Latest / UK Column Radio / The Globalist Attack on Farmers | Jerm Warfare Weekly Banter

Transcript

The Globalist Attack on Farmers | Jerm Warfare Weekly Banter · UK Column Radio

0:30
My name is Germ. This is Germ warfare, the battle
0:33
of ideas, UK farmers. Now what's interesting to me is
0:37
that the South African farmers for a long time have been under
0:40
attack. And I think the the the very
0:44
primitive approach is that it's racial.
0:46
I think it's a lot more complicated than that and I
0:48
think it is a global or globalist attempt to attack
0:52
farmers. Are we seeing something similar
0:55
rolling out in the UK? Not in the same style, but yes,
1:00
the attack on farmers is absolutely there.
1:04
I mean, as we get into this conversation, we can talk about
1:08
perhaps the mistakes that farmers are making.
1:11
And because I think, I think part of the problem here is
1:14
that, that farmers don't really understand why what's being done
1:18
is being done. Yeah.
1:20
And, and, and it is, it is difficult for, for people, not
1:23
just farmers, but for people in general to, to shift their
1:26
perspective to the to, to, to view the, the state and the
1:32
government as being something which is potentially attacking
1:36
them and their livelihoods. OK, so, so, so just for the for
1:41
for the purposes of clarity here in South Africa, the whole thing
1:45
is packaged as racial. It really in my view isn't I
1:51
think that is just the the marketing around it as a
1:55
distraction. Farmer Angus, who was on my, on
1:57
my show, he said so himself and he's a farmer and he says a lot
2:01
of it has to do with underlying attempts to destabilize the
2:08
agricultural industry. For example, in South Africa,
2:10
agricultural is one of the centres of our existence.
2:14
Now I I suspect the UK also has a very, very foundational
2:20
agricultural sector. Well, not really not anymore.
2:27
I mean in well, sorry to, to qualify, I think first of all,
2:33
South Africa and, and the United Kingdom don't compare at all in
2:37
the, in this regard, which I'll go on to explain in a minute.
2:39
But, but going back, if we're to talk about the position that
2:48
farmers occupy in terms of their husbandry of the land, but also
2:54
in their ability to provide food for the people that live in the
2:59
country, that as far as the United Kingdom has been
3:03
concerned, that hasn't really been a thing since, well, I mean
3:08
out of out of stretch the beginning of the 19th century
3:13
and even then not, not 100%. Now with a fair wind, they say
3:23
statistically that we produce about half or perhaps slightly
3:28
over half the food that we that we consume.
3:32
That is a gigantic exercise in in smoke and mirrors.
3:36
I think, you know, if you look at specifically the commodities,
3:41
because that's really what they are that get imported and
3:44
exported barley being a really good example, then you get a
3:48
very distorted picture. And also, of course, that
3:51
statistic always includes drink. So, you know, to say that just
3:56
because we can consume beer, for example, that's produced within
4:02
the shores means that that makes us more food secure is is again,
4:06
somewhat misleading. So, so I think that's that is
4:10
one part of it that that again, we can come back to another
4:16
thing is what the government describes as support, but is in
4:21
fact interference. And that's really at the heart
4:23
of it. And that, that that is something
4:25
that's fundamentally different between the United Kingdom and
4:29
South Africa in the, the, the government, OK, admittedly, this
4:35
is the government playing the corporate hand, but nonetheless,
4:39
it is the government's grip on, on the farming sector that has,
4:45
you know, effectively does do what what it is that we're
4:49
talking about, which is to absolutely derail everything in
4:52
the interests of the corporations and to the
4:55
detriment of the farmers, the land and the people that are
4:58
forced to make the choice between food that has been grown
5:04
or produced in a sort of, you know, sensible, ethical, healthy
5:09
way, which attracts a higher price or to consume highly
5:14
processed and or foreign Mark. And I'm not suggesting that
5:20
everything that comes in from abroad is the wrong thing.
5:23
Of course it's not. You know, I know we've talked
5:26
about this before. I mean, and a number of the
5:27
things that arrive in the UK, clearly we, we can't produce
5:32
and, and I'm not necessarily suggesting that that is overall
5:36
a, a bad thing. But so therefore, again, that's
5:39
another comparison I think worth making.
5:42
The, the, what South Africa is able to produce compared with
5:45
what the United Kingdom is able to produce due to the, the
5:48
conditions. And, and again, of course that's
5:50
not exclusive for South Africa being a much bigger land mass.
5:53
And therefore there are a much greater range of climates and
6:00
topography and, and all that kind of thing.
6:01
So that, so they're, they're two different things.
6:03
But yeah, I I would say that therefore the, the reason for
6:08
contextualising that is the, the, the way in which the attack
6:12
is made, the way the attack manifests, it looks different,
6:16
but ultimately the, the end is the same.
6:19
And therefore I think we to a distinction to make with those
6:24
that are farming. And this is where Angus
6:27
Mackintosh comes into it is what control do you have over the the
6:34
final sort of place of your product?
6:37
But basically, are you a slave to either a government or
6:40
corporation or not? And that in this day and age, is
6:44
is the distinction that matters because that is what will enable
6:48
you to sink or swim would be the way I think that I'd look at it.
6:53
Well, I mean, that's kind of where I was hitting with that
6:56
when I said a globalist attack on on agriculture.
6:59
I mean the the the way no. No, hold on, because I think I
7:03
think the globalist attack on agriculture is something
7:07
additional right. So, so the the government attack
7:11
on agriculture is making room for what what globalists are
7:15
wanting to do. So so in the UKA couple of years
7:20
ago a piece of legislation was passed whose name escapes me at
7:25
the moment. Charles can help me out with
7:27
this but but basically it involved the the legalization of
7:34
gene editing in order to produce different types of products and
7:41
this could be crops or animal. Precision breeding.
7:47
Precision Breeding Act Now what the way that this was sold to
7:51
people was that this was not genetic modification, that this
7:56
was accelerating what was done by farmers in the past through
8:02
selective breeding and so on, accelerating that process, but
8:06
that you would end up at the same destination, it would just
8:09
take a shorter amount of time. What they didn't tell people at
8:13
that time was that while the legislation says that the the
8:18
the final genome should not be modified at the end of the day
8:23
that it was absolutely legitimate to insert genetic
8:28
material from foreign objects into that process in the in the
8:33
journey from getting from point A to point B, as long as that
8:36
genetic material was removed again at the end.
8:39
So what we're doing is not a replication of of what would be
8:43
perceived as a natural process of selective breeding.
8:47
And what this is doing is, is making room for the big genetic
8:55
enterprises that might want to produce large quantities of what
9:02
are what would be described as food in huge sheds that that are
9:08
in, under artificial light and in controlled AI controlled,
9:12
robotically managed infrastructure.
9:16
And of course this in order to to to make room for this type of
9:20
product on the supermarket shelves, they've got to get rid
9:23
of the traditional farming methods.
9:27
Yeah, well, I mean, that's quite correct.
9:30
I mean, you're right. The government of each country
9:32
is making way for this kind of global centralization of
9:37
agriculture. And remember, for example, in
9:39
South Africa, agriculture is one of the, the centres of our
9:45
existence. And if you can destabilize it
9:47
and create a sense of perpetual fear within the entire sector,
9:52
you've got a very, very malleable society.
9:57
And as Charles was saying, you know, when, when that
9:59
disappears, like in the UK, you end up having to rely on on
10:03
third parties like imports. And then once you have to get to
10:06
that point, you you become very, very dependent and your
10:09
sovereignty becomes quite compromised.
10:15
It does, yeah, I say. Sovereignty in inverted
10:17
commerce. Well, yeah, no, I mean, I think,
10:20
I think sovereignty is exactly the right point, but it but at
10:22
at every level. So the sovereignty really that
10:27
has been done away with totally is that of the either the
10:33
landowner or the tenant, the the person who's actually doing the
10:35
farming. And and that's why, as I said
10:39
just just now, where is that food ending up?
10:44
You know, what is driving? What are you, are you producing
10:49
food for a local, you know, largely local market that's
10:55
going to pay a fair price for it in a a system that benefits sort
11:02
of every element that it touches along the way?
11:04
Or are you being driven by by by a corporation and the
11:10
unfortunate reality certainly in the United Kingdom, and I sort
11:17
of will try to choose my words carefully, but but farmers
11:22
themselves entered into this situation.
11:27
They weren't, they weren't coerced into it.
11:31
They chose it. And yes, I appreciate the, the
11:36
conditions were challenging, but a lot of this, I mean, you know,
11:40
it's been changing. Like I just said, food security
11:45
or self-sufficiency or however you want to exactly term it,
11:48
because they are, they are different things.
11:50
I mean effectively the, the via trade, the United Kingdom has
11:55
always been food secure. We we've had, we've had the
12:00
food. So, so to describe food security
12:04
as being something that means that food comes from within is,
12:06
it is, it is a bit confusing, but self-sufficiency.
12:08
So stuff that does come from within that hasn't happened for
12:11
a long time. But but the, the point I think
12:16
that is the most significant is the the period during and
12:20
immediately after the Second World War when people were
12:23
convinced to radically change actually everything they were
12:27
doing. And at the risk of sounding like
12:31
a broken record, this was this was just wholesale change.
12:34
And you look at the legislation that took place during and
12:37
immediately after the Second World War concerning not just
12:40
agriculture, but health, the National Health Service,
12:43
education, all the educational reforms, infrastructure, look at
12:46
the railways, forestry, I mean absolutely everything, mining
12:52
it. It was the perfect opportunity
12:56
to change everything. And in doing so, 2 fundamental
13:02
differences were imposed, one of which was government control in
13:08
a manner that it had never, ever been able to exert itself
13:11
before. And, and, and specifically
13:13
centralised government control over all of those things.
13:18
And also, and this is the bit that we've already talked about
13:21
the effectively handing the, the reins of control to corporate
13:29
entities and, and very much specifically where, where food
13:33
was concerned. And This is why I say farmers
13:36
were not actually forced into this.
13:39
And, and, and the evidence is right there now because there
13:42
are plenty, although sadly not enough, plenty of farmers,
13:46
certainly in the United Kingdom who are making a go of it with
13:49
absolutely no involvement with either government or
13:54
corporations. It, it absolutely can be done
13:57
in, in the way that it was, but unfortunately, too many people
14:01
were blindsided by ironically, the availability of cheap food
14:06
from elsewhere. And of course that then became
14:09
cheap, highly processed food from elsewhere and then really
14:13
not actually food at all. And the, the whole thing has
14:17
been completely subverted. So actually the sad reality is
14:20
that even, you know, and again, people will balk at this, but a
14:23
lot of the food, sorry, a lot of the produce that is grown within
14:28
the United Kingdom, it's actually really not food at all.
14:31
I mean, it, it certainly, even if it might sort of vaguely
14:35
constitute food in the, in the, in the growing stage, by the
14:38
time it's, it is actually harvested or, or killed or
14:42
whatever it is. It to describe it as food is, is
14:45
again very misleading. And to qualify that, what I mean
14:48
is, for example, any cereal which has been finished with
14:52
glyphosate, that's not food that is, that is toxic, that's
14:56
absolutely toxic. And that ends up in, in
14:58
virtually everything that, that people eat.
15:00
The other point that I would like to make, which sorry, I'm
15:02
veering slightly off, but just just to, just to understand
15:05
where one should put one's faith.
15:09
And I've talked, I do talk about this quite regularly, but it is
15:11
just quite, it's so staggering. Every chemical that enters the
15:16
food chain is supposed to be evaluated by government and
15:20
everything has what's called a maximum residue limit.
15:23
So these are, these are sort of food safety standards.
15:25
So every, every chemical, every food stuff should be analysed or
15:29
on this basis. And, and when you go through the
15:31
data, I mean, it is perfectly extraordinary, first of all, to
15:34
read the number of chemicals that are actually involved in
15:36
the production of what is then called food, knowing that all of
15:39
these things are of course toxic.
15:41
The number of foodstuffs that have levels that are beyond the
15:46
maximum residue limit is quite extraordinary.
15:48
However, the one thing I want to talk about is sodium chlorate.
15:51
Sodium chlorate is a banned weed killer and was very destructive.
15:56
It is very, very, very dangerous to human health and therefore
16:01
any of it in any food should be considered hazardous and to be
16:06
avoided. However, because sodium
16:09
chlorate, like all these things, anything toxic of course, just
16:12
gets repurposed. So rather than being used as a
16:15
weed killer, it's now used as something that's involved in
16:17
what's called, you know, very opaquely as food hygiene.
16:21
So effectively, a lot of food stuffs get sort of washed with
16:25
it. So in actual fact, probably the
16:29
concentration of it is far higher than it would have been
16:31
if it were just used as a weed killer.
16:33
But because it's involved in what's called food hygiene,
16:37
which of course is regarded as something of a, of a sacred cow,
16:40
it means that it does not fall under this under this quality or
16:46
quantity control. So there is no maximum residue
16:49
limit for sodium chlorate. I mean, that is the level of
16:52
cynicism where the production of fake ultra processed non food is
16:59
concerned. I just think that's such a good
17:01
example of the way things have gone.
17:04
And so and and that that strikes right back to the the question
17:07
at the beginning about the attack on farmers.
17:10
I mean, crikey, then, you know, basically people have been
17:12
pushed into a position where they're actually really
17:15
destroying the landscape in the name of producing something that
17:18
is, that is harmful. And it's not just South Africa
17:22
and the UKI mean it's everywhere.
17:25
The Netherlands, we know that the the Dutch government states
17:28
the worst. Yeah, I mean, I was, I was
17:30
getting there. I mean, the Dutch government
17:32
openly stated that by 2030 farmers will be redundant in the
17:37
Netherlands and they want to remove about 50,000 farmers.
17:40
And now they're using the guise of nitrogen or whatever as the
17:44
as the mechanism. Bill Gates, I think is the
17:47
largest private landowner in the US and, and that, you know, he
17:53
wants to grow bugs and, and whatever else.
17:57
You know, you're right, the US is the worst.
18:01
So what you said earlier, Charles, I think rings true that
18:06
the end justifies the means. Each country seems to have a
18:09
different approach to the same result.
18:16
Yeah, exactly. Which is, which is a disaster.
18:18
I mean, unfortunately, I think, you know, the problem is that
18:21
we're having conversation now from what is a relatively
18:24
informed position. And I think it's very easy to
18:27
forget in this conversation and a lot of the others that we have
18:30
around these sorts of subjects, how little people know.
18:33
And I'm not I'm not just sort of swinging blame about the place.
18:39
How look at how hard it is to know.
18:41
I mean, when was the last time you saw a mass advertising
18:44
campaign for something that was healthy rather than for some
18:48
ghastly conference? Yeah, I mean, whatever it is.
18:52
And actually I'm I'm minded of what I've.
18:53
I've just finished listening to your interview, Jason Kristoff
18:58
Germ from from Wednesday. You know, I my love role.
19:02
Yeah, yeah. And I I, I love listening to
19:04
what he has to say and his and his specific identification of,
19:08
you know, particular products, particular sort of campaigns and
19:11
whatnot. But I mean that the absolute
19:12
case in point, you know that everything is about junk.
19:16
There is if there were, if there were any sincerity to the idea
19:20
that humans should be strong and healthy, then I think you might
19:22
see that reflected in the advertising campaigns for foods
19:26
that engender that type of result.
19:28
But, but no, I mean every single time, yes, we might say on the
19:31
one hour, well, you know, we've done away.
19:32
We don't, we don't advertise cigarettes and alcohol anymore.
19:38
But dot dot dot look at look at all this stuff which will make
19:42
you destroy yourself. Let me add to that.
19:44
When they do advertise healthy stuff, healthy in inverted
19:49
commas, there's a caveat. For example, if they advertise
19:53
let's say red Peppers, right, the red Peppers will look
19:56
beautiful and they'll have, they'll have no imperfection.
20:01
So we grow our own vegetables and my wife brought in some some
20:05
Peppers into the kitchen a couple days ago.
20:08
They looked very nice, but they had Marks and all sorts of
20:12
problems on them, which is expected because.
20:15
She uses nothing other than nutrient dense soil and water.
20:18
They're not supposed to look perfect like in the in the
20:21
adverts. Yeah, did.
20:23
Did you reject them? Did you do a 10% inspection and
20:25
then reject all of them on site? Because I tell you what, I'm I.
20:29
I might sound like I'm joking. I, I, I choose my battles with
20:32
my, with my wife. Yeah.
20:33
No, no. No, OK, it is a joke based on an
20:37
anecdote that that is quite remarkable.
20:39
But some years ago I did a degree that had a sort of food,
20:45
food element to it. And as a part of that we went to
20:48
a food, a Tesco distribution centre down near Bristol.
20:53
And the again, I mean, I, I can't imagine the process has
20:58
changed very much since this is how it works.
21:00
And I think this is such a good, it's just a eye absolutely
21:04
enormous great warehouse, which has basically sort of goods in
21:08
and, and goods out. So you've just got lorries
21:10
turning up one side with, you know, whatever it is full of
21:14
bananas or full of this out and the other.
21:15
And then and then people whizzing around on these sort of
21:17
motorized forklift things, moving things.
21:20
So they'll then go off to a particular store.
21:22
Now what happens in between those two stages is that people
21:28
who have their quality control, people will go round and they
21:32
have a little laminated flip book thing and let's say so it's
21:36
Peppers. So red Peppers, they will go to
21:39
the sort of the enormous great sort of container sized deposit
21:44
of red Peppers there, pull out a couple of boxes and look at a
21:48
very small number of those Peppers.
21:50
Now at no point will they taste them or test them for
21:56
nutritional quality, but what they will do is they will look
22:00
at the shape and the colour of the fruit or the vegetable and
22:06
on that basis they will either accept or reject the delivery.
22:12
So if you're, if for example, your Peppers that you're
22:16
describing had been, you know, that there'd been several tons
22:20
of them and there had been blemishes which were above the
22:26
limit as set out by this little sort of, it's like a child's
22:31
sort of, you know, this is a, a pepper kind of book.
22:34
I mean it there, there's, there is nothing sort of intelligent
22:39
or scientific about this, but but this is how they do it.
22:41
So, so shape and colour and if the criteria are not met on and
22:47
let's face it, also, they don't go through the whole thing.
22:49
So luck could have it that for whatever reason, they've pulled
22:53
out a couple of boxes that just have a slightly higher quantity
22:56
of, of whatever, you know, they, they can't possibly speak for
22:59
the whole thing. They, they reject it and, and in
23:02
doing so, the responsibility for that food is remains with the,
23:08
the, the supplier. So either you, you, you're
23:14
forced to come back and collect it and try to find some other
23:17
use for it, or you have to then pay Tesco to, to landfill it.
23:21
And again, this speaks absolutely to the problem now,
23:25
because the, you know, we say, oh, well, you know, the
23:28
government has control over all of this.
23:29
They, they can sort of make it right.
23:31
Well, in which case explain why in order to landfill, it was
23:36
costing at that point. This was over 15 years ago, but
23:40
I, but I, I still remember it was only, it was £48 per tonne
23:45
to, to landfill and that would be billed to the.
23:48
So you know, for basically Tesco in this instance had absolutely
23:54
no comeback if they just binned, say 10 tons worth of Peppers and
24:01
those were, you know, absolutely edible food.
24:05
So of course, the question from the assembled group of
24:11
postgraduate students was, well, what the heck?
24:15
I mean, you know, why seriously, why would you waste that?
24:18
What do you not do anything else with it?
24:20
Is there is there really no other Ave.
24:24
And there was kind of, you know, scraping feet on the floor and
24:28
and lots of looking down a bit shifty.
24:30
Oh, well, actually, you know, sometimes, sometimes it can go
24:34
to Bristol Zoo. Well, 'cause Penguins love
24:38
Peppers. I mean, why, why would it go to
24:41
Bristol Zoo? It's just insane.
24:43
So, so that is the, that is the environment in which we are.
24:49
I say we're living, you know, and that and we're then on the
24:51
receiving end of whatever might come through that system.
24:54
But I mean that that's how it works.
24:56
And I think that that is a, that is a tale that people need to
24:59
hear. I mean, I dare say it may be
25:01
worse still than that, but but the point is that the the
25:07
quality, the nutritional quality of the food and the benefit that
25:11
it might be given to the land or to the human has nothing to do
25:14
with it and people need to understand that, I think.
25:18
Going back to the attack on farmers here in South Africa, as
25:23
you know, this this the the the black on white farm attack trope
25:29
and it does appear like that on the surface and the media loves
25:32
to loves to ride that. I think what's going on is, is a
25:36
bit deeper and a bit more complex.
25:37
For example, the government signed into law the
25:41
Expropriation without Compensation Act, which means
25:45
that the government can effectively take land without
25:50
paying for it. Now, to be clear, I think this
25:53
is happening worldwide. This is, this is not unique to
25:55
South Africa. If it were unique to South
25:58
Africa, then the media might have an argument, but they don't
26:02
because this is just a coincidence.
26:05
Then in in that case, it's obvious that this is part, in my
26:09
view, of the UN sustainable agenda, Sustainable Development
26:16
Goals, right? One of them is to centralized
26:19
land, right, And give it over to state ownership for the purposes
26:24
of sustainability for the future or whatever they like to market
26:29
it as. Now, going back to the
26:32
expropriation with our Compensation Act, my working
26:36
theory is that the government is not merely going to take land.
26:40
I think there'll be a civil war if they do that.
26:42
I think what they're going to be doing is in line with what the
26:45
UN wants. And as you said earlier, the
26:48
government is setting it up, Mike, for exactly that.
26:51
I think what they're going to, they're going to attempt to
26:54
expropriate tracts of land that are going to connect solar and
27:00
wind power forms, which are way out of sort of geographical
27:05
alignment with the power grid. And they need to, they need to
27:08
obviously attach all those forms to the grid.
27:11
And in order to do that, they have to go through a pile of, of
27:15
geography in order to to get that right.
27:17
And I think that is part of it. I think that actually is what's
27:21
going to play out. I don't think it's anything to
27:23
do with with skin colour. I think you're hitting on a
27:27
really important point here, right?
27:29
There is a global policy agenda at work.
27:32
And in order to see at that work, we've got to take a step
27:36
back and look at that, that level.
27:38
What is the, what is the policy that's that's actually being
27:41
implemented here. And what they will do is they
27:43
will they will use whatever mechanisms are available to them
27:48
at the local level in order to pursue that agenda.
27:52
So obviously over the last couple of years we've been
27:55
hearing a lot about white genocide in South Africa, the
27:59
white farmers being under attack.
28:01
South Africa has this race issue.
28:05
Of course they're going to choose that as the mechanism by
28:09
which they achieve their goal. They're going to absolutely
28:12
choose the low. Hanging fruit.
28:14
It is absolutely low hanging fruit.
28:15
They will choose people that are, that are willing to go and
28:19
beat up or kill or otherwise attack white farms.
28:25
And they will then generate the headlines for that.
28:27
And they'll put it in the term in those terms rather than
28:31
describing it as being something about the expropriation of land
28:35
for, for net 0 purposes. Because why would they do that
28:39
that that, that that would be bringing opposition to their net
28:42
zero policy. So they'll achieve their goal on
28:45
on 2 accounts because they'll divide any potential opposition
28:50
between blacks and whites in South Africa and they will be
28:56
able to persuade global populations.
28:59
This is nothing to do with any kind of globalist policy.
29:02
This is what they do in every country.
29:04
They choose the, the particular points of, of big pain points
29:10
that, that, that cause the most emotional engagement from the,
29:14
from the general population. And they absolutely will turn
29:17
the screw on that. And because people are so
29:20
emotionally engaged with the, with the local issue and, and
29:24
they're not taking a step back and looking at the global
29:26
picture, they're not able to see that, that in fact, this is,
29:30
this is part of a game and, and then they're getting involved in
29:33
it. And it's, it's, it is absolutely
29:36
crucial that people understand it.
29:38
That's the way that this is played.
29:42
And as you said, they use the weakness or the learning fruit
29:45
of that region. Race isn't really an issue in
29:47
the Netherlands, so they can't use that one.
29:50
So they use nitrogen as the as the as the way to get at farmers
29:53
and agriculture. They'll use whatever, whatever
29:58
is available to them. And in the UK, obviously
30:02
migration is being used as a, as a major point of division on so
30:07
many topics. It's not so much on, on farming,
30:10
although there is the the issue of, of, you know, how fruit and
30:15
vegetables are picked in the UK and whether migration is, is a
30:19
necessary part of that. But I mean, Charles may have
30:22
more to say on that, but, but you know, just just look at the
30:26
way this the same policy is being ruled out in multiple
30:29
countries and, and look for the, for the, the sort of
30:34
justification, the, the, the emotional hook that they get to,
30:37
to, to encourage people to accept the policy at the end of
30:41
the day. And you got to look at it in
30:44
multiple countries and see the same kind of operation going on.
30:47
And then then you can maybe get a a clue as to as to what's
30:51
actually going on. I just want to just quickly add
30:54
to what I was saying just so that so that I'm, I'm clear in
30:58
South Africa, these solar and wind farms are being built at
31:02
scale, but they're being built in parts of the country where
31:05
there's nothing because that's obviously desirable.
31:10
Now in order to get the power from those farms to the central
31:15
grid, they've got to go through land.
31:16
And that's the point I was making.
31:17
Just just so in case I wasn't clear about that.
31:22
Yes, I mean, well, the on the expropriation side of it here,
31:27
the, the, the way in which it's framed is well actually like you
31:32
say on the sustainable development goals, it's just
31:36
the, it's the idea that idea, I mean idea is, is wrong.
31:43
It is the lie that that climate change and well, farming sort of
31:53
have a relationship, or at least the the relationship is that
31:58
that farming causes climate change.
32:00
And therefore the yeah, I mean, the, the, the change that
32:06
started not really back in the 1970's, the the idea that the
32:11
environmental, completely legitimate environmental
32:16
concerns largely about farming practices actually using the
32:22
chemicals that we've just been talking about that that has some
32:26
bearing on or what is related to what's being described as
32:30
climate change. And therefore the answer is for
32:34
the government in particular to step in and assert more control
32:41
over land. And, and the way one of the one
32:43
of the ways in which this is done.
32:45
I mean, there, there are several sort of techniques, but in terms
32:47
of what might be described as expropriation, Natural England
32:53
is one of the, one of the bodies that's, that is, it's a, it's
33:00
sort of, it describes itself as an, a kind of arm's length body.
33:05
But, but actually it's not, I mean, it's completely a, a
33:07
government body really. And they're able to declare
33:10
among other things, what are called sites of special
33:13
scientific interest. And that means that they can, I
33:18
mean, there's there's no debates, no discussion.
33:21
But what it means is that they can declare somebody's farm to
33:25
be within such an area and therefore that they are then
33:31
subject to things that they either must not do or must do.
33:35
And so whilst it doesn't at this point sort of necessarily remove
33:41
the land from their ownership, there's there's no doubt that
33:45
it's that it's a significant push factor in, in removing
33:50
people from that land because they're so restricted.
33:53
So that that that's sort of really the way that things are
33:56
being done here, as well as the offering of absurd and clearly,
34:01
you know, ironically, unsustainable incentives for all
34:06
the sorts of schemes that are again, are supposed to pursue
34:09
this end. But I mean, quite clearly don't
34:11
know they're of no benefit to the environment.
34:13
But, but you know, things like biodiversity, net gain, all
34:17
exactly like you were saying, you know, the constant putting
34:20
up of, of all these things that completely destroy the
34:24
countryside, wind turbines, solar panels, and most
34:28
alarmingly, which I was reporting about a little bit on
34:32
Wednesday's news programmes, the, the battery storage things.
34:34
Because, you know, like you say, sticking, sticking these things
34:38
in the middle of nowhere or near where there are people.
34:40
Either way, you've got the same problem much more in the United
34:43
Kingdom, which is that, well, you're going to produce more
34:46
solar in the summer, you're going to produce more wind in
34:48
the winter, sort of by and large, but you're never going to
34:51
be able to spread the power evenly according to the, to the
34:54
demand. So therefore, guess what, let's,
34:56
let's put it in some batteries. And again, doesn't, you know,
34:59
who cares if the batteries are gonna utterly destroy the
35:02
environment that we're supposedly saving through
35:05
through all of these measures? So that's sort of part of it.
35:07
The the other part is, is creating, creating the sense
35:12
that this is, you know, the all of these things are, are sort of
35:15
shared, shared assets. So the model there is to bit by
35:20
bit steal the land off people and then flog it back to them.
35:26
And either either directly or indirectly directly by actually
35:31
controlling access to lands that are designated as sort of beauty
35:36
spaces or national parks or whatever that yet to take effect
35:40
because everything is sort of supposedly free or via the
35:43
introduction of taxes to, to, to be able to pay for this.
35:47
And this, this goes right back to what the, the now King was
35:50
saying in 1970. He's, you know, he, he
35:53
absolutely set the path out. Then he, he spoke in Wales in
35:58
1970 and he said, right, we're going to make a big thing of
36:01
this and you're going to have to pay for it.
36:04
And, and this is how, this is how it's being done here.
36:07
So, so exactly like you've both said that there's no, you know,
36:13
that there's no need to introduce anything more
36:16
complicated than that. There's no need to introduce a
36:18
sort of proxy for race or whatever.
36:21
It's simply predicated on, oh, you know, this is a terribly
36:24
vulnerable thing. We don't trust you to look after
36:26
it. We're going to take control of
36:27
it. You're going to pay and and in
36:29
doing so you'll lose access to the land.
36:32
Sticking with the environmental thing for a second, one of the
36:34
other really egregious attacks on farming that's been taking
36:38
place in the last 20 years, let's say, has been over the
36:42
issue of, of pollution coming off the land into rivers and
36:47
streams. And you know, if a farmer is is
36:52
found to have caused a pollution incident into a river or a
36:56
stream because he spread muck on on the ground and, and then it
37:00
has rained and some of that is run off into, into a stream, he
37:06
will be on the receiving end of fines that could very well see
37:09
him put out of business. Well, you could say, well, OK,
37:13
he, he caused pollution. But actually, when we look at
37:18
the scale of pollution in Britain's rivers, it's not
37:22
farming that's the major problem here.
37:24
It's the water companies themselves who are pumping raw
37:27
human sewage into rivers, rivers and other waterways on a scale
37:34
that farmer farming has never done.
37:38
But there's no consequence for the water companies whatsoever.
37:42
They might, they might get some a taking off from the, from off
37:46
what the water regulator in the UK, they might get a fine, which
37:49
is, which represents 1/2 of a millionth of represent of their
37:53
turnover. You know, it's a couple of a few
37:55
100,000 lbs or something when they're, when they're bringing
37:58
in billions every year. And, and so, you know, the, the
38:02
disparity between the way that farming has been dealt with for
38:07
the, for, for water, relatively speaking, minor incidents, you
38:12
know, a single farm causing a minor incident relative to a, a
38:16
major water corporation causing major incidents, not just in the
38:20
rivers, but also a lot right along our coastline and no
38:23
consequence for them whatsoever. I think that the that, you know,
38:28
the the agenda at work is pretty clear there.
38:32
I I just realized that throughout this conversation
38:35
we've been talking about farming and farmers without actually
38:38
defining what we mean. When I speak about a farmer
38:41
generally, I'm referring to a commercial farmer, a substance.
38:44
A subsistence farmer obviously doesn't really fall into that
38:47
category, but I don't think that subsistence farmers are out of
38:52
the loop. I think they've been targeted
38:53
also, hence the idea of of 15 minute cities, putting people
38:57
into apartment blocks, that kind of thing, and basically removing
39:03
the the ability to grow their own food.
39:07
Yeah, I, I totally agree. I mean, as far as a, a
39:10
population is concerned, it's it the, you know, the people who
39:13
can look after themselves are, are absolutely the most
39:18
threatening to the authorities and the corporations because
39:22
they don't need them. There's no, there's no
39:24
dependency there. They have everything that they
39:26
they want and need and, and much more dangerously, they have
39:29
their own ideas. So, yeah, I mean, there I think
39:34
there is absolutely an attack on them.
39:36
Of course that that is a more difficult attack because they
39:39
are numerous, disparate and they have, you know, small, small
39:46
holdings. Of course, the to target people
39:49
who own substantial amounts of land and have sort of larger
39:54
business interests is is a much, much easier thing to do.
39:57
And that's that's why the attack specifically has has manifested
40:01
in the way that it has. And that that's exactly why, you
40:04
know why I go back to the the point about the Second World War
40:07
and how that how really it was the bigger, you know, the bigger
40:10
land owners that were targeted either through.
40:12
The push for sort of forging relationships with with
40:17
corporations rather than with local markets.
40:20
And then for bigger land owners who might not necessarily, I
40:24
mean, particularly, OK, we're talking UK specific, but, but in
40:27
sort of parts of Wales or Scotland that are harder to
40:29
farm, the introduction of, of subsidy for, you know, for, for
40:34
land that was, that was having nothing done to it.
40:37
Now, of course, I, I am absolutely an advocate for wild
40:43
spaces remaining wild. And I, and I, I think, you know,
40:46
to go back to some considerable period of time before that,
40:50
which we're referring to, I think the, the greatest disaster
40:54
for civilisation in every respect was the agricultural
40:58
revolution of 10,000 years ago, where people decided that they
41:01
would cede their self determination in the, in, in the
41:06
sort of apparent interests of collective security and stay in
41:09
the same place and start growing stuff.
41:10
I mean that, that that's where this goes back to in my book.
41:14
So, but, but there we are, we're, we're sort of, we're, we
41:17
are where we are. But but there's still, you know,
41:20
people have been in one way or another, sort of rendering
41:24
themselves vulnerable in, in a way, exactly like you say, in a
41:27
way that subsistence farmers don't.
41:30
And, and I think that that whole thing is so fascinating.
41:33
And again, just to, to return to what you were talking about with
41:37
Jason and Kristof, the this idea sort of inversion of what
41:41
freedom means, what freedom is, You know, when, when you like,
41:46
like you were saying, I think you were comparing it with,
41:48
well, you know, he was talking about bodily autonomy, you know,
41:51
abortion. It's not, it's not killing an
41:53
unborn child, it's freedom. And and again, your point about
41:57
sort of advertising of tobacco and and alcohol, you know,
42:01
somehow smoking a cigarette's gonna help you to get to the
42:03
sort of top of a beautiful mountain and you just light up
42:06
your gasper and and they go. So yeah, I mean, and totally
42:10
odd. But of course, no one ever tries
42:12
to sell you the idea that that growing your own vegetables or
42:19
or livestock or whatever is is in some way empowering because
42:22
it's too much of A threat. It's too.
42:24
It's too difficult. And there's a segue.
42:27
So you said livestock. So right now, as we are
42:30
speaking, there's an apparent outbreak of foot and mouth
42:34
disease right across South Africa.
42:36
In fact, the president announced a national emergency on TV.
42:42
It's weird how people do not see a similarity to something that
42:47
happened six years ago. What is going on?
42:52
PCR testing. Are they running a slaughtered
42:56
on suspicion policy? Yes.
42:59
Yes, and so, so cattle across but wait, wait, wait.
43:03
It gets worse. Cattle across the country are
43:05
being are being killed because apparently this is a highly
43:08
contagious deadly disease. I read a the data point and this
43:13
guy is coming onto my show to discuss the actual data.
43:17
Only 0.2% of all cattle in South Africa have the symptoms of what
43:26
would be described as foot and mouth.
43:27
And even then you can go into a whole discussion around what
43:32
actually are those symptoms and how serious are they.
43:34
It's basically just a sores in the mouth and some issues with
43:36
the hooves. That's really it.
43:38
And if you leave them, they come right after one or two weeks.
43:41
Angus is going to explain this also next week on my show.
43:44
He's got capital and but the government is now rolling out a
43:52
mass vaccination program which includes mRNA.
43:57
Think about where this is going. That, you know, this happened in
44:03
the UK in 2001 and you know, this was, this is being
44:09
presented as being a viral disease.
44:12
And well, we know that disinfectant does not kill
44:16
viruses according to the mainstream narrative.
44:20
And yet they had people walking through disinfectant soaked mats
44:25
at ports and airports across the United Kingdom.
44:30
This, this was the beginning of the sort of COVID mind control
44:35
operation really in, in the, in the modern generation.
44:40
A couple of points here. Neil Ferguson, who was the
44:43
Imperial College guy who wrote, who developed the models which
44:47
justified lockdown and so on, was the same Neil Ferguson that
44:52
justified the slaughtered on Suspicion policy during the 2001
44:56
foot and mouth update outbreak in the, in the United Kingdom.
45:01
I don't know enough about the flora and fauna of South Africa
45:04
to, to answer this question. But the, the one of the points
45:07
that was made by the, the farmers that we spoke to when we
45:10
were making the the Slaughtered on Suspicion documentary.
45:13
And if anybody hasn't seen that, you need to watch it if you find
45:17
it on the UK column website. If you're in South Africa, watch
45:20
it. The the, the thing was that they
45:26
were busy killing hundreds of thousands of animals, burning
45:32
them in these massive funeral parks, which according to their
45:36
narrative, the science, the science of around, around the
45:40
thing was undoubtedly helping distribute the virus to other
45:44
farms. But aside from that, they
45:45
weren't doing anything about all the other cloven hoofed animals
45:48
that were running around in the wild.
45:50
So the deer and so on that were potentially getting the same
45:57
illness. Nobody was concerned about
46:00
those. So it was only the domesticated
46:03
cattle that we're being dealt with in this way.
46:05
And so it was absolutely clear that this was an attack on
46:09
farming, not an attack on a virus.
46:13
And it was exactly the same type of operation was done around
46:18
that as was eventually done on us all during the COVID time,
46:24
quarantines, lockdowns of farms and, and areas.
46:28
And then one of the other things that they do and, and we can
46:30
watch out for this in South Africa once this thing is over,
46:34
one of the other things that they would do is that they would
46:37
compensate a proportion of a community and not compensate
46:41
somebody else. And this was creating divisions
46:44
within, within communities and between farmers and farms.
46:48
And so where prior to that you had a sense of community pre
46:52
community was there was definitely an attack on, on
46:55
people, on community cases and, and the ability for, for people
46:59
to, to act in a cohesive way. It was quite an incredible
47:02
operation from start to finish. And there's lessons to be
47:05
learned on what happened in the UK in 2001.
47:09
And, and you know, people that are living in South Africa now
47:13
and going through that need to understand what happened here.
47:16
And maybe that will give them some ammunition to help push
47:20
back on on what's happening to them or help them understand
47:23
what's happening to them anyway. Listen to this.
47:25
So I mentioned farm Angus, by the way, I keep saying farm
47:28
Angus because that's how he kind of markets his his name, but
47:31
he's obviously, as you know, Charles Angus McIntosh.
47:33
But listen to this. This is on his website,
47:35
farmangus.co dot ZA. He says yeah, man destroys the
47:38
cow's immune system and is then taught that the Pharmaceutical
47:42
industry will fix the problem. He says yeah, The basics of
47:45
cattle husbandry are ensuring A varied diet of herbivorous
47:49
plants and moving the animals at least once a day to fresh
47:52
grazing. Depending on where you are
47:54
farming and your access to water, it is a minimum of four
47:58
weeks before the cattle return to the same field, and this
48:00
breaks the parasite cycle and allows the plants to recover.
48:03
It says the the cow is not a grain of all or a chicken shit
48:07
evol, or an expired chip evol or a fruit pulp evol.
48:11
It was designed as a herbivore. Routine antibiotics and ask for
48:15
drugs are not in their dietary design either, he says.
48:18
We don't live in our toilets, yet man has ordained that most
48:21
farmed animals have to live in theirs.
48:24
He's making the point. Simply fix the environment and
48:27
you're not going to have to have these vaccination drives.
48:35
Yeah, I mean, yeah, he and he is, he's absolutely totally
48:41
right. I'm I'm, I'm not.
48:47
Yeah, I mean, I think you know that that why why even I can see
48:51
why he has but but you know, the reference even to to
48:55
vaccinations or to any other input is you know, it it it's
49:01
absolutely absurd. And and actually it goes back
49:04
again. This idea of an outbreak.
49:08
You know, you're a case statistics.
49:11
How how on earth are they ever really come by?
49:13
No, I know, I know, but I mean, but but you know, I mean, so
49:17
they say therefore what it could be 0 it could be.
49:19
So it doesn't really matter. But the, the point is that the,
49:23
the outbreak is, is actually, there is not an outbreak of foot
49:29
and mouth. There is an outbreak in
49:32
suggestion, in the suggestion of foot and mouth.
49:35
And that's what people fall foul of.
49:37
So, so the, the great, the, the way to think about that, I would
49:42
say is in, I'm, I'm not sure if it really still even happens.
49:46
But in the summer parliamentary recess in the, in the United
49:49
Kingdom, the, the newspapers would, would enter into what was
49:53
always described as silly season and you'd get these absurd
49:56
reports about whatever it was. But that but but they, I would
49:58
say they absolutely speak to the idea of an outbreak.
50:01
So the moment you had one newspaper reporting about, you
50:03
know, a dangerous dog or a dog bit something unusual, suddenly
50:07
there was a, there was a flood. Oh, yeah, it's happening.
50:10
There's absolutely happening all the time.
50:11
All people. There was, I'm not sure this is
50:15
in the newspapers. There was, there was a sort of
50:17
trend to wear very tight jeans until I think, you know, a
50:24
hairdresser somewhere in Essex was caught out in the rain
50:28
wearing tight jeans and the jeans shrank because it was, it
50:34
was raining and she fainted. And so suddenly then there was
50:37
an outbreak of dangerous, dangerously tight jeans.
50:41
And this was all over the newspapers.
50:42
So it's, it's exactly the same thing.
50:45
Foot and mouth are right. Yeah, OK, well, that, that,
50:48
that'll be what it is, which is exactly the same obviously with
50:51
the with the idea of the sort of the, the COVID sniffles,
50:54
suddenly everybody was a was a a medical expert and and yes, you
50:59
know, well, the way the, the, you know, the, the particular
51:01
symptoms I've got, I mean, obviously that's, that's COVID.
51:05
It's got to be. So it's just an outbreak of
51:09
people taking leave of their senses.
51:11
And that's how that's how outbreaks work, I would say.
51:14
Yeah, so. Well, they're largely driven by
51:17
the media because of course, yeah, it's, it's potentially
51:21
even more important to understand what is not reported
51:25
in the media as it is to understand what is reported.
51:28
Because when something does get reported, it will be presented
51:31
something which is quite normal, which happens all the time that
51:34
we live with every day without even noticing it.
51:38
And suddenly somebody shines a light on it in the mainstream
51:41
press and says this is a really major problem.
51:43
And then before you know it, everybody's noticing this major
51:45
problem that that they that has just been part of life forever.
51:50
And, and suddenly we've got to do something about it.
51:53
And of course, at the end of doing something about it is some
51:56
further restriction or limitation or whatever.
51:59
So we, you know, we are constantly played in this way
52:04
by, by media that they will highlight something all of a
52:09
sudden and but it's something that is absolutely normal.
52:13
You know, Putin is sending a ship through the English
52:17
Channel. Yeah, he did.
52:18
Russia sends ships through the English Channel every day of the
52:20
week. But we highlighted today and
52:22
suddenly it's an issue and it's something, something that's
52:25
never happened before, but actually it happens all the
52:27
time. So, you know, we, we've got to,
52:29
we've got to be able to recognize that.
52:31
Yeah, we have just just to return to what Angus wrote.
52:35
I mean, he, he, you know, I think he's written that
52:37
particularly well. But isn't it incredible that
52:41
people need to have that and well, either need to have it
52:45
spelt out like that or would fundamentally disagree with it?
52:49
You know, they, they, they would say, well, what what are you
52:52
talking about? You know, don't be ridiculous.
52:54
And yet that goes exactly to what Mike's saying with, with
52:57
foot and mouth here in 2001, which of course is, you know,
53:00
where, where all the sort of ailing or dead deer, for
53:04
example, I mean, there weren't any because they were, they were
53:08
living in those conditions and therefore they were able to just
53:11
carry on doing what they were doing.
53:13
I mean, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not trying to suggest that there
53:15
was actually a genuine foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 anyway.
53:18
But the point is that exactly like you say, if you if you keep
53:21
an animal in the wrong conditions, exactly like if you
53:23
keep a human in the wrong conditions, there will not be a
53:26
good health outcome. Yeah, but I mean, ultimately the
53:29
point that Angus is making is stop getting worried.
53:34
This is the same thing as many of us were saying, 2020.
53:36
Stop getting worried. Just carry on.
53:38
In fact, he makes the point further down on on on the page.
53:41
He says, yeah. He says, oh, the meat and milk
53:46
from these animals is perfectly fine to consume.
53:48
There we go. Yeah, yeah.
53:50
Which of course. And he eats, and he eats the
53:52
same meat. So yeah.
53:54
And if they were left alone, in a few weeks time, they'd be
53:56
back-to-back to full health in most cases.
53:59
And just just like with Covad, if, if an animal dies and
54:04
happens to have the alleged symptoms of foot and mouth
54:07
disease, you've got to ask what killed that animal, because I
54:11
guarantee it was some underlying problem that was completely
54:15
unrelated. And because that's exactly what
54:19
happened during COVID as well. People were, you know, it's
54:22
labels being it's planted on something and and therefore
54:25
helps drive the idea that we've got to run this, this
54:28
slaughtered on suspicion policy. It's it's I I've considered that
54:34
policy to be one of the most reprehensible things that that
54:40
governments do, full stop. I want to add to that though,
54:48
the there's also an underlying assumption that animals don't
54:51
get sick. This is unbelievably absurd.
54:53
Humans get sick, it's just part of the normal life cycle.
54:56
And we don't kill people who get a cold just in the same way, do
55:01
we? Not I think we did.
55:03
I think we did in 2020-2021. I think we we were pretty good
55:07
at doing we. OK, no, we don't.
55:10
But but that is exactly what the medical Pharmaceutical industry
55:14
complex, whatever you want to call it, that that is what
55:16
they're set up to do. And that that unfortunately is
55:18
what people never realise. I mean, look at, you know, I
55:20
hate to say it, but but look at look at the cancer industry.
55:25
I mean, yeah, I think there's quite a good reason that people
55:27
are the, the, the sort of so-called medics are able to
55:29
predict how long somebody's going to live.
55:31
And that's because they're setting it against, you know,
55:33
the, the, the time that they know it takes for a particular
55:37
chemical or, or other treatment to actually kill somebody.
55:40
But I'm sorry to. Put it in those terms.
55:44
Sorry, Charles, go on. No.
55:45
No, no, no. I mean that that's it.
55:47
But you know, this, this idea that that, yes, of course you
55:51
know, we don't, but but that there is an an entire industry
55:55
based on this. And if you can make money from
55:57
killing people, well, there you go.
55:58
What's not to like? Yeah, sorry.
56:00
What I was going to say is that getting sick is part of the life
56:06
cycle and you get over it. Animals get sick as part of the
56:10
life cycle, they get over it. That's ultimately what should be
56:12
the case here, but it's not. And so the so there is this fear
56:17
porn that is pushed on to us the whole time.
56:20
And that's what happened. I mean, we, we have animals here
56:22
that are being, that are being isolated.
56:25
Yeah, I think also the other thing, it's just.
56:28
About that, it's ridiculous. But, but, but I think again,
56:31
another fundamental point which I would like to put out there is
56:36
also the way in which we're taught or conditioned to regard
56:40
what, what is either illness or health.
56:44
And so to go back to foot and mouth, you know, a problem with
56:48
the inside of the mouth or or the hoof, whatever.
56:51
But but making that distinction between because the way in which
56:54
a symptom is described, it's it it is, it is certainly in the
56:59
mainstream. 1 is never allowed to consider that that in itself
57:03
is an expression of the human or animal form healing itself
57:08
fixing itself, so that so whatever the problem is may not
57:13
be identifiable until what are described as symptoms start to
57:18
manifest. And that is indeed the healing
57:21
process. So it stands to reason that it
57:25
you know that that the the recovery has actually begun.
57:28
That is the that is the Organism doing what it's supposed to do.
57:32
But again, we're not allowed to think like that.
57:35
It's a total inversion. So, oh, you know that the inside
57:38
of the mouth, all that hoof looks sore.
57:40
That's the bit that will try to flog you the drug to deal with
57:44
to get rid of that. All right, well, we are coming
57:50
in for a landing and the thread of this conversation has been
57:56
the the attack on on farmers, of course, agriculture and by
58:01
extension our food. A mass vaccination drive on
58:04
animals I can't see as as being healthy for for those consuming
58:09
those animals. I guess one of the ways to push
58:14
back, Tommy, if you agree, is to not support those.
58:21
Actually, is that the right thing to do?
58:22
Is is it the right thing to not support those farmers?
58:25
No, that wouldn't be the right thing to do.
58:27
What? What is the right thing to do
58:28
then? I think there are two elements
58:34
to it which which could be part of the same thing.
58:36
I mean, I would say if we're talking about supporting
58:41
farmers, then that should be done on a, on a direct or as
58:45
direct as possible, direct as possible level.
58:50
So therefore you don't. Want to support Holden Child?
58:51
But you do you want to support a farmer who's vaccinated his
58:54
cattle? He was forced to, perhaps.
58:59
No. OK, so, so it has to be part of
59:03
a process of, you know, evolution.
59:07
But in the first instance, I think the approach directly to
59:13
farmers in order that they're not then dictated to because
59:16
specifically that the, the the treatment protocols will be
59:20
dictated back by the purchaser of if it's livestock, they will
59:25
have a certain number for a certain stage who will be looked
59:29
after by a particular person and they will have a schedule that
59:32
they must comply with in order for them to go on to the next
59:35
stage in order for them to be paid.
59:37
So breaking that cycle and taking a certain percentage of
59:42
livestock out so that they can go to a local market that you
59:45
can deal directly, you have some sort of cooperative, whatever it
59:48
is. That means that you're already
59:50
changing that balance away from the necessity for, for drugs.
59:54
Cause of course, the other thing is that you're not paying for
59:56
them. If you're, if, if that's all
59:57
part of the package that you're, you know, you're growing them
1:00:00
for a supermarket or whatever it is, you're not paying for the
1:00:03
drugs. Whereas if you're, if you're
1:00:04
going outside of that, you would be.
1:00:06
And therefore it becomes a conscious process.
1:00:08
And therefore you can have it as a discussion point.
1:00:11
And you would say that you would like the meat without such and
1:00:15
such a thing in it. And I, I, you know that, that
1:00:19
obviously not, not suggesting everyone's going to go along
1:00:21
with it, but that, but I would say that's, that's the way to do
1:00:23
it because that you're then taking away power from the
1:00:28
corporations because you're not shopping in the places where
1:00:31
they're making their money. And also you're not putting
1:00:34
further livestock in their hands by, you know, the, the farmer
1:00:38
having 100% of what they're dealing with going out to to
1:00:42
those end point. So I'd say that in simple terms,
1:00:46
that's sort of that that's the way to do it.
1:00:48
But I mean, ultimately, you know, either producing your own
1:00:51
food or, or your food for your family or food for your
1:00:53
community. Going back to the point about
1:00:55
subsistence and how how much of A thorn in the side of the
1:00:59
establishment or or those that currently hold the levers of
1:01:02
power, how much of A thorn in their side you are that that's
1:01:06
the way to do it ultimately. But basically what you're saying
1:01:10
there, Charles, this is not, it's not supporting farmers.
1:01:13
It's not sufficient to just stick on a T-shirt that says no
1:01:16
farmers, no food. You've got to actually be
1:01:20
supporting them financially as well by encouraging.
1:01:24
Well, that's. It and again, that is, you know,
1:01:26
it's, it's one of the big cons, of course, that you slap a union
1:01:31
flag on a piece of packaging and it doesn't matter really where
1:01:34
the foods come from. But people will be given that
1:01:36
sense when they go into a supermarket and they see that
1:01:39
thing. I, I'm, I'm buying British.
1:01:40
That is that you are 1,000,000 miles off the mark.
1:01:43
I'm afraid all you're doing is paying for your own demise.
1:01:48
Well, on that very uplifting note, I'll catch up with with
1:01:53
you guys next time.