Understanding One-Worldism
Through the Principles of Reverse Engineering
or, Unvieling the Hidden Agenda
by Bobby Garner
May 2, 2004
The working hypothesis for this thesis, is; "No program, personal, private, or public is long maintained unless it is achieving the intended results"
Secondary hypothesis: "Every program is achieving the objective it was designed to achieve even when the stated goal is not reached".
To the extent that this proves to be true, we will have found a new tool for understanding the plethora of government sponsered programs affecting every aspect of American society. Many of these have either failed outright, or have had adverse consequences. Why do they continue? The list of government programs which have not achieved their stated goal is long. Among them, the wars on crime, drugs, and poverty, all begun in the sixties and seventies. Student loans, were started to assist only those who could not afford tuition. Now very few can get a college degree without them, and most who do, can not afford to pay them off from the kind of jobs available. Medicad and Medicare which at first, doctors would not touch with a ten foot pole, are now a gold mine for HMO's. Witness the recent government report of $30 plus billion wasted last year, most of which was overpayment to Medicare and Medicad. Some have come to view such reports, not as a constructive critique, but like Zbigniew Brzezinski's Book, "Out of Control", they are progress reports on their true objective. If that can be shown, then the reports themselves are clues to the hidden agendas.
The midwestern United States was once populated by an agrarian society where a large portion of the population lived and worked on a small "family farm". We still have what is called the family farm, but it is of a far different character. While there may be a very small number of true family farms remaining, the vast majority are in fact corporations some of which are operated by a family, but in many cases the work is shared by an extended family, some of which may not even be related. In short, the traditional "family farm" no longer exists except on cereal boxes and children's story book covers. What we have instead is known as Agri-Business.
How did that happen while maintaining the widely held belief, even among farm families, that the family farm still exists? The answer is incremental change that happens over a period of several generations. The process began in the depression years of the early 1930's, further complicated by a sever drought which history records as the "Dust Bowl" days. In the years leading up to that period, many farmers had taken the bait of easy money offered by the banks at very attractive rates, which allowed the farmer to spend the money from the next crop while it was still growing in the field. Those who chose not to participate found it difficult if not impossible to do business, and many of them left the farm for the city and factory jobs.
Because the bankers were mostly well known and respected home town folks, the farmers had not paid much attention to the fine print in their loan contracts. When the drought hit, those who had used the loans to sustain their operations, were unable to meet the payment schedule, so the banks called the loans and took possession of the farms. In many cases this was done by intimidation, threats, and brute force even to the extent of bulldozing the buildings. For some years much of the land lay fallow, because title was either held by the banks, or it had been abandoned.
Now then, if you wanted to destroy the family farm, as it existed in 1930, how would you go about it? Cheap loans might be one way, but that was not enough, because too many prudent farmers were able to survive all of that. This is where we can apply the concept of reverse engineering. Reverse engineering is frequently used in business. It's advantages are low development cost, shorter development time, and therefore more competitive marketing. Reverse engineering takes advantage of an existing successful design which meets the desired objective. The only problem is that someone else owns and controls that design, so your task is to figure out what features of that design contribute to it''s success. While you are at it, you may also identify some flaws which you may be able to improve upon thereby creating an even better product.
The fact is that the demise of the family farm has occurred under the watchful eye of the Federal Farm Programs, begun by the administration of President Franklin Roosevelt with "The Agricultural Adjustment Act" of early 1933 under the guise of "saving the family farm". We have had a federally funded farm program every year since. While the motive may have been good enough, something apparently went wrong. An analysis of the accelerating collapse of family farms, will help to understand the causes for it, for those causes must have proven to be very effective, because it continues year after year.
The following story related by Sue Shellenbarger in 1984 continues to be told over and over again each year. "For the first time in 44 years, my father won't need any equipment this spring. With my brother, sister and me long departed for distant cities and occupations, he is selling out and leasing the farm. The auction ends our family's generations in farming so numerous no one ever bothered to count them.
"We have plenty of company in that exodus. For a variety of reasons, traditional, medium-sized family farms like ours are vanishing; Luther Tweeten, professor of agricultural economics at Oklahoma State University, estimates that 600,000 are left, one-fourth as many as in the 1930s. The number has dropped especially fast since 1980, as falling farmland values and diminished expectations for the farm economy accelerated the shakeout." - Selling Off the Family Farm
Like all other problems plaguing mankind, there is no shortage of theories and opinions on how to solve it. Advocating limits to farm subsidies, Andrew Swenson writes; "To halt the economic cannibalism of small and moderate size farms by large farms, farm policy would have to offset the market forces that cause it. Neither policies which increase the prices of farm commodities nor government payments based on output, without limit, will change this trend." - Farm Policy: The Family Farm and Payment Limits
In other words, more of what we have been doing is not going to work. Here's why in the words of Brian Riedl of The Heritage Foundation...
"These subsidy programs tax working Americans to award millions to millionaires and provide profitable corporate farms with money that has been used to buy out family farms. The current farm bills would provide even greater subsidies for large farmers
Legislators promoting subsidies take advantage of the popular misconception that farm subsidies exist to stabilize the incomes of poor family farmers who are at the mercy of unpredictable weather and crop prices. If that were the case, the federal government could bring the income of every full-time farmer in America up to 185 percent of the federal poverty level ($32,652 for a family of four in 2001) for just $4 billion per year. In reality, however, the government spends nearly $20 billion annually on programs that target large farms and agribusinesses. - Still at the Federal Trough: Farm Subsidies for the Rich and Famous Shattered Records in 2001
To make a short story of all this, if we want to destroy the family farm, we would simply continue the farm policies of the preceding 71 years. The advantage of this method, aside from the fact that it works, is most notably that very few will notice that the policy itself is the major cause of their problem. Instead, they eagerly await the continuing increases. To be more precise, you can destroy the family farm and have them begging for more, until the very last one is gone. "Bill Gudex, a dairy farmer from Campbellsport, Wise. and chair of the CPUSA's Family Farm and Rural Life Commission, told the convention plenum that the federal government must take steps to insure a fair price for milk, grain, and other farm commodities as it did during Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal." - CPUSA urges fight to save 'rural America', People's Weekly World
So, we have identified an existing model for the total destruction of the family farm. If we wanted to design a more effective model, we could simply reverse engineer the existing model introducing some new improvements, and offer that instead. I submit that that is precisely what the U.S. Department of Agriculture has been doing now each and every year since 1933.
What if we reverse engineered all of our problems?
Bobby Garner is a researcher on the phenomenon of One-Worldism with an emphasis on the methods and techniques employed in it's attendant deception. He may be reached via E-mail from his Website at www.congregator.net. He welcomes your comments. This article may be posted in it's entirety on any website provided this statement remains attached.
