the movement constituency rather than artificially collect under them and cheaply be exalted by a mass of Leader-seeking atoms.
.
.
I write this out of the conviction that existing institutions and ideology are irredeemably rotten, evil, and unworkable. We’re far beyond the point where reform was possible, and long into the time where the desire for reform is nothing but procrastination at best, in a time where we no longer have time to waste. Leader-seeking in any form, but most of all in its “progressive” form, is therefore reactionary in the most profoundly practical sense. In order for the necessary new ideas and goals, affirmative and negative, to have any chance to start building and tearing down in time before much vaster historical forces, the forces of global economic and environmental collapse and the total global wars which a thrashing, dying corporate system will force upon humanity, take complete control of events, we who assert the primacy of these ideas must separate from those who only pay lip service even as they serially latch onto scammers from the system. We must clearly identify, separate, and organize on this completely new basis while letting the dead bury the dead.
.
.