permaculture

[Lawrence London <lfljvenaura@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Lawrence London <lfljvenaura@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 1)
> My view will not surprise anyone who has been paying attention: This
> another expected turn of the dialectical screw in the emergence and
> hegemony of industrial organic, in line with historical USDA goals. Toward
> this objective, the agency is using the same Act it has used to subsidize
> big agriculture and foster its monopoly control over every sector of the
> food system. Crumbs are dropped along the way to deceive and pacify small
> farmers. How depressing that so many are fooled. History repeats itself,
> first as tragedy, then as farce.
> --
> Karl North -  http://karlnorth.com/
> "Pueblo que canta no morira" - Cuban saying
> "They only call it class warfare when we fight back" - Anon.
> "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son
> will ride a camel."
>  —Saudi saying
> 2)
> Agreed Karl, looks like another checkoff program that steals from the
> small producer and benefits many others like industrial organic and folks
> who like to move money around get paid and accomplish very little except
> for enhancing corporate profits..
> Rich Molini
> Atlanta, Indiana
>

Attn: Steve

Here is more in this thread:

"Karl S North" <knorth@binghamton.edu> wrote:

Ai, caramba, Grace. Your words only reveal how different your view of how
the world works is from mine. There was no historical abuse because this
checkoff program was designed to generate the outcomes that occurred in
every sector in which it was applied - beef, sheep, grains, you name it.
The controlling powers in the food system do not see the version in
question as generic; they see organic as just another commodity sector to
conquer and control, which they have pretty much already done. In its
century of existence, the USDA presided over and fostered the most socially
and ecologically destructive form of agriculture in history. There is no
good in such an outfit to be made better.

The problem is much bigger than a single agency of government. Just as half
the electorate refused to vote for two slimy candidates, many small
producers see our whole country as a system of legalized crime,
racketeering by another name.  Louis Brandeis, the first Jew to attain high
office, simply stated what should be obvious: one can have democracy in our
country or one can have most of the wealth concentrated in the hands of the
few, but one cannot have both. Why does it take someone from a persecuted
minority to point that out? Why can't legions of highly educated Wasp
liberals figure that out?
On Jan 21, 2017 6:18 PM, "Karl S North" <knorth@binghamton.edu> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Grace Gershuny wrote:

> look at the actual content of the proposal and examine the claims of its
> critics, rather than simply replaying the ideological construct that
> demands unquestioning opposition to anything labeled "industrial organic."


​Pointing to the common history of all checkoff program​s created under the
Act, and their consequences in subsidizing big agriculture is not "replaying
the ideological construct". I wish you would look at the history. It's not
rocket science; the patterns in USDA history stand out like sore thumbs.
Isn't the assumption that this program under the same Act will suddenly be
different just more hopium?




-- 
Lawrence F. London, Jr.
lfljvenaura@gmail.com
https://sites.google.com/site/avantgeared