Wednesday 24 July 2024

Radhakamal Mukherjee's Ecological idiocy

More than a century ago Radhakamal Mukherjee, a Professor of Economics who hadn't studied Economics at all, wrote-

“In India more than in any other country the great intellectual, social, and religious movements have originated in villages,

But those movements were so utterly shit that a couple of thousand British dudes were ruling over an Indian Empire larger than that of Ashoka or Akbar.  

and, nurtured by their thoughts and aspirations, at last reached the cities.

Where they were told by Turks or Europeans to fuck off back where they came from 

The soul of India is to be found in the village, not in the city.

It was the soul of a beggarly, infantile, dependency. India, as the Americans were pointing out that time, wasn't a Colony. It was merely a dependency too stupid, ignorant, weak and lazy to police or protect itself.  

In modern Europe, on the other hand, the discoveries in intellectual or social life are made in the city and are then communicated to the village, which receive them as gospel truths.

Nonsense! The villages had their own Parish Councils and elected Members of Parliament who shaped government policy. In India, the British District Magistrate/Tax Collector and the British Police Superintendent ran things. The Villagers had no votes or other voice in the formulation of Government policy.  

The city sets the example. The village imitates...[In India] the village is still almost self-sufficing,

Fuck off! It couldn't even police or protect itself- forget about contributing to national defense or national policy making.  

and is in itself an economic unit.”

Which is why, but for the British famine code, its poorer members would starve to death periodically. Still, it must be said, some villagers did manage to end up as indentured laborers in South Africa or Fiji or Trinidad. They were the lucky ones. 

Mukherjee could be considered a precursor to Elinor Ostrom. He wrote ' in the Indian village communities there are minute communal relations of the supply of water to prevent the mutual rights of the cultivators. To prevent a tyrannical use of property, India has sought to establish a kind of communal ownership of tanks and the distributory channels of irrigation — the most important instruments of agricultural production.”

Mukherjee hadn't noticed that those 'minute communal relations' were utterly shit. Vast numbers of villages had been assigned to some Turkic or Pathan war-lord or, at a later date, to some tax-farmer or 'Zamindar'. The villagers had no fucking power save such as would suffice to fuck each other over. On the other hand, the British run Canal Colonies of the Punjab, where water supply was wholly out of the hands of the villagers, were thriving. Indeed, they were exporting food even as far as Europe. 

Even if the villagers had prevented tyrants emerging amongst themselves, they had failed dismally, for a thousand years, to prevent the whole country being ruled by foreign tyrants. 

One may as well say 'Indian birds and animals have prevented any bird or animal from exercising tyrannical power through the acquisition of rights to private property. Monkeys and parrots, in India, have originated great spiritual and philosophical traditions. In the West, men- that too city dwellers!- have originated Science and Technology. That is why the West is such a mess. Did you know, Prime Minister Asquith is not even able to fly into the air and shit upon the head of Lloyd George? This is because instead of following the example of nice rural pigeons, the Brits, very foolishly studied the works of Isaac Newton who wasn't even a monkey or a donkey. That fucker was a man! Also he lived in a City! How fucked is that?' 

Mukherjee believed that 'applied human ecology is the only guarantee of a permanent civilization'. He hadn't noticed that a civilization which can't defeat invaders dies out- save in some backward villages. You can't apply ecology or economics if you don't control resources. But to control stuff you have to defeat others who might want to grab that stuff. This could no longer be done by muscular dudes wielding swords. The sinews of war could only be provided by technological industrialization. But, it was a very expensive business. Private ownership of land and water and other resources permitted the taxation of the revenues thus derived. This could pay for a standing Army as well as a the maintenance of internal law and order. True, as Netaji Bose suggested, a one party totalitarian state could, in theory, extract surpluses to create infrastructure. But, Indians- because they are villagers at heart- are simply too corrupt, incompetent, or lazy or crazy to take this road. 

Gassing on about the spirituality of the donkeys or parrots in the villages did not promote either ecology or economics or anything else. 

Tuesday 23 July 2024

Surat Al-Baqarah 2.102

When I remove my spectacles and into Heaven's dark mirror cast an abject Copernican gaze
The Cyclopean Moon which receptacles wandered wits in its self-enucleated, eye
Melts into tears- lamenting every blind snowdrop's 'enforced chastity'
Till it Christ behoove, to refrain Love's amaze- so Pity, again, Die. 

Envoi-
Prince! Be it Venus & Harut/Marut's Well or Love's tragic chink in Thisbe's Wall 
  Who weep in Babylon but expel such Magic as holds Church or brides in thrall.


Sunday 21 July 2024

Why 'common knowledge' is uncommon nonsense

Alexander Pope, in 'Essay on Man' asks us the question-

Is the great chain, that draws all to agree,
And drawn supports, upheld by God, or thee?

Pope, whom the Germans considered a philosopher rather than, as we do, a gifted versifier, was thought to be expressing the Newtonian- or, later, Kantian- orthodoxy re. the existence of 'naturality' (non arbitrariness) or 'categoricity (having a unique model) such that Nature and God were as but the same Book in which all might read and, save by reason of stupidity or a myopic type of self-love, arrive at the same coordinating or prescriptive conclusions.

This was not Pope's own view. God allots each creature a place in His plan. The 'untutored Indian' is condemned to no inferior fate (though 'Christian thirst for gold' may claim otherwise) if the humble Heaven granted him is one his dog is welcome to follow him into.

But, this is what happens when Yuddhishtra- the 'Just King' who must learn Statistical Game Theory to overcome 'vishada' (mental illness)- gets to Heaven but refuses to enter unless the dog 'Dhruva' too enters with him. 

Sadly, neither Hindus nor Germans nor lovers of English Literature have understood what Pope actually said. I have. But then, I was born in 'Benares on the Rhine' and had to study a bit of Statistical Game Theory when I was sixteen or seventeen (after which I devoted myself to drink). 

To be fair, Pope didn't say what I said he said. But that's because Pope was a genuine poet and thus remained 'untaught by the wisdom he had uncovered, the laws he had revealed.' The Hindu does not expect his faithful dog to accompany to Human heaven. But if a dog, or any other creature, attaches itself to a man arduously climbing to that destination, it deserves an equal admittance to what lies beyond the gates even if the man himself decides its comforts can't justify the horrible shit show that is life on Earth. 

Obviously, for Pope's readers there were two types of 'Indian'- some were noble and 'Red', some 'Black'. Notoriously, the 'Black' retained an ancient belief in metempsychosis. They had no use for the type of Christian Heaven which Christian 'greed for gold' could buy entry into. Thus, Pope's admonition-  "Go, like the Indian, in another life / Expect thy dog, thy bottle, and thy wife"- means the opposite of what Bolingbroke- the Alcibiades, or Petronius, of his age- would have received it as. The fact is, your wife- whom you oppressed in this life- will be your husband in the next life unless you are her puppy dog because your dog attained the state of God and decided this was a sweeter way for you to discharge your karmic debt. 

The bottle, however, it is my fervent hope, is the impossible, perhaps because wholly Eucharistic, 'fixed point' of all Creation's 'eigenform' such that Landau's problems forever remain unsolved- or rather, not properly posed. What I mean is that the 'merit' of prime gaps may themselves offer a superior encryption such that all revealed language remains its own Pascalian cypher. Obviously, when I say 'what I mean is' what is meant is that I'm drunk off my head. 

In Game Theory, Common knowledge is stuff everybody knows everybody knows everybody knows. Sadly, everybody also knows that nobody knows what they know or, at least, are not able to act as if they do.

This is because Man knows that Alexander Pope- not some unreadable shithead, like Marx- was right.

 Even if there are no 'accessibility' or 'computability' problems, strategic considerations, resource or endowment diversity, etc, etc there is a fundamental mathematical problem with 'Common knowledge' viz. if knowledge is finitary, and has a language, 'Common Knowledge' can't be a well defined formula in it because it is an infinite conjunction. The workaround is a 'fixed point' theorem. The problem is 'singularities'. If the universe is full of black holes and white holes, why should 'knowledge' be different? Following Chichilinsky (but also, I believe, D.G Saari) we can equate singularities with Arrowvian dictators or just departures from 'naturality'- i.e. arbitrariness. This is related to uncorrelated asymmetries which in turn are related to costly signals. In other words, 'Knowledge' is a type of information which is biologic or arbitrary & Popean. What it can't be is mathematical or represent indefeasible propositions from the STEM subjects. 

Hannah Arendt vs Grete Hermann

 Hannah Arendt was five years younger than Grete Hermann. But Hannah studied under philosophy under Heidegger- a stupid, spoiled Catholic, shithead- whereas Grete studied mathematics under Emmy Noether & Edmund Landau. In 1935 she showed the flaw in Von Neumann's 'no hidden variables' theorem. Hermann was also a student of Leonard Nelson and made a good neo-Kantian fist at accommodating Quantum Theory. Hermann returned to Germany after Hitler's fall and contributed to the Bad Godesberg program which enabled the Socialists to take power in the Sixties. Hannah's Aunt went to America where she babbled hysterical, ignorant, nonsense in return for a little money.

Writing for Aeon, Samantha Rose Hill takes a different view. She believes that 'In her final unfinished work, Hannah Arendt mounted an incisive critique of the idea that we are in search of our true selves'

This is nonsense. Hannah's true self was that of a charlatan who had studied nonsense and who was pretending to be smart so as to earn some nice dollars. Grete had studied worthwhile, high IQ, stuff. She didn't get much international recognition till late in her life when savants pointed out the manner in which her work anticipated that of Bell. Grete's politics were consistently Socialist and though her resistance to Hitler was unavailing, her own hard work helped post-War Germany to rise. Hers was an authentic life because she genuinely was smart and had grappled with high IQ problems. Hannah played the Holocaust card when the fact that she'd fucked Heidegger wasn't enough. Still, she helped spread anti-Semitic canards and thus was more authentically Teutonic than Grete. 

Was Hannah always stupid? Could she have been a student of Emmy Noether? The answer is that Hannah had some literary talent but was as stupid as shit.

This is a poem she wrote when she was about 20. 

When I consider my hand
– A foreign thing related to me –
I stand in no country,
I am neither here nor there
I am not certain of anything.

For a German philosophy student, looking at one's hand reminds one of Kant's argument against Leibnizian relationism, in favor of Newtonian absolute Space and Time, based on the fact that hands are 'incongruent counterparts'. In other words, Hannah's hand, subjected to analysis situs, projects her into some Kantian transcendental realm.  But, this has the effect of deracinating her. She is no longer German. She needs someone to guide her via Fichte and Hamann, maybe Schopenhauer and Nietzsche etc. into something more Volkisch- if not Catholic coz maybe Catlicks had joined the Jews in stabbing the Army in the back. 

Samantha takes a more charitable view- 
The poem, titled ‘Lost in Myself’, reflects upon a feeling of self-alienation.

Back then, girls only went to Collidge so as to get alienated from their natural instinct to have babies and cook strudel.  

It is that feeling of self-alienation when one is unsure of anything, let alone themselves.

Nope. Hannah had just done a year of philosophy. She was referencing Kant's 'incongruent counterparts' argument which had a new salience because a cunning Jew, Einstein, was seeking to subvert Space, Time and the German duty to be as stupid as shit. What Kant wrote was -It is apparent from the ordinary example of the two hands that the shape of the one body may be perfectly similar to the shape of the other, and the magnitudes of their extensions may be exactly equal, and yet there may remain an inner difference between the two, this difference consisting in the fact, namely, that the surface which encloses the one cannot possibly enclose the other. Since the surface which limits the physical space of the one body cannot serve as a boundary to limit the other, no matter how that surface be twisted and turned, it follows that the difference must be one which rests on an inner ground. This inner ground cannot, however, depend on the difference of the manner in which the parts of the body are combined with each other. For as we have seen from our example, everything may in this respect be exactly the same. Nonetheless, imagine that the first created thing was a human hand. That [hand] would have to be either a right hand or a left hand. The action of the creative cause in producing the one would have of necessity to be different from the action of the creative cause in producing the counterpart.

By the time she was 14, she had read the philosophical works of Immanuel Kant,

which is why she thought her hand was 'foreign' to her because it revealed that things have 'orientation' in addition to any relational qualities or characteristics that we might observe. 

the writings of her future professor Karl Jaspers on the Psychology of Worldviews,

Kant is high IQ. Jaspers- not so much. 

and taught herself Greek and Latin

which is why she was a bit crap at both. But then so was Heidi.

What does it mean to discover one’s true, authentic self?

It is to find out your true nature or inclinations or capacity. Back in the Sixties, I was a member of Her Majesty's Secret Service with a license to kill. Also, I was married to Mary Poppins. Women to whom I mentioned this tended to be sympathetic. My wife, however, punched me quite hard any time I mentioned the subject. The consensus amongst the fair sex seems to be that I am a sad, fat, loser. Still, I am quite authentically useless for doing anything useful around the house or for getting a well paid job and so allowances should be made.  

To act from a place of authenticity?

Actions which are as good or useful as the actor suggests are authentic. What Heidi and Hannah were engaging in was fraud.  

Is there a truer self within the self that can be uncovered? What are we really talking about when we talk about authenticity?

Something which aint spurious, meretricious, fraudulent or pretentious. 

Authenticity emerged as a philosophical concept

a decade or two after people had begun to suspect that philosophy was fraudulent. Einstein had taken down Bergson's pants. Heidi could score over Husserl who had initially looked mathsy but clearly was barking up a particularly stupid, non-existent, tree. Since Heidi wasn't mathsy he didn't have to bother with debating smart peeps.  

from Heidegger’s Being and Time (1927), published in the aftermath of the Great War.

It was published a couple of years after Hindenburg was elected President. Heidi was moving from Catholicism to something more Prussian. Hannah too would have ended up converting if Hitler hadn't come to power and suddenly race trumped religion.  

Heidegger’s work attempted to recover Being from the ordinariness of everyday life in which people exist in the world with others.

This is because the Church didn't accept his vocation. He couldn't even get a Philosophy gig at a Catholic university. Thus he had to pretend to have a super spiritual inner life.  

For him, most of our everyday existence is inauthentic, because being in the world with others turns us away from being with our true selves, our true selves who are unaffected by the world.

Emmy Noether or Grete Hermann had a true self working on mathematical theorems which were indeed unaffected by fads and fashions or popular prejudices or political passions. They weren't pretending to be smart. They actually were smart. 

For Heidegger, there was a difference between what is translated as ‘Being’ (with a capital B) and ‘being’ (with a lower-case b)

So what? The bigger difference was between Heidi and Einstein. The latter could extract something useful from philosophy. The former had a paranoid theory about how philosophy took a wrong turn and the result was that the fucking Jews were busy stabbing all the nice Aryan people in the back.  

This distinction does not indicate a transcendent Being, the way capitalising the ‘g’ in God does, but rather the fact that one is not always merely a being among beings. Or, to put it another way, Being means that there is a truer version of the self, a more authentic version, that can be experienced only when one steps out of the flow of everyday life, what Heidegger called ‘everydayness’. And when we experience this Being, we do not just experience our common lives, we experience everything that being human means – including our own inevitable death, that part of ourselves – our nonexistence – that otherwise remains hidden from our consciousness.

Which is cool iff we gain super-powers. Otherwise it is still mundane. Nobody cares if a sad, fat, loser like me thinks he is Secret agent or whether he coincides with his own being as sad, fat, loser without even a satisfactory fantasy life. 

On the other hand, suppose I knew everything important about myself. Then, in a sense, I would have super powers because I could use my body with maximum efficiency. This is like the notion of an eigenform in second order cybernetics. The sky might well be the limit of a reflective system which can constantly keep improving itself recursively. 

The German word he uses for authenticity is Eigentlichkeit,

i.e. that which characterizes a thing. This is like the eigenvector or eigenform in math or cybernetics. 

which is defined as ‘really’ or ‘truly’. Eigen means ‘peculiar’, and ‘own’ or ‘of one’s own’. Literally, it might be translated as possessing the quality of being truly for oneself. Or, colloquially, today we might say something like ‘being true to oneself’.

If I knew my own capabilities and had achieved perfect control over my body, I might be able to Kung Fu you to death while making a moving speech and also farting melodiously 

In those moments of exception, when one fully experiences the truth of themselves, they are apart from the herd, alone in their Being.

Why? You can be part of a herd and play a leadership role, leading it, and yourself, to safety.  

And in this way, Heidegger’s notion of authenticity is a very lonely concept. It is to allow oneself to experience for a moment the terrifying aloneness of nonexistence – one’s death – while still alive.

So, this is mystical shite rather than the gaining of a super-power. Why bother learning Kung Fu if all you get is 'satori' rather than the ability to fly through the air kicking the heads off evil Ninja assassins? Worse yet, it is one thing to pretend you experience mystical raptures in your garden shed and another thing entirely to have to give lectures and supervise PhD dissertations in stupid shite. 

In France, philosophy was taught at high school. A number of teachers of that shite dreamed of a better life as writers or journalists. A few- Sartre, Camus but even Beauvoir- were able to quit teaching by getting paid to write pompous or hysterical shite. Later, there was the option to become a pop-star and later yet, to get rich as a stand up comedian. 

In the midst of the Second World War,

which became inevitable once France permitted the remilitarization of the Rhineland 

French existentialism emerged out of German existentialism.

France had great mathematicians. Stupid people went in for a literary type of psilosophy.  

If authenticity was a question of being for Heidegger and a question of freedom for Jaspers,

but this would involve a 'leap of faith'. The problem is that people doing useful stuff don't have to jump at anything.  

for Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and Albert Camus it became a question of individual ethics.

What stupid shite I write can get me some money and a blessed release from having to teach shite?  

The underlying question shifted from ‘What is the meaning of Being?’ to ‘How should I be?’ The credo underpinning Sartre’s work – ‘existence precedes essence’ – meant that we are thrown into the world without any fixed substance, and this meant that we get to choose who we become.

Should we pretend to be Commies? That might be fun.  

While philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau tried to capture human nature by imagining what life was like before society, for Sartre, there is no human nature.

His people had no character. This was because after the re-militarization of the Rhineland, France had no offensive doctrine which meant its East European allies could place no reliance on them. But, once Mussolini went over to the dark side, this meant that the French could not rely even on themselves. I suppose a life without honor is but bare existence. But to maintain honor requires doing sensible things and telling philosophers to fuck the fuck off.  

We must always be imagining and reimagining who we are,

if we have shit for brains- sure.  

which is to say we are always in the process of becoming. For Beauvoir, becoming was a creative enterprise, a work of art.

Then she died and her oeuvre was preserved by the brain dead for the brain dead. 


Friday 19 July 2024

Chomsky's paranoid stupidity

Marie Snyder writes in 3 Quarks about 

Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky, a collection of talks given between 1989 and 1999. Below, I’ve summarized the ideas down to ten common threads often seen elsewhere in his work.... 
1. He openly disparages the use of unnecessarily complex words and ideas (like “praxis”), and explains how and why the university system (tied to corporations and governments) breeds elitist intellectualism:

Doctors should not use complex words like 'hemoglobin'. Universities should not pretend that they take only the smartest students. We want our scientists and lawyers to have the vocabulary of a retarded five year old.  


“I think the idea that you’re supposed to have special qualifications to talk about world affairs is just another scam…

Nobody thinks you need special qualifications. What helps is having been a diplomat who negotiated an important multilateral treaty or else having made billions on the currency market by correctly predicting wars and revolutions and so forth.  

.it’s just another technique for making the population feel that they don’t know anything, and they’d better just stay out of it and let us smart guys run it.

The population genuinely doesn't want to make decisions regarding countries they have never heard off. Also they want their Doctors to be hella smart.  

In order to do that, what you pretend is that there’s some esoteric discipline, and you’ve got to have some letters after your name before you can say anything about it. The fact is, that’s a joke” (137).

What Chomsky studied was indeed a joke. As for his comments on politics, they were jejune. Did you know politicians pretend to be nice even if they aren't nice? That's totes bonkers! 

“Don’t forget, part of the whole intellectual vocation is creating a niche for yourself, and if everybody can understand what you’re talking about, you’ve sort of lost, because then what makes you special?

What made Chomsky special was that his shite was a total waste of time. Linguists should be compiling dictionaries or grammar books. They shouldn't pretend they are doing some higher type of math.  

I think people should be extremely skeptical when intellectual life constructs structures which aren’t transparent….most of the time it’s just fakery” (229).

Generative grammar was fakery- that's true enough.  

“Universities…in many respects are not very different from the media in the way they function….they’re parasitic institutions that need to be supported from the outside” (233).

Some media outlets are useful- e.g. one's devoted to providing economic or scientific information. The same is true of Universities which focus on STEM subjects or Sports or useful stuff of that sort. What is utterly useless is stupid Professors who pretend they are actually Leon fucking Trotsky.  

Typically you’re going to find major efforts made to marginalize the honest and serious intellectuals,

Paranoid much? What marginalized Chomsky was the fact that his work was utterly useless.  

the people who are committed to what I would call Enlightenment values – values of truth, and freedom, and liberty, and justice.

The fundamental Enlightenment value had to do with fucking over darkies.  

And those efforts will to a large extent succeed” (261).

Nope. Darkies will kick Whiteys ass- if darkies are more numerous.  

2. He has a plethora of evidence of shocking atrocities committed by the U.S.  including using mercenary states which allow them to overtly support one side while covertly supporting the other.

Chomsky did not notice that the US was founded on atrocities committed against indigenous people. As for 'covert' support- the US didn't need to bother with any such thing unless Congress had ruled otherwise.  

This in-depth information ensure that the public can see the severity of the current problem with our system:

Paranoid ravings don't enable us to see shite.  

“There’s a whole network of U.S. mercenary states….a massive international terrorist network run by the United States…military groups that unite the Western Hemisphere….Other countries hire terrorists, we hire terrorist states” (4-5).

I suppose Chomsky meant the Contras in Nicaragua. Still, what's so strange about a terrorist state doing deals with other terrorist states? Anyway, many people in America have dicks. Dicks cause RAPE! Ban them immediately. 

“In the 1960s, Israel started to be used as a conduit for intervening in the affairs of black African countries…

Israel sold military training to anyone who could afford to pay. But it was the PLO which trained crazy terrorists.  

the United States increasingly turned to Israel as a kind of a weapon against other parts of the Third World –

No. The US itself provided training to some groups- e.g. Tibetan Khampas. Israel was welcome to do non mission critical stuff like training ex-Mau Mau fighters from Kenya.  

Israel would provide armaments and training and computers and all sorts of other things to Third World dictatorships at times when it was hard for the U.S. government to give that support directly” (126).

Because of Congress.  

“The United States is permitted to carry out war crimes, it’s permitted to attack other countries, it’s permitted to ignore international law. On those things there’s a complete consensus” 

No. That's why it has to be done surreptitiously. Oliver North got limited immunity for testifying. Otherwise he'd have done jail time. Chomsky didn't understand that doing evil shit costs money. Voters are also tax payers. They elect people to cut off funding for evil shit.

3. He acknowledges and details the illegitimate use of power in western governments today as they work towards improving their own lot at the expense of their citizens’. We could have a society in which every mouth is fed, but that would be bad for the government:

Chomsky noticed that most Americans were as thin as shit because those in power kept stealing their tacos.  

“Under the Sandinista government Nicaragua was in fact beginning economic development: it was establishing health programs and social programs, and things were starting to improve for the general population there.

Unless they objected to Dictatorship or wanted stuff like habeas corpus and freedom of expression.  

Well, that set off the alarm bells in New York and Washington, like it always does, and we had to stop it – because it was issuing an appeal to the ‘illiterate and mentally deficient’ in other desperate countries, like Honduras and Guatemala, to do the same thing. That’s what U.S. planners call the ‘domino theory,’ or the ‘threat of a good example,’ and pretty soon the whole U.S.-dominated system starts to fall apart” (40-41).

Congress felt that Nicaragua was a money-pit and, under the Boland amendment, banned funding for the Contras.  

“Germany has a kind of social contract we don’t have –

Chomsky lurves Germany.  

one of the biggest unions there just won a 35-hour work-week….

Interestingly, the average number of hours worked is lower in the US than in Germany.  

In the Netherlands, poverty among the elderly has gone down to flat zero,

but American seniors are richer.  

and among children it’s 4%….So even within the range of existing societies set up almost exactly like ours,

The US is a lot bigger than Germany. For structural reasons  

there are plenty of other social policies you could have – and I think our system could tolerate those things too, it really just depends if there’s enough pressure to achieve them” (363).

It really depends on whether Americans want to pay higher taxes. 

[The U.S. intentionally] “put the country so deeply in debt that there would be virtually no way for the government to pursue programs of social spending anymore” 

To be fair, Chomsky knows shit about econ.  


4. He clarifies that we’ve become accustomed to a corporate-dictated governmental system that has to be overthrown.

“Our economic system “works,” it just works in the interests of the masters,

Chomsky's master should take him walkies more often.  

and I’d like to see one that works in the interests of the general population. And that will only happen when they are the ‘principal architects’ of policy, to borrow Adam Smith’s phrase.

The problem is that people run away from places where they are 'principal architects'.  

I mean, as long as power is narrowly concentrated…you know who’s going to benefit from the policies….

No. What matters is what people with power do with that power.  

That’s why democracy would be a good thing for the general public.

Democracies can do stupid shit.  

But of course, achieving real democracy will require that the whole system of corporate capitalism be completely dismantled

Also we will have to exterminate the bourgeoisie and the kulaks and the lumpen elements and, obviously, the Jews and the Freemasons and the Catholics and the sodomites and people who like Taylor Swift.  

– because it’s radically anti-democratic….You have to build up alternative popular institutions,

this cunt can't build shit. 

which could allow control over society’s investment decisions to be moved into the hands of working people and communities…a ‘participatory economy’” (140).

Chomsky was a big fan of Chavez. He simply felt he didn't go far enough.  

“If capital is privately controlled, then people are going to have to rent themselves

Chomsky started off as a rent-boy.  

in order to survive. Now, you can say, ‘they rent themselves freely, it’s a free contract’ – but that’s a joke.

Venezuela is no joke. Twenty percent of the population has fled. 

If your choice is, ‘do what I tell you or starve,’

7 million Venezuelans fled because they weren't getting enough to eat. Stalin and Mao presided over massive famines.  

that’s not a choice – it’s in fact what was commonly referred to as wage slavery in more civilized times, like the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for example”.

There was actual slavery in the eighteenth century and for a good part of the nineteenth century. It took the genius of the Bolsheviks to invent Gulags which were worse than any Caribbean barracoon. 

“There’s an experiment going on. The experiment is: can you marginalize a large part of the population, regard them as superfluous because they’re not helping you make those dazzling profits – and can you set up a world in which production is carried out by the most oppressed people, with the fewest rights, in the most flexible labor markets, for the happiness of the rich people of the world?“ 

That experiment succeeded in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Chomsky is simply ignorant.  

5. He insists we must have a government that is transparent and fair

we must find our own Chavez to wreck our country.  

with a populous that keeps it on its toes through constant scrutiny and limited government control:

which is what constitutional law is about- another subject Chomsky is wholly ignorant of.  

“If you want to traumatize people, treason trials are an extreme way – if there are spies running around in our midst, then we’re really in trouble, we’d better just listen to the government and stop thinking” .

Chomsky doesn't bother with thinking. He just tells the stupidest most mischievous possible lie.  

“Look, every government has a need to frighten its population, and one way of doing that is to shroud its working in mystery” (11).

The late Queen, Gor bless 'er, often hid behind a chair and shouted' Boo!' at the Prime Minister.  

“Giving the state the power to determine what people can say does not improve the position of people who are now powerless.…It’s dangerous to impose such constraints on what people are allowed to say. There are other ways of dealing with it” 

Biden is a Nazi. He often hides behind a chair and shouts 'Boo!' at members of the general public.  


6. He favours anarchy over our current form of pseudo-democracy:

We would favor some nice anarchist kicking his fucking head in.  

“If a decision is made by some centralized authority, it is going to represent the interests of the particular group which is in power.

No. It is more likely to represent the interest of the group which can deprive that authority of power.  

But if power is actually rooted in large parts of the population –

then there won't be any fucking power. Collective action problems won't be solved.  

if people can actually participate in social planning – then they will presumably do so in terms of their own interests, and you can expect the decisions to reflect those interests.

Plans cost money to implement. Where will the money come from? The rich will run away.  

Well, the interest of the general population is to preserve human life; the interest of corporations is to make profits – those are fundamentally different interest” .

Very true. That why most CEOs refuse to breathe and thus die quickly of suffocation. 

“Anarchists have typically believed in a highly organized society, just one that’s organized democratically from below, [but the] “idea that people could be free is extremely frightening to anybody with power”.

Nothing wrong with being a Libertarian. Anarchists shat the bed long ago.  

“The person who claims the legitimacy of the authority always bears the burden of justifying it.

Not if that authority actually exists and people consider it legitimate.  

And if they can’t justify it, it’s illegitimate and should be dismantled. To tell you the truth, I don’t really understand anarchism as being much more than that”

Anything at all can be justified by telling stupid lies.  

7. He explains how the media (owned by corporations in cahoots with governments) keep us from dissenting.

Media controls us through evil mind-rays. My tin-foil hat keeps me safe.  

Media should be a counterweight to the government, but that’s impossible when it’s corporate owned.

The Venezuelan media turned against Chavez whose supporters promptly beat it into submission.  

They don’t care about attracting readers in order to sell papers, but in attracting advertisers.

But advertisers are only interested in newspapers which lots and lots of people enjoy reading.  


“So what the media do, in effect, is to take the set of assumptions which express the basic ideas of the propaganda system…and then present a range of debate within that framework – so the debate only enhances the strength of the assumptions, ingraining them in people’s minds as the entire possible spectrum of opinion that there is….Under what’s sometimes been called “brainwashing under freedom,” the critics….make a major contribution to the cause by bounding the debate within certain acceptable limits – that’s why they’re tolerated, and in fact even honored” (13). The media, “have a commitment to indoctrination in the interests of power, and that imposes pretty strict limits on what they can do” (179).

Chomsky is describing his own modus operandi. It is based on what Michael Polanyi called 'moral inversion'. You show your superior virtue by condemning anything your own side does while praising whatever evil shit those who want to kill you are doing. 

8. He cautions us about getting sucked into the trivia created to distract us from reacting to real problems in the world,

like the fact that Biden is totes Fascist 

what he calls ‘de-politicizing’ intelligent people by getting them to track sports statistics and the complex relationships on HBO series.

So, Chomsky is basically your Mum who thinks TV is rotting your brain and preventing you getting into Med school.  


“It’s as though people want to work out mathematical problems, and if they don’t have calculus and arithmetic, they work them out with other structures…

Or they just ask somebody smart.  

people just want to use their intelligence somehow….

people want to use their dicks. If intelligence helps your dick find a nice home, well and good. 

Spectator sports also have other useful functions too. For one thing they’re a great way to build up chauvinism – you start by developing these totally irrational loyalties early in life,

e.g. being loyal to Mummy. That's totes evil.  

and they translate very nicely to other areas….

Did you know Biden had a Mummy? No wonder he is a Nazi! 

This sense of irrational loyalty to some sort of meaningless community

like your family.  

is training for subordination to power….

Chomsky wanted to be subordinated to some power far more evil than anything that obtained in his own country. 

All of this stuff builds up extremely anti-social aspects of human psychology…irrational competition,

we should be competing with Chavez to turn our own country into an even worse shithole.  

irrational loyalty to power systems,

like being loyal to Mummy even though she used her power to potty train you 

passive acquiescence to quite awful values, really. 

Why won't people eat their own shit? Don't they realize Big Food is brainwashing them?  

In fact, it’s hard to imagine anything that contributes more fundamentally to authoritarian attitudes than this does, in addition to the fact that it just engages a lot of intelligence and keeps people away from other things….Soap operas…teach people other kinds of passivity and absurdity….These are the types of things which occupy most of the media….This stuff is a major part of the whole indoctrination and propaganda system”

Stalin forced prisoners in the Gulags to watch 'Peyton Place'.  

9. He’s clear that things are very bad – worse than in the depression, and not much different from feudal society:

Things were very bad for his students. Their brains turned to shit. By contrast the 'e-language' approach taken by Peter Brown (Brown clustering) was useful for speech recognition. Brown became CEO of Renaissance Technologies. He must be a billionaire. 


“There was a lot of union organizing [in the 30s],

in seven states where workers were afraid of losing jobs to migrants from the Dust Bowl.  

and the struggles were very brutal….So it was not pretty by any means. But it was also not hopeless. Somehow that’s a tremendous difference: the slums are now hopeless, there’s nothing to do except prey on one another…

Darkies are super-predators- right?  

.For the first time in I think human history, middle-class kids now assume they are not going to live as well as their parents – that’s really something new; that’s never happened before” (45).

Unchecked migration will do that particularly if Newsom become President and gives free health care to undocumented people.  

“You can see it very clearly when you drive through New York now: the differences in wealth are like San Salvador…

No. They are much greater because New York is much more economically developed.  

.But it’s like living in a feudal system, with a lot of wild barbarians outside – except if you’re rich, you don’t ever see them, you just move between your castle and your limousine. And if you’re poor, you’ve got no castle to protect you”.

The advantage of being rich is you can relocate if the shit hits the fan.  

“The idea is, ‘We smashed up the world and stole everything from it – now we’re not going to let anyone come and take any piece of it back.’

Its easier just to relocate.  

That’s an attitude I see right on the surface all over the place in the West these days” (176). “If we wait for an ecological disaster, it’ll be too late – in fact, we might not even have such a long wait” 

Which is why the rich invest in New Zealand real estate.  


10. Yet, he’s hopeful. He shares myriad examples of how far we’ve come, and how possible it all is. We just need to avoid the red herrings – activities that get us spinning our wheels unproductively – and keep organizing, keep being noisy about it all, and, like every other movement for change, eventually it will come together into something that can’t be ignored.

Chomsky was considered smart back in the mid Sixties. The hope was that he'd take on Robert McNamara. But Chomsky was shit at math. Come to think of it, it was Irma Adelman- who actually went to Vietnam- who gave the best policy recommendation.  


“You couldn’t have predicted in 1954 that there was going to be a Civil Rights Movement” (68).

The turning point was Truman's 1948 issued Executive Order 9981. Brown v Board of Education had triggered anti-Black violence. African Americans had no choice but to unite and seek allies. 

“The trick is not to be isolated – if you’re isolated, like Winston Smith in 1984, then sooner or later you’re going to break…because if you can keep them isolated enough, you can get them to believe anything. But when people get together, all sorts of things are possible”

Winston Smith was fictional. Big Brother was in charge because he'd got a lot of people together to run the country for him.  

( “Large-scale social changes in the past …have come about just because

of new technology or being invaded by guys with a different technology. 

lots of people, working wherever they are, have worked hard, and have looked around to find other people who are working hard, and have tried to work together with them when they find them….It’s mostly just a question of scale and dedication”.

People coming together represent a 'social change'. However, they may realize that they'd have been better off not coming together though, it must be said, lynching people can be quite a fun way to pass the time.  

“There isn’t ever one great person who leads a movement.

It makes sense to pretend your leader is great and that his farts don't stink.  

It starts with tons of people, and maybe there’s one person who can give a good speech, but they’re not the one who leads – the people lead.

The leader may pretend that is the case. But, the truth is, leaders solve a coordination problem for collective action.  

It’s necessary to distort history and make it look as if Great Men did everything – that’s part of how you teach people they can’t do anything, they’re helpless, they just have to wait for some Great Man to come along and do it for them”

People are taught not to eat their own poo. This is a conspiracy involving 'manufactured consent' orchestrated by Big Food.  

“The real work is being done by people who are not known, that’s always been true in every popular movement in history. The people who are known are riding the crest of some wave….But the point is, it’s the wave that matters”.

Waves don't matter. The Law does. So does money and guys with big big guns.  

Trying to convince the “elites” of your side: “That stops you from organizing, and getting people involved, and causing disruption, because now you’re talking to some elite smart guy – and you can do that forever”.

But 'causing disruption' just means making a nuisance of yourself. Even if everybody takes to the streets and to shit on everything, nothing permanent will be achieved.  

“I don’t feel like that in order to work hard for social change you need to be able to spell out a plan for a future society in any kind of detail.

Also you don't need to work hard. Just wave from time to time.  

What I feel should drive a person to work for change are certain principles you’d like to see achieved….

any principle is compatible with any shite whatsoever.  

I think what you have to be able to do is spell out the principles you want to see such a society realize –

that was done long ago for the America to which Chomsky's grand-parents emigrated.  

and I think we can imagine many different ways in which a future society could realize them….The basic principle I would like to see communicated to people is the idea that every form of authority and domination and hierarchy, every authoritarian structure, has to prove that it’s justified”.

American politicians justify their actions to the voters. Noam doesn't seem to have noticed that he was already living in the sort of society he wanted. Sadly, it was one where smart peeps like Peter Brown could get very rich by doing useful stuff.  

“If you’re maximizing short-term profits without concern for the long-term effects, you are going to destroy the environment, for one thing”.

Not if you are working on green energy or simply raising allocative efficiency and thus doing more with less resources.  

“Labor movement just has to be international” (383).

It was. But it was useless.  


This collection was written about over twenty years ago, and at the time, regarding what would happen if we knew we had 10 years to stop climate change instead of 100, Chomsky said,

“Given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover – with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of…

This proves Biden is a Fascist. Did you know he has a dick? Dicks cause rape- including the sodomization of the Environment.  

.So, you don’t wait for the disasters to happen, first you have to create the groundwork.

Chomsky did no groundwork. He talked paranoid bollocks.  

You need to plant the seeds of something right now, so that whatever opportunities happen to arise,…people are in a position that they can do something constructive about it” 

What seeds did Chomsky plant? Chavez is great, Biden is a Fascist? Robert McNamara redeemed himself by becoming head of the World Bank and helping China to rise. Chomsky's work- academic or political- was an utter waste of time. 

Thursday 18 July 2024

Christ as Krotonian Milos


Like Christ- a Krotonian Milos trapped by the very monstrosity of his own strength
Chronos is an Yggdrasil defeated by its e'er more unmeaning length
How hold to Hylozoism if Troy fought for but a Phantom?
Hidden in Egypt- Helen, a chick e'er less than bantam.

Envoi- 

Prince! All Power is an Hour, Minutes e'er devour
Till the cross-tree flower-or my Wine turns sour. 



Why Berggruen is bollocks

What was the big lesson of the COVID pandemic? Poor countries shouldn't bother with lockdowns. Rich countries are welcome to do stupid shit of any sort. The thing makes no fucking difference. The plain fact is- Death is part of Life. For Life to flourish, Death must flourish. Deal with it. 

Jonathan S Blake & Nils Gilman, of the Berggruen Institute for Talking Bollocks, ask in Aeon magazine which political system is 'fit for governing the planet'?  Consider the problem of global epidemics. How should they be tackled? One thing we can all agree on is that the WHO must play no role. It is utterly shit. Consider the Pandemic agreement they have been working on since 2021. Under the leadership of a pharmacist by the name of Precious Matsoso, of South Africa, it started off by demanding the Sun and the Moon and ended up achieving nothing at all. The Chinese were cool with this. They had ignored the 1969 treaty when it really counted. It suited them to turn the WHO and the Pandemic treaty into a fight between rich White peeps and South African Blecks who had suffered under Apartheid.

Blake & Gilman won't admit this. Yet, they write- 

The major sticking points appear in Article 12 of the draft treaty, ‘Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System’. Under this arrangement, countries would be required to rapidly share information about emerging pathogens, including samples and genetic sequences.

What's wrong with that? The big problem is that the International Health Regulation agreement of 1969 was largely ignored or was wholly ineffective during the Pandemic. That's the problem the WHO could not tackle. Instead it sucked up to the Chinese. 

But the Global South justifiably fears that their costly efforts at monitoring and information-sharing

for which they will get financial help. Otherwise they won't do it. 

will be used to create tests, vaccines and therapeutics that get hoarded by the Global North.

Which may be able to figure out a cure. But the Global South has too many people and doesn't care about lots of them dying. On the other hand, their leaders do want to be bribed.  

Negotiators from lower-income countries insist that the treaty includes guarantees for equitable access to any pharmaceutical developments, something that wealthier countries are hesitant to accept.

We also want equitable access to your teenaged daughters.  

‘We don’t want to see Western countries coming to collect pathogens, going with pathogens, making medicines, making vaccines, without sending back to us these benefits,’ Jean Kaseya, the director-general of the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told The New York Times.

How will you stop this? You can always hire some locals very cheaply to collect the samples. Disintermediate trained people with high tax-free salaries. 


Beyond political disputes over finance mechanisms, the equitable distribution of vaccines and treatments, and intellectual property rights, the reason for the failure to reach a global pandemic agreement boils down to the core conceptual feature of the contemporary international system: state sovereignty.

Why are the Ukrainians asserting state sovereignty? Ought they not to give access to their teenage daughters to all and sundry? As for 'intellectual property'- firstly, property is theft. Secondly, 'intellectuals' know stuff. Knowledge is very bad because it was invented by Whitey so as to make us darkies look stooopid. 

The question we must address is how we can dismantle state sovereignty. A good start would be to introduce slavery and break up families and ship people off to distant lands in company with others of different races and religions and languages. That way, nobody would have any property or attachment to land or family. Thus there would be no States and no free people. World Government will be achievable.  

Though the draft treaty is adamant in its respect for national sovereignty – it both reaffirms ‘the principle of the sovereignty of States in addressing public health matters’

Which is crazy! How come foreigners can't insist that our government chop off all our hands so as to eliminate the risk of masturbation which, studies have shown, can cause me to get sacked?  

and recognises ‘the sovereign right of States over their biological resources’ – nation-states have baulked at granting new authority to the WHO.

Because it is shit.  

Republicans in the United States Senate have demanded that the US President Joe Biden’s administration oppose the pandemic treaty, claiming it would ‘constitute intolerable infringements upon US sovereignty’.

Whereas, the truth is, the treaty is useless. 

The United Kingdom government, likewise, has said it will support the treaty only if it ‘respects national sovereignty’.

Because saying 'Darkies should fuck the fuck off' isn't politically correct.  

In politics, there is no ‘world’; only states.

No. There is a world large portions of which are constituted into sovereign states.  

For pathogens, there are no ‘states’; there is only the world

No. Pathogens can be kept out of any portion of the world which kills on sight any potential carriers of that pathogen who may seek to enter a specific sovereign territory. 

These concerns about sovereignty get to the molten core of the problem with this pandemic treaty, or really any pandemic treaty – indeed the entire multilateral system.

The core is that everybody isn't exactly the same. The solution is to chop of everybody's limbs and heads till they are equally dead.  

The WHO, like every other arm of the United Nations, isn’t accountable to the world or even to world health but to the nation-states that are its members.

It is shit. Defund that racket! What it was proposing was that it should itself gain total power over every country's health resources. It was told to go fuck itself. Biden has a unilateral deal for 50 selected countries. Let us see if the US sticks the course on this.  

As a result, things that would be good for ‘the world’ – like a global strategy to fight the next pandemic – often crash into firm convictions about the national interest as well as the hard-won, jealously guarded principle of national autonomy.

As opposed to some Chinese puppet from Ethiopia trying to make himself Dictator of the World and being told to go fuck himself.  

Tedros may believe that ‘the world still needs a pandemic treaty,’ and that it’s his mission ‘to present the world with a generational pandemic agreement,’ but he will again and again face the same problem: in politics, there is no ‘world’; only states.

One state- China- propped him up. But, sooner or later, they will sour on Ethiopia.  

Compounding the problem is the fact that for pathogens, there are no ‘states’; there is only the world.

 For some pathogens, there are nice Chinese labs where 'gain of function' research is carried out. 

This basic mismatch between the scale of the problem and the scale of possible solutions is a source of many of today’s failures of global governance.

For example, the abject failure of global governance to chop everybody's head off so as to solve the dandruff problem.  

Nation-states and the global governance institutions they have formed simply aren’t fit for the task of managing things such as viruses, greenhouse gases and biodiversity, which aren’t bound by political borders, but only by the Earth system.

These two cretins live in America. They didn't notice that the US wasn't bound by shit when it invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.  

As a result, the diplomats may still come to agree on a pandemic treaty – they’ve committed to keep working – but, so long as the structure of the international system continues to treat sovereignty as sacrosanct, they will never be able to effectively govern this or other planetary-scale phenomena.

Sovereignty will continue to remain sacrosanct so long as at least one person is not a slave. We must abolish freedom because these two nutters want a World Government.  

In our quest for control over nature’s slings and arrows, we humans have dammed rivers

like beavers 

and made war on microbes,

all animals have immune systems which do so 

turbocharged grain production

humans are very evil. They eat food. Food should be banned.  

and ventured into outer space.

oh!, the hubris! 

We’ve domesticated animals into companions,

Some stupid billionaire domesticated these two cretins.  

labour and food, and figured out how to turn the fossilised remains of ancient lifeforms into energy.

The two of you have done shit.  

We’ve constructed homes and cities, razed forests and grasslands, built berms and seawalls, all to keep the elements at bay and improve our own lives. As we did all this, we took account only of human needs and desires – or rather, of some humans’ needs and desires – and ran roughshod over everything else.

Not till everybody is enslaved and has had their head chopped off in an environmentally sustainable manner will these two nutters stop writing stupid books.  

What’s good for fungi, flora or fauna remains irrelevant, if not deliberately negated.

Some nice fungi could grow out of your neck if only you'd let us chop your fucking head off.  

From a certain point of view – one held mainly by the wealthy and powerful – it seems as if Man has conquered Nature, or at any rate is justified in trying.

Whereas poor people would be very happy if some nice fungi started sprouting of their necks.  

These pretensions of mastery have cultural as well as technological origins.

Whitey has culture. Darkies would prefer to let fungi grow out of their necks.  

Culturally, we in the West, at least, have inherited a tradition of human exceptionalism rooted in the idea that human beings, uniquely, are made in God’s image and, as the Bible says, are meant to ‘have dominion … over all the earth’.

These two cunts don't know that the Bible was written in the East.  

Over millennia, human civilisations have developed the tools to enact that dominion – to use nature solely as our ‘instruments’, as Aristotle put it.

In the West, Man plays the flute. In the East, nice pieces of bamboo toot his flute.  

Technologies, from the control of fire to writing to the internal combustion engine to CRISPR, have given humans immense power over other species and Earth itself.

Other species should have immense power over us. Also, everybody should be buried under the Earth itself.  

But too often our self-image produced by the interactions of our culture and our technologies has led to the belief that this power is unbound and that we have succeeded in taming nature.

Very true. A guy who tames a wild stallion thinks he has unbound power. That's why he tries to get the horse to sprout wings and fly through the sky.  

An emerging scientific consensus, however, makes clear that not only have we not tamed nature, we can’t tame nature, for the simple reason that we are part of nature.

In which case nature can be tamed by nature.  

Human beings are inextricably part of the biosphere, part of Earth.

Till we start terraforming planets or turn into beings composed of pure energy.  

These insights emerge from rigorous scientific study, not mystical reflection, and reveal our place within the biogeochemical churn of this planet.

But more rigorous scientific study gives us more power over that 'churn'.  

A vast and expanding infrastructure of sensors across, above and below Earth, and the networks of software and hardware that process and interpret the mountains of data the sensors produce, have demonstrated, with an accuracy and precision unmatched by previous generations, that humans are embedded in this planet’s system of systems.

Previously, humans thought they were embedded in the asteroid belt.  

What this new and growing planetary sapience is revealing is systematic wreckage.

It is only revealing that to nutters and gobshites.  

Scientists have determined that human actions (really, some humans’ actions) have pushed Earth past the ‘safe operating space for humanity’ for six of nine ‘planetary boundaries’, including climate change, biosphere integrity and freshwater change.

Suppose the British Empire had defeated and conquered all other countries and Empires. Then the same outcome would have obtained.  

We now understand not only the damage that we are doing to planetary systems but the damage that we are doing to ourselves as elements of those systems. The Earth sustains us, not the other way around. There is no possibility of human thriving unless the ecosystems that we are part of thrive.

No. If ecosystems crash the less productive and poorer will die. So what? Death is part of Life. We sustain the earth by getting buried in it.  

The realisation of our planetary condition may insult our narcissistic self-regard,

these two cretins enjoy nothing better than the smell of their own farts 

but it also yields a positive possibility: that human flourishing is possible only in the context of multispecies flourishing on a habitable planet.

For which lots of people may need to die. Perhaps a genetically modified type of piranha which is able to walk on land could eat half the global population. Then some nice genetically modified triffids could eat the pirahnas before quickly bio-degrading into lesbian librarians who eat vegan pussies.  

The aim of habitability is meant to diverge from the now-dominant concept of sustainability.

Both require death to flourish. 

While the concept of sustainability treats nature both as distinct from humans and as existing for humans’ responsibly managed instrumental use, the concept of habitability understands humans as embedded in and reliant on the more-than-human natural world.

But neither gets that no great disaster would befall if the human population went down by half. Sadly, it isn't going to happen.  

Stripped of sustainability’s anthropocentrism, habitability focuses on fostering the conditions that allow complex life in general

by writing and talking shite 

– including, but not only, humans – to live well.

I suppose these guys live well enough funded by some billionaire.  

This vision of multispecies flourishing is at once generous and selfish.

It is a vision which any lazy, stupid, cretin can have. 

Expanding the circle of concern to include the multispecies menagerie is certainly more beneficent than current politics typically allows, but it is also absolutely about ensuring the survival of our species.

This was the foolish 'One Health Provision' the WHO wanted which was about  "recognizing the interconnection between the health of people, animals and the environment, that is coherent, integrated, coordinated and collaborative among all relevant organizations, sectors and actors, as appropriate.' In other words, instead of just pharmacists, the WHO could hire guys who look after goats and pay them a nice tax free salary. 

What’s bad for them is, ultimately, bad for us. These goals – thriving ecosystems in a stable biosphere supporting human lives and nonhuman life – must be our new lodestar.

So we can talk yet more stupid paranoid shit.  


The central question of our time is: how can we achieve this?

By writing shitty articles for Aeon and getting a billionaire to fund us.  


The term that scholars and policymakers

shit scholars, useless policymakers 

initially proposed to make sense of this new knowledge is ‘global’. It is now common knowledge that Earth is experiencing global climate change, we just lived through a global pandemic, global biodiversity is at risk of its sixth mass extinction event, and this is an era of global economic, political and cultural interconnections.

Previously, people lived through two World Wars. So what? 

Yet this familiar language of the global papers over an important distinction. The word globe as it’s used in discussions of globalisation, observed the historian Dipesh

Pronounced Dipshit 

Chakrabarty in 2019,

Dipshit realized that nobody believed he knew anything about India. He'd better start gassing on about the globe. 

‘is not the same as the word globe in the expression global warming’. The globe of globalisation is a fundamentally human concept and category: it frames Earth from a human point of view.

Everything we frame is framed from a human point of view. Dipshit, however, should be framed from the point of view of the horse's ass from which he emanated.  

This globe is constructed for and by human intentions and concerns. Globalisation, the process of worldwide integration predicated on this perspective, is about the movement of people and their stuff, ideas, capital, data, and more.

Dipshit's native Bengal was integrated into a global Empire which is why it rose a little. Then India became independent and the place turned to shit. 

The globe of global warming is a different object altogether.

In that case, governments need not bother with it. You can't have treaties about something which is beyond any human frame.  

This concept and category – which we will now call the ‘planetary’

like Heidegger? 

– frames Earth without adopting a human point of view.

These two cretins have a sub-human point of view. Still, some billionaire is funding them so they are laughing all the way to the bank.  

From the planetary, as opposed to the global, perspective, what stands out is the interlinked systems of life, matter and energy.

These guys have smaller brains than gerbils. But they think their brains are as large as planets.  

This concept forces us to take on objects and processes that are much vaster and much smaller than we can easily comprehend, as well as timeframes far outside lived human experience. Trying to make sense of the ‘intangible modes of being’ captured by the concept of the planetary, as the anthropologist Lisa Messeri writes in Placing Outer Space (2016), is a struggle, but we have no choice.

Yes we do. We can tell anthropologists that they have shit for brains.  

The globe of global climate change – the planet – impacts humans and is impacted by humans, but it existed before our species evolved and will be here long after our extinction.

Maybe. Maybe not. But we could say this equally of the Sun or the Milky Way.  

In approaching problems such as climate change as global – that is, in a fundamental way, human

Actually, James Lovelock was studying the Martian atmosphere when he came up with the Gaia hypothesis.  

– we have made a categorical mistake.

No. These guys have made a stupid mistake. Scientists under stuff about cosmic rays and sun spots and the ozone layer. Nobody thinks the Earth is a sweet old lady named Gaia.  

For one, it suggests the goal for our action should be sustainability – an anthropocentric, global concept – rather than habitability – a multispecies, planetary concept.

Gaia is a sweet old lady who has a Yorkshire terrier. We should help her turn Australia into a habitable kennel.  

Moreover, the framing of problems as global suggests that they can be addressed with the tools we have at hand: modern political ideas and the architecture of global governance that has emerged since the Second World War.

In other words, the tools we have are the tools we have not tools which have never existed.  

But planetary problems cannot. This helps to explain why decades of attempts to manage planetary problems with global institutions have failed.

Nonsense! The Montreal Protocol has reduced the size of the ozone layer. If you screen out the nutters and gobshites and Chinese agents, you can get universal ratification of anything sensible. 

The failure to halt greenhouse gas emissions – the cause of planetary climate change – is a prime example. In June 1992, at the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro,

which was counter-productive. The Montreal Protocol built upon a previous agreement between 20 countries at Vienna. Keep out the ranters and nutters and progress can be made. 

the representatives of 154 nation-states signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),

If 20 had done so, something might have come of it. I suppose Bush wanted to look cool by signing it. But the US never really committed to it. Malaysia's Mahathir did a good job telling the West to go fuck itself when it tried to pretend the convention meant shit.  

committing to ‘prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’. The international agreement was hailed as a landmark step in global environmental governance, but the very text of the treaty reveals the source of its own impotence. Alongside its plea for ‘the widest possible cooperation by all countries’ toward avoiding the ‘adverse effects’ of climate change, the treaty reaffirms nation-states’ ‘sovereign right to exploit their own resources’, including, of course, fossil fuel resources. ‘The principle of sovereignty of States,’ the UNFCCC declares, is the bedrock of any ‘international cooperation to address climate change.’

Why is the UNFCCC not declaring that the principle of chopping everybody's head off is the bedrock of some shite or the other?

The UNFCCC, which remains the primary global body tasked with curbing climate change, doesn’t respond to the atmosphere, nor to the planet it envelops.

Nobody can respond to things which can't talk.  

Like the WHO, it responds instead, and only, to its member states.

If should be responding to black holes in the Andromeda galaxy.

The member states, meanwhile, respond to their human citizens (at least, ideally). No part of this chain of authority is concerned with the planet’s climate as a whole.

Nor to the welfare of the Galactic cluster.  

In this, the UNFCCC is no different than any of the other institutions of global governance.

It is more shit than average.  

The international system is built upon the foundation of the sovereign nation-state.

As opposed to the Slave Empires of Andromeda.  

The UN and its many parts and agencies – from UNICEF to the Universal Postal Union – answer not to humanity nor the world, but the nations that united to join it.

Bureaucrats answer to those who pay them- same as these two creins.  Sadly, those answers are seldom sensible.


Though it is better than not to have international forums to foster dialogue and cooperation among nation-states, the contemporary global governance architecture does not overcome the territorially and politically fragmented structure of the nation-state system.

ISIS and Boko Haram may be having better success. 

In fact, global governance projects and reinforces nation-state politics at a worldwide scale.

In the same way that local governance projects are reinforced by national politics.  

International politics isn’t ‘carried out for the sake of world interests,’ remarks the political philosopher Zhao Tingyang

an equally useless Berggruen associate of these two cretins 

in All Under Heaven (2021), ‘but only for national interests on a world scale.’

Worse yet, nations serve the interests of the individuals who comprise their citizenry. What is truly unforgiveable, however, is that people wipe their own bum rather than seeking to wipe the bum of all sentient beings and various planets and asteroids.  

Managing world-scale, or planetary, problems, however, requires acting for ‘world interests’.

No. It requires actually managing stuff. Anyone can talk bollocks. As for 'world interests', they have nothing to do with virtue signaling or shitting higher than your arsehole.  

Thus planetary problems require solutions at the planetary scale.

No. They require scientific solutions. Not yet more bullshit from academo-bureaucrats or cunts wo work for some stupid billionaire's foundation.  

The scale of these problems is incommensurate with our current institutional capacity to govern them.

No. Countries which can do lockdown and mass vaccination can do pretty much anything else. Countries which can't don't matter.  

Managing problems at the scale the planet, therefore, requires creating governance institutions at the scale of the planet.

Nonsense! There are plenty of 'problems at the scale of the planet'- e.g. those of the world wide web or Elon Musk's Starlink. More generally, trade and 'local arbitrage' are enough to knit together the entire world together. A World Government could create global 'governance institutions'. But to get to a World Government requires thinking not just like a planet but also like a Solar System which has been slut shamed by a Black Hole. 

This doesn’t mean, however, that we’d be best served by a world government.

Because nothing whatsoever is meant by anything these cretins write. 

We contend that each planetary problem requires its own planetary institution to govern it.

So, some cretin at the WHO should have had charge of COVID- right? The good folk of North and South Dakota and Arkansas and other States which refused to impose lock-down, would have been delighted to obey some African bureaucrat.  

As a result, a planetary institution would have defined and restricted authority at the planetary scale over a specific planetary phenomenon.

Because American rednecks love Ethiopian bureaucrats and are just dying to comply with their instructions.  

Planetary institutions, therefore, are not world government.

Like the WHO, they are useless unless they are otiose.  

A world state would be a single, general-purpose governance institution with broad authority over the whole planet. What we envision is multiple, functionally specific governance institutions with narrow authority over particular issues.

So, they make a declaration and everybody ignores it. Cool.  

At the same time, however, planetary institutions are not contemporary global governance. Global governance institutions today operate as multilateral associations of sovereign nation-states, which ultimately represent the interests of their member states.

Which is why they can sometimes appear effective.  

Unlike the WHO and UNFCCC, planetary institutions should be more directly accountable to the interests of the planet as a whole.

Will the planet pay their wages? If they ask the tide to turn back or a volcano to stop erupting, will they be obeyed?  

An example of an institution that could actually properly manage aspects of ‘world health’ on behalf of the entire world might be called the Planetary Pandemic Agency.

Will it be able to impose lockdowns and quarantines and institute compulsory vaccination programs? No. It will be useless. The fact is, even the Nation State which commands the loyalty of the great majority of its citizens can't impose an unpopular policy which affects millions. How many people can you jail? One in a thousand? Perhaps, in a rich country, you can go as high as one in a hundred. But if ten or twenty percent of the population defy an order, there is nothing the Government can do even it renames itself the Purrfectly Planetary Pussy Cat Agency for nice kittens who don't want to die horribly. 

To be effective, this planetary health institution would need the capabilities and authority to act against infectious diseases anywhere on the planet.

Also, it would need x-ray vision and the ability to fly faster than the speed of light.  

This requires monitoring of outbreaks and enforcement of preventative measures at all scales, from local to planetary – authorities that the WHO lacks. Such an agency, moreover, must have a planetary approach to health in the sense that it understands human health as interconnected with the health of animals, ecosystems and the Earth system.

in other words, it should know a bit about medicine. Dr. Tedros isn't a medical doctor. He has a PhD in 'Community Health' from the University of Nottingham. As a member of the Tigray Popular Liberation Front, he was made Minister of Health when his people came to power. Later, in 2022, Ethiopia's government accused him of helping his terrorist pals. It must be said, his outfit had been previously able to rearm by diverting famine relief funds to the purchase of weapons. Bob Geldof wasn't utterly useless after all. 

So, it must be planetary not only in terms of scale but in terms of a holistic vision: that protecting our health requires protecting the planetary whole. (To its credit, the draft pandemic treaty promotes ‘a One Health approach … recognising the interconnection between the health of people, animals and the environment.’)

I think they went a bit over-board there. We understand that the thing was a smokescreen to distract attention from China's role in the spread of COVID. Still, just the economic demands would have been enough to sink the thing. There was no need for this illiterate woo woo shite. Still, as Hilary Clinton often said, it takes an African village to raise an African child because the Whites meanly fucked off.  

Rather than focusing on isolated toxicities and pathogens, a planetary health institution that lives up to its mandate must keep front of mind that infectious diseases emerge from the place of humans in biogeochemical and ecological systems.

No. That is stuff local health authorities should be on the alert for. 

The middle scale should be governed by nation-states tasked with managing the issues fit for their scale. Nation-states thus still have a role under our vision, but that role is much reduced from the present.

Also individuals will have a role under these cunts' vision. But that role would be as robots or obedient slaves.  

Nestled in a broader multiscalar governance framework, nation-states will in fact likely be better equipped to succeed at the tasks and functions for which they are appropriate, namely, distributing and redistributing economic gains and losses.

Because that's what the Ethiopian government has been doing- right? 

Economic governance – which is a political, not a technical, activity – has historically worked best at the national scale,

No. Scotland started doing better after it united with England and Wales. The EU was great for France and Germany, Belgium, etc.  

where political institutions can facilitate collective life between the immense abstractness of the planetary and the place-based familiarity of the local.

We want our 'collective life' to be facilitated by cool new tech, not boring shitheads. 


Building and supporting governance institutions at all scales, from the smallest face-to-face communities to the entire Earth, provides the foundation for adequate governance at all scales.

Also, we should arrange fitted carpeting and piped music for the entire planet.  

It addresses the critique made by Elinor Ostrom, a Nobel laureate in economics, of the widespread assumption among policymakers ‘that only the global scale is relevant for policies related to global public goods’.

That follows from the definition of a public good as non-excludable and non-rival. But the global scale is irrelevant. The thing will be supplied if it is profitable, or otherwise rewarding, to do so in a local market.  

Her pathbreaking work demonstrated that that effective management of large-scale problems requires work by large-scale, medium-scale and small-scale bodies.

Everybody already knew this. The problem of global hunger is solved at the micro-level by my ordering a pizza. 

This is what our proposed architecture sets out to provide.

In our next book we reinvent the wheel. It should look like a cat but should say 'woof, woof.'  

It offers a vision for one worldwide governance system, but not one with a unitary world governance led from one centre of power. Power, in our architecture, is dispersed among the units that need it to tackle specific problems.

I think these two cretins are confusing power with their own feces.

Our takeaway from the revelation of humankind’s planetary condition is twofold.

No. It is a turd.  

We need to establish new governance institutions at the scale of the planet that are able to manage phenomena at the scale of the planet.

We need a DMV building which is 50 miles high.  

But that isn’t the only implication. We must redesign the entire architecture of how and where governance decisions are made.

Now these cunts think they are architects. What's next? I suppose they will take up origami.  


How can we organise such a complex system of governance? How should we decide which authorities should be allocated where? Our answer builds on the centuries-old principle of subsidiarity.

The Catholics came up with that word. It means fucking altar boys in the ass.  

The principle of subsidiarity states that in a multilayered governance system, larger-scale institutions shouldn’t intervene in a decision or task unless and until a smaller-scale institution cannot do it themselves.

The Bishop should only intervene if the Vicar is having difficulty sodomizing small boys.  

In other words, the authority to make decisions should be made at the smallest scale capable of functionally governing the issue at hand.

Unless people beat that authority to death.  

Subsidiarity is in direct opposition to the status quo principle for the allocation of authority, state sovereignty, which gives all authority to nation-states.

No. It gives the State the monopoly of a kick ass Army and Airforce. Subsidiarity is stupid if there are economies of scope and scale or if there could be wasteful competition or rent contestation.  

To be sure, sovereign states can then decide to delegate certain authorities, if they wish, to international organisations, subnational governments or private actors, but the international system today puts nation-states in the driver’s seat.

No. There is only an 'international system' to the extent that nation-states say it exists.  

Every issue and function, regardless of whether states are well-suited to manage them, go to nation-states by default.

Unless they are shit. At the margin, most are.  

Climate change, to take a pressing and archetypical planetary problem, is governed, in the end, by states. Even the 2015 Paris Agreement, the most important global climate accord, makes clear that the action comes from nation-states: ‘Parties shall pursue domestic mitigation measures, with the aim of achieving the objectives of such contributions,’ the diplomats wrote, leaving goal-setting and enforcement to each state.

By contrast the 2024 Fulham Agreement said that cats should enforce strict curbs on carbon emissions.  

By contrast, subsidiarity understands that while states are good for some things, they aren’t good for everything.

Which is why we must turn to cats.  

States should have authority over the issues that fit them,

People should be able to breathe in and breathe out. Sadly, some corpses are no longer doing so. We should ensure that dead people gain the authority to engage in respiration in an environmentally sustainable manner and in line with the principles of subsidiarity, niceness and not saying mean things about fat people. 

but authority over other issues should move to institutions at other scales with a better fit. At the centre of the principle of subsidiarity is the message that in a diverse world there cannot be just one right answer.

Nor can there be just one right question or right as opposed to left or up as opposed to down or here as opposed to there.  

Applying subsidiarity with our dawning recognition of our planetary condition generates a new principle for the allocation of authority: planetary subsidiarity.

This is because we can't delegate authority to other planets and also Mummy can't come and tie your shoe-laces once we're forty years old. 

Planetary subsidiarity is the principle that we offer for allocating authority over an issue to the smallest-scale institution

the cat? 

that can govern the issue effectively to promote habitability and multispecies flourishing. The principle provides a tool for assessing how to simultaneously address planetary challenges, such as pandemics and biodiversity, while at the same time maximising local empowerment.

definitely the cat. 

How might this principle apply in practice?

In practice, things will be run the way things have always been run. There are incremental changes and fashions and fads but also quite useful mimetic effects. 

Consider again the case of climate change.

Which requires massive action at the local level to prevent heat deaths etc.  

The first thing to acknowledge is that climate change is a quintessential planetary issue.

No. It is a quintessentially economic issue. The human inhabitants of this planet have various ways to meet their energy requirements. After weighting up relevant 'externalities', we have decided it will be cheaper in the long run, all things considered, to replace fossil fuels with renewable sources of energy. Perhaps we should have done this sooner. Perhaps we would have done it sooner if the Environmental lobby hadn't engaged in egregious propaganda back in the late Sixties and Seventies.  

Greenhouse gas emissions that take place anywhere have an impact everywhere.

Which is why cow farts matter. Lovelock proposed a genetically modified virus to kill off India's holy cows. 

It doesn’t matter if carbon is burned in central Los Angeles or rural Laos,

or a cow farts in Texas or in Telengana, methane is still produced 

once it enters the atmosphere it has consequences for the entire Earth system. As a result, the smallest-scale jurisdiction that can effectively mandate climate mitigation must encompass the whole planet. Yet that doesn’t mean that a planetary institution tasked with governing carbon emissions would take charge of the entire process. Instead, a planetary climate governance institution would take only high-level decisions – about, say, the maximum permissible carbon budget for the planet each year – and then turn over the implementation to smaller-scale institutions.

Which will ignore that budget because it isn't a money budget. People may do what they are paid to do and money for that must be found in a budget, but a carbon budget is like a budget of cuddles and kisses. It has no practical effect.  

The planetary institution, in other words, makes only decisions that must be made at the planetary scale in order to be effective.

I make decisions about the planet all the time. I think Australia would look nicer if it was moved slightly to the left and tilted slightly. Sadly, my decisions aren't effective. Nor will be the decisions of any 'planetary institution' unless it can bribe or kill people.  

Shifting our conceptual toolkit from the global to the planetary will take time and great effort.

No. It can be easily done. The problem is that there is no enforcement mechanism corresponding to that 'conceptual toolkit'. One might as well just send good thoughts into the ether.  

But it is nothing compared with what it will take to transform our political system from one founded on the sovereign nation-state to one rooted in planetary subsidiarity.

What it will take will be the enslavement of the human race and the break up of families and linguistic communities. Either that or mass hypnotism.  

It would represent a revolution in the governance of the world – and we do not have a map for how to get there.

In which case you are going nowhere with this stupid article.  

Change must come the way it always comes, through new ideas and political struggle. Beyond that truism, however, we do not pretend to see a path for such a radical transformation of the basic structures of politics and governance.

Why not say 'everybody should stop being naughty and become very nice. In particular, they should stop farting and thus producing methane which is a greenhouse gas. Also they should demand that nation states be disbanded and several Planetary authorities should be set up. After that, everybody should learn to levitate and poop upon the heads of the authors of this shite.  

In this, we find ourselves in good company.

If by 'good' you mean 'stupid'- sure.  

Even ideas that eventually succeeded in transforming systems of governance often took many decades and even centuries to be adopted. The idea behind the League of Nations (established in 1920)

which failed miserably 

and the UN (established in 1945)

which is failing miserably 

lies with Immanuel Kant’s notion, from Perpetual Peace (1795),

which failed miserably. There was a little thing called the 'Napoleonic Wars' you know.  

that ‘The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states.’

 these cunts are Americans. They don't get that Kant was describing the US of A which greatly enjoyed massacring indigenous people and bringing in African slaves. 

Forty years later, in his poem ‘Locksley Hall’ (1835), Alfred, Lord Tennyson could dream of ‘the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world’ where ‘the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe, / And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law.’

But the air would be terribly polluted from all the aero-planes flying around in Tennyson's vision. These silly cunts have forgotten that Tennyson was endorsing England's industrialization as well as a radical type of Chartism in 'Locksley'. In old age, he would revise his view. 

But it took the cataclysm of the First and the Second World Wars to move this idea from the minds of philosophers and pages of poets to actual political institutions.

Nope. There was a 'Concert of Europe' after Napoleon was defeated which kept the peace and suppressed revolutions. Sadly, the struggle for the unification of Germany and Italy and the successful Hungarian uprising put paid to that scheme. The Great War marked the deathbed of the great Empires. Going forward, apart from the anomaly that was the Soviet Union, there would only be Nation-states. 

Crises, like world wars, are often the midwife for institutional change.

Unless they aren't. Changing institutions during a crisis is a recipe for disaster. The scope of particular institutions may be increased or decreased under exigent circumstances. But institutions tend to be 'anti-fragile'.  

Major changes to governance structures typically occur during or in the aftermath of disasters that push the existing institutional order to or past its breaking point.

A Revolution may usher in a new set of institutions. But they may be worse that what went before.  

It’s a tragedy of politics that these changes generally come too late – that the crisis itself is what makes ‘impossible’ proposals finally seem not just reasonable but necessary.

Like what? The creation of the League of Nations? That failed. The creation of the UN? Every heard of the Korean War?  

The science-fiction novel The Ministry for the Future (2020) by Kim Stanley Robinson offers one scenario where a devastating heatwave killing tens of millions of people leads to the establishment of a creative new governance structure.

Well, if a science fiction novel says that's what will happen, it must be true. Actually, we are like to see a lot of tree planting and other such heat mitigating strategies in cities and other areas already suffering heat deaths. Essentially, acting locally on this issue to reduce fatalities, means less heat is reflected back. Sadly, this may not be enough. Some sort of satellite umbrella may be needed.  

It isn’t difficult to imagine additional calamities for this planet.

We can’t predict what the galvanising catastrophe might be that brings about new systems of governance.

We can predict that there will be less silly money available to throw at stupid green ideas. Partly, this is because potentially very profitable solutions to the underlying problem appear to be coming on stream. Investors will shoulder aside the blathershites.  

We must focus our efforts instead on defining a clear perspective on what planetary governance could and should be.

No. We must think about what, at maximum, could be achieved provided we rigorously exclude blathershites and countries which can't really contribute anything but which have a historical grievance because they were conquered some centuries ago by smarter people with better tech.  

Holding such a vision in our minds may make it more possible to take advantage of the crisis that will all but inevitably arrive given the inadequacy of the current system. As we enter a period of not just geopolitical but geophysical uncertainty, calibrating our North Star – our vision of where we want to head – will be more important than ever.

In other words, it won't be important at all. Stupid people may make a bit of money working for some silly billionaire's Foundation. But there's real money to be made in the transition to a green economy. Talking bollocks must now take a backseat.