Considering the Amish “Communitarians”

Anyone who knows me knows I am fascinated by the Amish. Not their religion, particularly, although the authoritarian form of their religion may be a necessity for the success of their economic system, which is what really interests me. They have a system of private ownership of property, in which one's hard work will result in a benefit for your own prosperity and to pass on to future generations. But they also work in a cooperative fashion in order to gain the benefits of scale, yet eliminating the siphoning off of their labor in payroll and income taxes. They pay their taxes on the profits of their labor, but in addition to foregoing income and the resultant tax by helping their neighbor they forego (after fighting for the right to the Supreme Court on religious grounds) the government social welfare system and neither pay into nor receive social security and medicare taxes/benefits. I have read studies on this "share labor system" of the Amish and it is considered their primary economic benefit over the "English" way, as we are known to the "Simple Folk".

In addition to these advantages, there is considerable peer pressure to trade within the Amish community and to always produce a surplus, individually and as a community, both by their hard work, but in their frugal, sustainable, self-reliant ways. They cooperate voluntarily to solve issues seemingly insolvable in 'English' society, such as medical care costs. Pretty much all the Amish wish for is to be left alone. Which makes me a fellow traveler with the Amish.

I wonder if their principles are transferable to rural 'English' communities which are, as my friend Greg Maize recently described it, "living amidst the ruins of a dead civilization", which is an apt description. But I wonder if that is a necessary situation and I look to the Amish as inspiration. If a community, such as any small town in this part of Missouri, or any of an untold number of similar communities around the country, were to form a cooperative – a corporation of some sort, in which to create a market for their own goods and services. They have the cash flow, in the form of the government payments that are now the lifeblood of economic activity in our rural communities, which is a sad state of affairs. So, if the building of wealth is a matter of producing more than one (or a community) consumes, then obviously a poor community has a production problem, as they are likely not consuming that much in the first place. Poverty seems to have a way of limiting over-consumption, funnily enough.

Your issue then is likely a lack of capital and a lack of a large enough market within your community, which makes either bringing money into the community or exporting from the community to the larger market a necessity. I don't think these are insurmountable issues, but the solution will be a bit different for each community, given that communities particular assets. For instance, the community I live in might focus on producing natural, organic food for export to communities in St Louis which focus on processing and shipping our products to the larger market of grocery chains. Both communities have the tools for the job, the market exists and I see no reason a community could not exploit their natural advantages in a way to be communities which produce more than we consume, meaning thriving communities building wealth rather than communities living on the fragile life support system of printing counterfeit currencies living amidst the ruins of a failed civilization.

This is the conversation I wish to have as my part of the 'national conversation' and what I wish to discuss here on this blog and in a forthcoming website which is under development. I think that my community has the tools to lead the way out of the national morass allowing the nation's "elites" to drive the ship has brought us to. I think a philosophy of 'Communitarianism' can unite a divided country and build a sustainable economic system. I also don't think it will be embraced by (and possibly not tolerated by) the status quo, but I do think that if people will work together at the grassroots, community level, we can slowly change the national landscape. And by thinking "my community can lead the way", that does not mean I believe my community is unique in that quality. I believe that any community that could follow very simple principles of consumption and production can eventually find a new way that will insulate it from the failure of the greater system, but can evolve into a new system of interconnected, thriving communities which define a thriving nation. I don't have all the answers for a nation, but I believe I can work in my community to make it a better place and if that is happening around the nation – we'll pull through this situation the "elites" have put us in.

Making Spaghetti Sauce

I've been busy processing a large pile of homestead grown produce for use in various sauces. The best method I have found requires some freezer space, so it is helpful to manage your butchering to accommodate the homestead schedule. So, for this time of year, you should be getting close to seeing some shelves in your deep freeze(s) which you will want to fill with produce as a safety valve against a deluge of garden goodness that threatens to overwhelm you to the point food starts going bad either in the garden or in your kitchen/processing area.
Peppers, especially, are simple. You merely have to cut them into strips as you core and seed them (wearing gloves) and pack them in zip lock bags. Simple enough. There they are, ready for use in a salad, on a pizza, or to use in a sauce, which is where mine are destined. If you have the freezer space (I do not this year, which is a good problem to have), you can just wash your tomato's, remove the stems and any bad spots and freeze them. When you want to use them for a sauce you run them through a food processor, then through a colander (not a strainer, a proper colander with a crank handle) in order to remove the seeds, if those are a problem for you. The cone shaped device with the wooden pestel is also a good implement for removing seeds.


The seeds in a sauce or chili, etc., do not concern me, but they do some folk, especially those with false teeth, where the seeds will get under them and cause a lot of discomfort. Regardless of whether you go to this extra step of removing the seeds or not, my method certainly eliminates the unnecessary and laborious process of blanching tomato's to remove the skins. Again, if that's what you want to do, you don't need my permission, but it seems senseless to me when the food processor turns the skins into puree, but, whatever. To each his own. The recipe I use, which is from the Ball Blue Book of Canning, calls for various amounts of tomato's and peppers, onions, etc. Their recipe mixes the requirements for tomato's by weight and the rest by cups, chopped. But by weighing out various product, it seems to me the general amount for this recipe is 4 parts tomato to 1 part 'something else'. That something else may be a combination of peppers, onions, garlic, what-have-you that you think might be good in spaghetti sauce or that your garden is throwing at you in such quantities that you are desperate to find a use. Maintaining this proportion is important as I will have to pressure can my sauce and this requires a combination of pressure for a certain period of time and varying the recipe causes changes in the weight/time calculation of canning and it's best to keep it simple. So I prepare a large variety of recipe items that will go well in marinara sauce (50 qts/year/2 person family), chili (25 qts), or sloppy joe mix (25 qts). Then, as the tomato's come off, I can process the tomato's, grab the proper amount of onions, peppers, etc. that I want in my sauce, put in the spices and pressure can the whole tomato output of a day in one step.
So goes life on the homestead today. Happy saucing.

Foxes in the Henhouse

I heard a story about a young preacher once that comes to mind as I watch the antics in Washington D.C. It seems the young pastor took his first charge – a country church in Kentucky. His first sermon was a fiery oratory on the evils of gambling. He noticed many in the congregation getting pretty fidgety in the pews and thought, "They must be going to 'the boat'" and pumped up the oratory even higher. After the service an elder came to him and said, "Pastor, I know that's church doctrine but about a third of your congregation owns racehorses. Remember this is Kentucky."

The next week the young man gave another pulpit pounding sermon on the evils of drinking – all according to church doctrine and again he saw folks fidgeting. After the service, the same elder pulled him aside and said, "Pastor, I warned you to remember this is Kentucky. Half these folk work at Jack Daniels down the road!"

The next week the Pastor raised the roof with a sermon on the evils of violating offshore shrimping limits. The elder said, "Great sermon, Pastor. You'll do well here."

It seems to me that most political discourse today (and perhaps this is nothing new), consists of some variation of partisanship for nothing more than the sake of partisanship itself. There are areas of agreement where one can't go because a politician is beholden to whatever interests and cannot govern according to any principles whatsoever. But I'm not criticizing the politicians here. If you find a fox in your hen house you can't really blame the fox – that's what foxes do. No, you run the fox off with some lead and you secure the hen house.

Well, the fox was run off in the 18^th century and they secured the hen house with the Constitution. It's our own fault we allowed the fox to worry the boards loose with various changes to the Constitution, (the 16^th and 17^th Amendments come to mind) and semantical sleights of tongue such as the "Living Constitution" theory of judicial review which winds up with ObamaCare in the present and a totalitarian nightmare in the future when followed through to its logical end.

Yet, we have the kneejerk reactions to the stimulus they provide to the point that no agreement on basic issues can be reached if it is in opposition to the status quo. People seriously argue that it makes sense for the executive to have weekly assassination meetings with his assassination Czar and has an attorney general who argues that the executive has the authority to assassinate anyone in world, anywhere in the world, American citizens included with no legislative or judicial oversight. We have two presidential candidates who agree with this. Yet, the electorate is so beholden to the government or the status quo that we can't agree this is not America and will vote for one.

People will seriously argue that it is necessary for national defense to garrison troops all over the world, spending nearly half of ALL global spending on military issues, six times that of China and equal to at least the next 16 countries. We REALLY need to be doing this? Yep. A third of the congregation is working at the defense department funded distillery down the road so you better "support the troops, pal".

It is past time for those who believe in the America that is our birthright to run the fox out of the hen house and fix those broken boards.

My Views on the Revolution

I think it is probably prudent to state my views on violent revolution from time to time, if for no other reason than to have available as evidence, assuming I am allowed a lawyer and they have judges in the Gulag. I believe we have a right and a duty to engage in a revolution, but I believe that if the conditions were present for a successful revolution, then those same conditions would make violent revolution unnecessary. Such is my possibly misguided, optimistic and naïve view of the inherent goodness of the American people. The same may be true of people everywhere – that there is an inherent goodness in them. But my view of American exceptionalism is that there would be no such thing but for the wisdom of our founders. But it may be that only a limited and fortuitous series of events gathered such men of political talent and love of freedom and country in one place and time and therefore ours is not only an exceptional system of governance but also one that is uniquely possible. Some may go so far as to say that this was not simply fortuitous but miraculous and divinely inspired. And I would not feel it necessary to attempt an argument or to do anything but give thanks to God myself.

So, I don't think there is an unlimited tolerance of abuse to those privileges bought so dearly in the collective American psyche. I am surprised that psyche has not reached the tipping point yet, but I have faith that it is there somewhere. I know that it is beyond my threshold. But…and this is an important but…in my mind the difference between a terrorist, a criminal, and a true patriot freedom fighter is that the patriot honors the threshold of the collective psyche of the people even when it has not yet been reached. Samuel Adams did not take his Boston 'mob', form guerrilla units and begin blowing up British garrisons. He was an agitator and the "Boston Tea Party" was admonished by Benjamin Franklin and others and John Adams defended the British soldiers charged in the Boston Massacre, along with another prominent pamphleteer. These were lovers of freedom in favor of declaring independence from Great Britain but they did not begin an attack against the established government. They operated openly, holding elections and attempted to solve their grievances with the crown peacefully. They also knew the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters.

They also did not attack the British troops garrisoned in their independent colonies until the British moved to seize their stores of powder and weapons. They waited until their natural right to the means to defend themselves was threatened. If the regime were to announce a general seizure of weapons from 'we, the militia', I would also consider that a provocative act that was a bridge too far, irrespective of the general collective psyche of the American people. My weapons are necessary implements of my lifestyle, the same as my tiller and tractor and I have a natural right to possess the means to live and to defend myself against varmints, two-legged or four.

For a revolution to be successful, it is necessary to be a partisan with the support of the populace. If one considers himself a potential freedom fighter, it's also prudent to study guerrilla warfare and revolutions. I have the background to have already studied these subjects from the point of view of the 'counter-insurgency', which means I already knew a lot of tactics, etc., but not from the point of view of the partisan. To my ex-military potential revolutionaries, I very much encourage you to do as I do and to study revolutions in history from the perspective of the partisan insurgent. I try to persuade people to prepare for any eventuality by stockpiling food, fuel and ammo. This is not only to deal with the inevitable breakdown of the distribution system that would occur in a major economic, monetary or civil crisis for oneself, but you will now also have security concerns with which to concern yourself with that "the system" has always taken care of. These folk will not be available to assist with the necessary food production/survival needs of the community so their provision must be addressed. This mindset is a necessary factor of a successful revolution and will not exist without the support of the collective psyche for the revolution as described above. And I believe that collective psyche will express itself at the ballot box, even in the face of the corporatist media propaganda, etc.

If I am wrong…well, I keep my sniper skills up also. I hope they are never needed for anything but the occasional four legged varmint and meat for my table.

Happy Independence Day! Of course, this is a misnomer. On this day in 1776 we announced to the world we would not be ruled by a monarch - but Great Britain had other plans and we had to go through a long and brutal war to achieve independence - it was not until Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown that the individual states were free of the rule of King George. And even that was not the 'birthday' of a nation, as I often hear Independence Day referred. We were not a nation, we were a Confederation of independent former colonies. To create a nation required much work and compromise until finally we had a Constitution and were a nation in reality. The story is that Benjamin Franklin was stopped by a lady after the final vote by the states on the Constituion and was asked what system of government the new nations representatives had given the people. Ben replied, "A Republic, ma'am - if you can keep it."

It appears old Ben's concerns were warranted. The Constitution they so revered that they required all public officials, servicemembers, etc. to swear an oath to uphold is now considered an irrelevant and dusty old museum piece. Its main original purpose - preventing this new federal government from seizing all the power reserved to the people and the states - is no longer considered to be valid by most in DC, including now a majority of the Supreme Court.

Today, my prayer is that somewhere between the hot dogs, the beer and the fireworks, we remember the sacrifices made through the years to maintain the hard-fought freedom bequeathed to us by our ancestors and ask ourselves if we are really doing our duty as citizens to pass that freedom on to our children and grandchildren. Will they be free and able to pursue their vision of happiness unhampered by a tyrannical Federal despotism? I think we are on the precipice of the honest answer being no. It is not hopeless if the American people will wake up and take personal responsibility for our duty to posterity.

I pray this Independence Day is the day the alarm clock rings.