Teaching Both Sides

Indiana just passed legislation requiring schools to promote "intellectual diversity", meaning more conservative ideas, because they believe the Left has captured education. Of course the irony is that the people pushing this are morons who get their ideas from the internets. The other irony is that this is a prime example of cow-towing to "wokeness" police and promoting "diversity, equity and inclusion", the very thing conservatives love to hate. What I would suggest is that students should challenge the teaching of capitalist ideology and demand they also teach principles of socialism. In the name of "intellectual diversity". Students have been indoctrinated in the destructive market ideology since public schooling began. It's time to teach the "other side". And every conservative professor filling his students heads with free market dogma, with "originalist" constitutionalist dogma, with neurological determinist dogma, etc.. will have to now correct their syllabus. Should be interesting.

These Are My Choices?

Just because I favor Palestinian self-determination does that mean I have to support Hamas? This is how Jonathan Neal and other Leftists are framing it and it is classic leftist idiocy, snatching defeat from the hands of victory. Just as public opinion starts to turn in our favor, those unable to imagine nuance subvert it. Why does that have to be my choice? Mainstream liberal opinion is finally coming around to accept the fact Zionism is an illiberal system, and that opposing that oppressive system is not anti-semitic. The one state solution, unthinkable five years ago, is now being discussed in open forums. So what does the Left-left do? Supports Islamist extremists who use human shields and slaughters civilians. The question is: how does this movement for liberation become ecosocialist? YES magazine and other optimists see a great opening, a real movement, but they say the same thing about Occupy and Black Lives Matter (sometimes Standing Rock gets slotted in there). I see them all as lost opportunities and fear Palestine will be the same. I'd love to be wrong. Speaking of anti-semitism, is it ok to find some Jewish people annoying? It is a stereotype that has propelled many a comedy career, I'm thinking Sienfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Woody Allen, etc.. Now, however, even suggesting they are over-sensitive, a bit neurotic, in other words annoying, sends them crying into the arms of Trump and the unhinged Right. As Wainwright puts it: "I'm tired of America."

Death by Data

Data centers and crypto mines are gobbling up electricity faster than the world can produce it. But produce it we will. Having a shortage of electricity is anathema to the project of modernity, the idea of progress. Of course the bright green will want all this extra juice to be produced by "clean renewables", so be prepared for the impacts of all that mining and siting and manufacturing of wind towers and solar panels. For what exactly? Why is so much juice being pored into super-computers? To propel the latest greatest source of accumulated profit, artificial intelligence. The stock market values chip maker Nvidia at 2.2 trillion dollars. All the biggies, Microsoft, Google, Musk, etc. are raking in massive profits off this new "industry". So we will expand the grid, build out gas fired power plants and small nuclear and whatever it takes to feed it. Mining crypto speaks for itself. The point is, when greens say we can produce %100 of our electricity with renewables they have no idea what that number might be in ten years, as demand grows and grows and grows. Once again we come up against the concept of "limits" to growth, a concept Capital and its proponents can not and will not grasp.

Oblivion's Cross

My novel is a precautionary tale of greed and arrogance, where those with too much power make some poor choices while the planet and its inhabitants pay the cost. So when I saw the article in Sunday's Times about geoengineering, I thought awesome, this should boost sales! Jeremy Freeman, executive director of the non-profit research group Carbon Plan writes: "some techno-futurists, like OpenAI’s chief executive, Sam Altman, are already normalizing it: “We’re going to have to do something dramatic with climate like geoengineering as a Band-Aid, as a stop gap,” he said in January at the World Economic Forum in Davos." I actually went to the interview on Bloomberg and listened to the "visionary smart people" predict the future. Be very afraid. They are doubling down on techno-acceleration and green capitalism to save the day. Big "breakthroughs". True believers with lots of money and power. The article goes on to say that: "The alternative is clandestine research controlled by corporations or autocratic regimes, lurching toward deployment without knowing — or knowing and not sharing — the true risks." Exactly. Buy the book.

More Juice

Turns out the Big Brains who are supposed to be figuring all this out have miscalculated how much electricity the U.S. will nedd in the coming decades. oops. “Right now everyone’s getting caught flat-footed” by rising demand for electricity, said John Wilson, a vice president at Grid Strategies. Just didn't see it coming, all these new data centers and crypto mines and increased manufacturing. So they will have to biuld many more gas fired plants and keep coal and oil plants running longer than expected. To meet the demand, you see. The growth. If a wave of new gas-fired plants gets approved by state regulators, he said, “it is game over for the Biden administration’s 2035 decarbonization goal.” Turns out Peak demand in the summer is projected to grow by 38,000 megawatts nationwide in the next five years. Like adding another California to the grid. So we see once again that declaring climate goals is a lot like declaring the need for more humanitarian aid to Gaza. Pretty words. The reality is not so pretty as fires burn in the Amazon, as each month sets a new record for high temperature, blah blah blah. In a related article, Brazil has announced it is upping gas and oil production to record levels. “We will not give up that prerogative,” the energy minister said, “because others are not doing their own sacrifice as well.” They look at the hollow promises of rich countries and ask why they should have to lead the effort to de-carbonize.

One State Solution

Watched the documentary film Israelism last night and in the discussion with one of the filmakers following, he suggested America's treatment of the indigenous peoples could serve as an analogy with Israel / Palestine. Those who advocate a secular one state solution ( the South Africa model) would then have to consider one state being shared here in the U.S., rather than our system of semi-autonomous Indian Nations. This gives a new meaning to the Land Back movement. It is not clear which borders those calling for a two-state solution wish to see: 67? 48? If taking land through military conquest is "stealing" you open a real can of worms. If "free Palestine" refers to the 48 Mandate borders, if that is the "stolen" land referred to, then the U.S. should return the whole continent to the indigenous peoples. Other nations should have to return the land taken, though it is unclear how far back such claims might go. On the way in to see the film we listened to an interview with Iyad el Bahgdadi in which he called for one secular democratic state along the lines of South Africa. Of course, Capital wasn't mentioned so It could only be "democracy" with constraints and limits. We could look to Ireland as an example of conflict fueled by religious fanaticism and historical trauma that has resolved but while there are parallels, the analogy is not perfect. None are. The "Israelism" which has infected the U.S. is currently being challenged by a mostly younger cohort but do not expect quick results in terms of a just settlement. Not mentioned in the film are the evangelical Christians who support Zionism. And then there is the whole dismissal of "social justice" by conservatives as a commie plot.

Liberal Dissonance Or Dissociation

"Pull the wool over your own eyes" instructs Bob, the sub-genious. This is the motto for the US "progressive" liberal who is now fretting over the 2024 Presidential election. They bemoan the Supreme Beings decision to stall Trump's trial because "a surprisingly large segment of the electorate has either no idea or slight knowledge of the charges against Trump," according to Thomas Edsal in the NY Times. He (like every liberal) is worried about Trump taking power when the real worry should be that many incredibly stupid people running through the streets of America. How do they imagine a democracy could exist amongst that much ignorance? Paul Krugman, Michelle Cottle, Ezra Klein, and all my progressive friends flail as they try to explain the man's support because in Liberaland, capitalist democracy, like the "arc of history", tends toward justice. It is rational and outcomes depend on reasoned debate and consideration of the "issues". You remember: Kennedy vs Nixon, William Buckley vs Gore Vidal or James Baldwin. Intellectuals with opposing ideas. The "good old days", back when "ideas" had some cache. Having no way to analyze the ways today's capitalism is different from that time's capitalism, liberals can only remain, befuddled, outraged, astounded at the "degradation of discourse". They want to make America great again. Go back to the time before clowns, when serious folks ran things. But that horse left that barn for a reason and if all you can do is moan and wail and pull your hair...The fact is, in capitalist "democracy", everyone is voting for "uncommited".

Against Gorz

Sorry to burst the bubble, but there is no such thing as "non-reformist reforms". Because the revolutionary horizon is so distant, radicals are relying more and more heavily on the promise of "revolutionary reforms" but I think the results of the last decade speak for themselves. It is a convenient illusion that incremental reforms are getting us any closer to a just and sustainable society, much less mode of production. Name one that has furthered revolutionary aims. All reforms to the current system function as affirmations that the system is flexible, adaptable, reformable and therefore the best of all possible systems. At the psychological level, this re-inforces the hegemonic ideology already prevelant throughout all classes. Yes, there are challenges, but the system is resilient and overcomes all barriers. It is in this sense that all reforms are reformist and therefore counter-revolutionary.Sorry Rosa. Sorry Andre. The other big problem with reforms is you have to ask or "demand" them from the government, affirming the illusion that governments are in control of the hegemonic system of production and social reproduction. We are all taught our government is "of the People, by the People, for the People". Sure, we are told by the cultural apparatus, there are some "bad corporations" and "bad lobbyists" trying to subvert this lovely democracy, but reforms can thwart them. Through the so-called "political" process. This is a well-managed distraction from the actual relations of power. Citizen agency is directed toward voting for their representative in government. Toward useless protest such as signing petitions, marching and going to rallys. This reliance on capitalist governments to solve issues is why greenhouse gasses and other pollutants and waste and destructive land-use practices etc. etc. are destroying the biosphere. They can negotiate international agreements all they want, but they can't end capital accumulation. Governments are therefore reduced to "green capitalist" false solutions to maintain GDP growth. Reform the banking system. Reform the regulatory agencies. Reform the judicial system. Reform the schools. This is why liberalism vs conservatism is a false dichotomy; Capital loves it when we are engaged in useless reformist battles, expending all our energy railing against the latest clown politician, the latest threat to our "rights", the latest decision by the Supreme Beings. This is all background noise as Capital does what Capital does. Left wing "non-reformist reforms" theory asserts that as more and more "demands" are met the People realize their power and begin to make radical demands that challenge the rule of Capital. History provides a different story. In reality, as demands are met, people are increasingly satisfied with the status quo. They become defenders of a system which appears willing to compromise and share some wealth or status. But if the People demand too much, expect Capital to go on strike and impose discipline. or start a new round of culture wars. Or real wars.

National Unity

An article in yesterdays Times describes Israeli reservists, just back from the onslaught of Gaza, who want their country to be "unified again". These young soldiers loved serving with those from every political persuasion and were amazd at how killing women and children brought them together and erased the acrimony. You want National Unity? The answer is simple: just stage another attack by "outsiders"! This is a common refrain heard from clueless liberals everywhere you go: we hate this division and polarization, if only something could bring us together as a nation. Getting attacked works every time, guaranteed. So I propose arranging for your country to be attacked by "terrorists" on a regular basis. It doesn't require many casualties, certainly not Trade Tower 9/11 numbers. The problem is, the warm feeling of unity tends to wear off quicker and quicker so you will need increasingly frequent attacks. Freedom isn't free. But nothing is quite as cozy as being brought together as a nation, as a People, as a Volk. Meanwhile, the Biden administration "mourns the loss of innocent life" as Israeli soldiers open fire on people rushing to get food aid in Gaza. African migrants are flying through Bogata to get to Nicaragua, then El Salvador where they will try to make their way north to the U.S. Putin warns us that he has nukes if he needs them. I won't even mention the global warming. None of this ends well.