Alexey : 0:00

Yeah, some hotels are more podcast friendly than others. This was definitely the case last time. So...

Taliy: 0:06

Yeah!

Alexey : 0:07

We've talked about all different things. And I think that this time, we cannot miss the most disturbing news that we have. And this is about the story that broke out just recently about this article by a Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Hawaii, George Kent. Actually, the article was written 10 years ago, entitled"The Benefits of World Hunger." Guys, just ponder this, what can be the benefits? But, actually, the article is not long, it goes through different things, why world hunger is beneficial, how it is the driver for, let's say, economic growth, but it also outlines who benefits from this. The funny thing is that the article was on the United Nations website for 10 years. And just recently, it got removed when it gained momentum everywhere. When people started talking about it. Suddenly, someone noticed and it was wildly reposted. Luckily, there are internet archives that are working, and we'll link to a snapshot of this article. I mean, this short article is really full of "gems", explaining, I mean, gems, in quotes explaining why hunger is a good thing. Let me cite just

one short passage: 1:30

"For those of us at the high end of the social ladder, ending hunger globally, would be a disaster. If there were no hunger in the world, who would plow the fields, who would harvest our vegetables, who would work in the rendering plants and who would clean our toilets? We would have to produce our own food and clean our own toilets. No wonder people at the high end are not rushing to solve the hunger problem. For many of us, hunger is not a problem, but an asset." Wow, guys, hearing this from a professor of political science, who works on human rights with a special focus on nutrition and children, who have written several books, and the latest is"Freedom from want. The human right to adequate food." I don't even have the words to describe what we can think about this. What do you think, Taliy, about all these things?

Taliy: 2:27

Wow. Well, it's been 10 years since the article was published on the United Nations official website. And it only picked up the momentum right now. Because people are being super aggressively attacked with this narrative that there are food shortages, there is not enough food. And there is this guy from University of Hawaii, who says that hunger is beneficial for the world economy for the super rich, it helps them to get richer, because poor people in fear of starvation, gonna build solar panels in Brazil, and get us this green energy boom. And you watching this and you like, is he being sarcastic? And he's not, and you like, holy...

Alexey : 3:14

Guacamole

Taliy: 3:15

Exactly. Holy guacamole. This is unbelievable. They're quite serious about this narrative. I had to Google for the pictures of this, George Kent. And I can tell you, the guy has not only probably never in his life, experienced hunger, but never even tried fasting. They think it happens to somebody somewhere elsewhere. And this is exactly the approach that's ruining our society. Because until the very moment where when we realize that there are no strangers in this world, each person is part of our unified society. And this is the only way we can survive the climate challenges, all the other challenges we have. Until that very point, it's not going to be beneficial. We're not going to find a way out of this if we keep thinking like this. Especially with the modern technologies. And we've been talking about robotization, about the possibilities of AI. And we have these beautiful machines that can take a lot of things. People do not have to construct buildings because they can be done automated, like a lot of stuff. It would take us a little bit of efforts and of course, some money to invest into these technologies that will be super beneficial for everyone. But not in that consumerist format of the society. You know, when I was reading this article, UN article by the professor from the Hawaiian University, I was upset, really, really upset about the fact that they don't value human life, and they are open about it, not even shy to admit that human life doesn't value much. What was shocking is that I found that this very George Kent, is a contributor to the United Nations hunger yearly annual documents they've been sending. Unfortunately, it reminded me this CO2 situation where they are picking up a couple of people with very questionable views, and they promote them as the mainstream ones because if United Nations. And we've been talking about the United Nations, which is a basically huge international corporation, with a lot of branches with a lot of sub companies that are only interested in enlarging their budgets annually. And like, making their organization more powerful, more influential, get more people involved. So they are doing a really, really good job in the consumerist format of the society. They consume, they expand, they grow. But the declared part to actually help the humanity is just not there. We have to openly face it.

Alexey : 6:06

The thing is that we were discussing about the real priorities of these all these organizations that are striving, as they say, to solve all kinds of problems. But here on the very website of the United Nations, there was this manifesto, if you want, that hunger is not a problem, it's an asset. I don't think that people can post articles, any article they want on the United Nations website. It did not happen by accident, and it was there for 10 years. They are not even covering up that they don't want to solve the problem. It is an asset. Well, we have our answer. We don't need to hint anymore. We don't need to convince people. Here it is, here it is written. Well, they pulled it down from the website, but internet remembers everything. So luckily, we have this. I've seen this video being posted with Nicole Kidman, who eats bugs. People say elites tell people to eat bugs. And they cite actually a Vanity Fair video where Nicole Kidman is eating a four course meal consisting of different bugs and touts this as her secret talent. The video itself is not new. So this Overton window was opened a long time ago, in January 2018. We'll link to this article and the video also, as usual. But what got me interested is that there is further development, there was this article from Daily Mail, you will find the link in the show notes, it was talking about this chilling school trial, the primary school children in Wales United Kingdom. They were giving meal worms and crickets on the lunch plates. And among other things, there was spaghetti with beetle Bolognese. You know, it was touted as a particularly delicious mixture of insects and plant proteins. I mean, guys, no matter what you think about conserving the planet by not eating meat or anything like that, no matter your opinion about the CO2, this is disgusting. And you know, I wasn't a fan of the 1988 movie Beetlejuice back in the day. But the idea that soon we might have Beetlejuice as a new popular brand of protein shakes. Urgh... Really doesn't make me want to leave in this future. And why of all available already today solutions do we have to consider eating insects when we have vertical farms, hydroponics, aquaponics? We can 3D print foods from different components. Guys, if you want to look up what is aquaponics. Actually, it's a form of agriculture that combines raising fish in tanks with recirculating aquaculture with soilless plant culture, the hydroponics that many already know. So when fish make nutrient rich water that provides this natural fertilizer for the plants and plants help to purify the water for the fish. The main idea we talked already about this is that aquaponics can be used to sustainably raise fish and vegetables for anything from a single family to you know where like a village or a city and can also generate profit for those who are seeking it. And this is all year round. And in any climate. We'll also leave some links in the show notes about these technologies. I'm thinking like what kind of perverted and sadistic minds are promoting that idea that we need to eat insects and be happy. Well, maybe the same who want us to own nothing and be happy? I guess that then we have radically opposing views of what is happiness

Taliy: 9:49

Yeah, like when we take a wider look at this, it just doesn't make sense that we have food shortages, what and even these questions about hunger coming up? Because simply because we have technologies that allow us not just to produce food out of literally sometimes out of air, as they do in Finland with the flower, but also 3D print, and even grow a product from cells, like this was amazing that the meat can be produced from cells. And there is no need to grow cattle, you know, with all the ethical thing in there. There's simply no need and so much waste, of course, from meat production, we all know that problems. And there are ways to produce meat, so much cleaner, and so much better and can be the best quality meat without all the side effects of the production. Those technologies are not being developed. We, as a society, are not investing in them, even a hint of those money, that we relocate to Big Pharma or military, for example, when in fact, the food shortages, right, it's a huge problem, and it's a survival problem for people on Earth. So why don't we develop those technologies? That's the question I ask. And isn't it important to us as humans? But of course, when, you know, one of the articles I came across last year, was this interview with one of the CEOs of the top distribution companies. So basically, the grocery store companies across the United States, he was specifically asked about the food shortages. Do you consider this to be a problem that possible food shortages can lead to less product on the shelves of your stores? The answer was shocking. The answer was that we are not concerned because even if there will be less food, we're gonna be able to sell it on the higher price. So our stakeholders still gonna make money. It means that these people are detached from reality. They live in parallel universe where all they care about is their share values and their personal assets. Safety of people is not an asset for those, you know, it's not a value, it's not even considered as something they would pay their attention to. That's why it's only up to us to people to create demand for new way of thinking, new way of setting goals like what do we really want this to be like? If we don't want to be victims of this agenda of beetles and some nasty stuff. Gosh, it gives me shivers how these people coming up with such ideas, and somebody is making a lot of money, it's this gravy train, that they just hop on. And they've for the sake of ecology, they can do crazy stuff, and they get away with it. And somehow it's even like, you know, this window of opportunity is for them to make money on nonsense. Like, literally, you tell somebody, your kid is gonna eat bugs, they're gonna be like, are you crazy? But the way they present it for the safety of our environment, to provide proteins for the children, to increase the nutrition, to provide safety and reduce carbon emissions. When you hear all this basically stamps, it means you're being tricked. That's the only thing that comes across my mind. Where is the response from people? I wonder? Where are the people actually saying that let's end this cycle of lies. Finally? Because eventually, there is a popular short on the internet that you can find it on many websites, it says "You are they carbon they want to get rid of." And eventually, if you agree to feed your children with bugs in order to reduce carbon, eventually, your life doesn't value more than those bugs for those who organize these kinds of media attacks on the society. I wouldn't choose other words to actually put it.

Alexey : 14:18

You know, when guys like the CEO of Nestle, who is famous for saying that now water is not a human right and should be privatized. I don't really see the difference in wanting to feed people insects, which is disgusting by itself. It's sad that some people have to resort to this kind of food, like we've seen in one of the posts by Shawn Baker, where he showed kids in Africa you know, collecting insects and then making patties to make sort of burgers but with mosquitoes. This is really sad. And you know, it's great to have the survival skills in case you need them one day, but deliberately condemning the population to a life in this survival mode. It's a whole other story. It's a crime against humanity. I don't have any other words to say, when we have all these technologies. And it's not like they're not being developed, we have them already. It's just that they're not being put to use. Because how otherwise, would you manipulate people? And the article we started with, George Kent, he wrote 10 years ago that this is the lever - food and water by consequence. These are the levers by which people agree to work really crappy jobs for a very miserable pay. It's not that it's being projected. I mean, we're already halfway there. Because this is already being tested in schools in the United Kingdom. It may not be the most developed country by today's standards, but it was always the most developed country like for the centuries before that. I cannot fathom how we arrived at this. Really.

Taliy: 16:05

Yeah. So that's actually a very interesting topic you touched upon, it's not the most recent news. But we all heard about this, that the Nestle CEO, in one of the interviews, he said that water is not a human right, and water should be treated as a product, has to have market value, and has to be sold to those who have money, of course to buy the water. But this was kind of shocking to me, because when you think about the guy who rules Nestle, it has to be like a happy chocolate guy who kind of like happy Willy Wonka over there. No, that's the guy who wants to take over the water from the whole world population and control their ability to have access to water, because it's the product apparently he wants to sell to us. And no wonder when you know, we donate money to help people in Africa to have access to water, what actually happens to that they don't do permanent solution. In many cases, they do not dig wells in there and don't provide the water for free as it should be. They just supply the plastic bottles of Nestle to there, so it's a business model. And it's very sustainable for them. It's bad for environment, it doesn't solve anything for the people. But it's a constant money flow, which, which is super beneficial. So of course, they got on this gravy train, and they not going to hop off it anytime soon. If of course the people not gonna say the word that it shouldn't be like that. And that interview got a huge backlash. And actually, the guy had to resign after a while. But the systematic thing didn't change. And they kept pushing for it. And you know, in my, my perception, it was like, it's not gonna work. Like how, how can you limit people's access to water? It's just not gonna happen. The water is everywhere, like, how would you make someone pay for the water and they came up with a solution. I'm starting reading this articles published all over the mainstream media in the beginning of 2022, like this year, and the idea they trying to push on us. Wow, this is just shocking. So what would be your guess, Alex? Well, how do you think how they gonna make us pay for the water, for the basic human need?

Alexey : 18:14

You mean drinking water?

Taliy: 18:15

Any sort of water. I'll give you a hint. It's already existing scheme, it's the biggest fraud of the 21st century, the biggest money making scheme and they not inventing anything new, they already take the existing model of taxing!

Alexey : 18:33

Water quotes!

Taliy: 18:35

Exactly, exactly! They already taking existing model of taxation for CO2 and apply this on water. So you know how it went with CO2. First of all, they did the Kyoto thing, they were like, we're gonna tax those who produce goods, and you know, these productions that have some CO2 emissions. Exactly the same thing starts here. We're gonna do this taxation on those who use water in their production, which of course, eventually going to lead to the increase of the price of the goods which we regular customers are going to have to pay for. But not just that, like, look how it went from CO2. It went from like factories and big companies producing their thing. It went to the personal responsibility of each one of us, this idea that's been pushed upon us that you have a personal carbon footprint, you have to limit your carbon footprint, you have to offset it. So basically, you have to pay for it. We know it's a scam. We know nobody is reducing anything and that amount of CO2 doesn't matter. It cannot affect the climate, but what they do they make a lot of money on it. It became the biggest, right now at the current moment, it is the biggest moneymakers scheme, and they want to do this very same thing with water. So first, it's gonna start with factories and big manufacturers and productions that gonna have to pay additional tax on the amount of water they use for the production of goods. And then the next step will be to push this idea that the water is a limited resource, we shouldn't just use it, we should pay it. And whenever you use anything over there in your house, you have to check your meter and offset your usage of water. I have a question, does Mother Earth get the money? It's like it reminds me the scheme with religious organizations that collected donations from the people kind of in the name of higher powers. But I've been always curious, like, how do they transfer it over there? Do the higher powers have a bank account? Same applies to Mother Earth, it doesn't have a bank account, this money is going to go to the pockets of greedy, greedy, sneaky people who lobbying these laws that go against humanity, and they do not solve any problems, they do not provide any water, they just make our life more expensive. And on the edge of the crisis, new economical crisis, which could be avoided, there are no talks about how to avoid the crisis, they just leading us to prepare for inevitable and make it impossible for us to sustain any sort of financial well being during this period, because the amount of taxes just gonna be increased much more. So I feel very sorry that really, really good people, most of the people of our planet, they're being tricked by these global tricksters, the desire of the people to save the planet to care about the ecology to care about the environment is being twisted and used against the people. This is a terrible thing. And the only way to fight it is with truth. Common sense and logic here - CS. CS doesn't only stand for Creative Society, CS also stands for common sense. And I find it very, very much resonating. Because it's very same thing, use your common sense, use logic, and don't let anyone to push their ideas on you. Verify them, do your own research, like you know, they try and to blame you for doing your research. But do it, do it against the whole narrative and make sure that you understand where the money goes. Because if we just tried to trace the money, it's gonna show us a lot about what actually happened and with social narratives for the good cause. Eat bugs, pay for water, offset your CO2, live in a cell, don't own a car, don't own anything, and just give all your rights and all your personal information to somebody who apparently knows it better how you should live your life. And that's the narrative that's being pushed on us. The alternative is to build this society in which all people have the equal amount of power and no one has a power over another individual. This society, which provides everyone with everything necessary with all the necessities that could be so easily covered by using modern technologies, even the Sahara Desert, as we said, can be turned into blooming garden. This is within our possibilities. And all it takes, it's not decades, it's not lifetimes, it's just a few years. If we really, really want it. So the question for our listeners, do you want it? Write in the comments what do you want? What kind of society you want to live in?

Alexey : 23:20

The only thing that is being reduced is the amount of money on people's bank accounts and people's well being, this is the only thing that's being reduced by all the CO2 taxes and future water taxes. The only thing that we are losing is our happiness, our lives. When you look at everything, from the perspective that everything is fractal, and that everything just is being copied from one place to another, as you said, why invent something new when you have already a working model, and everyone seems to be so much receptive to these ideas of saving the planet, reducing your carbon footprint, your water footprint, what have you. I don't think that this is something that people appreciate. And we are seeing the backlash after the article that was removed from the United Nations website. But many people would say, well, what's next? Well, okay, so we are against this kind of oppression, what can we do next? But next guy is pretty simple. You can talk around you, like talk with your friends, with your family. And you will see that no one really wants to have the same outcome as the one that we just brought up today. So if no one wants this, ask yourself a question. Why do we keep silently accepting all these things? And maybe it is because we are accepting that these things are being perpetrated over and over again? Because next, I'm sensing this, it will be air. We were joking when we were kids like oh, you will you will have your stamps for air. If you look in the same direction, we have food, water, the next will be air. And obviously living space. I don't know, I'm not excited about this kind of future, but there is another possibility of living differently. And it is within our reach. We don't have to invent anything, you know, we don't need any revolutions. We are the ones who are producing everything. And accepting just the idea of... Imagine you are working at at the Nestle factory that produces bottled water, or any sort of food they are producing. And you are being told, look, you don't have the possibility, unfortunately, to have this water or this food, and it goes somewhere else. But yeah, there are some crickets for you if you want. We washed the machines and even have this water if you want, you can maybe purify it or something. Guys, if we continue accepting all these things all the time. Just read the article, read the article by George Kent, and you will understand everything. They are not even trying to hide anything. It was there for 10 years, 10 years there, people could have a look at it. Okay, we can understand it wasn't on the first page. Okay, we got this. But now that everyone knows, and it's all over the news, this is something that interests everyone. I think that this is more important than something that's happening in a court of law between two guys that are very popular. This is something that affects the lives of each and every one of us. This is a unifying point, unifying point to have adequate, as George Kent wrote, just by the title, adequate food, water and living conditions. I think it's a great unifying point that everyone should think about and unite on this point. Uniting on this point is not only possible, but necessary. Otherwise, well, you've got the picture.

Taliy: 26:55

Yeah, you know, one more thing that reminds me and there

was this phrase: 26:58

"The world today is twisted and ridiculous and there is more fruit in rich man's shampoo than on a poor man's plate."