Global warming gets a lot of press and not many are aware that half our excess CO2 dissolves into the oceans reacting with calcium to form limestone which settles into the deeps. This won’t last. As the oceans acidify and lose their calcium they absorb less CO2. Gradually more will stay in the atmosphere, and global warming may double and redouble.
There is also global dimming, since particulate matter going up in smoke along with CO2 cools the earth. Cleaning up these emissions may further increase the doubling effect. With polar ozone depletion, more ultra-violet hits the ice caps in summer. If this reaches the point where a layer of dirt is exposed on the surface of the snow, it will accelerate melting. As the ice lifts off Greenland and Antarctica the global weight shift may give us more earthquakes and volcanoes. Of course, volcanoes may send aloft enough sulphur dioxide and other dusts and volatiles to cool the earth off again for a spell. But what goes up will come back down as acid rain, further acidifying fields, forests and oceans. Already acid rains ensure that we can lose forests without cutting the trees down.

Doubling economic output and debt, clear-felling, soil erosion, desertification, bee collapse, chemical pollution, heavy metals, electromagnetic wave pollution—the list goes on. What about the earth’s magnetic field? If it keeps weakening and its poles flip, what will that do to the Van Allen Belts that protect us from solar radiation? And maybe none of this compares to the deterioration of financial and political stability and the spread of warfare, not to mention the war on terror and the spread of depleted uranium dust from US munitions. We may be in for far more exciting times than anyone dares to predict.
These things are complex, and one change alters another and another in a cascade of effects, some devastating and some benign. There is no single cause or effect, and single factor analysis isn’t worth hog’s breath—though if all we put in is disruptive causes, like depleted uranium, we tend to run out of benign effects, like global dimming, while more and more effects, such as desertification and global fresh water loss, bring us closer and closer to chaos out of which a new and different system may arise. This is called a chaordic system, which means that the further things slip into chaos, the more probability there is of a new order arising.

Background

In chaordic systems energy works in two opposite directions—one is disorganizational, leading to chaos; the other is organizational, leading to order. On the disorganizational side, energy flows from higher concentration to lower concentration. On the organizational side, energy flows from lower concentration to higher concentration. Disorganizational flows are characteristic of non-living things such as an explosive weapon or an electric motor. Organizational flows are characteristic of living things such as a calf or a seedling. In fact, organization is the basis of life—life wouldn’t occur otherwise. As Nobel Prize winning physicist Erwin Schrödinger put it, living organisms have the remarkable ability to draw a stream of order to themselves, thus reversing what is known as entropy.
Weather systems are chaordic, and thus are a good place to learn about generating order from chaos. As from a tiny zygote a giant whale can grow, in fluid dynamics a microscopic change at a point can effect large scale changes in the medium. When we seed something rich in organization into a chaordic system this can trigger a flow from chaos towards order, and a stream of organization can arise from its surroundings.

Cloud Formation

Imagine the daily cycle of moisture evaporating into the atmosphere—chaotic at first, but caught up in the organization of warmth spiralling upward in rising thermals. As this warm, moist air ascends into cooler upper regions of the atmosphere, the moisture turns into puffs of cloud. These ‘seed’ clouds, with their blazing white tops, percolate in the sunshine with the cooler air spilling down around their sides, while they suck in more moisture from the rising thermals.
As clouds build and push upward, cooler, dryer air filters down around and the cloud ceiling lowers. When this condition proceeds strongly, enough moisture in the lower atmosphere is sucked up densely enough that rain occurs, often as afternoon thundershowers.
Of course the above is an oversimplification, and the dynamics of rain depend not only on the daily and seasonal rhythms of warmth and light, but also moon cycles, air currents, relative humidity and many other things. Clouds can build up slowly with a high cloud ceiling, towering so tall that when they finally do release their moisture it falls as hail. Or various influences from chemical air pollution to energetic disturbances may disrupt the seeds of organization before they can grow. The air currents in the upper atmosphere may themselves be so depleted of moisture and so stagnant in their movement that organization is weak; and instead of clouds, drought occurs. It would be fair to say that everything from radioactive waste and electric power to sunspots can affect the weather.

Electrons and Water

Atmospheric moisture does not form clouds all by itself. Moisture tends to become attached to the finest particles in the atmosphere, which are mostly fine siliceous dusts that easily give and receive electrons. Water, which may be thought of as hydrogen oxide, is very sensitive to electron surpluses or deficiencies. On a water molecule’s oxygen side electrons are deficient, while on the hydrogen side there is more or less a surplus. If the siliceous particles have electrons to spare, water molecules will cluster with their oxygen side in and their hydrogen side out. The more abundant the electrons are the more easily they will satisfy oxygen’s hunger so that water molecule clusters are small and plentiful. Then moisture swiftly forms a fine, dense fog, cloud boundaries are well-defined and rain falls easily from lower altitudes and smaller clouds.
Where electrons are in short supply the water molecule clusters will be huge, the clouds will be less dense and build into towering masses with high cloud ceilings before precipitating—as we see in the case of hail. And where pollution blocks the sharing of electrons, perhaps coating these seed particles with water repellent gunk, we may see only haze, such as hovers over many a large city or industrial region. Under these conditions it almost doesn’t matter how high the humidity gets, there is little or no cloud formation—or if there are clouds they may build into towering thunderheads before dropping their moisture as hail. On the other hand when the availability of electrons increases and more of the atmosphere’s fine silica particles become more receptive to moisture, this tends to have a big influence on rain.

What We Can Do

Amongst those not devoted to denial, many wring their hands or form political action groups that stage various events to try to make civic and industrial leaders do something to stop mucking up the weather. Hardly any think corrective action to re-organize the atmosphere is possible, although most believe things might get better if we only stopped polluting. This view isn’t bad, but it has taken 150 years or so to realize our peril and the situation is already quite advanced. If we wait for vested interests to change, those of us dependent on agriculture will be the ones to suffer most.
Fortunately, it is not too late to take corrective action. While the cities with their auto and industrial pollution have influenced the weather in very disorganizational ways causing droughts and violent storms, common people can respond by influencing the weather in organizational ways to reduce these hazards.

Construction Plans

What follows are instructions for setting up simple devices to restore order to the atmosphere and improve the weather. This concept was originated by Don Croft, using a material developed by Jermaine Trott called “organite.” [More at: http://educate-yourself.org/ct/ ] Don originally called his invention a cloudbuster or chembuster, but this caused confusion and I have renamed the device an atmospheric reorganizer (AR) because it re-organizes the atmosphere, restoring the ether—which is the ancient name for the organizational field. The fact that it clears up toxic clouds or breaks up the exhaust trails of military aircraft (chemtrails) is a side effect. A more important side effect is making rain more likely and extreme weather—such as hail or floods—less likely. It is a simple, passive device that once you make it and set it up there is no maintenance other than to clip the weeds around it and see it hasn’t tipped over. A single unit ought to affect an area with a radius of about 15 miles, which is an area of almost 700 sq mi or 1,800 sq km [area of a circle = πr2].

Materials Required

By the numbers: 1. One gallon (or 4 litre) bucket. 2. Spacer and guide for short pipes in the organite block. Note: the central hole is for the single, 1 inch diameter central short pipe that terminates above the organite block. 3. Second pipe guide for short pipes. 4. Six 48 inch (122 cm) lengths of ¾ inch hard copper pipe. 5. Top pipe guide for secondary longer pipes. 6. Six 12 inch (30 cm) lengths of ¾ inch hard copper pipe. 7. Six well formed quartz crystals that fit inside the ¾ inch pipes and one slightly larger one that fits inside the 1 inch pipe. 8. One 8 inch (20 cm) 1 inch hard copper pipe. 9. Biodynamic preparation 501 [horn quartz]. 10. Biodynamic preparation 500 [horn manure]. 11. Masking tape to securely tape over the ends of the short pipes prior to adding a pinch of 501 and a quartz crystal pointed towards the closed end of the pipe before filling with polyester resin. 12. Aluminium curls made by chipping up an old aluminium alloy cylinder head with a milling machine. (More is needed than what is shown for one AR.) 13. 500 ml measuring cup for mixing polyester resin. (Resin must be mixed precisely with a minimum of catalyst [1:100 ratio] or block will overheat as it sets.) 14. Not shown—polyester resin and catalyst [methyl ethyl ketone peroxide] as well as six couplings for the long copper pipes.
This is a sufficient list, though other materials could conceivably be included. For example, if I had any powdered biodynamic horn clay I would add this to the resin when pouring the organite base. Someone has suggested magnets. Before I recommend this I would like to test various arrangements of magnet orientations and develop a jig to hold the magnets in place as I poured my organite. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the AR could be enhanced by taking six small magnets with the north pole ends facing inward toward the six outer pipes at the level of the wooden spacer/guide in the organite block.
Basically it’s all about organization. The more highly organizational the organite block is, the more the atmospheric reorganizer will be able to evoke order out of chaos—which brings me to the subject of organite.

Organite

Organite by itself it is a hard, block of two of the most densely organized materials in nature, metal and crystallized carbon. When pouring it, we can add other things that are themselves highly organized. One of these is silica as quartz crystals, which should go in the tops of the short copper tubes in order to project the natural organizational pattern for silica into the atmosphere. Since nature’s opposite polarity from silica is lime, we might also add sea shells or snail shells at the bottoms of the short copper tubes to influence lime’s patterns of organization of the soil as well. And since biodynamic preparations tend to be especially highly charged with organizational forces they too can be amongst the best things to add.

Assembly

When pouring the short tubes for the base block you have to tape the ends thoroughly and pour them with the top end down. I always put a pinch of 501 in the end that will end up pointing upward, with a quartz crystal right behind the 501. This is to restore and improve the organization of silica in the atmosphere. Then a spoonful each of dried, powdered biodynamic spring to spring horn clay (SSHC) and cowpat pit compost (CPP) can be mixed into the half a litre of resin needed to fill these tubes. Since clay and clay/humus complexes mediate between the two poles, this will connect the silica and lime extremes. After the tubes set, smear some 500 on the bottom of each before pouring the base around them. Be advised that moisture affects the methyl ethyl ketone peroxide catalyst and renders it less effective in setting the resin, so the preparations should not contain much moisture or the organite block may not set in those spots. If shells are used, they can be packed with BD 500, but again be careful of moisture near the bottom of the block. Using the Horn Manure (BD 500) at the (bottom) end of the tubes in the organite base will increase the organization of lime in the soil.*

* Some have objected that a negative feature of polyester resin—though it may have little effect on the material as a resonant, crystallized carbon compound—is the smelly, toxic styrenes it contains. I would be the first to admit that every time I even think about handling polyester resin I shudder. If in further experiments I can prove out a better material I will be sure to make it public.

Base Assembly

Start like this with some shavings in the bottom

Add some resin before adding the base assembly followed by more metal and resin.

Mid-pour/ Base Assembly

Finished but not set

Completed Base

Finished

Organite should have about a third its total mass in metal shavings (tin, brass, copper or aluminium alloy, or perhaps any metal that conducts electrons well. I like aluminium because it tends to draw electrons from the earth. Gold, the metal of emperors and the premier of electronic conductors, might be ideal, but I don’t foresee much of that happening as the gold would be worth so much it would be stolen. Silver, also an excellent conductor, would be less vulnerable. Copper coated BBs in sufficient quantities might be found at a sporting goods store. Fibreglass resin is good because it is a crystalline carbon material with good resonance. Perhaps pine resin would be better, but the expense might be prohibitive.
The organite base of the finished AR should be about nine tenths buried in the earth to make a good ground. This allows the device to channel a stream of electrons up the tubes, and this may make the copper gradually turn a deep cobalt blue, a sign of anodization. The negative ion stream tends to reverse the oxidation of the copper.

How It Works

Basically we are conveying the organizational patterns of silicon and carbon into the atmosphere and soil, though the stream of negative ions helps to make the water molecule clusters very fine and dense. It is the patterning that re-organizes the fine silica particles in the atmosphere and attracts the electrons that make water wetter and make it a better solvent. Then atmospheric moisture is much more able to wash oily, toxic pollution out of the atmosphere.
Since—along with the patterning of silicon in the atmosphere—atmospheric reorganizers also seem to increase the organization of the carbon into the soil, there is actually a two-fold effect, and carbon’s strong affinity for hydrogen helps bring the rain to earth.
Some feel this flies in the face of the old saw, “If at first you don’t succeed, get a bigger hammer.” That’s because in chaordic systems order is catalysed by introducing microscopic changes at points, rather than using sledge hammers to fix Swiss watches—or more appropriately, particle accelerators to transmute atoms.
Atmospheric reorganization is very helpful because there is now more evaporation from the oceans than ever before in human history. It must fall somewhere. More and more often it falls at sea as the continents increasingly become barren and drive the rain away. But when it does fall on the land it is increasingly likely to cause floods. Atmospheric reorganizers will improve the situation by bringing more rain but fewer extremes such as hail or floods. And it is not like one is stealing someone else’s rainfall, but rather like stealing their droughts, hail and floods.

§§§§§

On a recent trip to Japan where I visited several organic farms as well as a golf course I noted that no matter how good their other practices none were composting well enough. All omitted clay from their compost mixtures. The same is commonly true on organic farms elsewhere, though I know of cases—most of them biodynamic operations—in Europe, India, the USA, Australia and New Zealand where composting is excellent.My research shows that organic farming pioneer, Sir Albert Howard, (1873-1947), advocated soil, a good source of clay, as part of his compost mix. In my own case, one of the oldest and most experienced compost makers I’ve known is Fletcher Sims, who started composting on the Texas High Plains shortly after World War II—in which this pint sized Texan was a B-17 tail gunner in the old Army Air Corps. One of the secrets of excellent compost Fletcher shared with me was the incorporation of somewhere in the vicinity of 10% clay, either as soil or as rock powders that would make good clays. Fletcher also used compost inoculants either made with biodynamic preparations or using microbes derived from biodynamic preparations. And he developed world class compost turning machinery for aeration and moisture control.

Background

I realize most growers think of compost as a means of recycling nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium (NPK) and they tend to measure compost quality in terms of its NPK analysis—which would be diluted if clay were added. Since organic agriculture was a reaction against the simple minded abuses of chemical agriculture, it adopted a natural and far more complex approach to the NPK mind-set, nevertheless retaining the belief that soluble N, P and K were essential to robust growth and high production. The difference was they replaced the miracle grow mentality—that the soil was there to hold the plant up and nutrients should be supplied in soluble form—with the use of crop rotations, lime, gypsum and other rock dusts along with microbial inoculants, composts, trace minerals, and organic carbon concentrates such as kelp, fulvic and humic acids.
On the other hand, Brazilian soil scientist, Ana Primavesi, pointed out in her brilliant rebuttal of the NPK mindset—which she called the Nutrient Quantity Concept or NQC—that basic agricultural research went awry back in the mid nineteenth century by analysing plants for their chemical components and then analysing poorly performing soils to determine their deficiencies, which then could be addressed with soluble inputs. She suggested we should all along have examined thriving untouched natural soils, such as found in rain forest or grassland ecosystems, in order to determine what goes on in a naturally thriving soil. Interestingly these soils often show up on soluble soil analyses as being deficient in soluble N, P or K even though total soil analysis using strong acids shows these elements present in what are thought to be unavailable forms. Thus she argued a new approach—which she termed the Nutrient Access Concept or NAC—was required. The question she asked is what is so different about thriving natural ecosystems versus farmed soils?

NPK vs. Micro-organisms

The first thing that comes to mind is the tremendous diversity of species, and as far as the soil is concerned this boils down to extremely diverse, high populations of micro-organisms in the soil—fed, of course, by the recycling of vegetative matter from above. The most immediate way this occurs is from the nightly cycling of a wide array of carbon compounds by root exudation from a diversity of plant species, each feeding a different community of micro-organisms in its root zone. Of course, mono-cropping defeats this since large plantings of single species causes microbial diversity to crash, which is why multi-cropping and multi-species cover cropping are sorely needed. Diversity of crop species, however, is a topic for another day.
What comes to light out of all this is that composts should be thought of as a means of restoring micro-organism diversity to soils. In other words, composts are micro-organism inputs, not NPK inputs. The well-known soil microbiologist, Dr. Elaine Ingham, has been arguing this for years, and has set up laboratories in a number of countries for testing the levels and diversity of micro-organisms in soils and composts. And since truly good compost is such a rarity she has popularized the concept of compost tea brewing, which—when done successfully—can brew high populations of diverse soil microbes to be applied in liquid form repeatedly throughout a crop cycle for a fraction of the cost of applying mediocre composts at high enough rates to assure the numbers and diversity for sufficient release of a full array of nutrients.
Time after time it has been shown that repeated applications of well-brewed compost teas can shift the availability of nutrients in soils as long as these nutrients were present in the total test—or in the case of nitrogen if the right mix of nutrients is present for nitrogen fixation and microbial release. Aside from equipment design and microbial food source issues, the difficulty usually is finding a reliably robust and diverse starter culture for successful compost tea brewing. Essentially one must start with a good compost culture.

Where This Leads

Let’s step back a moment and review. Although organic farmers often think of composts as NPK inputs, composts should really be thought of as soil micro-organism boosters. Unfortunately, most composts are rather mediocre at doing this, although there are good ones which often enough are biodynamic. Why do biodynamic composts sometimes hit the bull’s eye? Is it just due to the biodynamic preparations? From my 30+ years experience with biodynamics I’d have to say no. Biodynamic preparations may help considerably, but I believe the real reason is that biodynamic growers have a greater tendency to understand that lime and silica stand at the poles of the mineral kingdom while clay mediates between the two. Remember, all the most successful compost makers—whether biodynamic or not—use some form of clay to make compost. Most biodynamic compost workshop leaders I’ve known emphasize the importance of clay in composting. Otherwise lime and silica do not have enough middle ground where interaction between these two polarities can occur. This seriously limits both the mineral and the microbial activity of the compost pile and tends to ensure the compost goes off toward one or the other extreme.

Biochemical Sequence

Let’s look at this from the viewpoint of the biochemical sequence in plants, since this is also the basic requirement for good soil microbial activity. Clay, by definition, is aluminium silicate—which means that clay is the soil’s silica reservoir. But because aluminium doesn’t turn loose of silica all that readily, nature boosts silica release with a trace of boron—which is chemically akin to aluminium but far more reactive.
[Aluminium silicates come in a wide variety of forms from the simple Al2Si2O5∙OH4 of kaolin (the basis for porcelain) to a much more complex montmorillonite such as (Na,Ca)0.33(Al,Mg)2Si4O10(OH)2∙nH2O as would be found in rich black cracking soils with a cation exchange capacity of over 50.]
As far as plants are concerned silicon is the mineral basis for cell walls and connective tissues. Thus silicon provides containment and transport for all sap nutrients and protoplasm. In other words boron provides sap pressure and silicon provides the transport and containment system. Now we can we consider calcium, which American farm guru Gary Zimmer calls the trucker of all minerals. He’s right, of course, but let’s not forget that calcium trucks down a silicon highway. Calcium, assisted by molybdenum, is the basis of nitrogen fixation and amino acid chemistry. Nitrogen, allied with calcium in the form of amino acids, reacts with every other nutrient element, the most important being magnesium, which is the basis for chlorophyll and photosynthesis. Chlorophyll traps energy and shunts it via phosphorous into carbon structures, which go where potassium, the main electrolyte, carries them.
Thus the biochemical sequence for plants is B, Si, Ca, N, Mg, P, C, K. If, in making compost, we focus on N, P and K we leave out the beginning of this sequence. If we refuse to dilute the NPK content of our compost by adding clay we will make poverty compost that never gets its biochemistry rolling with B, Si and Ca. Thus the micro-organism content will not be up to the task of eating into the soil and fixing nitrogen—which tends to escape during the composting process.
When we look at compost as a micro-organism booster for digesting the soil so that sap pressure, transport, nitrogen fixation, photosynthesis and growth occur and our plants have plenty of root exudates to keep ramping up the microbial activity around their roots—then we need to put about 10% rich clay in our compost. This breeds high populations of the micro-organisms that eat soil. By putting clay—or a rock powder that makes a good clay—in our compost we can breed soil eating microbes in abundance.
Fletcher Sims reckons that 2 to 3 tons per acre (5 to 7.5 tonnes per hectare) of this sort of well-made compost should be sufficient to boost the microbial activity of a decent soil enough for a robust crop of corn or potatoes—even though we are talking mono-crop farming. Contrast this with 10 to 20 tons per acre (25 to 50 tonnes per hectare) of mediocre compost being barely adequate—a five to one difference in application rates.
The rest of the story can be worked out—keeping the pile aerated and moist, getting carbon to nitrogen ratios somewhere between 15 and 30 to 1, supplying major and minor nutrients to meet specific soil needs in appropriate forms and amounts, and using biodynamic preparations and/or compost inoculants. But understanding the importance of clay as the appropriate medium for culturing the micro-organisms most needed in turning soil into plant food can take a little more understanding than currently prevails—since this is non-existent in the NPK school of agriculture.

Some Pointers

If the larger size earthworms are lacking in your piles, keep in mind that earthworms don’t have teeth, they have gizzards and they need grit. If your soil is lacking in grit, try freshly crushed rock powders that contain some coarser particles. An earthworm’s digestive tract is one of the best microbial culture vessels in the soil, and earthworms spread micro-organisms around pretty well, so it pays to give them what they need. Moreover, if your compost heap is too dry for earthworms, it’s too dry for the micro-organisms you need in your soil. Once earthworm activity slows down your compost is ready to spread, which makes them good indicators. Another indicator animal is ants. When they produce that formic acid smell that seems fresher than lemon they are doing their job of clearing toxicity from your compost.

ILLUSTRATIONS:

This picture was taken at a model organic farm in Japan, but there was no clay in the compost. The concrete pad and covered sheds were necessary because of high rainfall, which is not usually a problem in Australia, but of course, it kept clay from getting into the compost.

In many ways the diversity and management of this farm was admirable, but the emphasis of nitrogen over silica due to the lack of clay in the compost shows in this patch of aquatic weeds in the rice. This particular weed can be symbiotic with rice, as it was where I saw it last year on a Japanese biodynamic farm. There growth was subdued, and its leaves were small, narrow and quite pointed—a sure sign of high silica in the soil.

This scene, taken behind the composting shed, shows a paddock freshly sown in buckwheat—so called because it often takes only 8 weeks from planting to harvest and can follow wheat. Buckwheat rushes to flower by its third week, showing a particularly close relationship with phosphorous—as its roots host phosphorous solubilizing bacteria. This can be very helpful since wheat removes soluble phosphorous from the soil. Attention to good crop rotations was one of the admirable features of this farm. Also note the border areas with their lush diversity of species. The Japanese countryside can be spectacularly beautiful.

Here we see the turning of a small compost pile in Tolga, FNQ. The field broadcaster in the foreground (sometimes called a biodynamic tower) broadcasts the archetypal patterns of all the biodynamic preparations into the ethers around the clock and around the seasons. Biodynamic preparations are organizational in their action, and organization is the basis of life. Contrary to the belief of some, this is an organizational (etheric) device rather than a disorganizational device hooked up to the electric mains.

Here is adding a little fresh green matter from the garden to an otherwise slow pile.

Moisture is maintained by watering each layer as the compost is turned.

Finally, the finished pile, the tools used and a pile of finished compost that filtered through the pitchfork as the pile was turned. Tolga has heavy red clays so leached of their calcium that the magnesium left behind makes them extremely sticky when wet. Two years of gardening with the addition of soft rock phosphate, gypsum, boron humates and cover crops of maize with soybeans has changed this situation dramatically. The rich chocolate colour of the finished compost shows how the clay has absorbed the digested organic matter forming clay/humus complexes which are ideal for rich microbial diversity. The finished compost between the wheelbarrow and the stack will go on two beds being replanted, while the vegetation ripped out will return to the compost site with quite a bit of clay still sticking to its roots. The fresh material will be incorporated into a newly turned pile in thin layers.

Back in early 1924, Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, who later became one of the early leaders in biodynamic agriculture, was anxious to find ways to build bridges between active participation and the carrying out of life purposes without being derailed by personal ambition, illusions and petty jealousies. These were the negative qualities his mentor, Rudolf Steiner, had named as the main inner hindrances.
On a train from Stuttgart, Germany to Dornach, Switzerland he asked Steiner, “How can it happen that the spiritual impulse, and especially the inner schooling, for which you are constantly providing stimulus and guidance, bear so little fruit? Why do the people concerned give so little evidence of spiritual experience, in spite of all their efforts? Why, worst of all, is the will for action, for the carrying out of these impulses, so weak?”
Steiner’s rejoinder surprised him, “This is a problem of nutrition. Nutrition as it is today does not supply the strength necessary for manifesting the spirit in physical life. A bridge can no longer be built from thinking to will and action. Food plants no longer contain the forces people need for this.”
Pfeiffer was left to muse over this—a nutritional problem which, if solved, would enable people to integrate their thoughts and activities and become self-realized. This explained Steiner’s statement, “The benefits of the [biodynamic] preparations should be made available as quickly as possible to the largest possible areas of the entire earth, for the Earth’s healing.”
It is precisely these biodynamic preparations—known today, 84 years later, as the BD Preps—that set biodynamic agriculture so thoroughly apart from all other methods of agriculture today. Though they lie at the heart of the biodynamic method, it remains poorly understood how a handful of cow manure, buried in a cow’s horn from autumn to spring and then sprayed over an acre of farm land, can possibly be of much consequence—or even stranger, that a pinch of finely ground quartz buried in a cow’s horn from spring to autumn and then sprayed into the air over that same acre can balance the horn manure and make crops really thrive.
As far back as the 1870s Irish physicist, Osborne Reynolds, a specialist in fluid dynamics, showed that a microscopic change at a point can effect large scale changes in the medium. But we are so used to the notion that a bigger shift requires a bigger hammer that it seems very strange to expect profound results from the minuscule application of 9 or 10 BD preps to soils and weather. And as if that weren’t enough of a challenge to get our heads around, the deeper question is how do we get the right timing, combinations or sequences of applications of these preparations to get the effects we most desire? Let us grant that a tiny catalyst can bring about a great transformation, but we don’t want just any transformation. We want balance, robustness, delicacy and stability, insofar as these are achievable. It is rather like taking a canvas and 9 or 10 colours and seeing what great works of art we can produce.
What are our basic colours? The horn manure—often called BD 500—is noted for transforming soils that resemble pottery clay into crumbly loams, but that does not mean their minerals are balanced or that missing elements are supplied. In large part this is the role of additional biodynamic preparations—the yarrow, chamomile, nettle, oak bark, dandelion, valerian and horsetail preparations.† And we should keep in mind that if a soil needs liming, it still must be limed, or if it needs phosphorous or copper or whatever does not show up in a total soil digest (using aqua regia), then these elements have to be supplied.
On the other hand the horn silica—often called BD 501—is noted for its effects on the activities found above ground, namely photosynthesis, blossoming, fruiting and ripening. It tunes in crops to the sunshine and the weather, and has a particular affinity for the nettle, dandelion, valerian and horsetail preparations.
Finally there is horn clay—a preparation Steiner apparently meant to include in his lectures but for one reason or another glossed over. This mediates between the activities of the horn manure that work into the soil and the activities of the horn silica that work into the atmosphere. Thus horn clay provides stronger sap pressure and nutrient uptake by day, leading to more abundant root exudation at night. This too is supported by the seven herbal preparations, particularly the nettles.
It is difficult enough to be clear about how the biodynamic preparations work, but to know what each preparation can and cannot do and to know which ones to use when and in what combinations or sequences is bewildering, especially for beginners. Of course, there are the strict, cookbook formulas that reduce everything to a simple set of rules where one size fits all—and there are the biodynamic artists that use the biodynamic preparations like a painter’s palette, striving for optimal effects.
Understandably, biodynamics is growing and evolving, and the journey has been somewhat frustrating—especially in light of Steiner’s emphasis on the urgency of applying the benefits of the preparations to the largest possible areas of the earth. On the other hand, Steiner put it this way, “In these lectures I have only been able to supply certain guidelines, of course, but I am sure that they will provide a foundation for many different experiments extending over a long period of time, and that they will lead to brilliant results if worked into your agronomical practices on an experimental basis.”‡

About the Author: Hugh Lovel, formally educated in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and psychology, was a biodynamic farmer of more than 30 years experience in the mountains of North Georgia (USA) before becoming an Australian Citizen. He currently lives in Tolga on the Atherton tablelands, grows ginger, aloe vera, edamame soybeans and tends bees. Although his comprehensive soil and crop testing procedures are second to none, his AgPhysics consultancy covers all aspects of agriculture including livestock and environmental repair, with special emphasis on the underlying patterns of energy that determine such things as weather cycles, crop vigour, flavour and keeping quality. ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

† Steiner suggested that in other parts of the world other herbs could be found to fill the roles of those herbs found in middle Europe. Thus in Australia stinging tree, silky oak or river Casuarina may be substituted for stinging nettle, English oak or meadow horsetail. It may be argued that the effects will not be quite the same, and it may also be argued that the effects need to be somewhat different since it is a different part of the world.
‡ Agriculture, Rudolf Steiner; pp 168,169; Creeger/Gardener edition; Bio-Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association. Inc., USA

Horn silica smashing

Grinding horn silica to powder

Horn silica sifting

Horn silica party

Michael: Well, the trial might be over, but the final arguments
regarding the constitutional challenge regarding section 7 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, which refers to the issue of
Government’s infringement on our individual liberty, have not been
made. The Judge agreed that we should have the transcripts of the
trial first, before we formulate our final arguments.

M.S.: How long do you anticipate this will take?

Michael: We have to submit our written closing arguments by June 16th.

M.S.: When can we expect a decision in this matter?

Michael: Realistically, maybe in August, maybe later.

M.S.: How do you feel about the trial?

Michael: Yes, most people want to know how I feel about the trial.
My answer is always the same: I feel good, I feel inspired and I
feel satisfied that the court is the right remedy to challenge those
in authority. It was revealing, it was fun and it was Shakespearean
drama at its best.

M.S.: Why do you say that?

Michael: We all know the term ‘court room drama’. It was a wonderful
experience to see all the actors on stage in all their different
capacities and authorities, either as investigators or as expert
witnesses. Everyone played his or her role according to the rules
and, at the end of the day, we parted not as enemies but as human
beings. It is drama at its best. You have those who do their job
enforcing the law and those who get paid as experts to testify how
dangerous raw milk is, but admit at the same time, that the most
hazardous foods are not banned, like Maple Leaf products, which
apparently killed over 20 people last year, or cigarettes or
alcohol. It became very clear that everything is arbitrary; it all
depends on who calls the shots.

M.S.: Some people argue that it is impossible to fight the current
law on raw milk because of the very powerful dairy lobby behind it.

Michael: They are absolutely right ‘if’ ; if, that is, they believe
it is impossible. I believe it is possible; therefore, I see a very
good chance for change to come.

M.S.: The question is at what cost and when?

Michael: Let’s look at the reality of cost. I personally believe
that the cost of being compliant of unjust laws is far too high when
you think of our future and our children’s future. In the so-called
western world, we have lost our will, our courage to stand up
against injustice. We tend to think that, if a law is passed by
Parliament, it must be right and just. You will be surprised how
many laws are passed with Members of Parliament having no idea what
is in the package and what is finally signed into law. There are
layers of bureaucracy that control these complicated proceedings and
the bureaucrats involved know how to keep control.

In respect to the time, time is on our side. The longer those in
power refuse to enter into a constructive dialogue, the more people
wake up and join the battle.

M.S.: Are there organizational allies?

Michael: There are very committed allies in this battle. One of them
is the Ontario Landowners, known for their clear position against
over-regulation of property owners and small businesses. There is a
wide range of groups that joined over two years ago and continue to
play a vital role by networking, educating and informing more and
more people. These groups are different in that they understand the
fundamental principle of this fight, which is not about raw milk but
about defending our God-given rights of freedom.

In the not too distant future, food will create major conflicts in
society. On one hand, we have no way of knowing if we are eating GMO
food because of the labelling laws that protect those in control
and, on the other hand, we are not allowed to make a food choice,
even when we know very well it is much better for us.

Look at the health care system, look at education, look at farming.
We are, in fact , living in the most destructive decades since the
beginning of time. All of which has been and is being caused by us
human beings.

M.S.: Let’s slow down a little bit before we look at the big
picture. You must encounter opposition that does not come from the
Government. Can you talk about that?

Michael: If we are to look at opposition rationally, we need to ask
first, what is real opposition, what is forced opposition and what
is personal opposition. Personal opposition is based on fear,
experience and principle, all of which are valid. However, one needs
also to understand that I do not take the position that everyone
should be forced to drink raw milk. This choice belongs to each
individual. All I am asking is that they do not force their personal
opposition to raw milk on others who have different experiences.

I also very often face the argument that I should not break the law
‘because’ it is the law, that I should obey court orders and that
the law is there for a reason. I respect these comments but, as you
know, I do not agree. Let me give you two examples of the hypocrisy
connected with this case.

Two years ago, we went to California to explore the raw milk
situation there, which, as you know, is allowed. You can buy your
raw milk in the supermarket. When I returned, I met the chief
medical officer of health in Grey Bruce, Dr Hazel Lynn, and tried to
paint her a picture of the situation there. As I recall, she
replied: “Michael, why don’t you move to California. The only thing
that bugs me is that you break the law.”

The other example was the unethical offer by the lawyer acting for
York Region. Before trial last fall, he pulled me aside and offered
me a deal before we went into the court room: Go south of Steeles
Avenue, or anywhere else outside of York Region, and they would be
willing to drop all the charges. This only highlights the fact that
this whole thing has nothing to do with health.

M.S.: What other opposition do you encounter?

Michael: Well, there is the forced opposition, which has its roots
in unhealthy dependency. Farm organizations like the Ecological
Farmers of Ontario, the Ontario Cheese Society, as well as friends
and other businesses, think they cannot take a position because of
possible repercussions. But it is all a matter of principle. If they
are afraid to open their mouths because they might lose funding,
members or friends, they are also losing credibility. I have no
expectations anymore, but I am really thankful whenever people have
the courage to stand up for the principle. One group that I would
like to mention in this regard is the Canadian Chefs Congress and
all the chefs who continue to root for the cause in Canada.

M.S.: What is best possible outcome?

Michael: There is only one outcome.

M.S.: What do you mean with that?

Michael: Since it is a matter of principle, the only outcome can and
will be that people have the right to choose to drink milk raw or
pasteurized. Once we have achieved that, this 15-year-old battle
will finally end. Let’s not look at this negatively. Battles are
good for society, for us, for our future. They express the fact that
we are alive, as long as we do not forget to love our enemy. Part of
this tragedy is that so many on the so-called other side agree with
us but ‘have to do their job.’

M.S.: At your trial in September, you were ordered to pay a fine and
cost of $55,000. What are your plans?

Michael: The crown had an awful dilemma. They did not want to make a
martyr out of me, but they did want to force me to stop providing
people with their milk. The judge himself faced another dilemma. He
slammed the act of civil disobedience as a self- defeating act,
totally ignoring the history of the last 100 years. I do not believe
that the judge truly, in his heart, believed what he was saying. I
asked for the maximum penalty, not because I want to be a martyr,
but to expose the fact that our legal system fails if it is not
challenged on principle. We are talking about man-made law here.
Man-made law can be wrong and therefore needs to be challenged.

No, I will not pay and I will not resist whatever befalls me. They
created the problem by proceeding with a trial on an issue that has
not yet been ruled on, i.e., did I, in fact, break the law? Does the
law they are accusing me of breaking conform to the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedom? And, if not, it is no law at all. How then
could they have obtained a court order under these circumstances?
The deeper they wade into this legal jungle, the more confusing it
will become for them. Why do I not stop? Because I owe it to
society, I want to live in a just society and feel responsible for
it to be so.

M.S.: Does jail time scare you?

Michael: No. It might be a part of the journey I have to take. In
the end, the resolve could be so easy. In his fairy tale about the
Green Snake, Goethe wrote a wonderful line: “What is more valuable
than gold? */_The dialogue.” _/*Dialogue will be the solution.
Dialogue is all I am asking for.

M.S.: Thanks, Michael. Stay strong.

Michael: Thanks to all those who so tirelessly support this
wonderful battle. The Milk of Human Kindness will flow until the
cows come home to those who deserve it. A toast to all the fearless
cow share members and their supporters!

By Hugh Lovel

Once in my childhood a new Rector for our Anglican Parish was installed. Within a few weeks the grand, old azaleas around the church and bordering its grounds were sawn back to stumps and all their mulch removed. Several weeks passed before new mulch was installed, nor was I privy to those politics. For some bushes the result was catastrophic, and for the others it was several years before a modest shadow of their former glory was seen. Other than that I do not recall ever seeing azaleas or rhododendrons planted without their roots being mulched. Though these bushes commonly grew without fertilizers, mulching was just something that everyone growing these plants did—either that or these plants didn’t grow.

When I entered into agriculture I was amazed to find the norm for cultivation of fruit, nut and vine crops was to maintain completely bare soil around the roots of the plants. Everywhere fertilizers were used, even though all the wild ancestors of these crops grew unassisted. The modern landscape for these crops resembled the surface of a desert.
“It eliminates competition for nutrients and moisture.” I heard. “Certain grasses have been shown to kill the feeder roots of our crop plants.” was another explanation. “We pack the soil surface so it’s easy to harvest the nuts, and diseases and pests have no place to hide when the soil is bare.” some enthused.
Nevertheless I have found that the first rule of agriculture is to catch all the carbon dioxide and conserve all the organic matter possible. This rule’s first corollary is to leave as little soil bare as little of the time as feasible.
Of course I realize that from the time of Cain in dim antiquity farmers have wrested a ‘living’ from the land in a war against weeds, pests and diseases, and when there is any sort of a problem, the solution is to kill. In our times this battle has reached epic proportions with big tractors, chemical fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, pesticides, GMOs and nanotech—and with what end in sight as we reach Peak Oil? Where once crops depended on the whole of nature for their support, we have trucked out on a high limb and sawn like mad between us and the trunk.

Ana Primavesi

Brazilian soil scientist Ana Primavesi pointed out that we should study how in the first place nature made forests and grasslands rich, fertile and resilient without the help of fertilizers. Many of these undisturbed virgin soils, when tested, show modest levels of soluble nutrients—levels that by modern standards are insufficient to grow high yield crops. And yet, by and large when first planted they grow amazingly abundant crops—and then decline even as they are boosted with higher and higher doses of soluble nutrients. By Primavesi’s reckoning the existing concept of nutrient quantities is a hopeless digression from nature, and what we need is a nutrient access concept instead.
Virgin forest and grassland soils typically are rich in organic matter, including the biological means for nutrient access. Nature, the ultimate conservationist, keeps most of her nutrients in insoluble but available form.
How can we return to the fertility, abundance and indifference to fertilizers of our virgin soils when our organic matter is burned up, our soil biology is virtually dead and much of the fluid silica, boron, calcium and other nutrients have leached or eroded away? As mining and transport costs go up, making fertilizers ever more expensive, how can we accomplish this seemingly impossible dream? Fortunately nature has built and rebuilt fertility from time beyond reckoning by natural, ecological means.

Misconceptions

Modern agriculture long has suffered from misconceptions, not the least of which was the notion that biological nutrient access was insignificant and that all the nutrients for growing crops should be provided in soluble form at the start of each growing season. We also have glossed over the importance of silica, and we even have been remiss in thinking that legumes fix nitrogen. They do not, and never have. It is the micro-organisms that live in symbiosis with legumes that fix nitrogen, and ironically everyone knows this, despite loose talk to the contrary.
So, what do legumes do? They bring oxygen into the soil by drawing the oxidative processes, such as those involved in blossoming and fruiting, down into the lower reaches at their roots. And why is oxygen so important? Oxy in Greek means acid, and gen means source or generator of. Thus Antoine Lavoisier, realizing it was the essential ingredient of acids, gave oxygen its name—though in German it is called sauerstoff, or literally acid stuff.
Although legumes are not strictly the only things that can do this, because they are so good at bringing oxygen into the soil they fuel the release of silica, calcium, phosphorus and all the more minor minerals. Commonly they are the most successful pioneers in hard-packed acid clays, washed out sands and gravels, as well as thin, rocky soils. With sufficient water, and it doesn’t take much, they sink their roots into cracks in rock outcroppings and mine the minerals they need. Conversely in high pH dry land, where most minerals are tied up by alkalinity, legumes unlock the means for growth and nitrogen fixation there as well. As their oxygen activity releases calcium they use this abundance to encase their seeds in calcium rich shells, as well as sharing it with their nitrogen fixing symbiotes by enveloping them in nodules. Thus the Rhizobia species that fix nitrogen along legume roots are provided with both the calcium and the energy they need.

Deep Rooted Legume Covers

Rudolf Steiner pointed out in his Agriculture Course how beneficial it would be to surround our fields and crops with legumes. Then our efforts to bring in oxygen by cultivation would be supported and improved by nature’s way of doing the same. Less cultivation would be needed while soil life would be enriched.
Because legumes bring oxygen into the soil so well, many of them can send their roots down a long ways into the subsoil, even delving into the underlying rocks. Some of the more deep rooted legumes important to agriculture are kudzu, alfalfa, red clover, white clover, subterranean clover, crown vetch, trefoils and forage peanuts. In North America most of the focus is on plants that can survive freezing winters, while species suited to the Gulf South, the southern southwest, Mexico and Hawaii get less attention even though in these sunnier climes deep rooted leguminous ground covers are more important.
Amongst warm weather adapted legumes, perennial peanuts probably are the best adapted to the tropics and sub-tropics, although Wynn’s cassia and a few others are also important in agriculture. Forage peanuts in particular laugh at infertility and drought because of their deep roots and how easily they unlock minerals. Unlike the super nutritious but climbing kudzu, they hug the earth, sprawling to form a solid mat of pasture or hay of high nutritional quality. Even better, they tolerate shade well, making a perfect choice for growing as living mulch in plantation and orchard crops such as tropical hardwoods, vineyards, citrus, macadamias, pecans, bananas, avocados, olives, palms, papayas and the like. When mown or grazed closely at the time nut crops are falling, they are said to present few problems with gathering pecans and macadamias from the ground with sweeping and vacuuming equipment..
Though irrigation may be required to establish a stand in dry areas, these forage peanuts result in more in-soak and water storage when times are wet as well as less evaporation than bare soil. They also catch dew, which trickles under the shade of their horizontal canopy, and they host a plethora of microbes and soil critters which conserve moisture within their cell walls and distribute it along with complex nutrients within the root zone of crop plants.

Forage Peanuts

Two basic varieties of forage peanuts are grown. One, Arachis glabrata, is known as perennial peanut. It sends roots down in sandy soils as far as 80 feet or more and is widely grown in Brazil, Florida, the Gulf South and Texas as well as many parts of Latin America. The other, Arachis pintoi or pinto peanut likes clay better and is more widely grown in Latin America, Africa, Southeast Asia, Hawaii and Australia. Though it may not be quite so deep rooted as the glabrata, it loves clay soils and is an equally desirable pasture, hay and under story cover.
The glabrata commonly is established by transplanting rhizomes, and in Florida in thoroughbred racehorse country there are contractors who will plant the sprigs by the acre. If the resulting hay is good enough for thoroughbreds, what do you reckon about dairy and the rest? On the other hand, the pintoi, especially in Australia, is widely propagated by planting seeds. Since the seeds form underground, seed production relies on digging up the surface few inches and sifting out the seeds along with similar sized bits, then drying, cleaning and separating with a gravity table. Thus the seed is rather expensive, though usually well worth it considering the fertility improvement, permanent cover and forage quality which results. After all, one need only plant a seed every 2 feet or so as this plant starts to run and put down more seed after only 6 weeks.
As with a surprising number of other forage legumes, pinto peanut likes its own company, and once established thickly enough it creates a mat that excludes virtually all else at the soil’s surface while growing more vigorously as a result. Then we have a living mulch that grows almost anywhere that the soil doesn’t freeze, and it requires little maintenance as it opens and deepens the soil, brings up nutrients, conserves moisture, stores the sun’s energy, is a host for nitrogen fixation, provides habitat and fodder for all manner of critters—and above all looks beautiful.

§§§§§

It should be no secret that excessive cultivation ranks right up there with mono-cropping and use of chemical nitrogen for driving carbon out of the soil and killing it; and yet, cultivation is what even the best organic and biodynamic market gardeners do. The trick is to not be excessive. Here is a picture of the method of cultivation I worked out. By cultivating metre wide beds between my tractor tyres and growing a mix of grass, clover and forbs on my driving strips I created heaps of edges—so beloved by observant permaculturists—whilst my paths were my biological reservoirs. There was never any spot in the field more than half a metre away from a rich diversity of plants and animals, small and not so small.

Maize or sweet corn, interplanted with soybeans, was my favourite way of catching carbon in summer. In winter it was cereal rye interplanted with a winter annual clover such as crimson clover, though I’m told arrowleaf clover or fenugreek are well suited to Australian conditions. In this mix I would also plant turnips, mustard greens, Chinese winter radishes, rape and corn salad, incidentally, is an annual valerian that solubilises phosphorous and is known in German lore as rapunzel. The turnips, radishes and greens I harvested for market, as—like most folks—I needed a payday. The corn salad is a beloved and medicinal spring salad greens, and the grain can be cut for mulch at milk stage in the spring when it boots. Once the soil becomes crumbly and full of life, tomatoes, capsicums or cucurbits can be planted directly into the stubble with a spade—which is a pointed shovel—but don’t ever walk on the beds!

As for maize, the growing season is fairly long and earthworm populations would decline without mowing the paths for earthworm tucker about midway through the maize cycle. Earthworm populations need to be kept high in order to digest the thick stalks and soybean vines over winter after the rye is planted. Only the maize or sweet corn ears are picked, following the rule that if you want to build carbon you never export more than 8% of your biomass production. The spader pictured above has a beautiful tossing action that keeps the organic matter in the top two or three inches with just enough soil on top to plant the rye and clover mix into. The mass of maize stalks and soy vines need to be finely mowed before spading or the spader can’t chew them; but what a wealth of carbon is incorporated into the topsoil for moist, aerobic, fungal digestion! Fungal breakdown produces glomalin, which builds structural carbon into the soil.
Nitrogen management is another key. Loose, salty nitrogen burns carbon. It is the waste product of nitrogen fixing microbes, and when the soil is awash in it nitrogen fixers tend to feel like they are drowning in a dysfunctional septic tank. They say “That’s it. We’re out of here.”
What sets them on a nitrogen fixing jag is sugars. Then they tie up carbon in stable proteins in the soil reserve. On healthy soils that could easily be 3 or 4,000 ppm as stable protein nitrogen. Dumping something like raw chicken manure on the soil makes these beneficials give up the ghost and a protein breakdown cascade sets in. Then your soil loses carbon at a scary rate. Some estimate that 100 parts of carbon can be lost for every part of salt nitrogen added.
Also something else occurs—weeds. Unlike big seeds such as maize, beans and cereals, weed seeds generally are quite tiny. They depend on the soil being awash with soluble NPK and other nutrients. Their role in nature is to sop this up and conserve it. When it’s there they take off and outpace large seeded crops. Thus savvy farmers do not want much soluble nitrogen in the soil when they plant. They want nitrogen fixers to come running when large seeds start sprouting and excrete their carbs into the soil. Then there will be abundant amino acid nitrogen—all within a centimetre or so of the roots of the crop plants—while next to none will be available to the weeds even if they sprout. The picture below shows maize with soybean at 21 days after planting.

Close inspection shows plenty of weeds which can’t get beyond the cotyledon stage because they don’t have any carbs to feed the nitrogen fixers, and they don’t have enough free nitrogen in the soil. This is an example of good nitrogen management in a vibrantly healthy living soil with plenty of nitrogen fixers living in it. And good nitrogen management is how to catch carbon and build it into the soil—even in a market garden.
To summarize, building soil carbon—the foremost imperative of every ecological grower—requires minimal, non-destructive cultivation. It also requires maximum diversity so the ecology is robust. It also requires good nitrogen management, which means keeping soluble nitrogen to a minimum and keeping plenty of nitrogen fixers alive in cultivated areas. This in turn means minimizing areas and times the soil is left bare. This also means NOT tilling in green matter which will decay and release soluble nitrogen.
And lest we forget, you want aerobic, fungal breakdown if you mix dry matter, like corn stalks, into the soil. This means you never incorporate organic matter deeply—even if it is dry—because you want fungi breakdown to make glomalin, build stable carbon and create superb soil structure.

Chapter XII

One of the purposes of biodynamic agriculture is to lay the foundations for a healthier, more stable society. This requires seeing farming in the cultural perspective of human society. Second only to good farming practices and use of the BD preps, the concept of a threefold social order is key to establishing healthy BD farms. In other words we need to know where we are, where we are coming from and where we are going.

As a whole, society is made up of three parts–the economic, political and significance spheres. This parallels the individual who is made up substantially of guts, heart and head, and essentially of will, feeling and thought.
Such awarenesses do not enter the social mainstream all at once. Rather they evolve into it over the course of generations.
At the time of the American Revolution it was recognized that we were better off keeping politics and religion separate. Nonetheless there was a failure to see that science, philosophy, religion and the arts were all essentially significant in nature. Much worse, there was a failure to realize that economics must not dominate either politics or religion–that regardless of their integral working they must all three stand on their own.
This is fine idealism, but it is difficult to keep government from meddling with religious matters, to say nothing about keeping religious groups from meddling in politics–as witness the prayer and abortion issues. Moreover, military research threatens that science and technology will dominate political and economic events just as much as it threatens that political or economic interests will dictate to science and technology. Meanwhile, justified by Keynesian economics, governments enter into the economic domain and raise huge revenues on income and sales taxes, thus striking at the heart of economic activity. This ignores the fact that along with protection of life, the protection of property (and hence taxation of property) are the main political imperatives. As if to add insult to injury, governments make public education their domain even though the quest for knowledge, truth and the development of ability is essentially significant in nature.
Above all, economic forces influence the political sphere. Money determines the outcome of elections. It is unrealistic to imagine the press is free no matter that government and special interests do not (openly) interfere. Huge sums are required to publish and broadcast for mass consumption, and those who pay determine the agenda. Big companies with millions to spend popularize ideas like “bigger is better” and “cure your problems by buying a product.” The ideas of “small is beautiful” and “prevention is the best medicine” receive comparatively little press.
In political campaigns in a two or three way race the smart money goes to all the top candidates. Otherwise they would not be top candidates. Thus the election process does the bidding of those who have money. The so-called political issues that the press covers are little more than window dressing. The persuasion of the media is more all-pervasive than practically anyone imagines. Just by repeatedly portraying political leaders and credentialed experts as dealing with the world’s problems the masses are brainwashed into accepting that these people have the only solutions to our problems, while in reality they tend to be allied with the causes. The media would have us think that as individuals we are helpless and a man of integrity can not take his life into his own hands and address all issues in an immediate and everyday way through his choices of action or inaction.
Of course, it cannot be said that the economic sphere as a whole controls the political sphere, any more than it would be true to say the political sphere as a whole controls production and consumption, despite income and sales taxes. Relatively few people within the economic sphere exert any guiding influence, and even this for the most part is concealed, as follows.
Economics is made to seem so mysterious that most people throw up their hands and leave it to the professionals. There are complicated formulas for calculating gross national product, rate of inflation, money supplies, consumer price indexes, etc., so that the ordinary individual does not know what is going on. This allows the experts to run things unchallenged. This they do, starting with the reality that as the division of labor increases, we develop greater capacity to produce abundantly. Economists point out that this capacity to produce would upset the status quo unless by taxation it is held back and expended on such things as military or welfare programs. Thus the political lines are drawn so that those inclined to think they are liberal are pro social spending and anti-military. Those thinking they are conservative are pro-defense and anti-welfare handouts, as though there could be no one who did not approve of one or the other reasons for eliminating abundance. No one gets around to questioning why we must not be allowed to produce abundantly.
My first curriculum in college was business, and this cured me of a number of illusions. I quickly grasped the fact that as we developed faster and more efficient means of production we could produce far more than ever before. But, strangely, more and more American parents were both working for paychecks while getting deeper and deeper into debt. To unravel the counter-intuitive logic of this I learned how money comes into existence, how it disappears, how it relates to real wealth, the causes for inflation, what generates buying power, and the cyclical nature of economic upsets. In short I learned the game by which the status quo perpetuated itself.
Savings become worthless if not put to good use. But those who save would hardly do so if they had a use for the money saved. Banks put savings to work. Nearly all banks pay interest for savings left on deposit, while loaning this money out again at a higher rate of interest. The interest system by nature assumes that money on deposit or out on loan will double every so many years as interest is compounded. This ends up flying in the face of nature, to say nothing of Mosaic law.
Nature allows things to grow only to their limits. Then they must decline. Interest systems make no allowance for this, leaving it up to inflation and bankruptcy. Neither of these is satisfactory to its victims. Economies tied to the interest game typically go through massive inflations and bankruptcies every fifty-five to sixty years, and the last time we had this situation in America was the early nineteen thirties. Moses knew this thousands of years ago.
When money is loaned at interest, the money supply must increase if the amount required to repay loans is not to end up exceeding the total in circulation. In our present economy these increases in money supply are commonly generated by new debt, both public and private. The banking system not only lends out the bulk of its deposits, but, based on the estimated strength of loan portfolios, we have a central bank which pyramids lending even further. However, debt can balloon only so far before natural laws intervene.
Ordinarily loans are secured by claims on property as collateral. A certain percentage of defaults are expected, and if a loan goes into default the property is taken over by the lenders and sold. However, a time must come when defaults run high enough that there is too much property and not enough buyers. Then property in default is either not sold, or it is sold for less than the amount outstanding on the loans, and banks collapse. To keep the economy going without serious upheaval, the rate of bankruptcies must be paced so that it does not get too far out of hand. This is the job of the central bank, in this case the Federal Reserve, a private corporation given the aura of government authority.
On the other hand, raw material production is the natural counterbalance of this lending game. As most raw materials are agricultural, farms are the main starting places for generation of real wealth. Most other economic activities derive in one or more ways from agriculture. After all, money is not worth any more than what you can spend it for. Abundance of farm commodities is basic to a wealthy society, and if there is a serious shortage it may not matter how much money one has.
One of the things implied in this is that the monetary value of agricultural products is the chief measure of the economy’s earned income. If agricultural prices are kept as low as possible there is not much earned income. Who would favor this? As too much earned income would pay off loans and put the banking business into eclipse, this is the agenda of banks.
In a nutshell, whoever controls agricultural production controls the world economy. This is why the international dealers in grain (also the largest depositors in banks), under the guise of “free trade” have worked so hard to eliminate all obstacles to their manipulation of world commodity markets. This also is why worldwide elimination of broad based independent, self-sufficient, (family) farms has long been the intent of those who work to control the world.
At the turn of the twentieth century 90% of Americans came from family farms. People generated earned income and there was little debt. Now fewer than three percent farm. Correspondingly, today farmers generate little earned income and the American economy is awash in debt.
In fact, due to bankruptcies, the Federal Reserve is in the position of being the largest absentee landlord in America. Nor is the U.S. government an example of fiscal responsibility. It is over its eyebrows in debt to the Fed, a privately owned corporation. It is hard to imagine these debts all being repudiated. That is the sort of thing wars are made of, and we will have to consider that the wealthiest Arabs and Asians are amongst the largest owners of U.S. government debt paper. I’m unsure of the exact picture aside from the fact that most Arab and Japanese trade surpluses are locked into long term investments in a variety of stocks, bonds and lending enterprises, including U.S. treasury bonds.
Of course, Americans are by no means the only ones caught up in this colonialism of debt. We may be able to see it better by looking at the the global picture.
Asia was in large part colonized by force of European arms. But, Mohandas Gandhi showed the limitations inherent in this. To ensure that debt took the place of subjugation by force in Asia, the four thousand year old self-sufficiency of Asian family farmers had to be undermined. Large scale, debt ridden agriculture along the lines of the American model was the agenda.
In some parts of Asia the terrain and the political situations lent themselves to large scale farming. In some parts these did not. In the latter corrupt governments were fostered, the countryside chafed under its tax burdens, internal wars were fomented and family farms turned into wastelands.
Even as we bombed Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos into oblivion, agricultural development projects were designed and funded in more favorable locations by the world’s largest lenders. Mechanized competition for the Japanese (and ultimately the Chinese) market drove the small scale family farmers of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Burma and elsewhere to either become cogs in a vast agricultural machine, or leave their land for city jobs.
Methods that depended heavily on industry, technology and the world grain trade were a requirement for approval of loans by the Asian Development Bank and Fund (which despite the name was an extension of world banking).
In Sri Lanka, for instance, the peasants rather naively embraced the new way and it became the thing to shoot your water buffalo. In the rich, mountainous district of Baggio in the Philippines this did not go over. So instead Baggio’s farms were flooded by a gigantic hydroelectric project.
Governments were influenced in a variety of ways to support the new agricultural agenda, which was heralded as a “green revolution.” While the agricultural loans were being handed out, many governments further entangled themselves in debt for a variety of military, industrial and social projects.
The new, large scale agricultural projects greatly reduced the number of farm workers required to produce large volumes, so they could not absorb any significant portion of the food they produced. They were forced to sell virtually all of their production to international buyers, flooding the market and weakening prices. Statistics showed that far more rice was entering trade channels than ever before. Hence it was claimed that rice production had greatly increased. But the millions of dispossessed peasants, now living in cities virtually from hand to mouth no longer had a year’s supply of rice at harvest time. They were lucky to have a week’s supply, and even then all of this came through trade channels. Where previously large numbers of peasants produced their own rice, now they depended on buying it. There was more rice traded all right, because far fewer people were growing their own. If anything, in reality there was less rice produced. So much for statistics and for what statistics can prove.
This same game plan was employed in Africa and South America. Coffee cooperatives were set up where fertilizers and toxic chemicals were a requirement for growers who wanted to sell their crops. Sugar plantations, fishing and forestry, palm oil, rubber, coconut and banana projects, all were designed, funded and set into motion by a world banking hegemony pursuing its colonialism. For the most part this was of no benefit either to the ecology or the people driven into the cities from the countryside.
There was a lot of propaganda about how the world bank and the international monetary fund were developing agricultural production for the benefit of the third world. But, the truth is this was a worldwide power grab–at the expense of rain forests, agricultural self-sufficiency, and most of all people and human dignity.
It might as well be pointed out that the peasants of Asia, Africa and South America, driven into the cities in search of jobs, have undercut American laborers. Large numbers of jobs have been exported overseas where people must work more cheaply.
This is what centralization of authority and the bigger is better mindset led to. It kept the production of wealth to a minimum, monetizing debt instead of production. Humanity was left with a precarious existence as wage slaves. Key to this process was the elimination of self-sufficient family farms, worldwide.
If we want to turn the tables we need to take a good look at the relationship between economics and agriculture. Then we may be prepared in the future to invent a society where people exercise freedom because they assume responsibility. Our alternative is to lapse into slavery and, ultimately, extinction. The really worthwhile things–quality nutrition, a healthy environment, personal initiative, the knowledge of doing something beneficial for all and avoiding useless and destructive activities–will be lost.

“We cannot be free if our food sources are controlled by someone else.”
–Wendell Berry

Economics and Agriculture

The production of food from the natural elements is the fundamental economic activity that supports everything else. Reciprocally, an understanding of economic realities goes hand in hand with creating an approach to farming that takes responsibility for how its actions affect the whole.
Of course, if we travel in conventional circles we might think that agriculture has little to do with economics. It is as though farmers should concentrate on sowing and harvesting, and leave economics to the Ph.D.s. Our faith in specialization tends to persuade us we should compartmentalize our treatment of both agriculture and economics.

Specialization

Specialization has its virtues. If one person grinds grain and another bakes bread, between them they can provide bread of consistent quality for a community of people herding sheep, making shoes, building, weaving, recycling junk and so forth. Specialization allows individuals to develop their unique talents, abilities and interests, saving much time, energy and materials in the process.
In a medieval township of one or two thousand people, the economic function of each individual was fairly evident. One saw production arise out of nature and consumption return this to nature.
With the advent of the industrial revolution people gathered into cities and concentrated on using their specialties to earn money. A lathe operator, for instance, might work from technical drawings without concern about optimum design. Nor need he worry about assembly, marketing, repair or recycling. Being a master at his specialty was sufficient to keep him occupied. The printing press designer did not run printing presses as an occupation. He had no need to get twenty hours worth of printing done in eighteen. He might never wish this or that lever or screw was easier to operate or harder to maladjust. He specialized in design and left it up to pressmen to run the thing.
Increasingly generations were born, educated, worked and died without understanding how their activities fitted into the economy as a whole. As they lost sight of how their contributions influenced society, they lost their ability to judge the benefits or dangers of their actions. The result was they performed tasks they would not have considered had they understood the consequences from start to finish. In short, specialization was a good thing that, taken to the extreme, ultimately became automatic, inappropriate, even hazardous.
For instance, at the beginning of the industrial revolution the English estate holders specialized in grazing sheep and producing wool. They implemented enclosure acts that sent the peasants off to the cities creating a surplus labor pool. This was exploited by mills that manufactured woolen goods for export. In the overall this was socially catastrophic, but an economic bonanza for a few.
Quixotically it gave rise to the English custom of maintaining closely clipped lawns around houses rather than well-tended vegetable, herb and flower gardens–an effort to copy the look of the affluent estates with their sheep trimmed grounds. Today, by way of trying to achieve this cultural ideal, Americans go to extraordinary lengths to maintain mock pastures, filling up landfills with the residues from riding lawnmowers and herbiciding the dandelions instead of growing food.

Environmental Consequences

Traditionally farmers have as close a connection as anyone to watching products arise out of nature and return as waste. They might not see what the governor or academic does with the fruits of agriculture, but at least they tend to know where and how basic commodities arise. Still, the industrial revolution, despite the obvious benefits of increased specialization, blindsided us with various disasters even in agriculture.
Bigger, heavier plows and other machinery brought on increases in soil erosion. Manures were concentrated more while recycling them received less attention. Imbalances, deficiencies, declines and catastrophes became increasingly common. The seed ran out in one district, the soil washed away in another, and a plague killed the crops or the livestock elsewhere. Traditions increasingly were ignored, or followed with insufficient understanding of why they existed.
During the latter part of the nineteenth century, in response to the widespread problem of declining fertility, a renowned chemist, Justus von Liebig, found that small amounts of the salts of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium boosted plant growth wherever these elements were in short supply. Producers of these chemicals embraced Liebig’s discovery, and little attention was paid to the fact that crops grown with these salt fertilizers tended to be watery, weak and subject to pest problems despite their large size or superficial vigor.
With the advent of World War II the production of nitrogen compounds commenced on a tremendous scale in order to meet the demand for explosives. After the war this chemical output was applied to farms, and chemical agriculture became the norm.
Chemical fertilization resulted in a sharp increase in insect and disease problems. In response to this the production and sale of toxic chemicals became big business. For the most part the decline in flavor, nutrition and goodness was glossed over. What was emphasized was quantity, not quality. Because they were themselves narrowly focused specialists, few consumers had any idea what was going on.
Fertilizer producers founded institutes and lobbied, passing laws favoring their wares. They set up networks for research and advice that assured the most widespread acceptance. Where once farmers had burned and pulverized stones, rotated crops, recycled manures and maintained a close contact with their land to achieve sound results, specialization made these things seem obsolete.
In reality, however, both agriculture and the economy were closed systems where everything arose from nature and inevitably in one way or another returned. The progression from heavier plows to salt fertilizers to toxic rescue chemistry was a classic case of the pitfalls of specialization. Blind to the overview, we eroded soils, impoverished root growth and microbial activity, polluted the air and water and seriously compromised the quality of our food supply. Hi-tech agriculture damaged the ecology at the same time that it locked farmers into a high-cost/must sell situation with a heavy load of debt.
In a village of one or two thousand people it would have been inconceivable to use such short-sighted methods of producing basic foods. But farmers no longer ate their own crops. Instead they purchased food from supermarkets, and out of sight was out of mind. Toxic agriculture became routine. The roles of earthworms, ants, wasps, bees and other contributors were ignored while one farmer specialized in corn and soybeans, another in rice and sugarcane.
Before World War II animal fats, though they would have concentrated toxic residues had these been in the food chain, were considered healthy fare. In the l990s, however, regardless of the cholesterol theory, toxic residues ensure that eating high fat animal products may be a prelude to cardiac by-pass surgery, kidney dialysis or a cancer operation.
To understand the extent to which specialization has us in its grip we might graph the share of the world economy devoted to medical treatment over the past hundred fifty years as compared to topsoil losses over the same period. While it might seem common sense that public health is closely related to the vitality of soils and crops, in today’s specialized world it is common to hear the medical associations denying any relationship between declining nutritional values, soil loss, agricultural toxicity and health problems.
Yet, it is no accident that we have a health care crisis simultaneous with the debasement of our agriculture. We have less humus in our soils than ever, too much crude nitrogen, and a deficiency of oxygen. We have bred most crops to depend solely on soluble chemistry rather than soil solids, and foods have declined in mineral content. We are malnourished, not only physically (not enough minerals), but also etherically (not enough oxygen), astrally (too much crude nitrogen) and egoically (insufficient carbon in our soils). How have things worsened so rapidly? Something must be driving society relentlessly into the ditch.
To gain an understanding of our situation we must see things as wholes in the context of larger and larger wholes, rather than isolated and compartmentalized as specialization encourages. In reality everything is interconnected and interdependent. We must learn to think holistically.

The Ultimate Specialty

Once money replaced brutality as the chief tool for securing ownership and control, it became the object of power. Accordingly there is probably no one more specialized than the specialist at handling money.
By virtue of holding only a small fraction of deposits, a bank can reissue the rest as loans, doubling and redoubling the money supply since in theory all the money is simultaneously still in the bank. This assumes that only a small fraction of the bank’s depositors will want their assets back at any one time, and to shore up this assumption we created a banking regulation agency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) which supposedly guarantees deposits. Thus, by issuing loans, banks create money out of nothing. This is compounded over time at some rate of interest. Accordingly a portion of the income from lending money is paid as interest to depositors. As more and more money is lent and interest mounts up, mature fortunes multiply themselves.
A serious flaw in this system is that if money is to represent wealth it must age and wear out just as do food, clothing, shelter and other items. It is not enough simply to have a medium of exchange, we need a medium of exchange that is grounded in reality–one that encourages exchange so that everyone gets a share, and one that wears out like all the things it represents.
Gold, for instance, may be a stable medium of exchange since it does not multiply itself when hoarded, but it is a false medium of exchange because it does not wear out.
On the other hand, raw materials, especially foods, wear out quickly. Even the most carefully stored grains are likely to last only a decade or so. The world’s wealth in these items needs to be replenished constantly. Their production is the basic, true measure of how much wealth exists in any economy. Thus, a dated currency, issued on the basis of raw material production and wearing out over a period of, say, ten years, would stimulate turnover in currency in all sectors of the economy. Before long we would treasure nature, out of which all products flow, instead of amassing savings to be multiplied by a carefully orchestrated need for loans. Then we would avoid the pitfalls of usury.

Usury

In modern times usury has come to mean the lending of money at exorbitant interest. Originally it meant lending at any interest. In the Mosaic tradition usury was forbidden because interest is based on doubling and redoubling mature fortunes, while for the ordinary producer and consumer everything money represents wears out.
Biblical scriptures, particularly Deuteronomy and Leviticus, which are basic to Jewish, Christian and Moslem traditions, prohibit usury as well as the confiscation of family agricultural lands for non-payment of debt. That is something to think about. Yet, this type of lending is firmly ensconced in the legal codes and political traditions of most of the world today.
Somehow, world around, laws have established usury and courts uphold it as socially virtuous and acceptable. Sheriffs enforce its imperatives with threats, if not actual violence. It is a policy we are conditioned to accept.

Debunking Political Myths

Many believe the voting booths and legislative bodies are a realistic avenue for citizens to voice dissent. And, perhaps they would be if consensus was pursued and citizens represented themselves. However, representative assemblies make it difficult for individuals to have any real voice unless they have plenty of money and influence. Legislative decisions depend on politicians who need campaign contributions to get elected, frequently spending enormously more running for an office than it pays in salary. For instance, roughly half a billion dollars was spent during the l988 US presidential campaign campaigning for a $250,000 a year job.
Needless to say, if the income from usury is in the trillions annually, a little can be budgeted for political influence, and those with this agenda can afford to back all the top candidates.
Dissent, though it may be voiced in legislatures, is routinely silenced by majority rule, no matter the elegance of its arguments. And, should the lone citizen think to protest in a court of law, his dissent is muzzled and shunted aside by well-practiced manipulations of the legal rubrics. Never mind the Magna Cartas and Declarations of Independence or any other traditions that misgovernment must not be borne.
Moreover, the scions of the media, schools and public institutions would have us believe this system is fair, just, reasonable and the best that has existed in all history. Of course, to suggest otherwise might imperil their job security.

Is the Press Free?

I realize many believe we enjoy freedom of the press, and that by proclaiming the truth the media will enlighten people so that they shake off their enslavement. However, publishing or broadcasting to the masses requires massive funding. The major media are controlled–frequently through advertising budgets or by way of donations to pet projects, charities or cultural pursuits rather than outright ownership. Editors who ignore the wishes of their benefactors seldom last long.
Moreover, propaganda techniques have progressed steadily since the days of the Third Reich. Marketing psychologists have developed sophisticated methods for evaluating the emotions evoked by audio and visual presentations. And, it is emotions that motivate people. Public relations are programed by top professionals who know how to find a way to sell practically anything to any audience. Public opinion is molded by those who pay for it.

What about Science?

Some suppose science at least must be free from mummery and manipulation. But, it too is controlled by funding, and as for those who fund their own investigations, there are strong arm tactics. Roger Gerdeman, an Iowa farm boy whose family funded his work to develop a turbine that took the heat out of air and used it for motive power, was kidnapped by persons posing as FBI agents. He was found wandering the streets of Mexico City, a mental vegetable, with his work lost or stolen.
Dr. Joseph A. Beasley, a Tulane medical professor who operated two clinics, researched and developed a vitamin cure for diabetes. This threatened drug revenues in eleven digits, and he soon found himself tried and convicted of technical improprieties in the use of federal grant monies.
Royal R. Rife, with the financial backing of a bearing manufacturer by the name of Timpken, discovered a way to cure cancer and various other diseases with economical frequency generators–whereupon he was charged with practicing quack medicine and hounded into seclusion in Mexico.
Wilhelm Reich, one of Sigmund Freud’s most renowned successors, funded his own research into the basic phenomena of life. After brilliant work concerning reversal of the law of increasing entropy, weather modification and the use of simple equipment to improve personal vitality, Morris Fischbein (simultaneously of the AMA and the Food and Drug Administration) brought Reich to trial for medical quackery. After being pilloried in the media, with his published works and experimental devices destroyed by court order, he died an untimely death in prison.
In this regard things have changed little since the days of Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake, and Galileo Galilei, who became a guest of the Inquisition for arguing that the Earth went around the Sun. People in power do their best to control anything which can penetrate to the truth of things, for they know it may rock the boat.
Scientific research, just as with any religious pursuit, has little hope of funding and recognition by the mature fortunes unless it furthers their influence.
Nor is revolution a hopeful avenue of dissent. What is left? Keeping abreast of developments and biding one’s time?
The likelihood is that the manipulators who currently pull the strings are essentially specialists of their own kind. They are so wrapped up in their specialty that there is virtually no way for them to perceive the ecological and economical needs of the whole.

Basics

A lot depends on controlling the means for basic production, most of which is agricultural land. For some time control of land has passed into the hands of the mature fortunes and out of the hands of those living on it or working it. So it is the wealthy and powerful who make the key decisions about land use, regardless of whether these are called modern corporate agriculture, FmHA requirements, international monetary fund guidelines, blatant absentee landlordism or agricultural collectivization. In so-called Third World countries, especially those deeply in debt, this trend has been a serious bone of contention for many decades. Yet, few Americans realize how much they themselves have become a dispossessed people. Partly this is a measure of how skillfully they have been manipulated.
There have been many refinements in the process of securing control of the land, and, of course, there have been blunders. Iran, for instance, epitomized a blunder. The Shah moved aggressively to collectivize farm land, moving people into the cities so rapidly that most remembered the independence and self-determinism of their former rural existence. When times got hard they listened to Khoumieni, who promised to turn the clock back.
The American media explained that the Shah had tried to modernize Iran too fast, but few knew what that really meant.
Iran was a culture which had grown its own food for thousands of years. When the Shah bulldozed the small farms with their goat pens, chicken coops and fig trees, feeding their population into the cities, Iran lost its diversified, self-sufficient base, becoming dependent on agricultural imports. Oil or no oil, the economic and ecological changes left people caught between wage slavery and unemployment with no family farm to go back to. Most could remember when it was otherwise.
By way of contrast the process has gone more slowly in America. The majority of the population these days were born and raised by wage earners in the towns and cities. They know almost nothing about living off the land even if they happen to own a little. Thus there is little perceived need for land reform here. In fact, many of those who do work the land maintain the illusion that they own their land and are free to do what they please with it despite their huge debts and dependence on methods that keep them on a treadmill. Whatever independence they might have they relinquish by seeking relief both financially and technologically in programs promoted by the central government.

Centralized Authority

The process is one of centralization of authority. But what are its premises? For one thing it assumes central authority knows what is best for individuals and what they should do. For another it must enforce its decisions. This means having the bureaucrat and the policeman looking over the citizen’s shoulder supposedly to make him be responsible. The US, though nominally free, has the world’s largest central government, the most laws, the largest enforcement organizations and the highest per capita prison population. This is a consequence of centralization. On the one hand, many people give up being responsible on their own initiative. On the other, many are penalized for attempting to assume such responsibility.
Historically centralized control results in land abuse. Long-range husbandry suffers while a dispossessed population waits to be told what to do. Workers have little say over their economic activities. If they refuse to perform because they think what they are told to do is inappropriate, unsafe, immoral or whatever, they are simply replaced. As “surplus population” they may starve, end up in prison or learn to do as they are told next time.
Government researchers tell us that environmental quality, self-sufficiency and long range environmental improvement are nice ideals, but very difficult to attain and sure to be poor business. But, how can this be? A pure, balanced and natural reaping of nature’s bounty is inferior to a toxic, wasteful and extortive approach?
On one hand billions are spent on development and deployment of environmentally destructive food production methods. On the other hand, sound economic environmentalism is left to scattered individuals who reap minimal economic gain while being treated like lunatics. The central authorities promote the belief that the only way we can produce sufficient food is by raping the environment and mortgaging everything. Is it a coincidence that this favors, amongst others, those who have profitable investments in toxic industries?
Propaganda pervades the media, the classrooms and the political arenas. The glitz, color, authority figures and subliminal cues are well-researched, clever and thorough. They go beyond either reasoned argument or simple paid advertising to emotional persuasion, since emotion is more compelling when it comes to peoples’ actions. Nearly everyone is conditioned to accept that toxic agriculture is the only way to produce food. In order to get along and not be branded as crazy most people have learned to accept the pillage and desertification of the planet, deplorable though it may be. The propaganda goes down all the more smoothly since at the cultural level the suggestion is implanted early on in life (via cartoons and comic books) that at some point our superheroes will emerge from deep cover and pull all our chestnuts out of the fire for us if we just have faith and go along with the authorities.
Yet, it makes no sense for producers to destroy their production base, endangering their own health and welfare along with future generations. Why is this viewpoint promoted? Who could benefit from the destruction of nature? Tropical forests are cut, temperate forests succumb to acid rain, ocean life is poisoned, the atmosphere is polluted and now we suffer from increased ultraviolet exposure, weather extremes and tectonic instability. Neither producers nor consumers can be said to benefit. Who does?

Who Benefits?

Classically it is the trader’s game to dry up abundance and endanger future production. All the better to cash in on goods set aside when there was a surplus, thus gaining a larger war chest and greater leverage in the next trading cycle. Since trading in money trumps all other trading games, money manipulators exercise authority over all aspects of trade.
Producers and consumers are kept as separate as possible. Producers are told there is too much and they must sell cheap, while at the same time consumers are told there is too little and they must pay dear. Both producers and consumers are at the mercy of the markets.
Suppose the American soybean harvest is in and is fairly abundant. The soybean trader cries, “Surplus!” playing those who must sell against each other. He may import foreign beans to drive domestic prices down, then turn around and export domestic production to drive foreign prices down. Ideally he tries to force farmers to accept less than their cost of production while they must meet current financial obligations. This practically ensures that in following years farmers can be pressured even more. And if a significant number of farmers are bankrupted the way is paved for a year of too little production. Then worldwide stockpiles will bring very high prices. The following year or two as soybean production increases in an effort to cash in on higher prices, the trader goes back to crying surplus. The last thing that is wanted is diversified farms that can absorb their own production unless or until they are offered a desirable price.
If there is a drought and the price of feeds go up, the poultry, cattle or hog farmers must sell off their livestock. This drives meat prices down at the same time feed costs soar, a production absurdity, but a trader’s delight. He can buy, buy, buy while producers must sell, marketing a portion of this surplus at a very healthy profit when prices rise again because of curtailed production.
In Robin Hood’s time the corn engrosser charged twenty shillings for a bushel of barley at planting time. The yeoman farmer had to go to the money lender who fixed the loan to be paid at harvest time. At harvest the corn engrosser paid only one shilling a bushel and the yeoman had to take it if he was going to keep the sheriff off his back. Frequently this meant going back in debt again at planting time. The corn engrosser, the money lender and the sheriff were all fast friends.
Virtually the same story is told about ancient Babylonia. Little has changed although hundreds, even thousands of years have passed. Producers succumb to this fleecing time and again. The salaried experts, funded researchers and farm specialists offer little of use to farmers in this position. Instead they offer more and more products for farmers to buy, locking them into larger crop loans and increased pressure to sell their production cheap. For the trader this is ideal. He prefers to see the farmer forced to sell as this is likely to increase his profits. Moreover, he can place his profits on deposit to earn interest as they are issued out again as loans.

Need for Parity

Reducing the profits of the primary producer not only handicaps his production position, it ensures he must go into debt if he is to consume others’ products. The world’s strong economies such as Japan and Germany try to ensure their farmers are compensated fairly well, and starvation is uncommon in these countries. Conversely cheap farm export countries such as Brazil and Argentina have weak economies and widespread starvation.
In the US during the forties, with the urgency of a war to fight, parity legislation was enacted to ensure that farm products brought prices to put them on par with non-farm products. Before long farmers and factory workers alike enjoyed increasing prosperity and diminishing debt, a real relief after the thirties.
Then in the fifties farmers again began to be shortchanged. The economy faltered while public and private debts grew again. The reason is that no matter what the primary producer’s output is, if he receives no pay for it he will buy nothing from any of the secondary producers, and so it will run through the economy. Nor would he produce at all the next year and the whole economy would halt. So he is always paid something, but if he receives low pay he will buy less than if he is well paid, and the effects will be felt, even multiplied, throughout the economy. If he is strung along just right he will go deeper and deeper in debt hoping for a good year to get him out, and again the same tendency will prevail, even magnify, throughout the economy as a whole. If he were paid well he would prosper, and that prosperity again would pervade the whole economy and diminish the need for going into debt toward zero, which is not what is on the agenda.
The speed with which money and goods change hands determines how much the basic producer’s earnings are multiplied in the economy. Things move so fast these days that even slight earnings can multiply many fold. But if the basic producer has no earnings there is no multiplication to be had, and if he ceases to produce, everyone throughout the economy loses. So, agricultural commodity prices are juggled well enough to tease the economy along without any real prosperity. It remains to be seen how long this can be kept up. The situation is pretty touchy, and global weather extremes alone could throw a monkeywrench into the works.

Remedy

Since the current scheme of things is established and upheld by legislation, government administration and jurisprudence, to say nothing of police, it would seem that remedy would have to be political in nature, a matter of clearing a path for the righting of wrongs. But, how can elected officials, judges, bureaucratic agencies or police resist the influence of money?
It is a sobering fact that John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln were both assassinated after issuing US currency that was not based on debt and payment of interest. Had either of these presidents lived long enough to convert us from currency based on government borrowing to currency based on how much we produced of basic commodities, they would have gotten the country out of debt. They never got the chance. And, in both cases their alleged assassins were killed before they could give testimony or defend themselves in court. It is unlikely they were the real killers.
Other social leaders such as Mohandas Gandhi, Malcolm X, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. have also been assassinated before they could address these issues. Considering the stakes of the game it seems unhealthy to buck the status quo.
But, if concentrating political authority in the hands of a president, congress and judiciary and its army and police yields no remedy, how are we to maintain a polite society? Scattered individuals cannot simply remain polite while society at large and particularly government itself becomes increasingly impolite. We must do better than this. Our environment and the community of living beings on the Earth (and ultimately throughout the cosmos) is at stake.
Many have suggested that we withdraw our support of the system as it stands. That may be done though it is difficult, but it is not enough. We must put our efforts behind a constructive program.
One of the highest priorities, aside from learning to see clearly and disentangle ourselves from enslavement, is to establish a true economic husbandry of the environment, particularly of agriculture.
This requires developing a personal integrity and farm integrity in relation to the underlying, all-encompassing unity of the Earth and the cosmos, and it requires that we act on our own authority. It also requires support and cooperation, a community effort. It cannot be done in a vacuum.
By engaging in the primary production of wealth, the farmer is in the best position to observe what is a wholesome harvest of nature’s gifts and a healthy recycling. It is his challenge to transform the world into one of health and bounty. To do this he must link up with the people who consume his products and contribute in their turn to the quality of life, culture and material wealth that make farming satisfying. Then others will want to join in his work. He must cease dealing with middlemen who reduce his labors to statistics in a global power game, and associate directly with those who desire what he can produce.
This requires reexamining the specialist’s view that concentrating on just a few things and doing them well is best. Such a view goes hand in hand with the idea that competition is best, and this manner of thinking has so far carried the day. It has led many farmers into specializing in producing just a few commodities on as large a scale as possible, and not only has this been disastrous for farm ecologies, but it has left these farmers vulnerable to market pressure as never before.

Putting Specialization into Perspective

In the broader scheme of nature diversity is best for survival, and cooperation between species benefits them all. It follows along these lines that a person with multiple talents and abilities is better equipped for survival, and a community made up of the most varied individuals, of the most diverse professions and positions is the best off.
As one neighbor who dairy farms observed, “I don’t know what we’ve got to do, but I know one thing for sure. We need to get more people out here working on our farms.”
I agree. If we did and people knew where their food came from and what went into producing it there would be an awakening and more cooperation.
I do not think it will be enough to merely certify products are organically or biodynamically grown, though this may be a step in the right direction. But, whether the farm enterprise is large or small I suspect it is key to communicate where the food came from, who grew it and how, and what is happening on that farm as a whole. With consumers identifying with the farms that feed them and getting involved with the way their food is grown, the middlemen no longer will enjoy an unfair advantage.