Topic: WE'RE STUFFED!!!

[Michael]

These Objects of Contempt Are Now Our Best Chance of Feeding the World
Peasants are detested by both communists and capitalists - but when it comes to productivity a small farm is unbeatable

by George Monbiot

I suggest you sit down before you read this. Robert Mugabe is right. At last week's global food summit he was the only leader to speak of "the importance of land in agricultural production and food security". Countries should follow Zimbabwe's lead, he said, in democratising ownership.

Of course the old bastard has done just the opposite. He has evicted his opponents and given land to his supporters. He has failed to support the new settlements with credit or expertise, with the result that farming in Zimbabwe has collapsed. The country was in desperate need of land reform when Mugabe became president. It remains in desperate need of land reform today.

But he is right in theory. Though the rich world's governments won't hear it, the issue of whether or not the world will be fed is partly a function of ownership. This reflects an unexpected discovery. It was first made in 1962 by the Nobel economist Amartya Sen, and has since been confirmed by dozens of studies. There is an inverse relationship between the size of farms and the amount of crops they produce per hectare. The smaller they are, the greater the yield.

In some cases, the difference is enormous. A recent study of farming in Turkey, for example, found that farms of less than one hectare are 20 times as productive as farms of more than 10 hectares. Sen's observation has been tested in India, Pakistan, Nepal, Malaysia, Thailand, Java, the Philippines, Brazil, Colombia and Paraguay. It appears to hold almost everywhere.

The finding would be surprising in any industry, as we have come to associate efficiency with scale. In farming it seems particularly odd, because small producers are less likely to own machinery, less likely to have capital or access to credit, and less likely to know about the latest techniques.

There's a good deal of controversy about why this relationship exists. Some researchers argued that it was the result of a statistical artefact: fertile soils support higher populations than barren lands, so farm size could be a result of productivity, rather than the other way around. But further studies have shown that the inverse relationship holds across an area of fertile land. Moreover, it works even in countries such as Brazil, where the biggest farmers have grabbed the best land.

The most plausible explanation is that small farmers use more labour per hectare than big farmers. Their workforce largely consists of members of their own families, which means that labour costs are lower than on large farms (they don't have to spend money recruiting or supervising workers), while the quality of the work is higher. With more labour, farmers can cultivate their land more intensively: they spend more time terracing and building irrigation systems; they sow again immediately after the harvest; and they might grow several crops in the same field.

In the early days of the green revolution, this relationship seemed to go into reverse: the bigger farms, with access to credit, were able to invest in new varieties and boost their yields. But as the new varieties have spread to smaller farmers, the inverse relationship has reasserted itself. If governments are serious about feeding the world, they should be breaking up large landholdings, redistributing them to the poor and concentrating their research and their funding on supporting small farms.

There are plenty of other reasons for defending small farmers in poor countries. The economic miracles in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan arose from their land reform programmes. Peasant farmers used the cash they made to build small businesses. The same thing seems to have happened in China, though it was delayed for 40 years by collectivisation and the Great Leap Backwards: the economic benefits of the redistribution that began in 1949 were not felt until the early 80s. Growth based on small farms tends to be more equitable than growth built around capital-intensive industries. Though their land is used intensively, the total ecological impact of smallholdings is lower. When small farms are bought up by big ones, the displaced workers move into new land to try to scratch out a living. I once followed evicted peasants from the Brazilian state of Maranhão 2,000 miles across the Amazon to the land of the Yanomami people, then watched them rip it apart.

But the prejudice against small farmers is unchallengeable. It gives rise to the oddest insult in the English language: when you call someone a peasant, you are accusing them of being self-reliant and productive. Peasants are detested by capitalists and communists alike. Both have sought to seize peasants' land, and have a powerful vested interest in demeaning and demonising them. In its profile of Turkey, the country whose small farmers are 20 times more productive than its large ones, the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation states that, as a result of small landholdings, "farm output ... remains low". The OECD states: "Stopping land fragmentation ... and consolidating the highly fragmented land is indispensable for raising agricultural productivity." Neither body provides any supporting evidence. A rootless, half-starved labouring class suits capital very well.

Like Mugabe, the donor countries and the big international bodies loudly demand that small farmers be supported, while quietly shafting them. Last week's Rome food summit agreed "to help farmers, particularly small-scale producers, increase production and integrate with local, regional, and international markets". But when, earlier this year, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge proposed a means of doing just this, the US, Australia and Canada refused to endorse it as it offended big business, while the United Kingdom remains the only country that won't reveal whether or not it supports the study.

Big business is killing small farming. By extending intellectual property rights over every aspect of production, and by developing plants that either won't breed true or don't reproduce at all, big business ensures that only those with access to capital can cultivate. As it captures both the wholesale and retail markets, it seeks to reduce its transaction costs by engaging only with major sellers. If you think that supermarkets are giving farmers in the UK a hard time, you should see what they are doing to growers in the poor world. As developing countries sweep away street markets and hawkers' stalls and replace them with superstores and glossy malls, the most productive farmers lose their customers and are forced to sell up. The rich nations support this process by demanding access for their companies. Their agricultural subsidies still help their own large farmers to compete unfairly with the small producers of the poor world.

This leads to an interesting conclusion. For many years, well-meaning liberals have supported the fair trade movement because of the benefits it delivers directly to the people it buys from. But the structure of the global food market is changing so rapidly that fair trade is now becoming one of the few means by which small farmers in poor nations might survive. A shift from small to large farms will cause a major decline in global production, just as food supplies become tight. Fair trade might now be necessary not only as a means of redistributing income, but also to feed the world.

monbiot.com
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2008

[erik]

Free trade (with tremendous agricultural subsidies in the Western countries) is definitely a way to kill the poor. However, the productivity of land is another matter. I'd reckon that modern companies employing GM species harvest more from an area unit than small farms (there are also studies supporting this claim). The trick is that they invest more to be able to do that. Small farms cannot even reach that level.

Considering the extent of starvation and the impact of climate change, the prospect is that GM species and intensive agriculture ought to provide in absolute terms more food than any other way of farming, but there are many obstacles:
-overall resistance to GM stuff and respective culture (at what King takes a go)
-start-up cost
-Western hunger for profit: e.g. the US company Monsanto tried to sell to India more productive GM rice that did not give any seed meaning that Hindus had to buy new plants every bloody year

So the technology is there to at least alleviate the problems in the short-term, but... there is no solution for over-population and climate change in the long-term.

...or do you think that small farms are the answer? I'd guess they would be useful after the collapse of civilisation, but they cannot possibly cope with over-populated, over-consumed earth.

[TIOTIT]

Obama and the Palin Effect
Deepak Chopra
Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov. Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention in Minneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City. By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure. Palin’s pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.

She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and turning negativity into a cause for pride. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of “the other.” For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don’t want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.) I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin’s message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision

Look at what she stands for:

Small town values — a nostaligic return to simpler times disguises a denial of America’s global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.
Ignorance of world affairs — a repudiation of the need to repair America’s image abroad.

Family values — a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don’t need to be needed.
Rigid stands on guns and abortion — a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree.

Patriotism — the usual fallback in a failed war.

”Reform” — an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who doesn’t fit your ideology.
Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from “us” pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of “I’m all right, Jack,” and “Why change? Everything’s OK as it is.” The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness

Obama’s call for higher ideals in politics can’t be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow — we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.

[nichi]

How interesting, and I had no idea Chopra does psycho-spiritual-political analysis. Hope he says more. Thanks, T!

[Michael]

Free trade (with tremendous agricultural subsidies in the Western countries) is definitely a way to kill the poor. However, the productivity of land is another matter. I'd reckon that modern companies employing GM species harvest more from an area unit than small farms (there are also studies supporting this claim). The trick is that they invest more to be able to do that. Small farms cannot even reach that level.

Considering the extent of starvation and the impact of climate change, the prospect is that GM species and intensive agriculture ought to provide in absolute terms more food than any other way of farming, but there are many obstacles:
-overall resistance to GM stuff and respective culture (at what King takes a go)
-start-up cost
-Western hunger for profit: e.g. the US company Monsanto tried to sell to India more productive GM rice that did not give any seed meaning that Hindus had to buy new plants every bloody year

So the technology is there to at least alleviate the problems in the short-term, but... there is no solution for over-population and climate change in the long-term.

...or do you think that small farms are the answer? I'd guess they would be useful after the collapse of civilisation, but they cannot possibly cope with over-populated, over-consumed earth.

You have raised a few issues here Juhani. The latest round of the Trade Talks fell apart, and from what I read, for good reason - the old story of the poorer countries being ripped off.

As for the the two articles above which you and I posted about land use. This is outside my expertise, but I see this is not a debate on purely emotive grounds. In both cases scientific studies or assessments are used to opposite results. Who do we believe?

I accept that farming practices which speak of better tools and resources are not really in question. What Monbiot is questioning is the difference between small farms verses mega-farms. I am certainly open to his argument on that, but again, I would need to hear numerous experts in the area, to make a definite decision.

What I am observing, and becoming concerned about, is the GM argument. I recently heard a radio program by a man who has just written a book, much along the lines of your article's content.

He began by saying Africa is held back by outdated farming practices. He even accepted the whole male-female issue which is so important in this analysis. He also said they needed tooling, seed, fertiliser, water and so on ... all good stuff. But then he moved to what was obviously his primary point - GM seeds.

The argument seems to be following a pattern around this issue.

One of the first claims put out is that GM seed will save the world's population from starvation, and so it should be adopted on humanitarian grounds. I have been watching this one, and although I can't recall the details, I have finally heard sufficient from those who are experts in the field, that this argument is complete bullocks. It simply doesn't hold up under informed analysis - not even close. this argument has been traced directly to Monsanto promotional material.

The next claim is that the reason people are resistant to GM is because they are firstly resistant to new innovations - always have been from the 'earth going around the sun', to steam trains, to aeroplanes to every new significant modification of our 'old ways' and our old mind. Then it moves to the particular resistance to genetic engineering as another example of the latest of 'innovation horror'.

The final point in this thread is that, as with all the previous leaps in technology, humans will eventually overcome their superstition, and adopt it with relish. Meaning, it is only irrational superstition which is causing the antagonism against GM (or GE - they can't seem to get that set) crops.

So the outcome is that the white middle class (the latest group to be targeted for ridicule by the right wing think tank fuelled agenda to clear away all resistance to multi-national organisations profit making freedom) is causing the famines of Africa by their petty indulgent and superstitious fantasies. It is this last step that alerts me to smelling something rotten in the state of Denmark.

What bothers me is that scientists are being corralled into propagating these arguments, often when it is not their area of expertise whatsoever. I sense there is a big trick being foisted upon an unsuspecting science community, by the power and influence of Monsanto, which I might add is unbelievably ruthless and enormous.

It doesn't take much intelligence to see that humanity is not always resistant to technological changes - what about the mobile phone, even when told it is dangerous to health! We have always been suspicious of some changes and willing to accept others. It is stupid to lump all technological change into one basket. Certainly there has been irrational suspicion, just as there has been irrational adoption. The pattern of resistance to such changes is not uniform - it has always been a case by case basis.

Also people have been burned before - there are so many cases where scientific/technological innovations or new substances have proved disastrous. We all know now that everything which comes from the 'lab' is not to be trusted. Most of it is, but I feel people now have a much more fine-grained perception of these innovations. To attempt to lump GM crops in with every other scientific discovery is disingenuous - meaning it is a ploy with ulterior motives.

The same then applies to resistance to genetic engineering. Not all GE creates suspicion. It has been shown that in the field of Health, we are very happy to trial new GE products. Also it is inaccurate for Monsanto to try to present their specific Roundup-ready GM seeds under the banner of all GE. There are many many GE research and products that are welcomed by the wider community, and many of which they are suspicious. Again it is a case by case, and people are right to go slow in many situations, before we can't turn back

But it is the Monsanto GM seeds that are really causing such a stir, and people have a right to identify that specific product for scrutiny and sceptical concern - there are very many good reasons to be cautious about it.

So I am not buying the whole argument that if we all don't buy one multi-national's product, we are somehow mired in superstition, and worse, guilty of mass starvation in Africa - that is an emotive argument unworthy of a true scientist. I like to hear the reports and assessments of many different sides of this debate - and I expect that to be ongoing for many years yet.

[Angela]

...and something serious....

a post from another forum regarding the US economy...

"Sure, there were kamikazi missions, but I don't think any American in 2001 thought that passenger planes would be used as missiles against buildings in Manhattan. When you listen to the real-time coverage of the event, it's clear that broadcasters were thinking what Americans were thinking: how could a small plane crash into the World Trade Center on such a clear and beautiful morning. Terrorism was just not in our imaginings. If you are saying that the rest of the world believed it could happen, then that is just proof that Americans were living in another world. And, I don't know about the Australian press, but here in the United States, the major news media is owned by 3 or 4 corporations. That's right: 3 or 4 corporations own the broadcast television networks and the newspapers and the radio stations. And so on any given day, Americans will hear the same 3 or 4 stories, and that's it. There will be the token 4 minute wrap-up of the events in Iraq, maybe 3 minutes on the latest suicide bombing in the Middle East, 4 minutes on the economy (stock market wrap-up maybe 1 minute plus 2 minutes on some other portion of the economy -- lately, that's been the foreclosure figures and housing data), then another 4 minutes on some human interest story, usually medical. That's right: about 16 minutes of hard news. The remaining minutes of the 30-minute newscast will be commercials (at least 10 minutes) and then some fluff, usually related to programming on that network. That's it. Even CNN will cover the same stories, over and over. You can watch CNN for 1 hour and then you'll know everything they are covering. Americans are starved for news. We only hear the words "Europe" whenever there's some bombing or a US president or presidential candidate happens to be over there. So, no, Americans aren't paying any attention to what's going on in the wider world. In fact, you could say that the US media is paying LESS attention to what is going on in the outside world than they were in 2001.

So most Americans are completely unaware that the US is heading into a depression. No, the US govt. won't let us fall into a depression! No, the gov. will come to the rescue! Except that this time, the US govt. doesn't have any money to rescue the US economy because the US economy has been propped up for the past 7 years by Chinese and Russian loans. What's going to happen when the US can't get any more loans from Russia and China? What's going to happen when those Social Security checks can't be written? What's going to happen when the funds to pay our soldiers aren't available? It's unthinkable. And so the govt. will do what it has to do to write those checks: the govt. will print more money. That's what a 0% interest rate means -- the govt. is printing money. That will lead to hyperinflation. That will lead to a further devaluing of the dollar. That will lead to the greatest depression the US has ever known.

Think it can't happen? Read this link from CNBC, of all places. It is an interview with the head of a private investment group, Tyche, on the future of the US economy: http://www.cnbc.com//id/26656750. This investment group is telling its investors that the US is headed into a depression, and it's taking Europe with it. Europac, another private investment group, has been telling its investors for at least 2 years that the US is headed into a depression; in fact, Europac forecast the housing crisis 5 years ago! These private investment firms are not looking for govt. handouts, so their only purpose in issuing such forecasts is to make money for their investors.

Of course, there is another alternative for the US govt: widening the war in the Middle East. I'm not sure how that would get more money for the US, but it will quell the unrest in the US.

To all of you in Australia or other parts of the world, take heed: the only real threat any presidential administration fears in the US is annihilation at the polls. If the stock market crashes in September/early October, this election is over. The Republicans lose control and will not recover. Do you think Karl Rove and the other Republicans running the Bush administration will allow that to happen? Because the ONLY thing that will cause Americans to vote for a Republican AFTER a stock market crash or a collapse of the economy will be WAR. And obviously the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are not enough -- it will take a MAJOR WAR. One nuclear exchange somewhere "over there" and Americans will "rally around the flag" and elect a Republican.

By the way, if the stock market crashes, don't expect the news media to call it a "crash." There will be all kinds of efforts under way to give it a different meaning. For example, most economists would call a 9,000 DOW to be a "crash" (from the height of last October of 14,000+ to 9,000 was being called a "crash" last December). If the stock market goes to 9,000, economists will be saying that we are in a severe downturn, and they will imply that only a loss to 5,000 would be considered a crash. They will say things like, "Well, we are certainly at a low point, but we don't think the market will get much lower and so we will avoid a crash." Then, when the DOW goes to 6,000, they will talk about "we don't think the market will get much lower and so avoid a crash." These economists will have you thinking that a stock market crash means that the DOW has to go to zero.

And, no, I don't think Bush is in control of this govt. I don't think Bush was ever in control of this govt. I think Bush is a figure-head for the shadow govt. You just have to look at him today to understand the man is impotent."

[xero]

Just moving sideways here.
The movie 'Zero' was aired here in Oz last week. Many people don't believe the official 9/11 tale. What is the general view on in U.S.? Except for various YouTube expose, it seems national pride and indignation leaves little room for true debate and investigation.  Except for occasionally decrying and discrediting the 'conspiracy loonies' my diet of American media sources finds an absence of mainstream media analysis. Meanwhile, the leverage provided by 9/11 continues to be pivotal in the antics and policies of U.S. politicians and industrialists. As one commentated noted, 9/11 has become a brand name for a reactionary doctrine. It    is always there - just about anything can be blamed on it or predicated on avoiding the next 'attack'. Terrorism is a perfect enemy. Everywhere! anyone! anytime ! - classic black magic.

[Josh]

try listening to countless accounts from eyewitnesses, and then going even deeper.. this is almost all mainstream media stuff - it just got buried.. the powers that be cant afford disruption beyond a certain point

<a href="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-2461177575671329682&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-2461177575671329682&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=true</a>

[nichi]

Just moving sideways here.
The movie 'Zero' was aired here in Oz last week. Many people don't believe the official 9/11 tale. What is the general view on in U.S.? Except for various YouTube expose, it seems national pride and indignation leaves little room for true debate and investigation.  Except for occasionally decrying and discrediting the 'conspiracy loonies' my diet of American media sources finds an absence of mainstream media analysis. Meanwhile, the leverage provided by 9/11 continues to be pivotal in the antics and policies of U.S. politicians and industrialists. As one commentated noted, 9/11 has become a brand name for a reactionary doctrine. It    is always there - just about anything can be blamed on it or predicated on avoiding the next 'attack'. Terrorism is a perfect enemy. Everywhere! anyone! anytime ! - classic black magic.

The "official 9/11 tale" hasn't seen much questioning, you're right, except by fringe conspiracy-theorists. I've seen even liberal commentators hold out that last matter of belief, that it was perpetrated by Al-Qaeda, not by anyone in the US government -- shadow or otherwise. Yet there are some fishy aspects, like Bin Laden's family being secretly planed out of here while air traffic was down in the days following. The rumor was that Bush was behind that whisking himself. Likewise, he was negotiating to sell our ports to Saudi Arabia in the years following 9/11. He went forward with a pre-emptive war, lying to the people, and gave himself a lot of executive privileges in the course of his term.  Not to mention, the timing of the thing was so perfectly behind his walk-out from the Kyoto Treaty Conference. And interestingly, new Alaska pipelines were being proposed and rejected by environmentalists in the same week-2 weeks of 9/11. Good timing for 9/11, so we pay less attention to those things. These stories fade away, out of our awareness. 

If I am following the news, I am very frustrated by watching several networks' broadcasts and knowing there are holes in the picture. To make a composite picture, in order to get understanding, requires reading international sources, and even then ... 

It's an interesting topic. Does the media create our viewing-interest, or does it reflect it?  Do we not have excellent analysis because powers-that-be derail it through misinformation and disinformation, or do we not have excellent analysis because our minds are in the gutter, following the underpants of child molestation- and kidnap-victims instead?  We follow red herrings, like illegal immigration, which originated as a hot issue in order to keep the "tefforists" out, but which evolved into a racist movement against the Latino population (at least that's how the latinas view it!)

And then, X, there are the conspiracy theorists, like the Coast to Coast AM radio show, who seem eccentric and willing to entertain just about anything, but who, I've finally gleaned, support the entire system through fear-mongering.

The average joe will support the commander-in-chief, but our particular commander-in-chief has done so many outrageous things, contrary to the "philosophy of the founding fathers", that even the average joe has to either take pause or climb into the mindset of denial.

It's a fragmented mess, in short.

[Josh]

<span data-s9e-mediaembed="youtube" style="display:inline-block;width:100%;max-width:640px"><span style="display:block;overflow:hidden;position:relative;padding-bottom:56.25%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" loading="lazy" scrolling="no" style="background:url(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FnkdfFAqsHA/hqdefault.jpg) 50% 50% / cover;border:0;height:100%;left:0;position:absolute;width:100%" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FnkdfFAqsHA"></iframe></span></span><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/FnkdfFAqsHA&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/FnkdfFAqsHA&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1</a>

Above is a speech from the last president that was assassinated, JFK.

You must pit research v.s. conjecture.  The issue of "paranoia" is always at the forefront in conspiratorial scenarios, specifically because for most people, the only response they have to an unknown situation they cannot control is: fear.  However the popular caricature of any hidden cabal or secret society casts a disparaging light on such things and makes them an easy target for either ridicule or over-exaggeration (depending on ones personal bent), which of course serves the purpose of concealment quite naturally.  What most tend to forget is that anytime people get together to share favors with one another, it is a conspiratorial scenario.  Its always been a simple matter of "you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours".  The cliché mythologies and so forth are weapons of confusion, taken up by the populace and wielded upon themselves with gladness.  It is much easier to dismiss an actual threat as an imagined one.. and when the lines are blurred, human nature comes into play.  Many people who are at the summit of ruling power have access to long established knowledge of its succession and methodologies.  These people are very learned students of human nature, and that is how they exploit it.  Some of them have had untold amounts of wealth for centuries, and they intend to keep it that way.  That is why so much of the entire world's economic wealth is concentrated in so little of its actual population.

    The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

     But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

     Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

     If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

     It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

     Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

     Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

     For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

     The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

     The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

     On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

     I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

     Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

     And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

     Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

     It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

     No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

     I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

     Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

     This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III

     It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

     And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

[nichi]

Such brilliance and eloquence.

[Angela]

Just moving sideways here.
The movie 'Zero' was aired here in Oz last week. Many people don't believe the official 9/11 tale. What is the general view on in U.S.? Except for various YouTube expose, it seems national pride and indignation leaves little room for true debate and investigation.  Except for occasionally decrying and discrediting the 'conspiracy loonies' my diet of American media sources finds an absence of mainstream media analysis. Meanwhile, the leverage provided by 9/11 continues to be pivotal in the antics and policies of U.S. politicians and industrialists. As one commentated noted, 9/11 has become a brand name for a reactionary doctrine. It    is always there - just about anything can be blamed on it or predicated on avoiding the next 'attack'. Terrorism is a perfect enemy. Everywhere! anyone! anytime ! - classic black magic.

I lived in NY for four years in the late 80's.  I have a good friend that still lives there.  She was the first person I called that morning of the attacks.  It was chaos to say the least.  She ended up walking home to Brooklyn via the Brooklyn bridge.  Terrorized for sure!

A few years ago, I mentioned a conspiracy to my friend and she said, "you really don't believe that our own government would do such a thing, do you?"  She immediately ended the conversation saying she could no longer speak to me about it. We haven't really been as close as we used to be.  A shame ... she was a great mentor to me as a friend and co-worker.  We went through many tough times together during our mid-20's ... always had each others backs

We are taught to trust ... to a fault.  And when you ask questions you ... heh!  you get fired   ... or fired upon.  People think we actually live a democracy.  I see news stories about topics that interest Me.  Like the teenage boy who could heal by using what he called x-ray vision.  he could actually see tumors and abnormalities inside people without the help of traditional x-ray equipment.  Then Poof! ... the story is gone ... vaporized off the web pages of the local news site.  Just like the pharmaceutical commercials .... just like this BS with McCain selecting Palin (I mean, come on, do you really think he's targeting intelligent women?  Hell no, he's targeting all those redneck men that normally don't vote, who think she's "hot" ...  Yikes!)  Our culture involves lots of brainwashing using subliminal techniques. 

Hardly anybody is "Awake".

[Angela]

try listening to countless accounts from eyewitnesses, and then going even deeper.. this is almost all mainstream media stuff - it just got buried.. the powers that be cant afford disruption beyond a certain point

I haven't finished watching your video, but this type of demolition has been done in Las Vegas for many years now ... long before 9-11 ....

http://www.vegastodayandtomorrow.com/stardustvideo.htm

[tangerine dream]

[Josh]

Demolition of buildings has been going on long before Las Vegas as well - its a standard way of removing high rise structures inside cities.

What is perhaps more telling is something like Operation Northwoods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false flag conspiracy plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".

This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on foreign governments.

The plan states, "The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere." Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense.

Several other proposals were listed, including the real or simulated actions against various U.S military and civilian targets. Operation Northwoods was part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative. It was never officially accepted or executed.

Most people simply cant accept these kinds of things as reality.  It would be way too disruptive to their personal comfort zone.  They will either ignore it or lash out against it, either way it is dismissed in their minds.

However, some of us exist outside the comfort zone.  We cannot be affected by its disruption, because we are its disruption.