October 27, 2017

“Competition” as Ideological Proxy for Biological Warfare


“Although there are many examples of such mutually beneficial, symbiotic relationships, an intense competition occurs among the diverse organisms in healthy soils.”
Building Soils for Better Crops, p. 38
Where it comes to a naturally evolving ecosystem like soil, what one chooses to see as competition as opposed to cooperation is mostly a matter of ideology and one’s view of individual death. Are soldiers in combat cooperating or competing? Consider the two armies together: Are they competing to kill one another, or cooperating to carry out the war?
The Spencerist/Darwinist presentation, with its emphasis on competition and “survival of the fittest”, was adapted from the capitalist ideology of 19th century Britain. All of Darwin’s observations and the theory he induced from them he could have written up at least as easily in terms of cooperation. Darwin simply chose not to, for reasons of ideology which is prior to science.
Now consider the balanced soil ecosystem: Are predators and prey in competition or cooperation? Are two organisms which feed on the same resource competing for that resource or cooperating to process that resource as part of the flow of the ecosystem?
It seems to me that cooperation better describes the fundamental units (for example, animal-bacterial and plant-bacterial symbioses) and the overall holism, and that this is good reason to consider cooperation the better basic description of the ecology. This is according to the same logic whereby the Copernican description is preferred over that of Ptolemy. This is not because the Copernican is more “true”; neither is “true” or “false”, they’re just different depictions of the same observations. The Copernican presentation is preferable because it accounts for the most important observations in a simpler and more coherent, more logically cogent way than that of Ptolemy.
When does competition prevail? At the human level, tribes naturally cooperate within themselves but sometimes undergo intertribal competition, even to the point of warfare. As hierarchies develop, as power centralizes, as natural use-based economies become engulfed in larger-scale supply-driven commodity-based economies, human community aggregates dissolve, the people atomize, and they become subject to the competition of class war from above and intense pressure from above to tear into each other. In these ways criminals who have organized to maximize power strive to force competition upon humanity and to repress natural cooperation.
Yet the strongest proof that humans are naturally cooperative is the fact that, despite the power elites’ having had hundreds of years of total power to inflict their indoctrination, propaganda, inducements, threats, and violence upon humanity with all the massive, relentless force at their disposal, they still need to renew this massive barrage every day in order to get people to act in an even semi-competitive way. Self-evidently, if this daily infusion ever were to flag, people quickly would revert to their cooperative default.
Meanwhile, as anarchism always points out, capitalism and the state depend utterly on massive unpaid cooperation on the part of workers and citizens. If the people ever were to go on a work-to-rule general strike, which simply means working to the letter of one’s job description and not one jot more; and if the people were to obey the absolute letter of the law, not one jot more or less, the whole structure of capitalist society would collapse within days, so dependent is it upon the creative cooperation of workers and citizens vis their workplaces and the mores of social life.
At the ecological level, what we could call competition comes in where for some reason an imbalance in the system temporarily allows a species to get out of control. Industrial agriculture generates the most extreme artificial imbalances by eradicating as much biodiversity as possible and seeking to impose a strictly regimented goose-stepping monoculture regime. In practice this generates the best terrain for pests, weeds, disease, and such vermin as rats. Since this is the invariable primary result of the monocultural agriculture system, we know that this is the primary intent and goal of the governments, corporations, academics, and journalists who work to enforce this system. Related and parallel examples, part of the same ideological and paramilitary structure, are the systematic overuse of antibiotics (intended to generate resistant microbes and wipe out antibiotics as a medically effective technology) and pasteurization (intended to wipe out diverse microbial communities which keep pathogens in check, in order to create an open frontier for those pathogens; just as pesticides are intended to maximize opportunities for pests and disease by wiping out all counterbalancing diversity).
Another example of the artificial imposition of competition over cooperation is where an invasive species becomes able quickly to debouch through an ecosystem, rather than gradually assimilate over time and through the mediation of evolutionary safeguards. The most extreme example is technocracy’s campaign to deploy GMOs as globally as possible as fast as possible with as brutal a suppression of evolutionary safeguards as possible.
This campaign is intended to be an even more total, more biologically eliminationist extension of the first “green revolution” of a monoculture paradigm based on poisons, machines, and enclosed seeds. Modern industrial agriculture is the most extreme anti-evolutionary campaign in history (and its cadres and ideologues the most extreme cohort of evolution deniers). GMO-based agriculture, the “Green Revolution II”, is in turn the most extreme version of this competitive/destructive debouchment.
The surest way to tell an imbalance is gathering force and ecological/economic flows are being blocked, even more sure than tangible destruction, is any buildup of waste, and any tangible accumulation which automatically is a form of pollution.
This is the closest we can come to an objective definition of cooperation as opposed to competition: Does the system embody Nietzsche’s idea of the Ubermensch, does it keep everything in motion and use, does it organize itself in motion at every moment? This is the mutual cooperation of all with all, and it is the normal state of nature. Or is the system becoming hobbled and unbalanced with accumulation and waste? This is the mutually destructive competition of atom against atom, with no possible result other than mutual destruction and death.
Propagate the necessary new ideas.

April 27, 2017

The Corporate Science Establishment Vs. the Scientific Method


Conclusion first – experiment afterwards! In fact genetic engineering is nothing but mass non-consensual human experiment and religiously pre-determined “conclusion”, with zero concern for data which doesn’t fit the dogma. Nor is any hypothesis or scientific theory ever involved. There is no science of genetic engineering.
What is scientific method? Science is not qualitatively different from other belief systems, but is part of the same general complex as philosophy, political theory, and religion. Where actually practiced according to the theory of how it’s supposed to be practiced, science is a well-defined set of actions performed in accord with reason which attains a limited but reasonably reliable result. The rationality which prescribes the actions and the reliability of the result are sound within rationally circumscribed limits and as long as the practitioners and everyone else acknowledge these limits. Therefore science is a form of practical philosophy which is more applicable to physical objects and processes than most other kinds. According to the scientists themselves, as most fully elaborated by Karl Popper, explicator of “the scientific method”, what distinguishes science from other forms of philosophy is that its results must always be falsifiable. This means that at least in principle there must be an experiment which could generate data which disproves a scientific contention. If no such experiment can be conceived even in principle, a proposition automatically is supposed to be ruled out of science.
That’s how it’s supposed to work. Of course in reality people tend to conform, to seek agreement and consensus, and for several reasons STEM types are among the most congenitally conformist and authoritarian. So it was always dubious and indeed suspicious that the scientific fraternity exalted an ideal which is so uncongenial to human nature and especially to their own nature, this heroic notion of the eternal vigilance and critical nature of everyday science practitioners. The falsification ideal also goes against simple careerism. No rational person would expect eminent scientists with influence over research funding to prefer aspiring falsifiers of their work over aspiring conformists and reinforcements.
Any fraternity, especially one which combines such extremes of tribalism, arrogance, and persecution complex as the scientific fraternity does, generally seeks tribal compaction over assimilation to any idea which is more universal, or one which contradicts one of the tribe’s defining tenets. The Mafia calls this sticking up for Cosa Nostra, “Our Thing”. The average STEM cadre, as well as post-graduate types in general, is completely ignorant about genetic engineering and GMOs but does know that a hard core of the fraternity is fanatically in support of this campaign, and that’s all these authoritarian followers need to know: It’s Our Thing. So from the evidence of history we’d expect that, once the scientific fraternity has committed itself spiritually to the exaltation of genetic engineering, it would tend automatically to rally around the GMO rallying cry and to despise anyone with questions, criticisms or, most wickedly, falsifications.
Now we understand how the proposition that “GMOs are safe for human consumption”, while readily falsifiable in principle given sufficient research resources, became unfalsifiable in practice. What do we learn from the scientific establishment’s institutional obstructionism and refusal to fund whole genres of theoretically possible and morally imperative testing? This rationally implies that the obstructionists – corporations and governments – believe their theory is false and are using lies and obstructionism to shield it from the test of falsifiability.
The scientific establishment always has refused to perform scientific safety tests on GMOs. Instead:
1. They promulgated the religious dogma that GMOs are “substantially equivalent” to non-GM crops and foods. This is part of the prior religious Conclusion of genetic engineers and their cultists I cited above.
Of course this equivalence was always self-evidently a lie since plants suffused with herbicide and/or endemic Bt toxins automatically are very different from plants which are not poisonous in this way. And even according to the system’s own narrow, technical concept, the equivalence dogma has been disproven many times. But the scientific establishment continues to promulgate it as dogma.
2. The scientific establishment has systematically lied in representing industrial testing of such parameters as fast weight gain in CAFO inmates to be legitimate food safety tests relevant to human food safety. Corporations, governments, and the mainstream media then parrot these lies, but it’s the scientists themselves who design and initially propagate the lies.
3. They claim to possess evidence, e.g. that glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer, but say they cannot show it to us. This alleged evidence must remain secret, and the world must trust the corporate science establishment on faith. What would Popper say about that?
4. They’ve presented a united front in trying to suppress actual scientists who attempt falsification on their own.
It’s clear that establishment science systematically has evaded its obligation to test GMOs for safety, systematically has lied about its dereliction, and systematically has sought to obstruct science and repress real falsification-seeking scientists. This proves the general malignity of this establishment and its complete lack of scientific credibility, authority, and legitimacy.
To say a few more words about secret science, its purpose is to exalt the corporate-technocratic establishment as an authoritative priesthood. This means that it must prefer assertion and obfuscation over rational argument and the presentation of evidence, since no one who wants to be seen as an authoritarian command figure can afford to let the peasants question his authority, for example by demanding rational debate and evidence. This is a major reason why genetic engineers and their fanboys historically never were willing rationally to answer questions and objections to their endeavor, but rather resorted from day one to vague utopian rhetoric, epithets, and insults. The other reason was that rationality and the evidence have always been strongly against genetic engineering.
From this perspective we see that the proximate reason given for the secrecy, intellectual property, is more a pretext than a cause. Both the patenting and the secrecy that goes with it are important for profiteering, but they’re more important for power as such. One must never be distracted by the kind of idiot who would rationalize secret science by invoking IP privilege. IP is a pure fiction which has no reality-based purpose, but which is only a weapon of corporate and scientism cultist power.
And as we see, IP cannot co-exist with the scientific method. You can have one or the other, never both. The entire Western political and STEM class, as well as the voters, have chosen to exalt corporate intellectual property and to degrade science. This is part of the complete enclosure of all of “science” within the corporate science paradigm.
The scientific method dictates that even in principle we never reasonably can conclude that “GMOs are safe”. The genetic engineering process guarantees that each “event” will have unique chaotic effects since there’s so many random mutations from each transgenic insertion and each tissue culturing.
Random variation and its sometimes major real-world effects is the first premise of Darwinism. Since genetic engineering ideology lies about its precision and dogmatically decrees that it generates no significant mutations, we see how this pseudo-science is denialist, not just of evolution as such but specifically of Darwinism.
The radical overall evolution denialism of the genetic engineers and their religious following is part of their eugenics agenda. They despise natural evolution and intend to break out of all of its mechanisms and leap over all of its safeguards. Their campaign to deploy GM crops as universally over the globe as possible, as quickly as possible, with an ostentatious contempt for the effects of this, is extremely reckless and dangerous from any rational or scientific point of view.
But we must understand that from the religious crusading point of view of eugenic scientism, the recklessness and danger of this deployment is precisely why it should be done, on principle. The massive non-consensual human feeding experiment ultimately has eugenic goals. In the same way, the so far uncontrolled experiment of the vast-scale environmental release of GMOs ultimately has the goal of forcibly overriding evolution and imposing technocratic creationism over the entire globe. This is the richer significance of the malign experimentalism of the STEM establishment. Both of these experiments are being carried out with the most extreme, radical, reckless indifference to human and ecological well-being, precisely because the technocratic mentality does not recognize such well-being as a value at all and has nothing but contempt for it. This goes to the core of why technology in general so seldom works to make our lives better: Such a value has always meant nothing to the scientists and engineers. They seek nothing but control for the sake of control. Therefore they campaign to impose their vast uncontrolled experiments upon humanity and the Earth toward the goal of one day turning these into controlled experiments, and eventually being able to enforce total eugenic control. At that point they’ll completely have eradicated nature and history and replaced these with divinely willed creationism. As insane and physically impossible as it is, this is their goal. They’ve hijacked science to serve this goal.
Thus, where it comes to genetic engineering where would you even get started with “scientific method”? There’s no theory, and the engineers despise observation. Otherwise they’d reject the project as having no possible benefit, only risks and harms. Rather, they start with the experiment itself, for its own ultimately eugenic sake and for corporate profit. If one makes a prediction it’s nothing but wishful thinking and not part of scientific method at all, since they have no theory or evidence upon which to base it. Therefore what they really do is invent the religious conclusion that GMOs are beneficial, indeed utopian, then embark upon the experiment, accompanied with lies and corporate hype. This is another reason genetic engineers started out with such a belligerent, anti-rationalist attitude – they had no other option.
Of course the proposition that GMOs as such are safe and that genetic engineering never has harmful effects already has been falsified many times: The lethal Showa Denko epidemic, the StarLink allergenic outbreak, allergenic GM soy engineered with a gene from Brazil nuts, GM corn which has toxic liver and kidney effects, just to name a few.
Thus we see how according to the scientific method, which the science establishment, the scientism cult, academia and the mainstream media all claim is the method they practice and/or consider legitimate, genetic engineering is anti-science and anti-evolution. And yet all these institutions don’t just support GMOs but ardently exalt them. This proves that they lie when they claim to practice and respect the scientific method.
There are many proofs that the modern corporate science establishment is systematically anti-science and has no credibility and should be accorded no legitimacy by humanity. The best proof is the STEM establishment’s bizarre love affair with this backward, shoddy, failed technology which never had any real-world purpose but to help a few agrochemical corporations sell more poison. It’ll go down as one of history’s great marvels of depravity that science threw it all away for the sake of something so stupid, worthless, and mean.
Help propagate the necessary ideas.

September 30, 2015

The Historical Context of the “Genetic Engineering = Conventional Breeding” Lie


This piece places in historical context one of the primary GMO “science” lies, that genetic engineering is a form or extension of conventional breeding and natural evolution. My main source for the 19th century history is Philip Pauly’s Controlling Life.
This proposition is factually false, and in most cases we can be assured that those making this claim do so out of ignorance or intentional deception. As an ideological proposition, the notion that laboratory-generated artifices are not qualitatively different from the products of evolution goes back to 19th century German physiology. Among such physiologists as Carl Ludwig and Hermann Helmholtz there was a general neglect of Darwinism and a consensus that it was irrelevant. They tended to take the organism as given and focused on its current state. Physiologists posited a binary state of normality/health vs. pathology. Where a condition was seen as pathological, the goal was to learn how to manipulate in order to restore the organism to its “normal”, healthy condition. So physiologists would naturally tend toward seeking control since they undertook their work within the framework of this normal-pathological binary, with the focus being on pathology and the goal being to change this to the opposite state. This laid the groundwork for subsequent developments.
The lust for control above all other things loomed ever larger. Starting in the 1870s such practitioners as plant physiologist Julius Sachs, his student Jacques Loeb, and Justus Gaule rejected the normality/pathology binary and increasingly focused on physiological manipulation as such, without regard to whether it was in the direction of the organism’s better or worse health. Bolstered by the instrumental science philosophy of Ernst Mach and the techno-evangelism of Mach’s close associate Josef Popper-Lynkeus, researchers within this framework relinquished any concern for whether or not scientific research or technological development produced humanly beneficial results. Technological control and manipulation as such was religiously assumed to be its own self-caused primary value, with all other values subordinate to it. These researchers added to their negligent contempt for Darwinism the attitude that since health vs. sickness, comfort vs. pain, normality vs. pathology were meaningless distinctions, so it followed that natural evolution vs. technologically accomplished laboratory manipulation was also a meaningless distinction.
They were explicit that even what almost anyone would call a lab-created monstrosity was just as natural as a healthy, normally developed creature in the wild. Thus when Loeb crowed in a letter to Mach about having created in his lab two-headed tubularia (instead of their usual “head” and “foot”) through manipulation of stimuli, he went on to insist that to call such a lab creation a monster logically would be the same as to call inanimate technology like the telegraph “monstrous”. In accord with his denial of distinctions within the organic state, Loeb denied there was any difference between animate and inanimate matter. Therefore the engineer’s manipulation and control of life was indistinguishable from his manipulation of metals or stone, and the biological engineer was concerned with nothing more or less than developing a “technology of living substance.”
This was the commencement of a purely nihilist, instrumental, and ultimately mercenary trend which views biological science as nothing but the subordinate tool of engineering, and the goal of engineering to be nothing but maximizing biological control. This engineering goal was then read back into biological science itself, which the engineer defines simply as the description of the ways in which natural or engineered stimuli control the behavior of organisms. From this point of view knowledge and understanding in themselves are superfluous. These matter only insofar as they’re necessary to augment control. From there the goal is to maximize the “cultural power” (Loeb) of technology and, on the social and political level, to institute technocracy. This was the program Mach and Popper-Lynkeus laid out, what they touted as the true measure of bourgeois Progress. Practitioners like Loeb seek to develop science on this basis, not even as applied science, but the complete redefinition of science as a supplement to engineering. Within this paradigm, science and technology are not to be seen as tools for human benefit and well-being, but as a rationalized measure of Progress. This measure is nothing but Might Makes Right, the ability of engineers, as the elite torch-bearers of humanity, to exert power over nature, the power of control and manipulation without reference to any other measure or value. Just power as such. For these ideologues, nothing is real but the ability to control the behavior of organisms through the manipulation of stimuli and, today, the genetic structure of the organism.
In the 20th century this engineering ideology rose to become one of the main elements of scientism, and today we have the most extravagant manifestation of this instrumental mentality with genetic engineering. Here we have the most extreme juxtaposition of the mentality of control for control’s sake with an utter disdain for any underlying scientific knowledge and a complete contempt for fact or truth.
The preoccupation of genetic engineers with nothing but gutter control motivations stands out where we encounter their seeming lack of even the most basic knowledge of genetic science. If we accept their claims at face value, they seem completely ignorant of how genes work, how proteins are produced, how proteins function, or how environment affects genetic processes. For detail on this see my essay, “There is No Science of Genetic Engineering”.
What’s abundantly clear is that genetic engineering has nothing to with the precise application of scientific knowledge nor with precision techniques. On the contrary, it’s always been based on nothing but brute force empiricism. From the gene gun used to literally blast the transgenic material into the recipient cells to the sloppy application of antibiotics or herbicides to locate the transgene-infused cells to the extremely wasteful processes of tissue culture and greenhouse and field trials to the crackpot eyeballing involved in selecting the ancestral GMO plants from which all subsequent seeds are produced, the whole process is nothing but throwing gobs of money and energy at the problem to find a result which looks vaguely like the one the cultists and corporations then advertise.
It’s easy to see why genetic engineers have always disdained the admonition that they need to have any knowledge whatsoever of agronomy. For them the only meaningful “knowledge” is whatever is required for the laboratory engineering process. Their idiot arrogance assumes that this should be sufficient to subjugate nature in the crop and and in the field. This is a big part of the reason why GMOs are such inferior, shoddy, failure-prone products. The inferiority of the product is the logical outcome of the myopically reductive, anti-intellectual, anti-scientific ideology which went into engineering it. Garbage in, garbage out.
Given the engineer ideology, in conjunction with the sleazy profiteering of the corporations, it’s no surprise that the quality of the product doesn’t matter at all. The attitude that technological manipulation as such is the highest religious value implies that the product doesn’t actually have to work in any constructive way, just as long as it “works” in some abstract way, to the engineer’s satisfaction. As Loeb’s biographer put it, “The nature of the product was less important than the extent and ease of manipulation.” Consequently, the engineers and fanboys of GMOs join the corporate marketing bureau in having zero compunction about endlessly regurgitating basic empirical lies about the performance of the product: The fact that GMOs require increased pesticide use, that they yield less, that products like “golden rice” or “GM drought resistant maize” are hoaxes, etc. For devotees of the religion of technology-based control, the idea of GMOs is infinitely more important than the real world product itself. Since the lies only touch the real thing while the fantasies soar into the realm of the religious ideal, they see no ethical reason not to lie. This is a fundamental trait of their being.
In the same way, they tell such “science” lies as that genetic engineering has anything in common with conventional breeding or natural evolution. This overriding contempt for how evolution works adds up to what is, unlike prior strains, a systemically dangerous form of evolution denial. This is because the GMO ideology seeks to force upon the entirety of global agriculture a maladapted, dangerously narrow slice of agricultural genetics which is suffused with mutations which can manifest unpredictably at any time during the course of the transgenic crop’s generations if it meets a particular environmental challenge. The GMO cult wants to do this all at once, in an instant, without even the slightest allowance for evolution’s natural tempo and the challenges it normally poses to any new biological form. Such an agricultural system is cruising for a major fall which will dwarf the 1970 Southern Corn Leaf Blight pandemic, also caused by dangerously narrow genetics. If a cabal were to set out intentionally to render humanity vulnerable to the most dire extremes of famine, it could hardly do better than set up the conditions corporate agriculture, in conjunction with the GMO scientism cult, is currently trying to establish. None of this matters to the cultists since they’re in the tradition of the biological control process itself being the one and only value.
The influence of this ideology also explains the rampant confusion of science and technology, including the common misconception that the deployment of GMOs, and to a large extent their development, is a “science” matter, when in reality science has almost nothing to do with it. Where the hysterical shrieks of “anti-science!!!” aren’t just lies, it’s the confused engineers and their even more confused fanboys deluding themselves that engineers are scientists, and that science is a part of engineering and even subordinate to it. The phenomenon is basically a major trend of anti-intellectualism within the scientific and engineering establishment. Today’s paid liars, in turn, take advantage of this prior ideological confusion.
To sum up, the corporate subsidy system and brute economic muscle of the US, UK, Indian, and other governments are expended to make the GMO cartel profitable. Within this framework the engineering cult performs its religious rites for its own vanity and edification-via-manipulation. This is the only edification they desire, since they hold firm to the ideology that the description of the lab manipulation and its effects is the science. Control = Science = religious faith.
Of course, just as Loeb and his botanical teacher Sachs weren’t content sticking with plants, so today’s genetic engineering cultists regard agricultural GMOs merely as an intermediate step toward a full program of GE eugenics. There’s several practical reasons for this. Sachs consciously regarded his study and experimental control of plant tropism as preparation toward the same work with animals. Similarly, the genetic engineering of plants is, technically and politically, practice for doing the same with animals and humans. At least as important, agricultural GMOs are highly profitable and therefore research toward them brings lavish funding to control-fixated biological scientists and technicians. All this enables the general eugenic research work to go on with only moderate public concern and opposition.
But the basic logic is clear, and the engineers have always been upfront about it: Agricultural GMOs = animal genetic engineering = human genetic engineering. All of this is toward the goal of total control, both as a scientific/engineering imperative, and of course from the point of view of political and economic tyranny, with which today’s scientific establishment willingly has become conjoined.
If humanity is to overcome this great threat to its freedom, health, prosperity, and its very existence, we must overcome and replace not only the evil political and economic ideology of modern times, but the nihilist mercenary ideology which has hijacked science. True science benefits and upholds health and freedom. We must redeem it for our future.