* George Webb, John OLoughlin
* 14 Jul: EoP Re: Abolition of Babylon WiP energy slavery slaughterhouse social contract..
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub / EoP NWO SCO: EoP NTE GM: EoP NTE GMA| EoP Axis MilNec Evac: Lotto: EoP v WiP Law, EoP v WiP Academia, EoP v WiP Media, EoP v WiP Charity, EoP v WiP Peacenik, / EoP v WiP Neg.
From: EoP MILED Clerk <email@example.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 13:49:20 +0200
Subject: EoP Re: Abolition of Babylon WiP energy slavery slaughterhouse social contract
To: George Webb Sweigert <firstname.lastname@example.org>
TO: George Webb & John O’Loughin:
Re: 14 Jul: EoP Re: George Webb & John O’Loughlin: Follow Yellow Cake Road.
Mr. Webb & OLoughlin:
EoP Re: Abolition of Babylon WiP energy slavery slaughterhouse social contract.
EoP MILED Clerk does not require a formal – service by a sheriff – legal process for any request for information. An email with questions, or for a request for particular information or evidence is sufficient. All emails with a request for information – irrespective of the race, class, religion, gender of the author, or the size of their country, or whether they have zero police wo/men, or nuclear weapons – are given the benefit of the doubt that they are an honourable request for information and responded to in accordance with EoP Ego/Eco literacy [ego-eco-literacy.tygae.org.za] communication policy. No lawyers or Sheriffs or Judges required to get a buck stops here [eop-rh-cult-info.tygae.org.za] answer to any question. EoP Responsible Freedom represents ‘walk our sincere peacenik talk’ path towards smallest government in the world. When every citizen in a nation is a responsible freedom [responsible-freedom.tygae.org.za] oath [eop-axis-oath.tygae.org.za] citizen aka volunteer citizen militia / sheriff: Masonic War is Peace factory farm slaughterhouse [Obama Deception: False WiP Left Right paradigm; Stefan Molyneux: The Story of [WiP] Enslavement; Human Farming: Our Enslavement; PETA: Sunny Acre Farms; ELS Ref] government is effectively abolished.
» EoP Leg Sub: 18 Mar: EoP Re NZ Police Req to Kiwifarms re 15 Mar Christchurch Mosque attack.
A few quotes from SQSwans [sqswans] and other sources with more background for the necessity of EoP – Return to Eden [PDF Encl] – UN Resolution [eop-un-res] global land reform [eop-landreform] to provide responsible freedom citizens with a property ration [PDF], guaranteed for life, to provide for their shelter, food and water requirements using their preference of – Back to Eden, Permaculture, Natural Farming, etc [Community Solution: The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil; Thompkins Conservation: The Next Economy; NBC: Eustace Conway’s Turtle Island] – low tech sustainable agrarian farming methods; to enable abolition of Babylon WiP energy slavery slaughterhouse social contract:
The need to expand agricultural production was one of the motive causes behind most of the wars in recorded history, along with expansion of the energy base (and agricultural production is truly an essential portion of the energy base). And when Europeans could no longer expand cultivation, they began the task of conquering the world. Explorers were followed by conquistadors and traders and settlers. The declared reasons for expansion may have been trade, avarice, empire or simply curiosity, but at its base, it was all about the expansion of agricultural productivity. Wherever explorers and conquistadors traveled, they may have carried off loot, but they left plantations. And settlers toiled to clear land and establish their own homestead. This conquest and expansion went on until there was no place left for further expansion. Certainly, to this day, landowners and farmers fight to claim still more land for agricultural productivity, but they are fighting over crumbs. – Cop v CIA: Dale Allen Pfeiffer: Eating Fossil Fuels [SQ Copy].
So we have from 1982 to 1983 a freefall of the economy of 34% of GDP, gross domestic product. When I tell you freefall of the economy, try to imagine an aeroplane suddenly lose their engines. It was really a crash. Over the next decade Cuba took drastic steps to find solutions. It is the first country to face the crisis that we will all face, the peak oil crisis. – Prince Amir: Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil [SQ Copy].
The abolition of slavery was a small religious based movement of 12 people in a little room in England that felt that the shackling of human muscle was wrong, which arose at the time that we were using coal to power steam engines. So fossil fuels helped to make it possible for governments and industry to support the anti-slavery movement, because they could get work done with fossil fuels. Now we still have slavery of humans to machines, which has profoundly altered how we live. We now design cities around our machine slaves, not for people.
So the abolition question then becomes: How many slaves do you need? The abolitionists answers were none. A free man must work on his own, work with the energy afforded by his family and/or community. Americans don’t want to confront the issue of equity.
Why is it that North Americans can have billions of energy slaves at their command, where an American has access to 50 barrels of oil a year, and an Indian only has access to 2 barrels, and an African 1/2 a barrel?
Those are big moral issues about equity, that we are avoiding; as well as the fundamental one: What happens to you as a human being, when you deploy so many energy slaves that you change the character of your family, community and ecosystems, cutting down forests, polluting rivers, depleting fisheries, changing the very energy balance in the atmosphere itself? Those are the moral issues of our times that we have trouble even putting in moral terms. The abolitionists did that. That is why we need the equivalent of a new abolition movement that asks: How should we be using fossil fuels, what should we be feeding them to?
How do we discard our state of servitude to fossil fuels and become human beings that are independent and self sufficient again?
In the early 1800’s, the average American male was self employed on farms, they had a code of self reliance, of community mindedness, and there was this agrarian ideal that was fundamental to the American character, which made them value equality in their communities.
Along comes oil that mechanizes and industrializes the landscape, takes all of these self employed men and the very notion of masculinity tied to all of that turns it upside down and makes men into managers and servants of machines. So within quick order the number of self employed in the United States completely changes and most American males become part of a work force, working with machines, quite often in states of servitude. Energy flows don’t just change your politics and families and character, but they also change gender roles.
– ExtraEnvironmentalist: Energy Slaves [SQ Copy];
St. Petersburg was a shock. There was a sense of despair that hung in the winter air. There were old women standing around in spontaneous open-air flea markets trying to sell toys that probably belonged to their grandchildren, to buy something to eat. Middle-class people could be seen digging around in the trash. Everyone’s savings were wiped out by hyperinflation. I arrived with a large stack of one-dollar bills. Everything was one dollar, or a thousand rubles, which was about five times the average monthly salary. I handed out lots of these silly thousand-ruble notes: “Here, I just want to make sure you have enough.” People would recoil in shock: “That’s a lot of money!” “No, it isn’t. Be sure to spend it right away.” However, all the lights were on, there was heat in many of the homes, and the trains ran on time.
Another key difference: in the Soviet Union, nobody owned their place of residence. What this meant is that the economy could collapse without causing homelessness: just about everyone went on living in the same place as before. There were no evictions or foreclosures. Everyone stayed put, and this prevented society from disintegrating.
One more difference: the place where they stayed put was generally accessible by public transportation, which continued to run during the worst of times. Most of the Soviet-era developments were centrally planned, and central planners do not like sprawl: it is too difficult and expensive to service. Few people owned cars, and even fewer depended on cars for getting around. Even the worst gasoline shortages resulted in only minor inconveniences for most people: in the springtime, they made it difficult to transport seedlings from the city to the dacha for planting; in the fall, they made it difficult to haul the harvest back to the city.
A small farm offers somewhat better possibilities for farming, but most farms in the U.S. are mortgaged to the hilt, and most land that has been under intensive cultivation has been mercilessly bombarded with chemical fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides, making it an unhealthy place, inhabited by men with tiny sperm counts. Small farms tend to be lonely places, and many, without access to diesel or gasoline, would become dangerously remote. You will need neighbors to barter with, to help you, and to keep you company. Even a small farm is probably overkill in terms of the amount of farmland available, because without the ability to get crops to market, or a functioning cash economy to sell them in, there is no reason to grow a large surplus of food. Tens of acres are a waste when all you need is a few thousand square feet. Many Russian families managed to survive with the help of a standard garden plot of one sotka, which is 100 square meters, or, if you prefer, 0.024710538 acres, or 1076.391 square feet.
What is needed, of course, is a small town or a village: a relatively small, relatively dense settlement, with about an acre of farmland for every 30 or so people, and with zoning regulations designed for fair use and sustainability, not opportunities for capital investment, growth, property values, or other sorts of “development”. Further, it would have to be a place where people know each other and are willing to help each other – a real community. There may still be a few hundred communities like that tucked away here and there in the poorer counties in the United States, but there are not enough of them, and most of them are too poor to absorb a significant population of economic migrants.
– Cop v CIA: Post Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century: 01.02.03 [SQ Copy].
Rural America is mad. We’re hearing from people in places like West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania who are fed up with the government, the economy, the “establishment,” and taking out their anger at Trump rallies.
While the coverage is new, the anger is not. Donald Trump is today’s release valve, the latest in a line that has included the anti-government and militia movements, drug epidemics, and the Tea Party. This year’s support for Trump, of course, goes far beyond rural voters. A recent New York Times analysis finds support for Trump is strongest in places where “white identity mixes with long-simmering economic dysfunctions,” cutting across other traditional political lines.
But what has too long been overlooked is how much of that economic dysfunction—and the anger it has caused—goes back to the dissolution of the family farm.
Yes, the farm. Rural America produces food as well as anger. From the 1940s to the 1970s, the farmers who produced that food, even on small parcels of land, could make a reasonably good living, with prices reflecting their costs of production. It was hard work, but they could support their families, and the money they spent at feed stores and coffee shops built thriving local communities. That ended in the 1980s, when hundreds of thousands of farms went out of business and rural communities withered across the country—while the federal government did nothing.
Much of rural America has struggled to recover from the 2008 recession—but how could it, when it never recovered from the 1980s farm crisis? The 1980s was when rural America came apart at the seams, but plans were developed decades earlier to move farmers off the land, in the name of economic efficiency. U.S. farm policy has been slowly crippling the heartland for more than half a century—so it’s no wonder the people who still live there are mad.
Starting in the mid-1950s, a number of free market-oriented business groups proposed policies to address what they saw as the inefficiencies of farming in an age of increasing technological advances. One of these groups, the Committee for Economic Development (CED), described the chief “farm problem” as a “persistent excess of resources, particularly labor”—that is, too many farmers. The CED plan detailed how to move those “resources” off the land and into cities, where their labor was more needed.
Its goal was to eliminate a third of farm families, replacing a network of millions of self-sustaining medium-sized family farms with fewer, much larger farms producing the same amount of food—most of it commodity grains bound for animal feed and processed food—more “efficiently.” But efficiency didn’t account for the massive upheaval the new system wrought on the structure, community, and economics of rural life.
Agriculture policy since then has followed these recommendations, slowly dismantling support programs that had made midsize family farms viable, including effective supply management through price floors, a crop reserve, and conservation incentives. Instead, Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz famously directed farmers to plant “fencerow to fencerow,” flooding the market with grain and driving down prices. If farmers couldn’t survive the price drops, Butz encouraged them to “get big or get out.” And so they did: the number of farms dropped from nearly 4.8 million in 1954 to 2.1 million by 1990.
The policies enacted in the 1950s and ’60s came to a head in the ’80s, when the weakened farm support system combined with inflation, a bad export market, and collapsed land and commodity prices in what became known as “the farm crisis.”
Over a quarter of a million farms were lost in the 1980s, the land was sold to larger operations, families were forced to move, and lifelong farmers were pushed into new jobs (or lack thereof). At least a million people were displaced from their homes and livelihoods in just 10 years—in many cases from land their families had farmed for generations. As the farmers left, so did the Main Streets and manufacturing businesses that had relied on them. Whole towns died off in the course of a decade.
Throughout the crisis, rural America felt abandoned. Communities were going through catastrophic loss and the rest of the country didn’t seem to care. Many foreclosures were purposefully accelerated by the government lending agency that held their loans, and some were done illegally and without normal due process procedures—at the behest of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials.
President Reagan made deep cuts in price supports and rural development programs, and joked that he had found a solution to the farm crisis; he would “keep the grain and export the farmers.” Newspapers from the Omaha World Herald to the New York Times ran editorials praising consolidation or blaming farmers for their own plight.
The foreclosures slowed in the late ’80s, but it turns out there are consequences to removing an entire way of life. In his 1997 book, Harvest of Rage, journalist Joel Dyer draws a line from the planned devastation of the farm crisis to the rise of the 1990s antigovernment movement, including the 1995 bombing of an Oklahoma City federal building that killed 168 people.
Drawing on data from farm hotline operators, rural psychologists, and other mental health professionals, Dyer argues that farm loss was so emotionally and financially significant that it traumatized not only individual families, but also entire rural communities, leaving swathes of the country with chronic long-term stress, depression, and other mental health issues. Suicides, spousal abuse, and other violence spiked in the rural population.
…. With our national character and that kind of money at stake, perhaps it’s time to take another look at what’s been happening in rural America and the very real policy decisions that led to its decline. Agriculture policy is bigger than food; it has consequences for the health and stability of the nation. And failing to address the policy solutions that could make real changes in the lives of many desperate rural Americans will likely continue to make them feel ignored and forgotten enough to seek answers in a demagogue.- Civil Eats: Want to Understand Trump’s Rise? Head to the Farm. For many angry rural voters, Donald Trump is fueling a fire that started with the farm crisis of the 1980s.
» EoP Leg Sub: 21 Jul: EoP TRC Neg’s Info to Trump Oligarchs: EoP Cultural Law Self Rule, Farmers Crisis & Land Reform.
In early March, just a week before the Midwest was inundated by catastrophic flooding, a dozen farmers gathered at the First Presbyterian Church in Grinnell, Iowa, for an event billed as a conversation about “Faith, Farmers, and Climate Action.” “How is God calling you to use your farm to improve the world?” asked the evening’s facilitator, Matt Russell. “We’ve got this narrowing window of time in which we can act,” he said. “When we think about climate action—are you feeling any call to that?” [..] Agriculture, he said, offers conservatives a path to “slip in” to the climate conversation. Unlike coal-fired power plants and carbon taxes, dirt is not a partisan issue. Farmers and environmentalists have found common ground in the burgeoning soil health movement. – Grist: Meet the man bringing together farmers in Iowa to talk about climate change.
In American farm country, a grass-roots movement is spreading, a movement to keep more roots in the soil. (Not just grass roots, of course; roots of all kinds.) Its goal: Promoting healthy soil that’s full of life. For Ficke, it’s a spiritual quest. He recalls the moment, on a Sunday morning, when he heard a call from God to farm in a different way, one that felt closer to the native prairie that used to flourish in eastern Nebraska. “I could feel it in my heart that we had to change. We are running out of time,” he says. The call to change involved a lot of things, but near the top of the list was protecting the soil. Farmers around the world have been mining that soil for centuries. “It should be on the list of endangered species. Soil is endangered!” Ficke says. – NPR: A Grass-Roots Movement For Healthy Soil Spreads Among Farmers.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself. Forests are the lungs of our land, purifying the air and giving fresh strength to our people – Letter to all State Governors on a Uniform Soil Conservation Law (26 Feb 1937) and From ‘A Presidential Statement on Receipt of the Award of the Schlich Forestry Medal’ (29 Jan 1935) in Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: F.D. Roosevelt, 1935, Volume 4 (1938), 65. – Today in Science.
Theodore Roosevelt: The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others. – Address to the Deep Waterway Convention, Memphis (4 Oct 1907) – Environmental Education Foundation Inc: Birth of a Notion: the American Conservation Movement.
Studies suggest that regenerating soil by turning our backs on industrial farming holds the key to tackling climate change. Soil is the second biggest reservoir of carbon on the planet, next to the oceans. It holds four times more carbon than all the plants and trees in the world. But human activity like deforestation and industrial farming – with its intensive ploughing, monoculture and heavy use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides – is ruining our soils at breakneck speed, killing the organic materials that they contain. There is, however, a solution. Scientists and farmers around the world are pointing out that we can regenerate degraded soils by switching from intensive industrial farming to more ecological methods – not just organic fertiliser, but also no-tillage, composting, and crop rotation. Here’s the brilliant part: as the soils recover, they not only regain their capacity to hold CO2, they begin to actively pull additional CO2 out of the atmosphere. The science on this is quite exciting. A study published recently by the US National Academy of Sciences claims that regenerative farming can sequester 3% of our global carbon emissions. An article in Science suggests it could be up to 15%. And new research from the Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania, although not yet peer-reviewed, says sequestration rates could be as high as 40%. – PNAS: 30 Oct 2012: Andreas Gattinger: Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming. Science: 11 Jun 2004: R Lal: Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security. Rodale Institute: Regenerative Organic Agriculture. The Guardian: Jason Hickle: Our best shot at cooling the planet may be right under our feet [SQ Copy].
» EoP Leg Sub: 02 Jul: EoP Re: A Grass-Roots Movement For Healthy Soil Spreads Among Farmers.
If you have no immediate questions for EoP UN Resolution / McVeigh: Return to Eden [PDF Encl] clerk, I shall move on to the next virtual reality house/door: A copy of this correspondence is documented at EoP Leg Sub: [eop-leg-sub.tygae.org.za].
Lara Johnson aka Andrea Muhrrteyn
EoP MILED Clerk [EoP Oath: LJ]
PO Box 5042, George East, 6539, RSA
Sent per electronic notice to:
George Webb Sweigert (email@example.com)