Volatility

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.
 
 
 

April 15, 2017

GMOs, Corporate Science, and the Culture of the Lie (The Cornell/Monsanto Alliance)

>

Today’s establishment science is corporate “science”

 
 
The so-called Cornell Alliance for Science has nothing to do with science but rather is a political front funded by Bill Gates and designed to muster pro-GM activism and package it with a fraudulent pseudo-scientific sheen. Its existence is exemplary of the complete fraudulence and lack of the most basic integrity on the part of today’s universities and scientific establishment. These have long since jettisoned any scientific integrity they ever had and have transformed themselves into nothing but corporate PR fronts. The Cornell/Monsanto project is among the most prominent and formally instituted of these front groups.
 
Today the Alliance has a new scam going. This is a survey of selected industry tests which purports to analyze whether or not the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is correct in asserting a “consensus” on GMO safety. Self-evidently there is no such consensus, so on its face the AAAS is simply propagating a political lie in claiming there is. See here for another typical AAAS systematic fraud on the public, this one in collaboration with the Pew Center.
 
As we see, the AAAS itself is a corporate marketing division, not a science organization. So when Cornell’s Alliance analyzes the AAAS’s claim it’s pure theater, one propagandist trying to launder another. I suppose the AAAS then can review the Alliance’s proclamations and find them correct. But just as regulators like the EPA and EFSA do nothing but launder propaganda which is conveyed to them by Monsanto, so these sham pseudo-scientific outfits do nothing but the same. See here for similar lies on the part of the National Academy of Science. Someone needs to design a meme: Monsanto in big letters in the center, with arrows radiating out directly to the names of regulatory agencies and “science” fronts, these names circling the center. That would be an accurate symbolic rendering of reality.
 
Today’s STEM establishment comprises nothing more or less than a corporate research and propaganda bureau. It considers this corporate science paradigm to constitute science as such, and when they say “science” they mean, in all sincerity, “whatever the corporate marketing department decrees.” History will look back in astonishment and disgust at how the science community threw away its entire legitimacy, laboriously built over centuries, for nothing but to serve as PR flacks for a handful of agrochemical, tobacco, and similar poison-peddling corporations. Why did they do throw it all away? For nothing but the most gutter impulses of hate and power.
 
 
Thus the Gates/Cornell Alliance is recruiting “citizen scientists”, which means paid and volunteer Monsanto operatives and techno-fundamentalists, to survey only the abstracts of the selected industry “studies”. This is because all industry tests engage in many kinds of methodological fraud. By sticking only with the abstracts, each of which is just a non-technical summary of the study written according to the interpretative biases of the researchers, the Cornell Alliance plans to suppress knowledge of the massive scientific fraud and propagate only a summation of the non-scientific, political covering statements of the corporate-funded researchers.
 
For a quick review, all industry tests have been rigged in at least one way: Their length is far shorter than the normal lifespan of the animal, two years in the case of rats. Ninety days is a standard length for corporate rat studies. This is meant to ensure that chronic health dangers are unlikely to manifest during the duration of the test. Most studies also don’t compare the effects of eating the GM feed to the effects of a non-GM diet based on the non-GM equivalent of the GM variety. Nor are the alleged control groups fed a non-GM, non-pesticide laden diet. This is meant to obfuscate any effect which might manifest.
 
Almost all industry tests are the most minimal kinds of feeding tests, meant to ensure that a CAFO animal fed on GM-based feed will quickly put on weight and not immediately drop dead from acute toxicity. These trials never tested for other kinds of toxicity or for chronic health effects. But the corporations, mainstream media, and pseudo-science media like the Cornell Alliance and the AAAS then fraudulently claim these were legitimate food safety tests with relevance for humans eating such a diet over a lifetime. Picture if we organized a test which would feed human subjects nothing but large amounts of cake, pastries, ice cream, candy, etc. for 60 days (and with no exercise), with our only measure being to test whether the subjects would gain weight and not drop dead. Then afterward we trumpet the test as having proven that such a diet is healthy over the long run. That’s what’s been going on with these corporate feeding trials. True scientists reject these industry tests as nothing but systematic fraud. According to Nuremburg standards the Cornell Alliance propagandists are criminals for propagating this lie.
 
Even many of these tests nevertheless have found evidence of biological changes and toxicity. Such evidence is routinely dismissed as “insignificant” or suppressed completely by the researchers, often through the methodological fraud of trumping up enough “historical control groups” to introduce enough irrelevant noise to drown out whatever data signal the experiment actually generated. Of course all such evidence is censored out of the study abstracts. This is why Cornell will be citing only the abstracts and not the studies themselves, to censor out of existence any element of the actual studies which goes against the party line.
 
This latest gambit of the Cornell/Monsanto Alliance for Junk Science is typical of the relentless, congenital lying of all pro-GMO activists. (This is a historical fact. From the beginning in the early 1970s genetic engineers and their publicists and fanboys never were willing rationally to justify and defend their endeavor. On the contrary, from day one they resorted to epithets and insults, and quickly to systematic lying. The culture of the lie is endemic to all such technocratic endeavor.)
 
Credentialed “scientists” and other cadres are especially shameless and aggressive in their lies, and they provide the lies which then are widely deployed in the mainstream media and by politicians and other publicists. The Cornell Alliance for Science is dedicated to this propaganda mission, receiving the lies from the corporations and re-packaging them as “scientific” truth. Thus they’re now distilling the political abstracts from the industry’s own fraudulent feeding trials and will make their most aggressive attempt to claim these were food safety tests in the first place, and that these tests have found GMOs to be safe.
 
Thus the Cornell Alliance for Science, with full conscious malice aforethought, will tell the people that dangerous poison is safe to eat. This is the act of a gang of insidious murderers. Humanity must hold them to account.
 
 
 
 

April 11, 2017

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

>

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

April 1, 2017

The April Foolers of the Climate Crisis

>

The only world they know or want.

 
 
From a Greenpeace e-mail today, the subject heading and parts of the text:
 

Carbon Dioxide Declared Not a Primary Contributor to Global Warming

Nope, that’s no April Fool’s joke. Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, actually said he does not believe that carbon dioxide is a primary driver of global warming…

Our top government leaders are turning their backs on science. It’s going to take every one of us standing together to expose the truth, hold these climate deniers accountable, and stop Trump, Pruitt, and the fossil fuel industry from literally destroying the planet.

 
There’s no actual quote in the e-mail but I’ll take their word for it that Pruitt said that. Why not? His type says stuff like that all the time.
 
Of course at this site we’re more interested in the other, more virulent kind of climate denier who turns his back on science. This is the type who says they understand that carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to climate change but doesn’t actually want to do anything to reduce carbon in the atmosphere.
 
At this site we’ve declared many times the basic fact of climate change:
 
There is one and only one solution for averting the worst of climate change and for adapting to the level of crisis already locked in: 1. Greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 2. Stop destroying carbon and nitrogen sinks. 3. Rebuild sinks on a mass scale.
 
This will require a revolution of civilization. Most important, pressing, and direct, it requires that with all possible speed humanity must abolish industrial agriculture (the worst emitter and by far the worst destroyer of sinks) and undertake the global deployment of agroecology: The great rebuilder of sinks and the only way to produce sufficient and abundant food without extreme energy consumption; therefore the only way possible if humanity wants to continue to eat.
 
Anyone who says anything different is a joker, and anyone who says any version of “we can have it all”, that we can have the extreme energy mode of civilization (including the extreme emissions of fossil fuel extraction and burning, and including the campaign of destroying sinks inherent to industrial agriculture), is a fraud and a liar.
 
With that in mind, let’s see what this NGO has in mind where it comes to “every one of us standing together to expose the truth, hold these climate deniers accountable, and stop Trump, Pruitt, and the fossil fuel industry from literally destroying the planet.”
 

Join the Energy [R]evolution

With technology already available, renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal can provide 96 percent of our electricity and 98 percent of heating demand — the vast majority of U.S. energy use.

That’s not just good for the environment, it’s good for the economy, too. The solar industry already employs more people than coal mining and wind energy is cheaper than coal power in many U.S. states.

Still, we need more. We’ve got great opportunities today to build a cleaner energy system in time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Big companies like Apple and Google are setting great examples, committing to 100 percent renewable energy and making record-breaking investments in wind and solar. And across the country, everyday Americans are joining the energy revolution by through projects like community solar.

But they’re still the exception.

We’re campaigning to keep coal, oil and gas in the ground and build a United States powered by 100 percent renewable energy.

 
Now who’s the real April Foolers? Indeed, the hype for Google and Apple, and “big companies” as such, did make me laugh. But then my laughter turns to coldness. The solution to the evils being wrought by corporate rule, climate chaos just one of these, is to double down on corporate rule and leave everything exactly the same, including the ravages of industrial agriculture. Is there a lower vileness than this kind of lie? And am I the only one sick of it?
 
Meanwhile the cult fantasy of replacing the extreme energy consumption afforded by fossil fuels with industrial-scale renewable energy is simply idiotic and malign. Physically and economically, industrial-scale wind or solar always depends upon the regular fossil fuel foundation. I’ve felt like Diogenes when I looked for a renewables apostle who could answer the simple question: How could industrial-scale renewable energy support itself without massive use of fossil fuels? None could answer. Indeed, almost none seem capable even of understanding the question.
 
Beyond the physical logistics of a massive industrial renewables buildout there’s the extreme amount of metal mining it would require. So much for the ecological grace of renewables. Culturally, politically, economically, an industrial-scale renewables buildout is supposed to replace fossil fuels in powering what would otherwise be the same corporate globalization regime. Greenpeace, with its rah-rah Make America Great Again rhetoric and paeans to “big companies”, is crystal clear on that. Is that what you think of when you think of restoring our harmony and balance as part of the Earth? On the contrary, here we have ExxonMobil-style rioters and looters, promising to continue with all the political and spiritual evils of the corporate dominion. Here as always we see how the “reformers” are offering no alternative whatsoever.
 
And in fact this kind of reform is impossible. The entire paradigm of corporate rule and extreme energy consumption is at the core of the Earth’s crisis. The fact is that anyone who would want a high-consumption grid based on CSP and industrial wind megafarms never would care sincerely about replacing fossil fuels in the first place, only about supplementing them. If the primary imperative value is to feed the gluttonous consumption maw, then climate change and other environmental crises cannot stand as equally important. Thus it’s no surprise that every climate conference populated only by these technocratic types, congenitally committed to corporate rule and extreme energy consumption, produces nothing but sham accords which never roll back greenhouse gas emissions or the destruction of carbon sinks.
 
By contrast, if averting the worst of the crises is primary, then the notion of maximizing energy production would automatically cease to be a goal in itself. On the contrary, it would be recognized as the ultimate cause of the crises.
 
 
At the bottom the e-mail signs off with this flourish: “Pruitt’s outright lies about carbon dioxide fly in the face of everything the EPA has stood for. It’s more important than ever that we unite to expose the truth and stand for justice.”
 
This is a flat out lie, as is proven by the entire history of the EPA. (For an excellent history see E. Vallianatos’ Poison Spring.) This lie exposes the typical gatekeeper function of this typical system NGO, whose goal, much like that of the EPA itself, is to ensure that thought and action remain imprisoned within the bounds of corporate domination, including acquiescence in all the worst extremes of climate chaos, poisonism, and every other environmental catastrophe. All this is hard-wired into the corporate project, and system regulators and NGOs have the mission of ensuring that no one breaks free of faith in the normativity of this project. They function exclusively according to the corporate/technocratic template I’ve expounded dozens of times, most recently in writing about these same regulators including the EPA.
 
Of course they still have a constituency. All too many people want to co-exist with the Poisoners, fantasizing about something like the EPA as a watchdog and enforcer. But that role doesn’t really exist within the corporate system. The EPA does the job it was designed to do, assist the corporations while running propaganda interference and fooling people into thinking such a watchdog and enforcer can co-exist with corporate rule. But in fact such co-existence is impossible, any good civics notion of regulatory agencies is a scam, and there’s no alternative to complete abolition of the poisons.
 
It is indeed more important than ever that we unite to express the truth and stand for justice, which is why we must smash the religious cult of pro-corporate regulators, pro-corporate NGOs, and the whole pro-corporate “reformism” fraud they gather to perpetuate. Getting rid of false ideas about regulators is a necessary first step toward building the necessary abolitionist consciousness.
 
It should go without saying that poisonism and climate chaos comprise one crisis, one criminal campaign driven by the same corporate and government criminals, and have one solution. They are inextricable in every way. But then another common lie is to try to separate them.
 
Within the limits of existing politics, every day is April Fools’ Day. We who are not fools and are finished with fooling need a completely new movement.
 
 
Help propagate the new and necessary ideas.
 
 

March 24, 2017

All of Today’s Establishment Science is Ghost Written

>

And sustain your business’s “science” that way.

 
 
Last week we contemplated the revelations coming out the Monsanto cancer litigation. Monsanto has been forced by the court to divulge much hitherto secret information about its propaganda machine and how it has sought to cover up the facts about glyphosate’s cancerousness. The new information especially reinforces our longstanding knowledge of the real character of regulators like the EPA. Such regulatory agencies are indelibly pro-corporate and can never serve the people the way the good civics textbooks claim. They were designed to do the opposite, to assist corporate organized crime in looting and poisoning the people and destroying the environment.
 
Among the new proofs of what we already knew are the Monsanto e-mails crowing about their practice of getting academic scientists to put their names on papers written by Monsanto PR flacks. They call it “ghost writing”. Monsanto cadres discussed several specific examples including a pathologist at New York Medical College. Embarrassed that one of its prostitutes has been caught in the act, NYMC is scrambling to cover its tracks and promises to investigate the good doctor. Of course the kind of organization which doesn’t let it be known implicitly that such corruption is acceptable wouldn’t be the one caught sheltering it.
 
 
This is just de jure corruption, the more superficial kind. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.
 
What’s vastly greater and more profound is the inertia of the scientific establishment as such, which works predominantly to reinforce prevailing “scientific” dogmas. This is what Thomas Kuhn called “normal science”. These dogmas in turn are dictated by the elite power interests of a society. Under corporate rule, Western society exalts the corporate science paradigm.
 
Therefore, in a broader, deeper sense Monsanto and its fellow oligopoly corporations “ghost write” the entire establishment agenda for toxicological and cancer research, and the paradigm of “science” deployed by regulators. Even mavericks like Seralini tend to define themselves as reformers within this corporate normative framework.
 
But history proves that nothing short of scientific and social revolution can overthrow such entrenched, sclerotic, malign frameworks.
 
 
For a compendium of the fraudulent “science” of glyphosate deployed in publications written by industry and used as religious gospel by regulators, see the new report “Buying Science”.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

March 17, 2017

The Regulators’ Rearguard Fight for the Cancer Poisons

>

Where Gothic really does mean death.

 
 
Today we live in fear of cancer, one of the great and insidious fears deeply delving, haunting the civilized psyche. We know that the power structures ranging uncannily above us like storm clouds, pelting us unpredictably with rain and winds, are insinuating this cancer through the industrial poisons they pump into our air, water, and food. We know this adds up to an existential incarceration and we fear we’re on death row. People don’t know what to do, which is why denial is the most common response. To those who struggle to overcome denial, the corporate state directs its propaganda campaigns.
 
The most directly potent cancer agents are the agricultural poisons. Humanity has no choice but to come together as a movement dedicated to abolishing these poisons. Nothing less can liberate us from the fear and the reality of cancer. So far this movement does not yet exist, only the necessary idea for it.
 
Once in awhile one of these poisons becomes the subject of a political flash point. Today glyphosate, one of the most cancerous agricultural poisons, is under fire. Even some governments and other system forces have been cutting ties with it. Where this happens we abolitionists must urge all effective anti-poison actions and use the situation for the greatest benefit to the necessary ideas and to organizing for these ideas. But we must never regress to faith in discredited enemy organizations. Thus where we have evidence of discord at the EPA we use it to demonstrate that the evidence against the poisons is so extreme that even within the ranks of the enemy some are losing faith. But we must never give aid and comfort to reactionary notions about wanting to “reform” the regulator, or any version of wanting to resurrect faith in it. This is the main preoccupation of gatekeeper consumerist groups who really seek a deal with the corporations.
 
In the US the EPA has been the leader organizing and propagating lies and misinformation about glyphosate. This is a permanent EPA campaign which continues regardless of any merely cosmetic change of presidential administrations. All US presidents from Reagan onward have agreed to the EPA’s suppression of its knowledge that glyphosate causes cancer. All US presidents are therefore conscious, willful accomplices to this campaign of murder.
 
The EPA has been forced into damage mode by the rising tsunami against glyphosate. From the mainstream point of view, the milestone was the 2015 finding of the World Health Organization’s cancer research agency (IARC) that glyphosate causes cancer. According to secret Monsanto memos forced into the public light by ongoing litigation, the EPA tipped off Monsanto about the IARC’s upcoming finding and helped Monsanto prepare an attack. This included EPA officials working to prevent an investigation of glyphosate’s cancerousness by the Department of Health and Human Services, and academics agreeing to have their names placed on “scientific” papers actually written by Monsanto public relations cadres.
 
In April 2016 the EPA publicly released a document declaring glyphosate to be “unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans”, then withdrew it from public view. The memo publicly existed just long enough for Monsanto to tout it as an EPA formal public opinion. The EPA implicitly endorses this Monsanto characterization even as it claims the memo was posted inadvertently. This clearly is a lie.
 
What’s really happening is that the evidence of glyphosate’s cancerousness is so overwhelming that the EPA is scared to defend this position in full public view. Seeing how badly the EU’s EFSA has been floundering in public since its own formal declaration in 2015, the EPA has been unable to assemble a propaganda package it feels comfortable defending. That’s why it’s been stonewalling and resorting to such tricks as now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t with public releases. This has been nothing but an innuendo campaign meant to prop up the pro-glyphosate status quo without actually having to make a formal public declaration. The EPA knows it can never plausibly defend any such declaration, since it’s in the nature of the brazen pro-glyphosate lie that it can have no plausible content or evidence to justify it.
 
We’ve been getting more details about the EPA’s internal angst. According to a secret EPA memo leaked to a French magazine, there’s an internal dispute about the agency’s campaign to whitewash glyphosate. The EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) accuses the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP, the division which released and then suppressed the April 2016 memo) of using a reductive, anti-scientific measure instead of the internationally agreed scientific measure. All agencies including the EPA agree in principle to use a scale of five levels in assessing the cancerousness of a chemical, ranging from “carcinogenic” to “unlikely to be carcinogenic”. (The WHO’s cancer agency found glyphosate to be a “probable carcinogen”, the second most severe ranking.) According to the ORD’s memo, in practice the OPP drops this and applies a reductive Yes/No measure rigged always to give a No answer.
 
The OPP refuses to divulge the methodology it uses. This is because it really uses no method at all. It only starts with the dogma that it will whitewash the chemical, then engages in whatever convolution is necessary to reach this conclusion. Evidently these methodological convolutions are so contorted as to be laughable, which is why the EPA is refusing to release and stand by a public proclamation.
 
Meanwhile the EU continues to brazen ahead. Its Chemical Agency (ECHA) released its own declaration whitewashing glyphosate. This was written by a pro-industry panel in imitation of the prior BfR/EFSA declaration, which by the BfR’s own admission was nothing but a rewrite of a paper written by the Glyphosate Task Force, a de jure industry group. We see how in Europe the conveyor belt from Monsanto’s PR department to a regulatory finding has been completely mechanized, while the EPA’s procedure is more clumsy in action.
 
Nevertheless the EPA’s intent and result is the same: Whitewash glyphosate. Prop it up as long as possible. EPA performs this role most directly on behalf of Monsanto, the politically powerful corporation most precariously dependent upon glyphosate.
 
More broadly the EPA and its European counterparts have an ideological and power-conserving mandate to defend the entire regime of poison-based agriculture and maximize the use of poison. Therefore every fight for a particular high-profile poison is also the fight for all poisons.
 
Conversely, abolitionists must fight every particular cancer poison, which means all pesticides, and turn every fight against one poison to the fight against all poisons.
 
 
 
 
 
Help propagate these ideas.
 
 
 

March 10, 2017

Updates on the Poisonist Regulators

>

It’s Green vs. Green, and the EPA exalts that of Mammon, not of the Earth

 
 
Yesterday we discussed further how examples of so-called “conflict of interest” highlight the fact that corporate regulators have no such conflict, since in principle as well as practice they exist to serve the corporate imperative. Therefore to fixate on superficial conflicts of interest and conventional notions of corruption is to mistake the character of the entity. Whether or not a soldier in your unit is pilfering from the ration depot is less important than the fact that he’s really an enemy officer wearing the wrong uniform. That’s how we have to understand the sham of a “public interest” regulator, as well as many other types of entities which claim to act in the public interest but really act only in the technocratic corporate interest.
 
Greenpeace has posted the ECHA’s response to its letter accusing the body of allowing conflicts of interest to ferment on its glyphosate review panel. This comes the same day as another public interest group, the US Right to Know, announced it is suing the EPA for that body’s flouting of USRTK’s many Freedom of Information Act requests.
 
EPA’s handling of its pro-glyphosate propaganda mandate has been especially brazen and clumsy. Last April its Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) posted on the EPA website a memo whitewashing glyphosate’s cancerousness. EPA suppressed the post a few days later claiming it was supposed to be secret and had been posted inadvertently. In the meantime Monsanto copied the post and proceeded to tout it in public and in court, with full EPA approval.
 
Here the regulator’s pro-poison brazenness is extreme even by their standards. They post the fraudulent imprimatur, then quickly delete it claiming it’s not for public perusal, even as the corporation, with the regulator’s approval, publicizes this now-phantom imprimatur.
 
This proves that EPA’s phony “evidence” is so poor that even given the regulator’s extremely low standards, it doesn’t feel confident about posting even a sham assessment.
 
The ECHA also is nervous about how well its own lies will go over, to the point it didn’t issue the anticipated assessment on March 8th. The glyphosate panel meets again on the 15th.
 
The ECHA’s response letter to Greenpeace provides further evidence of our ongoing analysis. As we said yesterday a technocratic regulator like the ECHA has no concept of a conflict of interest, since it recognizes no value or goal other than the corporate imperative.
 
Greenpeace summarizes the five main points of the regulator’s position.
 

*ECHA explains how it manages specific conflicts of interest, but fails to address concerns about conflicts of interest that can affect ECHA’s overall work.

*Allowing experts to move freely between the private sector and public authorities, even if employment periods do not overlap, is the definition of revolving doors.

*Conflicts of interest related to industry consultancy cannot simply be declared. They must be ruled out.

*If an expert opinion in relation to regulatory processes can be omitted from the declaration of interests, the requirement to disclose such interests may as well be scrapped. These rules only make sense if they are enforced.

*Dependence on unpublished scientific evidence provided by industry calls into question the independence of scientific assessments conducted by European agencies.

 
(Note how Greenpeace itself insensibly parrots the enemy’s self-assessments, calling these usually ignorant and incompetent corporate operatives “experts”, and especially referring to secret science as “unpublished scientific evidence”. But secret science is a contradiction in terms and by definition is not scientific evidence. On the contrary, it’s evidence of nothing but the fact that the regulator is an indelible pro-corporate, pro-poison liar, an extension of industry. These examples are all too typical, and it’s a measure of the lack of political consciousness among anti-poison types. One measure of the mature evolution of a movement, much like a nation, is that it attains a coherent language and becomes disciplined in the use of that language. On the other hand to remain unconsciously mired in foreign terminology, especially using the terms imposed by one’s chauvinist oppressor, is the mark of immaturity and lack of political consciousness. Of course this lack of terminological consciousness and discipline is part of the same immaturity which remains mired in infantile “good civics” notions of what these regulatory agencies indelibly are. I’ve been writing these essays toward the goal of demolishing these notions and fostering movement evolution beyond them.)
 
 
Each of these five points highlights aspects of the true regulator character.
 
*”ECHA explains how it manages specific conflicts of interest, but fails to address concerns about conflicts of interest that can affect ECHA’s overall work.” In other words ECHA will, for cosmetic reasons, pretend to guard against the most brazen “conflicts”. But it does not in fact recognize such conflicts as having any real existence, and regards the combined corporate/regulator organism as normative and normal. This applies to each individual agent as much as it does to the agency as a whole. In its reply the ECHA explicitly says it regards this combined organism as normative “in principle” as well as desirable for practical reasons.
 
*”Allowing experts to move freely between the private sector and public authorities, even if employment periods do not overlap, is the definition of revolving doors.” As we’ve long known, regulators flat out do not consider the revolving door to be a problem. It’s a feature. It’s normative.
 
*”Conflicts of interest related to industry consultancy cannot simply be declared. They must be ruled out.” Since the regulator does not recognize any such conflict in the first place, it certainly will not regard anything more than a declaration as ever necessary, and even this only where it’s politically forced upon them.
 
Of course the regulator always points out that the system is designed to promote the combined public/private character of all institutions and personnel. Higher education is designed systematically to indoctrinate personnel into the corporate technocrat ideology, which is centered on the principle that the nominally “public” government exists to serve the corporations, which are indeed creations of government and extensions of government. These cadres proceed to careers where they’re completely immersed in the revolving door, the close collaboration of corporate and regulator operatives, and the complete dependency of the private sector on public subsidies. This relentlessly inculcates the technocratic mindset of the corporate state.
 
When we grasp this in its full magnitude, we see how picayune it is to think in terms of “conflicts of interest” and “corruption”. The entire technocratic system is predicated on one massive conflict between the corporate interest and the human interest. The entire system is one massive kleptocracy which views humanity and the Earth as literally nothing but a resource mine and waste dump. If we speak here of corruption we can speak only of corruption at the most extreme metaphysical level.
 
*”If an expert opinion in relation to regulatory processes can be omitted from the declaration of interests, the requirement to disclose such interests may as well be scrapped. These rules only make sense if they are enforced.” This refers to the ECHA’s fraudulent demarcation of “scientific positions” and propaganda (what it calls “influencing public debate”) as separate from one’s being “part of a regulatory, legislative, or judicial process.” Greenpeace correctly recognizes that where STEM cadres organize to issue a public statement about a current policy controversy, they are not acting as scientists nor are they merely exercising “freedom of opinion”, but are acting as political operatives and lobbyists, working to influence policy. The reference is to ECHA panelists who were signees of a public letter which regurgitated industry lies about endocrine disruptors. This propaganda campaign was part of the EU’s ongoing regulatory stonewall against enforcement of EU law which requires the banning of endocrine disruptors (i.e., all pesticides). This too is a typical example of the corporate/regulator combined organism.
 
The Nuremburg Tribunal took a rather different view of such “scientific positions” and “influencing public debate” which allegedly weren’t “part of a regulatory process.”
 
*”Dependence on unpublished scientific evidence provided by industry calls into question the independence of scientific assessments conducted by European agencies.” As we said above, there is no such evidence. The fact that the regulator is dependent upon the phantasmic “secret science” is proof that the industry and the regulator have literally zero science on their side, and that on the contrary the science is 100% against them, damningly so. Secrecy is, in fact, proof and an admission of the worst suspicions of critics. In this case, it is proof that glyphosate causes cancer and the ECHA knows it. Just as the EFSA and US EPA know it.
 
Of course the ECHA’s response is bogus in the conventional sense in that it doesn’t just operate according to Orwellian definitions of concepts like “conflict” but pretends to be using terms in the same way as its reformist interlocutor. Both strands of the lie are always operative. Both are core parts of technocracy’s culture of the lie.
 
But they couldn’t do this without willing collaborators. Organizations like Greenpeace seem committed to believing in the sham good-civics notion of public regulators, i.e. what gullible children are taught in the system schools. For all their talk of evidence, it seems they’ll never have enough evidence to reach the conclusion that an organization like the ECHA is an indelibly pro-industry, pro-poison organization, and was designed to be so in the first place. Compare if a public interest group wrote a letter to Monsanto’s CEO complaining that he cares about nothing but profit. Silly, isn’t it? But seriously-meant letters of complaint to pro-corporate regulators are the same thing. It’s fine to use such demands to unmask the regulator, the better to demolish its public credibility. But groups like this seem not to have this as their goal. They’re really naive enough to think they can “reform” the gangster organization. Similarly, USRTK seems sincerely to want these EPA materials even though EPA’s stonewalling is far more eloquent of the truth, and far more politically useful, than any release (no doubt heavily redacted) could ever be.
 
If humanity is ever to learn to fight, it must rouse itself from the consumerist, anti-political mire in which it currently wallows. It must transcend and renounce all consumerist consciousness and attain a true political consciousness.
 
One of the many litmus tests of this maturation is to evolve beyond the faith that regulators were ever supposed to be “public servants”, when this was always a lie. This lie always was obvious to anyone who cared to see with their own eyes.
 
 
 
 
 
Help propagate these necessary ideas.
 
 
 

March 9, 2017

Glyphosate Reviews Within the Corporate Science Paradigm

>

One World

 
 
Greenpeace is accusing the European Chemical Agency (ECHA), whose opinion on the cancerousness of glyphosate is supposed to be imminent, of “conflict of interest” because its panel members also operate as “risk assessment consultants” for the industry.
 
As a system NGO, when Greenpeace says “conflict of interest” they’re referring to conventional corruption of “public servants” who are paid also by the industry they’re supposed to be regulating in accordance with scientific method.
 
Our abolitionist analysis is much deeper and more comprehensive than this, of course. While this kind of corruption is common, it’s epiphenomenal compared to the overall ideological and methodological framework of technocracy and the corporate science paradigm. Cadres of an agency like the ECHA, or the US EPA, FDA, and USDA, operate according to the corporate/technocratic template. Its three components are:
 
1. The corporate power/profit project is normative. It is the primary purpose of civilization. Under no circumstance can any other value or alternative project be allowed significantly to hinder the corporate project.
 
This has profound implications for actions like a pesticide cancer review. For technocratic regulators to acknowledge the fact that all synthetic pesticides cause widespread cancer would significantly hinder the corporate project. Therefore even the prospect of such acknowledgement is ruled out a priori. By definition it cannot be part of the review. Only the most grossly excessive and obvious carcinogenicity on the part of a particular chemical could be acknowledged even in principle. When outfits like the US EPA or the EU’s EFSA claim to believe that glyphosate is not cancerous, this is not according to any rational or scientific canon of evidence, and reformers who interpret it this way make a mistake about the fundamental character of these organizations.
 
Rather, technocratic regulators apply the canon of the corporate paradigm. According to this canon “causes cancer” is defined as: “So grossly carcinogenic that it’s politically impossible to deny it, to the point that lack of action would in itself be significantly bad for business.”
 
This is the template’s second component.
 
2. Given the strictures of (1), the regulator may if absolutely necessary impose limits on the most excessive harms and worst abuses. More often, it only pretends to do even this. Which leads to the template’s third component.
 
3. The regulator then puts its imprimatur on the corporate project as having been sufficiently regulated for safety. According to the ideology of technocracy and bureaucracy, the people are supposed to believe implicitly in the competence, rigor, and honesty of the regulator. They’re supposed to believe this for all measures of safety, public and environmental health, political and socioeconomic benefit and lack of harm.
 
All this is based on a Big Lie, since as we described above the regulator actually functions only according to the normative values of corporate power. But it fraudulently claims, always implicitly and very often explicitly, that it has acted on behalf of human values and to protect and serve the people. Therefore the people should repose implicit trust in the regulator, not assert themselves democratically in any kind of grassroots way, and most of all not start to think in any political terms which would be based on fundamentally different values and goals, values and goals opposed to those of corporate rule and technocracy.
 
Thus we see how technocracy is an ideology, method, and form of government which is fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-political as such since it is dedicated to the proposition that the people should relinquish all political activity and passively receive and believe the judgements of technocratic regulators. This system is based fundamentally on the Big Lie that it actually is a form of democracy and a form of society which encourages the political participation of the people. But in fact it conjures only sham versions of these and seeks aggressively to discourage and suppress any true politics.*
 
We see how the corporate state and technocracy, along with their allied economic ideology of neoliberalism, exist as species within the same genus as classical fascism. This is the genus of pseudo-democratic forms bled of all real political content which then stand as cultural facades behind which exists only state tyranny. Today’s corporate state is the most fully evolved form of this tyranny.
 
This site’s ultimate project is to oppose this tyranny. One prerequisite for such opposition is to understand what modern regulatory agencies truly are, and to renounce all faith in and support for them. As abolitionists one of our goals is completely to demolish all claims to legitimacy and authority of such agencies as the ECHA or US EPA. The destruction of such misguided faith is necessary for the people to conceive and commit to the necessary new ideas.
 
Toward that necessity, we need to substitute the more comprehensive analysis for the superficial and shallow “conflict of interest” and “corruption” notion. Corporate regulators, by their inherent nature, do not have conflicts of interest because their one and only interest is the corporate client. Everything else they claim about themselves is a lie.
 
The same Big Lie encompasses their ideology and propaganda of “science”. To take today’s example, the Greenpeace indictment specifically focuses on the ECHA panelists doubling as industry “risk assessment” consultants. We can leave aside the more vulgar modes of corruption though these too are common. Far more important, the entire concept, ideology, and methodology of “risk assessment” is based on the corporate profit endeavor as normative and therefore thinks, at most, in terms only of worst-case scenarios, never the omnipresent, chronic, daily harms and crimes of the corporate project. The official ideology of the US EPA is based on managing the human cancer and other tortures it and its corporate client inflict, via the concept of pesticide and cancer “tolerances”. This word should be taken literally: It means how much cancer can the corporate system cause before the magnitude becomes politically dangerous enough that the regulator needs to take evasive action, starting with sham reviews and lies meant to put the people back to sleep.
 
The European and US government establishment, along with the corporate media, reached this crisis point with glyphosate in 2015 because of the rogue action (from the corporate system’s point of view) of the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The IARC, like some individual scientists, acted according to canons of the scientific method instead of the corporate science paradigm. This caused them to issue the scientific judgement that glyphosate causes cancer. The EFSA and EPA since then have carried out their propaganda function. They’ve lied about the evidence and lied about their canons of evidence.
 
(Although the WHO as a whole has been consistently pro-corporate, the IARC is out of step with the dominant corporate/reductionist ideological framework, instead emphasizing environmental factors in cancer causation: “Emphasis is placed on elucidating the role of environmental and lifestyle risk factors and studying their interplay with genetic background in population-based studies and appropriate experimental models. This emphasis reflects the understanding that most cancers are, directly or indirectly, linked to environmental factors and thus are preventable.”
 
The proposition that cancer is preventable runs directly counter to the dominant “science” ideology which views cancer as arising from genetic determinism and which conceives the acceptable response to be massively expensive and interventionist cures supervised by Big Drug and other corporate sectors. This ideology is driven by the need of the poison-peddling corporations to obscure and deny the fact that profitable products like glyphosate are in fact major cancer drivers. The corporate flacks are abetted by scientism’s religious zealots who refuse to hear any evil spoken of their technological objects of cult worship.)
 
The IARC also is a pro-science renegade in that it assesses only the scientific public record, which according to Popperian canons is by definition the only scientific record. But the EFSA, EPA, and (we can expect) the ECHA adhere to an exactly upside-down, anti-scientific canon of “secret science”. Secret science of course is a contradiction in terms. By definition, if it’s not part of the public record and open to public perusal, analysis, and debate, it’s not part of science.
 
Today’s corporations, governments, universities, the mainstream media, and the scientific establishment all exalt the perverse notion of “secret science”. This means that we can reject their entire paradigm as, by definition, anti-science and not part of science. This underlies any specific evils of the lies being protected by the secrecy.
 
We abolitionists, in response, assume that anti-scientific secrecy automatically indicates the corporation and/or regulator has zero scientific evidence which supports them, and that what evidence they do have must prove the extreme harmfulness of the corporate product. In this case, the evidence for glyphosate’s cancerousness which Monsanto and the EPA actually possess is likely far worse even than the conclusive amount which has leaked out.
 
 
We see how technocratic regulators, in general and where it comes to specifics such as “risk assessment”, the cadre as a whole as well as specific agents, whether or not particular agents have conflicts of interest and/or are conventionally corrupt, all are part of the corporate science paradigm and therefore are anti-science and anti-democracy, according to Popperian canons of scientific method and the open society.
 
 
*This same corporate-technocatic template can be applied to the STEM establishment, the mainstream media, much “alternative” media, system NGOs, system political parties, and electoralism as such. The details may vary, never the broad function: To conserve the indoctrination that corporate rule is normative, as much as possible to render this water in which we swim implicit and imperceptible, where necessary to reinforce the indoctrination with propaganda, where necessary to offer sham “reforms” and sham pseudo-political “options”, all toward the goal of rendering truly political thought and action extremely difficult, preferably unthinkable.
 
 
 
 
 
Help propagate these ideas.
 
 

January 1, 2017

How to Read the Corporate Media and What To Do

>

 
 
There’s a new NYT piece about Syngenta’s control of research on the poisoning of honeybees. This and the paper’s recent articles about Kevin Folta and other paid liars, indicate that the paper believes the controversy over corporate control of “science” has become too alive among the public to continue suppressing discussion of it. Our efforts have accomplished that much.
 
So the NYT, and the corporate media which follow its lead, will now discuss the matter but in such a way as to minimize it, giving personal profiles showing what good people the corporate-funded researchers are, fraudulently claim skeptical scientists are equally compromised by funding from “the organic industry”, and where all else fails depict the most “corrupt” researchers as bad apples not typical of corporate-funded science.
 
In the case of the pesticide-driven mass destruction of bees, the NYT continues to propagate the lie that this is a new phenomenon and that there’s any doubt about the science. The article here is devoted to seconding Syngenta’s campaign to cast false doubt on what’s already known. But in fact the evidence that pesticides kill honeybees has been accumulating since the 1940s, and by the 1970s it was a well-known dirty secret among federal regulators which they collaborated to keep quiet. Read E. Vallianatos’ Poison Spring for a detailed account of the history of the scientific knowledge. Today corporate media like the NYT collude with corporations like Syngenta to suppress this history. In reality there’s no doubt about the fact that pesticides decimate honeybees, and there has been no doubt since the 70s. Of course they would prefer not to talk about it publicly at all, but we have forced them to. So they move on to public lies.
 
What’s the effect of this mass media discussion? The NYT hopes it’ll defuse the controversy. Their message: Corporate funding of science isn’t necessarily a bad thing, the practitioners retain their integrity, it’s a force of nature anyway which can’t be undone, and all that’s happening is a healthy investigation of areas where the science is still unsettled. So, as Neil Degrasse Tyson said, “relax”. Everything’s fine.
 
Anti-poison fighters must fight to make the effect the opposite: Any discussion casting doubt on the integrity of the scientific establishment and reminding people of the corruption of science, whatever this discussion’s immediate effect, will over the longer run continue to erode the legitimacy and authority of the scientific establishment as such. Any high-profile public discussion which acknowledges the controversy automatically puts the idea of “corruption” and “fraud” in the public consciousness. This is why the corporations and media would prefer never to have this discussion in the first place: They know how easily they could lose control of it, and how easily it can backfire on them.
 
So what to do now? We must cease from arguing piecemeal about things we’ve already forced into the mass media discussion. We must broadly assert what the fact of the mass exposure already proves: “See, even the New York Times admits the scientific establishment is corrupted by corporate money, and therefore you can’t trust anything establishment science says about pesticides and GMOs. They admit it’s all a lie on behalf of profit.”
 
And when the pro-poison activists try to dispute this, never let them draw you into nit-picking exchanges, always an infinite rabbit-hole. That’s their way of trying to keep sowing doubt and confusion. We’re reaching the point where we can turn the tables of political communication on them and use the psychology of politics to our advantage. The way to do this is to continue hammering away with the basic clear truths, now implicitly being acknowledged by the NYT itself, that the poison-peddling corporations control everything today’s “science” does and says. Leave the pathetic nit-picking to the enemy, while we keep our eye on the prize: Destroying the credibility of the corporations’ false “science”.
 
Say it again and again: “The New York Times itself admits you’re paid liars.” We’ve evolved, and the political situation has evolved, to the point that we can hone our attack to a few clear standards. This is one of them. Let’s stop muddling through, let’s get organized and disciplined.
 
 
 
.

December 10, 2016

Technocracy and False Technology Go Together

Filed under: GMO Contamination, GMO Corporate State, Scientism/Technocracy — Tags: , , — Russ @ 8:58 am

>

Here’s a good example proving yet again that the USDA and EPA premeditate the systematic contamination of crops and the overall ecology by GMOs.

.

It also provides a good demonstration of how these bureaucracies adhere to a pro-biotech ideology for its own sake. Indeed, just like engineers, bureaucrats will naturally hold a bias in favor of alleged “hi-tech solutions” because this dovetails with their cult of expertise. This is the alleged need for technocratic bureaucracy to exist and wield power in the first place.

.

Technocracy and high-maintenance technology each foster the other. The deployment of “hi-tech” is falsely alleged to require the existence of technocratic bureaucracy. And then technocracy sees its mission as to aggrandize hi-tech deployment, both for the sake of technology as such and in order to justify this bureaucracy. This remains the ideology and action of the bureaucracy no matter how irrational the technological deployment is in theory, and no matter how much it’s empirically proven in practice to be a failure and to be destructive.

.

This sums up the ideology and action of the EPA, USDA, and FDA. (It also means it makes no difference who the political appointees are within these cadres. The bureaucracy as a whole is united against humanity and the Earth.)

.

In reality neither the technological deployment nor the technocratic government are necessary. On the contrary both are harmful and destructive, and humanity will be much better off when it gets rid of both.

.

.

.