Familiarize yourself with the story outlined in the video playlist. This information transcends even the plight of all small farmers and extends to each of us desiring to live a rural lifestyle and have access to locally produced, organic food. If one looks closely within the state and local governments, (s)he will find the presence of ICLEI (search it). ICLEI is an arm of UN Agenda 21 (“global sustainability). As an NGO they produce “model legislation” and influence administrative rules with the purpose of implementing “equitable social justice” at the expense of individual choice and personal property.
It’s a huge, well-planned, and well executed operation that is best countered at the local level. Inform yourself of their methods so you can learn to identify them and their activities allowing you to counter them at every turn before they become anchored in your local rule-making.
That is probably the most accurate statement I’ve seen on Facebook. Of course there are those who will say “BS conspiracy stuff,” and I invite them to study the background of the 14th Amendment, and both the background and literal text of its enabling legislation 42 USC 1981.
Within that is a shocking statement: “All persons (legal entities, not people) within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens (there were no US citizens prior to this, but now they were created, again as “legal entities”), and shall be subject to like PUNISHMENT, PAINS, PENALTIES, TAXES, LICENSES, and EXACTIONS (Black’s Law defines this as extortions under color of law) of EVERY KIND, and to no other.”
See? It’s always been hidden right in plain view. The conclusion of the Civil War resulted in the creation of a monolithic state called “The United States” where before it was a confederation of the several states. The several states were effectively converted into federal districts and, as noted above, all “People” within were conditioned as US Citizens (legal subjects). It’s really that simple.
These are, to me, some key phrases in the very well assembled and presented essay featured at the above link. Perhaps unknowingly the writer is striking all around the bulls eye of a significant answer.
“Farmers aren’t moving toward local food, but they will if they think there’s a reliable market.”
“The interest in the entrepreneurial aspect of small farms is wonderful and needs to continue, but we’re trying to take it a step further.”
“The worry, to me, is that all of this is entrepreneurial. Too many CSAs in any given area can make it hard for a farmer to sell enough CSA shares to get by. Our work is to try to get farmers out of a faddish economy.”
I think the target can be cleanly addressed by stepping outside of the cart of supply and rather examining the horse of demand. It’s only by developing the latter that the former can be reliably established and maintained. Attempting to do otherwise amounts to the creation of a centralized system, which is dependent on the whims of the consumer as to it’s success or failure. Clearly prior world experience with this model demonstrates its unreliability.
I take some exception to the phrase, “The worry, to me, is that all of this is entrepreneurial,” as if that is a major stumbling block. While the concern of too much supply of a given product within a limited geographic area is well founded, it’s a narrow one and certainly not an insurmountable or unaddressable issue. This was, is, and should be one of the functions of Granges or farmers’ associations, a place where farmers sit down regularly, examine issues (including market related ones), discuss crops, yields, etc., and generally become well acquainted with one another. There’s no reason these same venues can’t help evolve a newer, demand focused paradigm allowing not only for a cooperative, entrepreneurial approach, but for the development of an even more important aspect: The process of educating the consumer, something clearly missing in the narrative.
Whether we like it or not there has developed, over the years, a general “standoffishness” between farmers and “other folks.” This separation is probably due to many factors not the least of which has been the popular conception that there is more than enough food, seemingly seamlessly delivered to the marketplace, which led farm production and producers to having been rather taken for granted by the consumers and once out of sight, then were out of mind. Presently, while the quantity is still there the issue has now become quality and that characteristic has not to date been effectively propagated among consumers.
There is a tried and true method of marketing: Disturb, inform, and solve. This part of any entrepreneurial sales marketing (and make no mistake, this is sales) is key. It’s the responsibility of the entrepreneur (or group of entrepreneurs) to develop an effective marketing plan that includes those three elements. Only a well informed and motivated marketplace will support any product and every producer involved has both the practical and moral responsibility to share the realities of “corporate feed” versus high-quality, nutritious food to its most important product – the consumer. Once the consumer completely understands all the dynamics of what’s at stake, the sale will become natural and through a cooperative effort farmers’ markets and CSAs will be able to provide a variety of goods in a highly predictable manner.
“[C]ompanies like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and Kellogg have joined forces with Monsanto to bankroll efforts aimed at keeping Americans from knowing which foods contain GMOs. And they’ve used money from sales of their natural brands to help finance the effort.”
All this diversification smells oddly like what happened with the tobacco industry some years ago when “tobacco science” (and the FDA) held the other science (and consumers) at bay until the industry could become well variegated and be able to weather the storm of reduced revenues (and civil penalties) from their primary products. All this, of course, included the creation of a “tobacco settlement fund,” the largest product liability settlement in history solely underwritten by company profits, not funds out of CEOs’ pockets (or any criminal sanctions applied).
“The settlement left the tobacco industry immune from future state and federal suits” (http://www.npr.org/2013/10/13/233449505/15-years-later-where-did-all-the-cigarette-money-go) essentially allowing them to continue business as usual. Are we witnessing the spin-up to another “dodge the bullet” event by the likes of Monsanto, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kellogg, et al?
Does the “Affordable Care Act” (ACA) figure into this?
“Mike Moore, (Mississippi) attorney general, filed the first state lawsuit against big tobacco . . . . (He) argued that tobacco companies should pay for medical bills, and eventually the courts agreed.” (ibid) Can all the perpetrators (and governments) assert that since there is now “Affordable Care” available to everyone, any product liability should be reduced, eliminated, or simply applied to “other priorities?” Would another “no strings attached” settlement merely funnel cash into the general funds of the states as it did with the tobacco settlement and (beyond the propaganda otherwise) as do “revenues” from all state lotteries?
Is this one of the agenda of the ACA?
Only time will tell.