Taliy: 0:00

Yeah. Nice to hear you after a short break.

Alexey : 0:03

Yeah, I think we have enough material to continue discussing what else we will not be able to do. Because we talked about different food options that we are being gently accustomed to, at least as an idea for the moment. What got me interested this time was this video that actually Jordan Peterson published on his account, one of the Dutch farmers who are protesting right now against the government's decision to limit their nitrogen emissions. So we've got news, really from the fields in the literal sense of the word. And the guy is actually telling that the government tells the farmers that they need to reduce nitrogen emissions, because it's another greenhouse gas. Nitrogen is not like the CO2. I mean, the fight against the CO2 started about 40 years ago, if I'm not mistaken, and nitrogen entered the scene about 30 years ago. And what we are being told is that well, guys, it's all nice and stuff, but you should be cutting on meat, you've probably heard all this propaganda of going vegan. Well, that didn't work great. What is really frightening is that farmers in the Netherlands, they are being told that they need to reduce these emissions, but the only way they can do it is by reducing the herd. So they need to kill the animals, in some cases, in some regions, up to 95%. Can you imagine this? So people are being basically told that they need to stop farming. Usually farming is something that's passed from father to son, and these are family businesses. And they really know how to do all these things. Because farmers in especially in the Netherlands, they use great new advances in the field, and they already reduced a lot their nitrogen emissions, but now they're being told that they cannot use any innovations, the only way to reduce the emissions is how the government tells them. And what's interesting is that how can they pay for the land if they don't own the land, because sometimes they have a mortgage on a piece of land, or sometimes they lease it. If they are not producing anything to sell, they will not be able to pay for the land, or they will not be able to pay the taxes on the land because government levies taxes on the land owners as for the property and who will buy the land. JP in his JP reacts video to this message said that, well, you know, there's Bill Gates, who is already the biggest landowner in the United States, more than 260,000 acres of land. And coincidentally, he is the investor in one of the fake meats. Yeah, I don't know. What do you think about all this? It seems like we are being pushed this idea that the only way we can live is reduce the population, not only the herd, but the population by eating each other. Well, we talked about this in the previous episode. Yeah, it really seems that they found a great way to reduce everything, for the sake of reducing the CO2 or fight the climate change as they tell everyone that what they're doing. What are your thoughts on this?

Taliy: 3:40

Thanks for bringing this up, Alex. You know, the thing is, when I'm hiring the government, and basically giving my vote for somebody to make my life better within the next four or five years, whatever time they're going to be in the office, I'm expecting them to make my life better. So like food should become cheaper, better quality, more affordable everywhere. Farmers should make more money, the laws should be easier, everyone should be thriving. That's the expectation I have. And then I put myself into the shoes of this Dutch farmer who has this government that's basically trying to kill his business the way out just kill 50% of your livestock and just get rid of it. Get rid of your business 50%, just give it away. And farmers like how are they supposed to pay for their mortgages for their land for the business? At the same time, they say oh, we have food shortages supply. So food is gonna go up because we don't have enough food for everyone and you killing your own food production business. I don't know how do you not see this two plus two that our own governments creating the crisis of food shortages and later what they just gonna resign like this Boris Johnson did like thing I say, Oh, this dude failed. Well, show me at least one dude who did not fail right? Especially in the European Parliaments for past, I don't know, couple of decades show me at least one who did not fail. Well, I know what he is. He's doing fine in Hungary. But he has been under so much pressure from all over the world, simply for keeping Hungarian economy, like on a decent level. It's not falling, it's not going up like crazy, but it's, it's stable, but he has been obstructed as a nationalist, only for keeping his nation safe and secure. So I have a question. Like, when we have this super liberal governments, like in Netherlands tried to serve, apparently not the people of Netherlands, but some international structures like World Economic Forum and Bank, international banking structures who have different agenda, their agenda is not to make people of Netherlands thrive. Their agenda is something else. They not tell us exactly what but we kind of see what kind of things they organized like, to me, it's super weird when the same people talk about overpopulation and reducing population on the Earth. At the same time, they trying to push something that's clearly very questionable.

Alexey : 6:15

Speeds up the process, right?

Taliy: 6:18

Exactly! Depopulation at the higher pace. And they openly say that, but then at the very same same time, they passing these laws, which prevent people from spreading so called conspiracy theories on the internet, like literally this week, United Nations passed this huge thing, that anyone who's spreading conspiracy theories on the platform should be banned. They will work closely with Twitter who has a good history of banning people of their and deplatforming. And I'm like, hold on a second, what about the freedom of speech? How come that you think that people are so stupid that they cannot distinguish lies from the truth? Well, to me, it's quite obvious. If you think your people are not understanding something, give them information and present them facts. And people can do their own conclusions based on holistic facts, you present 100% of facts. That's the thing. Conspiracies can exist only where there is lack of information. It's quite easy solution, no brainer, give transparency of information, provide the truthful information, and it's going to be fine. Like, even if you messed up with certain policies, you told us the vaccine is gonna work. We see that people who get three boosters in one year still getting COVID, it's obviously not working. present us the facts tell us Yeah, we screwed up here, we screwed up there, we did this food shortage collapse, because we had some failing policies on farming. And this and that we closed too many jobs at the shipping facilities or at the food storage facilities, whatever, yeah, people can mess up. But this is not what's being done. Instead of that, we see that the power authorities, like United Nations, the biggest international organization, is trying to shut down freedom of speech of people. And that's quite messed up. Because what's gonna happen next like first, they're gonna take away your food, they not gonna allow you to do your personal medical decisions, your privacy is taken away, you're not supposed to have any property or cars, they say you don't need a car anymore. Anyway, the gas is gonna be so expensive, you're probably not going to be able to drive it. And this is best for you. At the same time. Some people push it too far on the edge saying that to save ourselves from the climate change, we have to start thinking more radically and move over borders beyond like this very limited borders. They say people are thinking to narrow people don't consider extreme things like cannibalism, for example, to start thinking about what can we do to prevent the climate change? And this makes me think like, why would we need the society like if there is a choice between being destructed by the climate change and having society where we're gonna eat each other? Literally, not just figuratively, as we already do? Because our society is cannibalistic in the economic sense we eat each other in the economic sense we have first world countries thriving only on the account of half of the population of the world. We have 1% of population of the US having more money in their bank accounts than more than 50% of the lower side of the population of the US economic wise, we already live in a cannibalistic society. In addition to that, they say let's push it literally to that thing. And you know, it was funny to watch funny with a hint of sadness. When in 2014. I looked up the articles all the way back, they started pushing this cannibalistic agenda with a couple of articles about how zombie TV show was popular back then Walking Dead. And they were like, Oh yeah, these burgers, that's kind of funny because it's in that theme. And here and there. And then this, this whole cannibalistic thing is coming from Sweden, but being backed up by American media. So they started this campaign where Swedish government starts a campaign "Eat a Swede." They say"Eat a Swede". Would you eat a human to prevent the climate change? It's an official website that drives a lot of attention. And on the website, they like, oh, no, we don't actually want you to eat humans. We're just thinking about radical ways to attract your attention to the problem of climate change. And I'm like, Well, okay, why don't you just present normal facts without going like this weird ways to attract attention. But okay, then we get some scientists against who the scientists talking on on the air saying that we actually have to think more radically and provide this cannibalistic alternative to regular meat to lower the CO2 emissions to have less livestock. And like reducing population abilities from that. And he compares it to eating insects in Asia. And I'm like, this is already too far. This should be shut down. But then New York Times comes out with an article that glorifies cannibalism, it says, it's so popular in the pop culture. It's like, it's so fancy, let's discuss it. Why is everyone so fascinated with cannibalism in modern pop culture? And of course, the New York Times eats a lot of shit from many observers for that, because it's obviously that should not be in the press, especially from this point of view. But then after that, we see another glorification of cannibalism continues with this"impossible" burgers made with a flavor of human and it wins the awards in France, and it's like it's so hype. How have you not tried that? And "impossible" burgers, coincidentally owned right "impossible" meat owned by the very same people who are talking about reducing population. So it's like you put this pieces of puzzle together and you like it. This is really strange. The big coincidence like, this could be coincidence, but just too many things lined up in here. And, you know, they say, okay, but this guy, he's so smart. He made his money on Microsoft, how could be, he'd be doing stupid things? Well, he did stupid things. Remember that seed bank he did in Norway, on the island spent a lot of millions of dollars to dig this huge hole where he stored all the seeds. They were saying that he's doing this for the weird purposes, because apparently everything else is a GMO genetically modified. So they want to store original seeds somewhere. I'm like, okay, whatever they doing this for like Doomsday Seed Bank, that's all cool. They build it right on the volcano. That thing is gonna be literally the first thing that goes down when the climate change increases. So it's like, it was a bad location to actually do this thing. It's not gonna work. But okay, what's it? What's he's trying to do? Now? He compared wearing masks to wearing pants. He's like, if you wear pants, you should wear mask? No, Bill, it's not the same. It's your face. Face is how people see each other how they distinguish they read emotions. It's not the same as pants. I understand that even brilliant people do stupid ideas. Sometimes they have, but you don't have to articulate it out loud. You have to think about it, what kind of thoughts you're processing. And then I had to read a little bit more about the history of how he actually built his company. Is it really what's behind it? And you know, apparently, his parents are super rich parents, and they coming from wealth from big money. And they had this orders backed up like most of his stuff, which anyone who used Windows know how much shitty the product is that how much you're constantly having troubles with viruses and everything. Viruses, right? Isn't that ironi? But it's mostly governmental orders. And up until these days, this stupid, stupid browser, Microsoft Internet Explorer is only being used by the governmental organizations and some like governmental banks. So for people who produce software, it's really a pain in the butt to constantly verify their software to make sure it works not only on Google Chrome and Safari, and possibly Edge but also that freaking Internet Explorer, which everyone hates. But because it's governmental orders, and because Bill still making money on that thing or whatever his company, people have to verify that that works too. So only because someone made a lot of money taking advantage of the economical situation, his parents being able to get him governmental orders and so on contract, doesn't mean we have to trust all our lives and everything and all the money all the farmlands everything to the hands of this guy. So I totally understand why people freaking out when they find out that this guy just bought 2100 acres of farmland in North Dakota, and did it in through some shady scheme with, like third party companies involved in there. This is so weird, like, just the whole weirdness of this situation it raises questions. So coming back to thess poor farmers in Netherlands, like what options do they have? You literally saying them don't produce meat anymore. You are bad for the environment. Well, excuse me what people supposed to eat? Excuse me, if it's the greenhouse gases, then most of it is produced by the oceans that's heating up from the bottom due to geothermal activity. You don't even want to talk about that, like, what's your agenda, then, if the true agenda is to reduce population, or to do some other things which are not disclosed, then it perfectly makes sense. It's like, you know, they say, Oh, this politician is so silly, we need the other one, then the other one who was exposing this stupidness goes into power. And he continues doing the very same thing that the previous guy did. And everyone's like, Oh, well, all of a sudden, did he get stupid? No, he just received some information, which you didn't know, and probably he didn't know. But that's what it I don't know the only way out of this is truly to think think out is. of the box. And this is very interesting that in the country of Netherlands, believe it or not, they have been studying limitarianism for more than six, seven years now. And they came to the conclusion that the only way out of this situation where like, you know, this economical system is not working would be to limit personal wealth, on the amount between 10 to 20 million dollars. And this amount for individual would be more than enough to thrive. And at the same time, we could make our society thrive. At the same time, all the money above that would really go to the development of the technologies, we would have no food shortages, we could provide universal basic income to everyone housing, for every person, like you don't have to pay for your house or such thing as taxation for the personal housing should not be existing in any way at all. But also free medicine, free high quality education, this should be a basic human need just as food and water. Applying this would really eliminate corruption, eliminate crimes and give us funds to thrive. This is not being discussed, instead of that we trying to limit the farmers in Netherlands. So it's better for everyone, including those politicians to think about the ways to create a sustainable society not in the green liberal agenda of sustainability. That thing just simply doesn't work. Having the solar panel on your roof is not sustainability. Look it up even LA Times has been publishing articles about how much damage the solar panels doing to the environment, and how much chemicals are getting into the grounds of the wastelands here in California from those panels. Because the technology for recycling has never been developed. Like, you know, as Douglas Vogt says, I feel like I'm in the mental house where patients took over. I think that was a very exact quote about what's going on today with all this climate agenda with the war agenda with everything else that's going on with opressing farmers, opressing truckers, opressing whoever is the working class.

Alexey : 18:06

I've come across this video by a French guy. His name is Etienne Chouard. He said, something that's really, you know, changed how I see this whole thing that we've been talking about for several episodes already, if not the whole season. He's saying that it is an error, to think about politics and politicians, that they are incapable, that they don't have enough power, or they don't understand. It was as if they were serving the public interest, but for serving the interests of the population, they're not good. We can confirm this. We all see this being the case. But if we change the perspective at how we'll look at things, and if we look at these guys, from the perspective that they are serving the interests of those who made them elected, the 1%, then at this very moment, it's not at all a catastrophe. We can't even say that there is a problem, like everything goes perfectly. If we see the Social Security is destroyed in every country, unemployment is skyrocketing everywhere, which allows to have lower salaries and lower salaries, they allow for more profits. So basically, everything is good for those who paid who lobbied for their interests to be implemented at the legal level. And if you go further into all these things, we see that banks basically they had to go bankrupt many times over again, and their leaders should be thrown in jail. Well, they report extraordinary profits and the directors, they receive bonuses like up to a billion, if not more. So if you look at everything that we've been saying, and we also check who is controlling the narrative, the same guys, so why banks? Why are they buying either the whole media outlets everywhere around the world, or they're having major stake in these media outlets? Because they're controlling the narrative. And there was a study that showed that whoever is shown the most on TV wins the election, 10 to 15% of more air time leads to major leaps in terms of voting. Things can change, we see different candidates, we have this idea that we have many different parties. But if you look at the whole trajectory of society, and I'm not talking about any particular country, we can take any country and this will be valid, whoever is elected from left from right, Democrats, Republicans, at the end, they continue on the same trajectory. And the same trajectory is well, fighting with the climate by reducing the CO2 or the nitrogen emission or whatever. By reducing what we can eat. I mean, not only what we can eat, but also reducing the quantities because there will be famine. So we already being prepared to eat bugs or each other. And this is something that's been popularized, as you said, they're saying, Oh, this is really fancy. Guys, I don't want even go into details, but don't think that they will collect people who died from natural death. Right? So I will let you imagine the rest. Just think about it. And they will be even more disgusted about all these ideas. You know, it's not only about who wins the elections or who doesn't. We talked about this already. The problem is that somehow we continue thinking that we will elect this other person who seems to be really nice during the election campaign, I mean, while they're campaigning, and then we just let them do their thing. And we forget, and then we kind of have to endure the consequences. We've been doing this for all our life. And not only us, but our parents did as well. So can't we see the pattern that is repeating? And if it doesn't work, we clearly see that it doesn't work? Why are we letting the power to someone else and not willing to do something in order to change this? And you touched upon this topic of United Nations being actively involved in censorship. And this is quite interesting, because it can not solve any of the problems that all of it's almost 100 organizations are saying they're working on or fighting against for 75 years, 76 years already? Yet, they're going to censor what people can say. And this is very, very interesting, because they were created, the United Nations, in order to prevent wars, same as the League of Nations just before them, and it was actually dismissed after they failed to fulfill their mission and prevent the Second World War. What is very interesting is that United Nations during all the wars that happened, since its inception, only expressed dismay or disapproval against any war, they did not change anything. Yet. Now, they are actively involved, and they're pushing people to fight with disinformation, they are propagating themselves, just have a look at IPCC. They are making fake graphs and say that this is what happened. And when they don't have enough, let's say, strength in their message. They continue as, as he, as you were telling they continue refining the data, not the data, but actually redrawing the graph. They are throwing away the data that they don't need, and they're fighting with disinformation. Well, will they be also filing a case against themselves? I would really like to see this. If they are asking people to report the cases of conspiracy theories and disinformation. We will be reporting on them because we have enough data.

Taliy: 24:34

Yeah. And you know, transparency and honesty because it really doesn't make sense when this very same people who tell us Oh, the ocean level is going up so much they buying the properties on the shoreline. Like do you guys even believe in what you're saying? If you doing complete opposite and then you say reduce the CO2 emissions? But from like simple looking into the statistics, we know that the top 1% of the wealthiest people contribute more than 50 percent of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. You cannot blame you can cannot say it's all China it's all China producing these things because you are the ones who own the factories in China. It's you producing the stuff you consume in the stuff you selling this stuff. But you say oh it's China producing it doesn't make sense you guys are not being honest with literally your very basic basic things which don't require much transparency of the information just a simple thing show us where your money at so simple. And you know that honestly, like people can put the plus two on they say, something's fishy in here when the we've been fighting this COVID for the whole years, and then everyone's still got COVID even after three boosters if, if my dog got three rabies vaccines in a year and still got rabies, I'd start asking questions, guys.