July 11, 2022 • 28 mins
In this episode, we started talking about the article by George Kent “The Benefits of World Hunger” which was hastily removed from the United Nations website, Nicole Kidman enjoying eating bugs and suggesting we do the same, UK kids being fed spaghetti with beetle Bolognese, the upcoming water tax and other “exciting” novelties we do not look up to.
The Benefits of World Hunger
Nicole Kidman Eats Bugs
Scientists plan to feed children insects to help make the UK greener
Beetlejuice (1988) - IMDb
Sustainable, Profitable Indoor Farming of Aquaponics Fish and Plants
Nestle CEO: Water Is Not A Human Right, Should Be Privatized
Shawn Baker MD on Instagram: "Don't worry, we will mix the bugs into your processed food so they are not so squishy!"
We love receiving your feedback ❤️ Drop us a line anywhere you happen to come across our posts 🙂
We are @episodikal on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, TikTok, and LinkedIn, or email us at ask@episodikal.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Alexey (00:00):
Yeah, some hotels are more podcast friendly than
(00:02):
others. This was definitely thecase last time. So...
Taliy (00:06):
Yeah!
Alexey (00:07):
We've talked about all different things. And I think
that this time, we cannot missthe most disturbing news that we
have. And this is about thestory that broke out just
recently about this article by aProfessor in the Department of
Political Science at theUniversity of Hawaii, George
(00:28):
Kent. Actually, the article waswritten 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, whyworld hunger is beneficial, how
it is the driver for, let's say,economic growth, but it also
(00:53):
outlines who benefits from this.
The funny thing is that thearticle was on the United
Nations website for 10 years.
And just recently, it gotremoved when it gained momentum
everywhere. When people startedtalking about it. Suddenly,
someone noticed and it waswildly reposted. Luckily, there
(01:14):
are internet archives that areworking, and we'll link to a
snapshot of this article. Imean, this short article is
really full of "gems",explaining, I mean, gems, in
quotes explaining why hunger isa good thing. Let me cite just
one short passage (01:30):
"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, whowould plow the fields, who would
harvest our vegetables, whowould work in the rendering
plants and who would clean ourtoilets? We would have to
produce our own food and cleanour own toilets. No wonder
(01:54):
people at the high end are notrushing to solve the hunger
problem. For many of us, hungeris not a problem, but an asset."
Wow, guys, hearing this from aprofessor of political science,
who works on human rights with aspecial focus on nutrition and
children, who have writtenseveral books, and the latest is
(02:16):
"Freedom from want. The humanright to adequate food." I don't
even have the words to describewhat we can think about this.
What do you think, Taliy, aboutall these things?
Taliy (02:27):
Wow. Well, it's been 10 years since the article was
published on the United Nationsofficial website. And it only
picked up the momentum rightnow. Because people are being
super aggressively attacked withthis narrative that there are
food shortages, there is notenough food. And there is this
(02:47):
guy from University of Hawaii,who says that hunger is
beneficial for the world economyfor the super rich, it helps
them to get richer, because poorpeople in fear of starvation,
gonna build solar panels inBrazil, and get us this green
energy boom. And you watchingthis and you like, is he being
(03:09):
sarcastic? And he's not, and youlike, holy...
Alexey (03:14):
Guacamole
Taliy (03:15):
Exactly. Holy guacamole.
This is unbelievable. They'requite serious about this
narrative. I had to Google forthe pictures of this, George
Kent. And I can tell you, theguy has not only probably never
in his life, experienced hunger,but never even tried fasting.
They think it happens tosomebody somewhere elsewhere.
(03:38):
And this is exactly the approachthat's ruining our society.
Because until the very momentwhere when we realize that there
are no strangers in this world,each person is part of our
unified society. And this is theonly way we can survive the
climate challenges, all theother challenges we have. Until
(03:59):
that very point, it's not goingto be beneficial. We're not
going to find a way out of thisif we keep thinking like this.
Especially with the moderntechnologies. And we've been
talking about robotization,about the possibilities of AI.
And we have these beautifulmachines that can take a lot of
things. People do not have toconstruct buildings because they
(04:22):
can be done automated, like alot of stuff. It would take us a
little bit of efforts and ofcourse, some money to invest
into these technologies thatwill be super beneficial for
everyone. But not in thatconsumerist format of the
society. You know, when I wasreading this article, UN article
by the professor from theHawaiian University, I was
(04:44):
upset, really, really upsetabout the fact that they don't
value human life, and they areopen about it, not even shy to
admit that human life doesn'tvalue much. What was shocking is
that I found that this veryGeorge Kent, is a contributor to
the United Nations hunger yearlyannual documents they've been
(05:07):
sending. Unfortunately, itreminded me this CO2 situation
where they are picking up acouple of people with very
questionable views, and theypromote them as the mainstream
ones because if United Nations.
And we've been talking about theUnited Nations, which is a
basically huge internationalcorporation, with a lot of
(05:29):
branches with a lot of subcompanies that are only
interested in enlarging theirbudgets annually. And like,
making their organization morepowerful, more influential, get
more people involved. So theyare doing a really, really good
(05:49):
job in the consumerist format ofthe society. They consume, they
expand, they grow. But thedeclared part to actually help
the humanity is just not there.
We have to openly face it.
Alexey (06:06):
The thing is that we were discussing about the real
priorities of these all theseorganizations that are striving,
as they say, to solve all kindsof problems. But here on the
very website of the UnitedNations, there was this
manifesto, if you want, thathunger is not a problem, it's an
(06:26):
asset. I don't think that peoplecan post articles, any article
they want on the United Nationswebsite. It did not happen by
accident, and it was there for10 years. They are not even
covering up that they don't wantto solve the problem. It is an
asset. Well, we have our answer.
We don't need to hint anymore.
(06:47):
We don't need to convincepeople. Here it is, here it is
written. Well, they pulled itdown from the website, but
internet remembers everything.
So luckily, we have this. I'veseen this video being posted
with Nicole Kidman, who eatsbugs. People say elites tell
people to eat bugs. And theycite actually a Vanity Fair
(07:08):
video where Nicole Kidman iseating a four course meal
consisting of different bugs andtouts this as her secret talent.
The video itself is not new. Sothis Overton window was opened a
long time ago, in January 2018.
We'll link to this article andthe video also, as usual. But
(07:30):
what got me interested is thatthere is further development,
there was this article fromDaily Mail, you will find the
link in the show notes, it wastalking about this chilling
school trial, the primary schoolchildren in Wales United
Kingdom. They were giving mealworms and crickets on the lunch
plates. And among other things,there was spaghetti with beetle
(07:54):
Bolognese. You know, it wastouted as a particularly
delicious mixture of insects andplant proteins. I mean, guys, no
matter what you think aboutconserving the planet by not
eating meat or anything likethat, no matter your opinion
about the CO2, this isdisgusting. And you know, I
(08:15):
wasn't a fan of the 1988 movieBeetlejuice back in the day. But
the idea that soon we might haveBeetlejuice as a new popular
brand of protein shakes. Urgh...
Really doesn't make me want toleave in this future. And why of
all available already todaysolutions do we have to consider
eating insects when we havevertical farms, hydroponics,
(08:38):
aquaponics? We can 3D printfoods from different components.
Guys, if you want to look upwhat is aquaponics. Actually,
it's a form of agriculture thatcombines raising fish in tanks
with recirculating aquaculturewith soilless plant culture, the
hydroponics that many alreadyknow. So when fish make nutrient
(08:58):
rich water that provides thisnatural fertilizer for the
plants and plants help to purifythe water for the fish. The main
idea we talked already aboutthis is that aquaponics can be
used to sustainably raise fishand vegetables for anything from
a single family to you knowwhere like a village or a city
and can also generate profit forthose who are seeking it. And
(09:21):
this is all year round. And inany climate. We'll also leave
some links in the show notesabout these technologies. I'm
thinking like what kind ofperverted and sadistic minds are
promoting that idea that we needto eat insects and be happy.
Well, maybe the same who want usto own nothing and be happy? I
guess that then we haveradically opposing views of what
(09:44):
is happiness
Taliy (09:49):
Yeah, like when we take a wider look at this, it just
doesn't make sense that we havefood shortages, what and even
these questions about hungercoming up? Because simply
because we have technologiesthat allow us not just to
produce food out of literallysometimes out of air, as they do
(10:12):
in Finland with the flower, butalso 3D print, and even grow a
product from cells, like thiswas amazing that the meat can be
produced from cells. And thereis no need to grow cattle, you
know, with all the ethical thingin there. There's simply no need
(10:33):
and so much waste, of course,from meat production, we all
know that problems. And thereare ways to produce meat, so
much cleaner, and so much betterand can be the best quality meat
without all the side effects ofthe production. Those
technologies are not beingdeveloped. We, as a society, are
(10:54):
not investing in them, even ahint of those money, that we
relocate to Big Pharma ormilitary, for example, when in
fact, the food shortages, right,it's a huge problem, and it's a
survival problem for people onEarth. So why don't we develop
those technologies? That's thequestion I ask. And isn't it
(11:16):
important to us as humans? Butof course, when, you know, one
of the articles I came acrosslast year, was this interview
with one of the CEOs of the topdistribution companies. So
basically, the grocery storecompanies across the United
States, he was specificallyasked about the food shortages.
(11:37):
Do you consider this to be aproblem that possible food
shortages can lead to lessproduct on the shelves of your
stores? The answer was shocking.
The answer was that we are notconcerned because even if there
will be less food, we're gonnabe able to sell it on the higher
price. So our stakeholders stillgonna make money. It means that
(12:00):
these people are detached fromreality. They live in parallel
universe where all they careabout is their share values and
their personal assets. Safety ofpeople is not an asset for
those, you know, it's not avalue, it's not even considered
as something they would paytheir attention to. That's why
(12:23):
it's only up to us to people tocreate demand for new way of
thinking, new way of settinggoals like what do we really
want this to be like? If wedon't want to be victims of this
agenda of beetles and some nastystuff. Gosh, it gives me shivers
how these people coming up withsuch ideas, and somebody is
(12:45):
making a lot of money, it's thisgravy train, that they just hop
on. And they've for the sake ofecology, they can do crazy
stuff, and they get away withit. And somehow it's even like,
you know, this window ofopportunity is for them to make
money on nonsense. Like,literally, you tell somebody,
(13:05):
your kid is gonna eat bugs,they're gonna be like, are you
crazy? But the way they presentit for the safety of our
environment, to provide proteinsfor the children, to increase
the nutrition, to provide safetyand reduce carbon emissions.
When you hear all this basicallystamps, it means you're being
(13:30):
tricked. That's the only thingthat comes across my mind. Where
is the response from people? Iwonder? Where are the people
actually saying that let's endthis cycle of lies. Finally?
Because eventually, there is apopular short on the internet
that you can find it on manywebsites, it says "You are they
(13:51):
carbon they want to get rid of."And eventually, if you agree to
feed your children with bugs inorder to reduce carbon,
eventually, your life doesn'tvalue more than those bugs for
those who organize these kindsof media attacks on the society.
(14:12):
I wouldn't choose other words toactually put it.
Alexey (14:18):
You know, when guys like the CEO of Nestle, who is
famous for saying that now wateris not a human right and should
be privatized. I don't reallysee the difference in wanting to
feed people insects, which isdisgusting by itself. It's sad
that some people have to resortto this kind of food, like we've
(14:39):
seen in one of the posts byShawn Baker, where he showed
kids in Africa you know,collecting insects and then
making patties to make sort ofburgers but with mosquitoes.
This is really sad. And youknow, it's great to have the
survival skills in case you needthem one day, but deliberately
condemning the population to alife in this survival mode. It's
(15:03):
a whole other story. It's acrime against humanity. I don't
have any other words to say,when we have all these
technologies. And it's not likethey're not being developed, we
have them already. It's justthat 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
(15:28):
ago that this is the lever -food and water by consequence.
These are the levers by whichpeople agree to work really
crappy jobs for a very miserablepay. It's not that it's being
projected. I mean, we're alreadyhalfway there. Because this is
(15:48):
already being tested in schoolsin the United Kingdom. It may
not be the most developedcountry by today's standards,
but it was always the mostdeveloped country like for the
centuries before that. I cannotfathom 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 mostrecent news. But we all heard
about this, that the Nestle CEO,in one of the interviews, he
said that water is not a humanright, and water should be
treated as a product, has tohave market value, and has to be
sold to those who have money, ofcourse to buy the water. But
(16:27):
this was kind of shocking to me,because when you think about the
guy who rules Nestle, it has tobe like a happy chocolate guy
who kind of like happy WillyWonka over there. No, that's the
guy who wants to take over thewater from the whole world
population and control theirability to have access to water,
because it's the productapparently he wants to sell to
(16:48):
us. And no wonder when you know,we donate money to help people
in Africa to have access towater, what actually happens to
that they don't do permanentsolution. In many cases, they do
not dig wells in there and don'tprovide the water for free as it
should be. They just supply theplastic bottles of Nestle to
there, so it's a business model.
And it's very sustainable forthem. It's bad for environment,
(17:11):
it doesn't solve anything forthe people. But it's a constant
money flow, which, which issuper beneficial. So of course,
they got on this gravy train,and they not going to hop off it
anytime soon. If of course thepeople not gonna say the word
that it shouldn't be like that.
And that interview got a hugebacklash. And actually, the guy
(17:33):
had to resign after a while. Butthe systematic thing didn't
change. And they kept pushingfor it. And you know, in my, my
perception, it was like, it'snot gonna work. Like how, how
can you limit people's access towater? It's just not gonna
happen. The water is everywhere,like, how would you make someone
pay for the water and they cameup with a solution. I'm starting
(17:56):
reading this articles publishedall over the mainstream media in
the beginning of 2022, like thisyear, and the idea they trying
to push on us. Wow, this is justshocking. So what would be your
guess, Alex? Well, how do youthink how they gonna make us pay
for the water, for the basichuman 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 thebiggest fraud of the 21st
century, the biggest moneymaking scheme and they not
inventing anything new, theyalready 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 thison water. So you know how it
went with CO2. First of all,they did the Kyoto thing, they
were like, we're gonna tax thosewho produce goods, and you know,
these productions that have someCO2 emissions. Exactly the same
(18:55):
thing starts here. We're gonnado this taxation on those who
use water in their production,which of course, eventually
going to lead to the increase ofthe price of the goods which we
regular customers are going tohave to pay for. But not just
that, like, look how it wentfrom CO2. It went from like
factories and big companiesproducing their thing. It went
(19:17):
to the personal responsibilityof each one of us, this idea
that's been pushed upon us thatyou have a personal carbon
footprint, you have to limityour carbon footprint, you have
to offset it. So basically, youhave to pay for it. We know it's
a scam. We know nobody isreducing anything and that
amount of CO2 doesn't matter. Itcannot affect the climate, but
(19:41):
what they do they make a lot ofmoney on it. It became the
biggest, right now at thecurrent moment, it is the
biggest moneymakers scheme, andthey want to do this very same
thing with water. So first, it'sgonna start with factories and
big manufacturers andproductions that gonna have to
pay additional tax on the amountof water they use for the
(20:04):
production of goods. And thenthe next step will be to push
this idea that the water is alimited resource, we shouldn't
just use it, we should pay it.
And whenever you use anythingover there in your house, you
have to check your meter andoffset your usage of water. I
have a question, does MotherEarth get the money? It's like
it reminds me the scheme withreligious organizations that
(20:27):
collected donations from thepeople kind of in the name of
higher powers. But I've beenalways curious, like, how do
they transfer it over there? Dothe higher powers have a bank
account? Same applies to MotherEarth, it doesn't have a bank
account, this money is going togo to the pockets of greedy,
greedy, sneaky people wholobbying these laws that go
(20:48):
against humanity, and they donot solve any problems, they do
not provide any water, they justmake our life more expensive.
And on the edge of the crisis,new economical crisis, which
could be avoided, there are notalks about how to avoid the
crisis, they just leading us toprepare for inevitable and make
it impossible for us to sustainany sort of financial well being
(21:12):
during this period, because theamount of taxes just gonna be
increased much more. So I feelvery sorry that really, really
good people, most of the peopleof our planet, they're being
tricked by these globaltricksters, the desire of the
people to save the planet tocare about the ecology to care
about the environment is beingtwisted and used against the
(21:35):
people. This is a terriblething. And the only way to fight
it is with truth. Common senseand logic here - CS. CS doesn't
only stand for Creative Society,CS also stands for common sense.
And I find it very, very muchresonating. Because it's very
same thing, use your commonsense, use logic, and don't let
(21:55):
anyone to push their ideas onyou. Verify them, do your own
research, like you know, theytry and to blame you for doing
your research. But do it, do itagainst the whole narrative and
make sure that you understandwhere the money goes. Because if
we just tried to trace themoney, it's gonna show us a lot
about what actually happened andwith social narratives for the
(22:19):
good cause. Eat bugs, pay forwater, offset your CO2, live in
a cell, don't own a car, don'town anything, and just give all
your rights and all yourpersonal information to somebody
who apparently knows it betterhow you should live your life.
And that's the narrative that'sbeing pushed on us. The
(22:39):
alternative is to build thissociety in which all people have
the equal amount of power and noone has a power over another
individual. This society, whichprovides everyone with
everything necessary with allthe necessities that could be so
easily covered by using moderntechnologies, even the Sahara
Desert, as we said, can beturned into blooming garden.
(23:00):
This is within ourpossibilities. And all it takes,
it's not decades, it's notlifetimes, it's just a few
years. If we really, really wantit. So the question for our
listeners, do you want it? Writein the comments what do you
want? What kind of society youwant to live in?
Alexey (23:20):
The only thing that is being reduced is the amount of
money on people's bank accountsand people's well being, this is
the only thing that's beingreduced by all the CO2 taxes and
future water taxes. The onlything that we are losing is our
happiness, our lives. When youlook at everything, from the
(23:40):
perspective that everything isfractal, and that everything
just is being copied from oneplace to another, as you said,
why invent something new whenyou have already a working
model, and everyone seems to beso much receptive to these ideas
of saving the planet, reducingyour carbon footprint, your
(24:01):
water footprint, what have you.
I don't think that this issomething that people
appreciate. And we are seeingthe backlash after the article
that was removed from the UnitedNations website. But many people
would say, well, what's next?
Well, okay, so we are againstthis kind of oppression, what
(24:22):
can we do next? But next guy ispretty simple. You can talk
around you, like talk with yourfriends, with your family. And
you will see that no one reallywants to have the same outcome
as the one that we just broughtup today. So if no one wants
this, ask yourself a question.
Why do we keep silentlyaccepting all these things? And
(24:43):
maybe it is because we areaccepting that these things are
being perpetrated over and overagain? Because next, I'm sensing
this, it will be air. We werejoking when we were kids like
oh, you will you will have yourstamps for air. If you look in
the same direction, we havefood, water, the next will be
(25:05):
air. And obviously living space.
I don't know, I'm not excitedabout this kind of future, but
there is another possibility ofliving differently. And it is
within our reach. We don't haveto invent anything, you know, we
don't need any revolutions. Weare the ones who are producing
(25:26):
everything. And accepting justthe idea of... Imagine you are
working at at the Nestle factorythat produces bottled water, or
any sort of food they areproducing. And you are being
told, look, you don't have thepossibility, unfortunately, to
have this water or this food,and it goes somewhere else. But
yeah, there are some cricketsfor you if you want. We washed
(25:49):
the machines and even have thiswater if you want, you can maybe
purify it or something. Guys, ifwe continue accepting all these
things all the time. Just readthe article, read the article by
George Kent, and you willunderstand everything. They are
not even trying to hideanything. It was there for 10
years, 10 years there, peoplecould have a look at it. Okay,
(26:11):
we can understand it wasn't onthe first page. Okay, we got
this. But now that everyoneknows, and it's all over the
news, this is something thatinterests everyone. I think that
this is more important thansomething that's happening in a
court of law between two guysthat are very popular. This is
something that affects the livesof each and every one of us.
(26:32):
This is a unifying point,unifying point to have adequate,
as George Kent wrote, just bythe title, adequate food, water
and living conditions. I thinkit's a great unifying point that
everyone should think about andunite on this point. Uniting on
this point is not only possible,but necessary. Otherwise, well,
(26:54):
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 richman's shampoo than on a poor
man's plate."
Yeah, some hotels are more podcast friendly than
(00:02):
others. This was definitely thecase last time. So...
Taliy (00:06):
Yeah!
Alexey (00:07):
We've talked about all different things. And I think
that this time, we cannot missthe most disturbing news that we
have. And this is about thestory that broke out just
recently about this article by aProfessor in the Department of
Political Science at theUniversity of Hawaii, George
(00:28):
Kent. Actually, the article waswritten 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, whyworld hunger is beneficial, how
it is the driver for, let's say,economic growth, but it also
(00:53):
outlines who benefits from this.
The funny thing is that thearticle was on the United
Nations website for 10 years.
And just recently, it gotremoved when it gained momentum
everywhere. When people startedtalking about it. Suddenly,
someone noticed and it waswildly reposted. Luckily, there
(01:14):
are internet archives that areworking, and we'll link to a
snapshot of this article. Imean, this short article is
really full of "gems",explaining, I mean, gems, in
quotes explaining why hunger isa good thing. Let me cite just
one short passage (01:30):
"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, whowould plow the fields, who would
harvest our vegetables, whowould work in the rendering
plants and who would clean ourtoilets? We would have to
produce our own food and cleanour own toilets. No wonder
(01:54):
people at the high end are notrushing to solve the hunger
problem. For many of us, hungeris not a problem, but an asset."
Wow, guys, hearing this from aprofessor of political science,
who works on human rights with aspecial focus on nutrition and
children, who have writtenseveral books, and the latest is
(02:16):
"Freedom from want. The humanright to adequate food." I don't
even have the words to describewhat we can think about this.
What do you think, Taliy, aboutall these things?
Taliy (02:27):
Wow. Well, it's been 10 years since the article was
published on the United Nationsofficial website. And it only
picked up the momentum rightnow. Because people are being
super aggressively attacked withthis narrative that there are
food shortages, there is notenough food. And there is this
(02:47):
guy from University of Hawaii,who says that hunger is
beneficial for the world economyfor the super rich, it helps
them to get richer, because poorpeople in fear of starvation,
gonna build solar panels inBrazil, and get us this green
energy boom. And you watchingthis and you like, is he being
(03:09):
sarcastic? And he's not, and youlike, holy...
Alexey (03:14):
Guacamole
Taliy (03:15):
Exactly. Holy guacamole.
This is unbelievable. They'requite serious about this
narrative. I had to Google forthe pictures of this, George
Kent. And I can tell you, theguy has not only probably never
in his life, experienced hunger,but never even tried fasting.
They think it happens tosomebody somewhere elsewhere.
(03:38):
And this is exactly the approachthat's ruining our society.
Because until the very momentwhere when we realize that there
are no strangers in this world,each person is part of our
unified society. And this is theonly way we can survive the
climate challenges, all theother challenges we have. Until
(03:59):
that very point, it's not goingto be beneficial. We're not
going to find a way out of thisif we keep thinking like this.
Especially with the moderntechnologies. And we've been
talking about robotization,about the possibilities of AI.
And we have these beautifulmachines that can take a lot of
things. People do not have toconstruct buildings because they
(04:22):
can be done automated, like alot of stuff. It would take us a
little bit of efforts and ofcourse, some money to invest
into these technologies thatwill be super beneficial for
everyone. But not in thatconsumerist format of the
society. You know, when I wasreading this article, UN article
by the professor from theHawaiian University, I was
(04:44):
upset, really, really upsetabout the fact that they don't
value human life, and they areopen about it, not even shy to
admit that human life doesn'tvalue much. What was shocking is
that I found that this veryGeorge Kent, is a contributor to
the United Nations hunger yearlyannual documents they've been
(05:07):
sending. Unfortunately, itreminded me this CO2 situation
where they are picking up acouple of people with very
questionable views, and theypromote them as the mainstream
ones because if United Nations.
And we've been talking about theUnited Nations, which is a
basically huge internationalcorporation, with a lot of
(05:29):
branches with a lot of subcompanies that are only
interested in enlarging theirbudgets annually. And like,
making their organization morepowerful, more influential, get
more people involved. So theyare doing a really, really good
(05:49):
job in the consumerist format ofthe society. They consume, they
expand, they grow. But thedeclared part to actually help
the humanity is just not there.
We have to openly face it.
Alexey (06:06):
The thing is that we were discussing about the real
priorities of these all theseorganizations that are striving,
as they say, to solve all kindsof problems. But here on the
very website of the UnitedNations, there was this
manifesto, if you want, thathunger is not a problem, it's an
(06:26):
asset. I don't think that peoplecan post articles, any article
they want on the United Nationswebsite. It did not happen by
accident, and it was there for10 years. They are not even
covering up that they don't wantto solve the problem. It is an
asset. Well, we have our answer.
We don't need to hint anymore.
(06:47):
We don't need to convincepeople. Here it is, here it is
written. Well, they pulled itdown from the website, but
internet remembers everything.
So luckily, we have this. I'veseen this video being posted
with Nicole Kidman, who eatsbugs. People say elites tell
people to eat bugs. And theycite actually a Vanity Fair
(07:08):
video where Nicole Kidman iseating a four course meal
consisting of different bugs andtouts this as her secret talent.
The video itself is not new. Sothis Overton window was opened a
long time ago, in January 2018.
We'll link to this article andthe video also, as usual. But
(07:30):
what got me interested is thatthere is further development,
there was this article fromDaily Mail, you will find the
link in the show notes, it wastalking about this chilling
school trial, the primary schoolchildren in Wales United
Kingdom. They were giving mealworms and crickets on the lunch
plates. And among other things,there was spaghetti with beetle
(07:54):
Bolognese. You know, it wastouted as a particularly
delicious mixture of insects andplant proteins. I mean, guys, no
matter what you think aboutconserving the planet by not
eating meat or anything likethat, no matter your opinion
about the CO2, this isdisgusting. And you know, I
(08:15):
wasn't a fan of the 1988 movieBeetlejuice back in the day. But
the idea that soon we might haveBeetlejuice as a new popular
brand of protein shakes. Urgh...
Really doesn't make me want toleave in this future. And why of
all available already todaysolutions do we have to consider
eating insects when we havevertical farms, hydroponics,
(08:38):
aquaponics? We can 3D printfoods from different components.
Guys, if you want to look upwhat is aquaponics. Actually,
it's a form of agriculture thatcombines raising fish in tanks
with recirculating aquaculturewith soilless plant culture, the
hydroponics that many alreadyknow. So when fish make nutrient
(08:58):
rich water that provides thisnatural fertilizer for the
plants and plants help to purifythe water for the fish. The main
idea we talked already aboutthis is that aquaponics can be
used to sustainably raise fishand vegetables for anything from
a single family to you knowwhere like a village or a city
and can also generate profit forthose who are seeking it. And
(09:21):
this is all year round. And inany climate. We'll also leave
some links in the show notesabout these technologies. I'm
thinking like what kind ofperverted and sadistic minds are
promoting that idea that we needto eat insects and be happy.
Well, maybe the same who want usto own nothing and be happy? I
guess that then we haveradically opposing views of what
(09:44):
is happiness
Taliy (09:49):
Yeah, like when we take a wider look at this, it just
doesn't make sense that we havefood shortages, what and even
these questions about hungercoming up? Because simply
because we have technologiesthat allow us not just to
produce food out of literallysometimes out of air, as they do
(10:12):
in Finland with the flower, butalso 3D print, and even grow a
product from cells, like thiswas amazing that the meat can be
produced from cells. And thereis no need to grow cattle, you
know, with all the ethical thingin there. There's simply no need
(10:33):
and so much waste, of course,from meat production, we all
know that problems. And thereare ways to produce meat, so
much cleaner, and so much betterand can be the best quality meat
without all the side effects ofthe production. Those
technologies are not beingdeveloped. We, as a society, are
(10:54):
not investing in them, even ahint of those money, that we
relocate to Big Pharma ormilitary, for example, when in
fact, the food shortages, right,it's a huge problem, and it's a
survival problem for people onEarth. So why don't we develop
those technologies? That's thequestion I ask. And isn't it
(11:16):
important to us as humans? Butof course, when, you know, one
of the articles I came acrosslast year, was this interview
with one of the CEOs of the topdistribution companies. So
basically, the grocery storecompanies across the United
States, he was specificallyasked about the food shortages.
(11:37):
Do you consider this to be aproblem that possible food
shortages can lead to lessproduct on the shelves of your
stores? The answer was shocking.
The answer was that we are notconcerned because even if there
will be less food, we're gonnabe able to sell it on the higher
price. So our stakeholders stillgonna make money. It means that
(12:00):
these people are detached fromreality. They live in parallel
universe where all they careabout is their share values and
their personal assets. Safety ofpeople is not an asset for
those, you know, it's not avalue, it's not even considered
as something they would paytheir attention to. That's why
(12:23):
it's only up to us to people tocreate demand for new way of
thinking, new way of settinggoals like what do we really
want this to be like? If wedon't want to be victims of this
agenda of beetles and some nastystuff. Gosh, it gives me shivers
how these people coming up withsuch ideas, and somebody is
(12:45):
making a lot of money, it's thisgravy train, that they just hop
on. And they've for the sake ofecology, they can do crazy
stuff, and they get away withit. And somehow it's even like,
you know, this window ofopportunity is for them to make
money on nonsense. Like,literally, you tell somebody,
(13:05):
your kid is gonna eat bugs,they're gonna be like, are you
crazy? But the way they presentit for the safety of our
environment, to provide proteinsfor the children, to increase
the nutrition, to provide safetyand reduce carbon emissions.
When you hear all this basicallystamps, it means you're being
(13:30):
tricked. That's the only thingthat comes across my mind. Where
is the response from people? Iwonder? Where are the people
actually saying that let's endthis cycle of lies. Finally?
Because eventually, there is apopular short on the internet
that you can find it on manywebsites, it says "You are they
(13:51):
carbon they want to get rid of."And eventually, if you agree to
feed your children with bugs inorder to reduce carbon,
eventually, your life doesn'tvalue more than those bugs for
those who organize these kindsof media attacks on the society.
(14:12):
I wouldn't choose other words toactually put it.
Alexey (14:18):
You know, when guys like the CEO of Nestle, who is
famous for saying that now wateris not a human right and should
be privatized. I don't reallysee the difference in wanting to
feed people insects, which isdisgusting by itself. It's sad
that some people have to resortto this kind of food, like we've
(14:39):
seen in one of the posts byShawn Baker, where he showed
kids in Africa you know,collecting insects and then
making patties to make sort ofburgers but with mosquitoes.
This is really sad. And youknow, it's great to have the
survival skills in case you needthem one day, but deliberately
condemning the population to alife in this survival mode. It's
(15:03):
a whole other story. It's acrime against humanity. I don't
have any other words to say,when we have all these
technologies. And it's not likethey're not being developed, we
have them already. It's justthat 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
(15:28):
ago that this is the lever -food and water by consequence.
These are the levers by whichpeople agree to work really
crappy jobs for a very miserablepay. It's not that it's being
projected. I mean, we're alreadyhalfway there. Because this is
(15:48):
already being tested in schoolsin the United Kingdom. It may
not be the most developedcountry by today's standards,
but it was always the mostdeveloped country like for the
centuries before that. I cannotfathom 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 mostrecent news. But we all heard
about this, that the Nestle CEO,in one of the interviews, he
said that water is not a humanright, and water should be
treated as a product, has tohave market value, and has to be
sold to those who have money, ofcourse to buy the water. But
(16:27):
this was kind of shocking to me,because when you think about the
guy who rules Nestle, it has tobe like a happy chocolate guy
who kind of like happy WillyWonka over there. No, that's the
guy who wants to take over thewater from the whole world
population and control theirability to have access to water,
because it's the productapparently he wants to sell to
(16:48):
us. And no wonder when you know,we donate money to help people
in Africa to have access towater, what actually happens to
that they don't do permanentsolution. In many cases, they do
not dig wells in there and don'tprovide the water for free as it
should be. They just supply theplastic bottles of Nestle to
there, so it's a business model.
And it's very sustainable forthem. It's bad for environment,
(17:11):
it doesn't solve anything forthe people. But it's a constant
money flow, which, which issuper beneficial. So of course,
they got on this gravy train,and they not going to hop off it
anytime soon. If of course thepeople not gonna say the word
that it shouldn't be like that.
And that interview got a hugebacklash. And actually, the guy
(17:33):
had to resign after a while. Butthe systematic thing didn't
change. And they kept pushingfor it. And you know, in my, my
perception, it was like, it'snot gonna work. Like how, how
can you limit people's access towater? It's just not gonna
happen. The water is everywhere,like, how would you make someone
pay for the water and they cameup with a solution. I'm starting
(17:56):
reading this articles publishedall over the mainstream media in
the beginning of 2022, like thisyear, and the idea they trying
to push on us. Wow, this is justshocking. So what would be your
guess, Alex? Well, how do youthink how they gonna make us pay
for the water, for the basichuman 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 thebiggest fraud of the 21st
century, the biggest moneymaking scheme and they not
inventing anything new, theyalready 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 thison water. So you know how it
went with CO2. First of all,they did the Kyoto thing, they
were like, we're gonna tax thosewho produce goods, and you know,
these productions that have someCO2 emissions. Exactly the same
(18:55):
thing starts here. We're gonnado this taxation on those who
use water in their production,which of course, eventually
going to lead to the increase ofthe price of the goods which we
regular customers are going tohave to pay for. But not just
that, like, look how it wentfrom CO2. It went from like
factories and big companiesproducing their thing. It went
(19:17):
to the personal responsibilityof each one of us, this idea
that's been pushed upon us thatyou have a personal carbon
footprint, you have to limityour carbon footprint, you have
to offset it. So basically, youhave to pay for it. We know it's
a scam. We know nobody isreducing anything and that
amount of CO2 doesn't matter. Itcannot affect the climate, but
(19:41):
what they do they make a lot ofmoney on it. It became the
biggest, right now at thecurrent moment, it is the
biggest moneymakers scheme, andthey want to do this very same
thing with water. So first, it'sgonna start with factories and
big manufacturers andproductions that gonna have to
pay additional tax on the amountof water they use for the
(20:04):
production of goods. And thenthe next step will be to push
this idea that the water is alimited resource, we shouldn't
just use it, we should pay it.
And whenever you use anythingover there in your house, you
have to check your meter andoffset your usage of water. I
have a question, does MotherEarth get the money? It's like
it reminds me the scheme withreligious organizations that
(20:27):
collected donations from thepeople kind of in the name of
higher powers. But I've beenalways curious, like, how do
they transfer it over there? Dothe higher powers have a bank
account? Same applies to MotherEarth, it doesn't have a bank
account, this money is going togo to the pockets of greedy,
greedy, sneaky people wholobbying these laws that go
(20:48):
against humanity, and they donot solve any problems, they do
not provide any water, they justmake our life more expensive.
And on the edge of the crisis,new economical crisis, which
could be avoided, there are notalks about how to avoid the
crisis, they just leading us toprepare for inevitable and make
it impossible for us to sustainany sort of financial well being
(21:12):
during this period, because theamount of taxes just gonna be
increased much more. So I feelvery sorry that really, really
good people, most of the peopleof our planet, they're being
tricked by these globaltricksters, the desire of the
people to save the planet tocare about the ecology to care
about the environment is beingtwisted and used against the
(21:35):
people. This is a terriblething. And the only way to fight
it is with truth. Common senseand logic here - CS. CS doesn't
only stand for Creative Society,CS also stands for common sense.
And I find it very, very muchresonating. Because it's very
same thing, use your commonsense, use logic, and don't let
(21:55):
anyone to push their ideas onyou. Verify them, do your own
research, like you know, theytry and to blame you for doing
your research. But do it, do itagainst the whole narrative and
make sure that you understandwhere the money goes. Because if
we just tried to trace themoney, it's gonna show us a lot
about what actually happened andwith social narratives for the
(22:19):
good cause. Eat bugs, pay forwater, offset your CO2, live in
a cell, don't own a car, don'town anything, and just give all
your rights and all yourpersonal information to somebody
who apparently knows it betterhow you should live your life.
And that's the narrative that'sbeing pushed on us. The
(22:39):
alternative is to build thissociety in which all people have
the equal amount of power and noone has a power over another
individual. This society, whichprovides everyone with
everything necessary with allthe necessities that could be so
easily covered by using moderntechnologies, even the Sahara
Desert, as we said, can beturned into blooming garden.
(23:00):
This is within ourpossibilities. And all it takes,
it's not decades, it's notlifetimes, it's just a few
years. If we really, really wantit. So the question for our
listeners, do you want it? Writein the comments what do you
want? What kind of society youwant to live in?
Alexey (23:20):
The only thing that is being reduced is the amount of
money on people's bank accountsand people's well being, this is
the only thing that's beingreduced by all the CO2 taxes and
future water taxes. The onlything that we are losing is our
happiness, our lives. When youlook at everything, from the
(23:40):
perspective that everything isfractal, and that everything
just is being copied from oneplace to another, as you said,
why invent something new whenyou have already a working
model, and everyone seems to beso much receptive to these ideas
of saving the planet, reducingyour carbon footprint, your
(24:01):
water footprint, what have you.
I don't think that this issomething that people
appreciate. And we are seeingthe backlash after the article
that was removed from the UnitedNations website. But many people
would say, well, what's next?
Well, okay, so we are againstthis kind of oppression, what
(24:22):
can we do next? But next guy ispretty simple. You can talk
around you, like talk with yourfriends, with your family. And
you will see that no one reallywants to have the same outcome
as the one that we just broughtup today. So if no one wants
this, ask yourself a question.
Why do we keep silentlyaccepting all these things? And
(24:43):
maybe it is because we areaccepting that these things are
being perpetrated over and overagain? Because next, I'm sensing
this, it will be air. We werejoking when we were kids like
oh, you will you will have yourstamps for air. If you look in
the same direction, we havefood, water, the next will be
(25:05):
air. And obviously living space.
I don't know, I'm not excitedabout this kind of future, but
there is another possibility ofliving differently. And it is
within our reach. We don't haveto invent anything, you know, we
don't need any revolutions. Weare the ones who are producing
(25:26):
everything. And accepting justthe idea of... Imagine you are
working at at the Nestle factorythat produces bottled water, or
any sort of food they areproducing. And you are being
told, look, you don't have thepossibility, unfortunately, to
have this water or this food,and it goes somewhere else. But
yeah, there are some cricketsfor you if you want. We washed
(25:49):
the machines and even have thiswater if you want, you can maybe
purify it or something. Guys, ifwe continue accepting all these
things all the time. Just readthe article, read the article by
George Kent, and you willunderstand everything. They are
not even trying to hideanything. It was there for 10
years, 10 years there, peoplecould have a look at it. Okay,
(26:11):
we can understand it wasn't onthe first page. Okay, we got
this. But now that everyoneknows, and it's all over the
news, this is something thatinterests everyone. I think that
this is more important thansomething that's happening in a
court of law between two guysthat are very popular. This is
something that affects the livesof each and every one of us.
(26:32):
This is a unifying point,unifying point to have adequate,
as George Kent wrote, just bythe title, adequate food, water
and living conditions. I thinkit's a great unifying point that
everyone should think about andunite on this point. Uniting on
this point is not only possible,but necessary. Otherwise, well,
(26:54):
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 richman's shampoo than on a poor
man's plate."
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com