August 11, 2017

Politics is Dead. The Situation Today


There’s lots of arguments in today’s Western “politics” about how to arrange these, but nothing more.

Most, regardless of their superficial politics, still believe they personally will have a lucrative career within the productionist/consumerist system. Many believe they will someday, somehow, be rich.
Most, regardless of superficial politics, still believe in civilization’s infinite energy consumption forever. This includes most who pay lip service to resource limits.
Most, regardless of superficial politics, still believe the status quo path is the path of progress, and everything will turn out for the best as long as humanity stays the course.
Almost none have liberated themselves from these. That’s why no coherent social/cultural/political movement has arisen against the productionist, extreme energy system. A prerequisite for this is that a sufficient number of articulate people must psychologically burn their bridges and irrevocably renounce all religious faith in the productionist global system. But so far humanity lacks even a small cadre of writers and intellectuals who can begin systematically propagating the new and necessary truths. So far all intellectuals remain co-opted and system-coordinated. But history proves that one of the surest indicators of a coming revolutionary situation, probably a necessary precondition, is that a tangible faction burn its bridges and turn definitively against the system, and actively propagate the reasons why.
At the moment there seems not to be any politically radical situation on the immediate horizon. (Except, of course, for what be any objective measure is the extreme radicalism of the status quo; let’s never forget that objectively we’re the moderates, while it’s today’s governments, corporations, scientific establishment, and mainstream media who are history’s most radical nihilist bomb-throwers.) What is the situation?
1. All the evidence is that corporations are destructive in every way, and we’d be much better off without them. (Even by middle class capitalist measures, those who think a mass middle class is desirable would be better off.)
2. But people don’t want to know this evidence. They prefer to believe Randroid lies that corporations are the “wealth creators”, the “job creators”. Why do people, including almost all progressives and most alleged radicals, keep voting for corporate rule and otherwise supporting it?
3. Probably part of it is path dependency. The people, and especially the cultural/intellectual elites, have become used to corporations being the main organizational form of capitalism and regard it as too difficult to think of switching to a different capitalist mode of organization, even if in the long run that would be better. (That’s even assuming the immortality of capitalism, let alone the economic and physical fact that capitalism, and productionism as such, are mortal and will soon die of resource limits the way a fly trapped indoors becomes sluggish and dies.)
4. But I think the main reason lies much deeper. Although the people steadily are being liquidated economically and physically, for the moment they’re still beneficiaries of the corporate West’s system of looting the planet and humanity so that a small group can squat on the surface of the Earth as parasites. Westerners are inured to this parasite existence and don’t want to give it up. They cling to it. They don’t even want to think about the proposition that if they were to transform their lives by taking responsibility for themselves and working to earn their keep as part of the ecology, they’d be much happier and more fulfilled, and over the longer run they’d sustain a much better material existence since industrial agriculture and all other systems based on infinite fossil fuels must inevitably collapse, and because the corporations led by the banks inexorably are liquidating them anyway.
5. But they feel the ground shaking and sense that all this must perish, that their own parasitism is running out of time, that capitalism is mortal. This gives them two reasons to double down on corporate rule.
(A) If time is running out, there’s no time to spare to transform capitalism. The “longer run” of an “improved capitalism” would never have time to exist anyway, so there’s no point reforming capitalism itself. (This explains the typical falsity of all claims of alleged reformists. The very notion is self-contradicting, since why would you as a pro-capitalist plant the seed of a tree which you sense will never have time to grow?) It’s similar to those who think the rapture will come soon, so why not trash the Earth.
(B) Desperate times call for desperate measures, and for those committed to faith in capitalism and parasitism like I described above, the less sustainable mundane belief in the perpetuity of growth capitalism becomes, the more necessary it becomes to resort to deranged Randroid notions. This is the path from toleration of corporations, to exalting them, to seeing them as actual “persons”, along the way developing an increasingly intense superstition, bordering on religion, about money and fictive numbers like GDP, trade balance, etc. The next logical step will some form of worshiping the corporations. All this is because it seems the only way to prop up belief in the perpetuation of the parasite way of life.
6. This also is part of the willingness and eagerness of the scientism/technocracy cult to be coordinated by corporate rule. They too see their own perpetuation as dependent in this way. Productionist STEM types have to be Randroids in order to believe they can overcome the Earth’s strong inertia to slough them off of its surface like the parasites they are.
7. And it goes toward the leftist tendency to regress to bourgeois ideology where it comes to scientism and technocracy. Since most Western leftists, just as much as any other Westerners, are physical parasites at the expense of humanity and Earth and want to be parasites, they too theologically must believe in the immortality of growth capitalism. They’ll continue to pay lip service to “liberating” all the machinery for the people; this explains the reactionary adherence of many of them to Marxism long after its disproof by history. But this is the same scam liberals run, pretending to want power for the people, really wanting it for themselves, and really to conserve the power of the existing elites. They’re really just talking about sustaining their own parasitism, by serving as misdirectional propagandists for the corporate system.
But rather than directly genuflect before the corporations the way the liberals and STEMs do, the pseudo-radicals launder their corporatism through scientism/technocracy. But since the corporations control science and engineering (as per Historical Materialism 101, as any real leftist would know), it amounts to the same thing.
8. All of which explains the great popularity among liberals, leftists, as well as many conservatives, of any version of “we can save the earth, avert the worst of climate change, attain socioeconomic equity/justice, within capitalism.”
Because all of these beliefs are false, because it’s all based on the plunder and destruction of humanity and the Earth, because it’s all evil, and because it’s physically impossible to sustain; because in all these ways the fundamentals are rotten, the result, for those committed to the “politics” of wickedness and impossibility, must become increasingly deranged, self-destructive, and eventually suicidal.
One predicted result is the advent of the likes of Trump. Trump is the logical product of the system. Not just Republicans, but Democrats, and all adherents of electoralism as this system has it, voted 100% for Trump.
As they are evidently committed to doubling down on this exact same course, having learned nothing and forgotten nothing, they’ll soon vote unanimously for far worse than Trump. It’s hardwired into their pathology.

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.

April 20, 2017

Destinies: Dependent and Independent of Corporate Domination


All corporate security is the same.

This is true, spoken by an EU Green Parliament member against the European Food Safety Agency: “It is not your destiny to be independent. You rely on studies by industry. You have no means of commissioning independent studies….Stop pretending you are an independent institution.” That’s about the best we can expect from electoral representatives within the corporate system, from parties dedicated to “reforming”, i.e. preserving, the corporate system. In the end the goal of electoralism is the same as the goal of regulatory agencies, to ensure that all possible destinies remain within the bounds of corporate domination.
One of the tasks of the abolitionists, and of all who seek a human destiny free of corporate rule is to use such facts (the EFSA’s complete subservience to industry, as detailed for the millionth time in the piece linked above; here’s more) and such testimony to go one better and speak, not within the elitist framework as those already within it always do (the above quote is not packaged rhetorically for the people but was directed at the EFSA’s chief), but directly to the people, speaking the much greater truth: We must renounce and obliterate religious faith in agencies like the EFSA or EPA and the inherently pro-poison regulatory model upon which they’re founded.
Unfortunately, system NGOs have an opposed ideology. GMWatch testifies:

GMWatch and many other NGOs, however, advocate that regulatory and expert advisory bodies like EFSA should not rely on studies directly sponsored by industry – but they also insist that the public should not pay for them.

The groups have long advocated a system whereby money for safety studies is provided by the industry that wishes to bring a product to market. The money would be paid into a publicly administered fund, which would use it to commission independent laboratories to carry out safety studies.

All results would have to be published on the Internet before the product came to market, putting an end to the current system whereby the studies are the proprietary data of industry and are kept secret.

Both EU laws and international agreements reached under the auspices of the OECD would need to be changed to accommodate the new system. But it is the bare minimum of reform that is needed to restore public trust in the regulatory framework for risky substances such as pesticides and GMOs.

And I wish I had a billion dollars. Indeed this goes into the territory of infantile fantasy. Where has this ever been done? Where has there ever existed such a political campaign, which would be designed like these NGOs and share their ideology, but be rather more assertive in action. Here’s the traits of such an organization:
**Pro-capitalist, pro-corporate, wanting to co-exist with poison-based agriculture but wanting really to regulate it, wonkish, enamored of complex funding and assessment mechanisms which nevertheless would maintain integrity, believing in the essential goodness of people even within the framework of profit-seeking and “competition”, possessing the political and cultural skill to communicate all this coherently to enough people to muster broad, active political support for this system, and most of all having the organizational strength, relentlessness, ruthlessness, and force of will necessary to remain permanently vigilant and at a state of high alert against the attrition and corruption of this bureaucratic system.**
Most astounding of all, many who believe in this fantastic Millennium (which has been disproven by the facts over and over) then turn around and claim they’re being “practical” while abolitionism is “unrealistic”. Nowhere has the insanity of modern politics more profoundly turned truth upside down and forced words to mean the opposite of what they really mean than where liberal and reformist types invert the words “practical” and “pragmatic” to mean their exact opposite, the most extreme, impossible fantasies.
In fact such fantasy isn’t the real goal of these NGOs, but merely is religious cant they ritually recite. If you have any doubt about how NGOs like GMWatch consider their mission really to be propping up faith in the corporate system, Monsanto and all, whether they’re conscious of this or not, read again the final line in that quote: “[I]t is the bare minimum of reform that is needed to restore public trust in the regulatory framework for risky substances such as pesticides and GMOs.”
Quite a peculiar way of putting things, isn’t it? (And it’s not unusual; on the contrary it’s a desire they frequently express.) You might think the primary goal is the health of the people and environment, the safety of our food and water, with “the regulatory framework” being just one of many possible strategies toward this goal, to be assessed and used or not used depending upon whether or not it works. You might think “public trust in the regulatory framework” can be good or evil depending on what this framework really is and what it does, and must never be a goal in itself.
But this was not a mistaken formulation on their part. As the quote expresses, system NGOs truly do believe their primary goal is to keep the corporate project going, as I have written so many times in describing the corporate-technocratic regulatory template (most recently here). Therefore where it comes to regulation the number one priority of system NGOs is to prop up faith in the regulatory framework as such. Meanwhile the number one priority of the regulator is to ensure that the corporate project goes forward. The regulator may curb or more often only pretends to curb the worst “abuses”, while the NGO pretends to be vigilant in ensuring the regulator carries out its own pretense. Then both assure the public that everything is fine, the system is working as it should, corporate poisons are being deployed only in “safe” ways, and that everyone can go about their private lives and forget about public matters. Most of all, everyone can stop even thinking about politics. The regulator vouches for the corporation and, for the constituency among the people for whom the regulator’s word isn’t enough, the NGO vouches for the regulator. Thus the regulator is running a scam and the NGO is running a meta-scam, a scam squared. The goal is to ensure that all possible destinies remain within the corporate-normative paradigm.
We can go further. The system NGOs work to set up a technocratic, “expert”-brokered paradigm of “politics”, wherein the people are supposed to do nothing but assimilate the news as provided by the NGO, do politically only what the NGO tells them to do (usually sign petitions and sometimes “call your Congressman”), and of course keep sending money. The goal is to ensure that all possible political destinies remain within the corporate-normative framework.
We see how for system NGOs the regulatory model is the object of religious worship and its perpetuation the focus of all their activity. Thus, as GMWatch says here, the most important thing is to prop up public faith in the regulator at all costs and without reference to whether or not this system “works” toward any other goal. The formulation is clear: The regulatory system’s existence is the priority, what it actually does is of secondary importance at best. This follows perfectly the regulatory template I’ve discussed dozens of times. For recent discussions see here, here, and here.
And then this strain of the technocratic religion goes hand in hand with the religion of electoralism, “voting” as an object of religious worship rather than just a tactic toward a concrete goal. We see how in both cases the pseudo-political religion is ultimately opposed to abolitionism and to any movement which is honest, which has a concrete goal, and which embraces this goal as the non-negotiable priority, placing all else in the realm of tactics to be assessed in a purely practical, rational way.
We see the extreme difference and opposition between movements whose goal is concrete, and status quo religions like electoralism and regulator-ism whose non-negotiable goals are nothing but fog and diffusion: Voting as such, the regulatory model as such. For these the only real goal is to ensure that all possible political destinies remain within the corporate framework.
And then both of these cults are part of the broad infamy of neoliberalism, whose ideology is corporate-technocratic domination and whose strategy is to use the forms of democracy, not just to come to power in the first place as in the case of classical fascism, but to maintain power and become ever more totalitarian while using a minimum of direct, overt coercion and violence.
We see how electoralism turned out to be a world-historical mistake on humanity’s part. At least for the duration of the fossil-fuel era, we must understand that it can never be a value or goal in itself but only a tactic to be used or not according to circumstance.
As for the regulatory model, it always was transparently a fraud, and in any event the history of over a century is unequivocal. That’s especially true of the regulation of broadly deployed corporate poisons like agroechemicals. It’s been a long, long time since anyone could claim to be innocently mistaken about the likes of the EPA or EFSA. To still espouse faith in this model can only be terminal conformism, stupidity, and corruption. Most of all, it reveals that one is indelibly a technocracy believer and a believer in corporate rule. One believes only in destinies that are encompassed within the death zone of corporate dominion. That says it all, and whether or not one’s petty preference is then to attempt to “regulate” some “abuses” is just a minor detail, a consumerist lifestyle ornament. It has no political substance, and no relation to any reality-based, concrete, necessary goal such as the great need to abolish agricultural poisons. But only those who follow the paths of necessity can even envision a destiny independent of corporate domination and all its evils.
Help propagate the necessary ideas.