Volatility

April 3, 2019

No One (Yet) Wants to Change Anything But the Climate

<

 
 
Over my years of writing about pesticides-GMOs and fruitlessly trying to find comrades for an abolitionist project (never found a single one), I’ve often observed that if I were a Monsanto hack I’d say to the anti-GMO people: “There’s quite a gap between your rhetoric about the extreme dangers of these products, and the paltriness of your preferred solutions. GMO labeling? Really? Surely if the peril were as dire as you say, you’d be calling for something rather more intrepid.”
 
This is true, and we can say the same about the climate crisis, and the greater ecological crisis of which climate change is just one part, not even the acutely worst part.
 
The science – both observed and projected – becomes ever more apocalyptic. And the gap between the science and the pathetic solutions touted by those same scientists and climate activists becomes an ever wider abyss.
 
The scientists could say they’ve confirmed that a twenty-mile wide asteroid will hit the Earth in two days, and their recommendation would continue to be: Electric cars, “Green New Deals”, “Green growth!”…Green jobs!…Keep Shopping!
 
Thus, the ultimate disaster capitalism is what they call “Green Capitalism”.
 
(Here’s a good summary of the ideology of the capitalist faction which sees a new profiteering and political opportunity within the crisis they and their fellow capitalist factions are driving as hard as they can. As the piece says, the likes of the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg are tending a Green New Deal stable along with their more usual ones. As this propagandist of Dominion and Destruction gleefully proclaims, “it’s capitalist vs. capitalist”, and only good capitalists can and should be allowed to exist on their heat-scoured rock. But the evidence is that the rock shall rock them first.)
 
If I were a de jure climate denier (the type I describe above is the de facto denier, the climate crocodile crying fake tears, the type which acknowledges the crisis but then flips 180 degrees to claim the crisis can be met within the framework of the ecocidal civilization which congenitally causes and escalates it), if I were a de jure climate denier I’d observe that this abyss between prediction and preferred “solution” proves that all these climate activists are frauds. Which of course they are, since they’re just the other kind of denier.
 
None of them wants or can even conceive what’s necessary: Gaia and the economic civilization cannot co-exist. They are mutually exclusive. Industrial civilization inherently wages total aggressive war to exterminate Gaia, until Gaia finally smashes civilization like a bug. Civilization must go, one way or another. Homo domesticus, already in its 1945 hunkering in the bunker like Hitler, will insist on going out in the hardest, most destructive way possible. The very fact that Green Capitalism is the preferred religion of the overwhelming majority of “eco”-type persons is the best proof of this. Only a handful of Gaians, only a handful of deep ecologists will ever exist.
 
I’ve often stated the one and only one solution which in theory humanity could impose upon itself, but which in practice the Earth will impose upon it:
 
End all industrial emissions; end all destruction of sinks; work only in a way that rebuilds sinks. Above all, allow nature to resume its natural states of forest, wetland, grassland.
 
Of course there’s zero chance the civilization or any part of it will do this. Gaia herself will impose it in her time tested way. In the end, and likely sooner rather than later, Gaia will deal with this berserk global infestation the same way she’s always dealt regionally with regional infestations.
 
Civilization must go. The only question is whether humanity itself (just one of civilization’s many victims) must go extinct with it. The civilization certainly will try to take out the species itself. As we see in Brazil, the Philippines, Africa, Canada, everywhere, civilization is striving to complete the genocide of what remains of indigenous and traditional peoples before time runs out for it. It also will become more and more aggressive in trying to stamp out the rising movements from within it, movements toward community food, homesteading, any form of reskilling and adapting to a more resilient, more ecological, therefore more human way of life. Whether the civilization can exterminate the human species is the great question of our time. We who work to help the traditional nations and build new second nation movements are the ones trying to save the spirit and existence of humanity from the mass extinction being driven as the core project of the orcs, the berserkers, the psychopaths, the “civilized” hominids.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

February 5, 2019

Anthrop-obscene

>

They call this “the natural rhythm and harmony” of the forest.

 
 
(The clear-cut in that photo was approved by the Forest Stewardship Council, a mainstay of the proposition that in order to save the Earth you have to destroy it.)
 
I’ve been reading a book about trees which began very well and has rhapsodic descriptions of forest and soil ecology. But here in the second chapter I already run into an all too common piece of vicious ideology, the false notion that modern commodity production can be assimilated to “natural” rhythms and harmonies. (The author uses those words.)
 
Since it’s still early in the book I won’t name it yet, since I don’t want to sound like a panning review of what’s been mostly a very good book. Maybe this will just turn out to be a lapse. But I’m mentioning this because it goes to show how deep the rot runs even among those most seemingly conscious of the ecology, where they’ve nevertheless been corrupted by the economic civilization and feel the need to shill for it.
 
To be clear, those who claim that modern production-consumption can be ecological and evolutionary are claiming that leaping from the roof of a hundred-story skyscraper is the same thing as slowly descending a staircase. They claim that the radical acceleration and impact don’t add up to a qualitative difference, though none of them seems willing to test out their theory in practice. In reality this is such a difference as to comprise an attempt by modern civilization to leap completely out of all ecological frameworks and out of evolution itself.
 
This is the purpose of the “Anthropocene” propaganda gambit. More and more civilizationists sense the self-destructiveness of their onslaught, how this can’t be sustained for much longer, and they feel the ground shake under their feet.
 
But they’re religiously committed to all the aspects of the extreme energy civilization: Dominion theology (in its original de jure Christian form or in its secularized economic/science version), production-consumption, capitalism, scientism, “progress”, Mammon. Therefore they can’t face the truth, so they’ve cobbled together the “anthropocene” ideology which tries to normalize civilization’s anti-ecological depredations simply by plotting a new name on the geophysiological timeline to characterize the period where modern civilization has been destroying humanity and the Earth. In this way they try to convince themselves that everything happening is “natural” and therefore sustainable. Therefore their Sodom and Gomorrah saturnalia of murder and destruction can continue. As the mythologist put it, they’ll continue “free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and reveling in joy. The liberated Old Ones [fossil fuels] would teach them new ways to shout and kill and revel and enjoy themselves, and all the earth will flame with a holocaust of ecstasy and freedom.”
 
The lie of the anthropocene is for those who feel qualms about this but are determined to continue regardless. The mainstream environmental movement, especially the climate-industrial movement, long has served the same purpose, to help hand-wringing crocodile-tearing good Western middle-class individualists to have their fake idea of “saving the earth” while continuing to murder it.
 
And yet the very fact of the growing popularity of this ideology (even corporations and conservatives mostly have moved on from direct climate denial to various profitable “green” scams) is a symptom of the deteriorating moral and existential confidence of the civilizationists. Those who are self-confident don’t need such ideological justifications, they just go ahead and do what they want without thinking about it. But we see how today’s status quo-mongers feel the need to reassure themselves and find retorts to the rising recognition that this civilization is destroying the Earth and that there is no way forward within this framework.
 
Of course, the anthropocene/greenscam ideology which would try to “ecologize” eco-destruction contradicts another fundamental of civilization, the Dominion theology of Man vs. Nature, Nature as an enemy to be subjugated and exploited by Man, a woman to be raped by science (h/t Francis Bacon), an automaton to be tortured (Descartes), Gaia as the realm of Satan to be Reclaimed in preparation for the Rapture/Second Coming/Singularity.
 
But as we see, the most shrill priests and devotees of the Christian-Scientism dominion theology don’t have much confidence in it. They shriek so hysterically in a vain try to prop up their own faltering faith.
 
And this inability to sustain their direct belligerence, their good conscience in their own murderousness, is what’s causing so many of them to resort to the anodyne of trying to convince themselves that their dominion isn’t really a war on nature at all, but a part of nature.
 
Gaia ain’t buying it.
 
 
 
 
 
 

February 4, 2019

Resource Curse

>

The Dominion Civilization’s vision for all Earth.

 
 
Civilized hominids curse themselves and the Earth whole with their Dominionist tenet of commodity “resources” and assembly-line practice of extracting them, systematically turning vibrance to stasis, life to death.
 
At this late existential stage of the religious-economic and ecological crisis, a sane government which really wanted the best for the people would launch a crash program to break free of fossil fuel dependency. This is especially true for oil and gas producers like Venezuela, whose dependency on oil exports guarantees they remain at best a US-colonized power, all the while requiring the physical destruction of their own land and the biological basis of their future life.
 
If a nation has committed itself to:
 
(1) A de facto colonized extraction-based economy (which also involves physically destroying your own country as profoundly as if from an external military attack);
 
(2) Which is at the mercy of a global commodity system;
 
(3) Which is controlled by vastly more powerful forces which are aggressive, militarist bullies under the best of circumstances and are irrationally hostile toward that nation in particular;
 
Then I don’t see any way to exist other than at the mercy of such hostile forces. I don’t know what possible way out Venezuela has within the framework of the globalized extreme energy civilization.
 
 
I’m not just saying this about Venezuela, although its destruction of the Orinoco rain forest which sustains all of our physical lives in order to extract heavy oil is perhaps the most extreme example on Earth of the self-destroying paradigm. The Bolivarians have continued erecting their oil sands necropolis, the rest of their cities being voluntary tributaries of it.
 
But the same is true of all colonized extraction zones and the people who inhabit them, up to and including America’s death zones of fracking, mountaintop removal coal mining, and the destruction swathes driven by pipelines.
 
Any country afflicted with the oil curse ought to treat the deposits like very hot radioactive waste and enforce at all costs a Chernobyl-type no-go zone. This also would conserve critical ecologies like the Amazon. If enough places did this simultaneously it would prevent the US from “opening them up” by force and accelerate the collapse of the empire and its globalization system. But any place which doesn’t do this automatically becomes a de facto colony and a target for US aggression intended to turn them into a de jure colony, as we see in Venezuela’s case.
 
From the evidence it seems that in the end an ideology like Bolivarianism isn’t offering any real alternative to the US paradigm. Both equally want to burn every last fossil BTU’s worth, pump every last Earth-heating CO2 molecule, hack down and burn every last acre of forest. Both are on the same mass murder-suicide ride.
 
Do the Venezulean people really want no better life than this? The American people sure seem to want the worst, for themselves and everyone else.