I'd start asking questions

In this episode, we started talking about the video message from a Dutch farmer that Jordan Peterson posted on his channel, explaining why this is important to everyone not intending to change their diet based on false pretexts and, most importantly, not looking forward to being reduced along with carbon and nitrogen, cracked some jokes about the Internet Explorer, talked about a phenomenal success of elected officials when judged from the perspective of those who elected them.

Dutch Farmer Speaks
#ThinkBeforeSharing - Stop the spread of conspiracy theories
If my dog got 3 rabies vaccines

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 [e-mail]

Episode Transcript

Taliy (00:00):
Yeah. Nice to hear you after a short break.

Alexey (00:03):
Yeah, I think we have enough material to continue
discussing what else we will notbe able to do. Because we talked
about different food optionsthat we are being gently
accustomed to, at least as anidea for the moment. What got me
interested this time was thisvideo that actually Jordan

(00:26):
Peterson published on hisaccount, one of the Dutch
farmers who are protesting rightnow against the government's
decision to limit their nitrogenemissions. So we've got news,
really from the fields in theliteral sense of the word. And
the guy is actually telling thatthe government tells the farmers

(00:48):
that they need to reducenitrogen emissions, because it's
another greenhouse gas. Nitrogenis not like the CO2. I mean, the
fight against the CO2 startedabout 40 years ago, if I'm not
mistaken, and nitrogen enteredthe scene about 30 years ago.
And what we are being told isthat well, guys, it's all nice

(01:10):
and stuff, but you should becutting on meat, you've probably
heard all this propaganda ofgoing vegan. Well, that didn't
work great. What is reallyfrightening is that farmers in
the Netherlands, they are beingtold that they need to reduce
these emissions, but the onlyway they can do it is by

(01:34):
reducing the herd. So they needto kill the animals, in some
cases, in some regions, up to95%. Can you imagine this? So
people are being basically toldthat they need to stop farming.
Usually farming is somethingthat's passed from father to
son, and these are familybusinesses. And they really know

(01:57):
how to do all these things.
Because farmers in especially inthe Netherlands, they use great
new advances in the field, andthey already reduced a lot their
nitrogen emissions, but nowthey're being told that they
cannot use any innovations, theonly way to reduce the emissions
is how the government tellsthem. And what's interesting is
that how can they pay for theland if they don't own the land,

(02:21):
because sometimes they have amortgage on a piece of land, or
sometimes they lease it. If theyare not producing anything to
sell, they will not be able topay for the land, or they will
not be able to pay the taxes onthe land because government
levies taxes on the land ownersas for the property and who will

(02:42):
buy the land. JP in his JPreacts video to this message
said that, well, you know,there's Bill Gates, who is
already the biggest landowner inthe United States, more than
260,000 acres of land. Andcoincidentally, he is the
investor in one of the fakemeats. Yeah, I don't know. What

(03:05):
do you think about all this? Itseems like we are being pushed
this idea that the only way wecan live is reduce the
population, not only the herd,but the population by eating
each other. Well, we talkedabout this in the previous
episode. Yeah, it really seemsthat they found a great way to

(03:26):
reduce everything, for the sakeof reducing the CO2 or fight the
climate change as they telleveryone that what they're
doing. What are your thoughts onthis?

Taliy (03:40):
Thanks for bringing this up, Alex. You know, the thing
is, when I'm hiring thegovernment, and basically giving
my vote for somebody to make mylife better within the next four
or five years, whatever timethey're going to be in the
office, I'm expecting them tomake my life better. So like
food should become cheaper,better quality, more affordable
everywhere. Farmers should makemore money, the laws should be

(04:03):
easier, everyone should bethriving. That's the expectation
I have. And then I put myselfinto the shoes of this Dutch
farmer who has this governmentthat's basically trying to kill
his business the way out justkill 50% of your livestock and
just get rid of it. Get rid ofyour business 50%, just give it

(04:25):
away. And farmers like how arethey supposed to pay for their
mortgages for their land for thebusiness? At the same time, they
say oh, we have food shortagessupply. So food is gonna go up
because we don't have enoughfood for everyone and you
killing your own food productionbusiness. I don't know how do
you not see this two plus twothat our own governments

(04:46):
creating the crisis of foodshortages and later what they
just gonna resign like thisBoris Johnson did like thing I
say, Oh, this dude failed. Well,show me at least one dude who
did not fail right? Especiallyin the European Parliaments for
past, I don't know, couple ofdecades show me at least one who
did not fail. Well, I know whathe is. He's doing fine in

(05:10):
Hungary. But he has been underso much pressure from all over
the world, simply for keepingHungarian economy, like on a
decent level. It's not falling,it's not going up like crazy,
but it's, it's stable, but hehas been obstructed as a
nationalist, only for keepinghis nation safe and secure. So I

(05:31):
have a question. Like, when wehave this super liberal
governments, like in Netherlandstried to serve, apparently not
the people of Netherlands, butsome international structures
like World Economic Forum andBank, international banking
structures who have differentagenda, their agenda is not to

(05:52):
make people of Netherlandsthrive. Their agenda is
something else. They not tell usexactly what but we kind of see
what kind of things theyorganized like, to me, it's
super weird when the same peopletalk about overpopulation and
reducing population on theEarth. At the same time, they
trying to push something that'sclearly very questionable.

Alexey (06:15):
Speeds up the process, right?

Taliy (06:18):
Exactly! Depopulation at the higher pace. And they openly
say that, but then at the verysame same time, they passing
these laws, which prevent peoplefrom spreading so called
conspiracy theories on theinternet, like literally this
week, United Nations passed thishuge thing, that anyone who's

(06:39):
spreading conspiracy theories onthe platform should be banned.
They will work closely withTwitter who has a good history
of banning people of their anddeplatforming. And I'm like,
hold on a second, what about thefreedom of speech? How come that
you think that people are sostupid that they cannot
distinguish lies from the truth?
Well, to me, it's quite obvious.

(07:02):
If you think your people are notunderstanding something, give
them information and presentthem facts. And people can do
their own conclusions based onholistic facts, you present 100%
of facts. That's the thing.
Conspiracies can exist onlywhere there is lack of
information. It's quite easysolution, no brainer, give
transparency of information,provide the truthful

(07:24):
information, and it's going tobe fine. Like, even if you
messed up with certain policies,you told us the vaccine is gonna
work. We see that people who getthree boosters in one year still
getting COVID, it's obviouslynot working. present us the
facts tell us Yeah, we screwedup here, we screwed up there, we
did this food shortage collapse,because we had some failing

(07:48):
policies on farming. And thisand that we closed too many jobs
at the shipping facilities or atthe food storage facilities,
whatever, yeah, people can messup. But this is not what's being
done. Instead of that, we seethat the power authorities, like
United Nations, the biggestinternational organization, is

(08:10):
trying to shut down freedom ofspeech of people. And that's
quite messed up. Because what'sgonna happen next like first,
they're gonna take away yourfood, they not gonna allow you
to do your personal medicaldecisions, your privacy is taken
away, you're not supposed tohave any property or cars, they
say you don't need a caranymore. Anyway, the gas is

(08:32):
gonna be so expensive, you'reprobably not going to be able to
drive it. And this is best foryou. At the same time. Some
people push it too far on theedge saying that to save
ourselves from the climatechange, we have to start
thinking more radically and moveover borders beyond like this
very limited borders. They saypeople are thinking to narrow

(08:53):
people don't consider extremethings like cannibalism, for
example, to start thinking aboutwhat can we do to prevent the
climate change? And this makesme think like, why would we need
the society like if there is achoice between being destructed
by the climate change and havingsociety where we're gonna eat
each other? Literally, not justfiguratively, as we already do?

(09:14):
Because our society iscannibalistic in the economic
sense we eat each other in theeconomic sense we have first
world countries thriving only onthe account of half of the
population of the world. We have1% of population of the US
having more money in their bankaccounts than more than 50% of
the lower side of the populationof the US economic wise, we

(09:38):
already live in a cannibalisticsociety. In addition to that,
they say let's push it literallyto that thing. And you know, it
was funny to watch funny with ahint of sadness. When in 2014. I
looked up the articles all theway back, they started pushing
this cannibalistic agenda with acouple of articles about how

(09:58):
zombie TV show was popular backthen Walking Dead. And they were
like, Oh yeah, these burgers,that's kind of funny because
it's in that theme. And here andthere. And then this, this whole
cannibalistic thing is comingfrom Sweden, but being backed up
by American media. So theystarted this campaign where
Swedish government starts acampaign "Eat a Swede." They say

(10:20):
"Eat a Swede". Would you eat ahuman to prevent the climate
change? It's an official websitethat drives a lot of attention.
And on the website, they like,oh, no, we don't actually want
you to eat humans. We're justthinking about radical ways to
attract your attention to theproblem of climate change. And
I'm like, Well, okay, why don'tyou just present normal facts
without going like this weirdways to attract attention. But

(10:45):
okay, then we get somescientists against who the
scientists talking on on the airsaying that we actually have to
think more radically and providethis cannibalistic alternative
to regular meat to lower the CO2emissions to have less
livestock. And like reducingpopulation abilities from that.
And he compares it to eatinginsects in Asia. And I'm like,

(11:07):
this is already too far. Thisshould be shut down. But then
New York Times comes out with anarticle that glorifies
cannibalism, it says,it's so popular in the pop
culture. It's like, it's sofancy, let's discuss it. Why is
everyone so fascinated withcannibalism in modern pop
culture? And of course, the NewYork Times eats a lot of shit

(11:27):
from many observers for that,because it's obviously that
should not be in the press,especially from this point of
view. But then after that, wesee another glorification of
cannibalism continues with this"impossible" burgers made with a
flavor of human and it wins theawards in France, and it's like
it's so hype. How have you nottried that? And "impossible"

(11:48):
burgers, coincidentally ownedright "impossible" meat owned by
the very same people who aretalking about reducing
population. So it's like you putthis pieces of puzzle together
and you like it. This is reallystrange. The big coincidence
like, this could be coincidence,but just too many things lined
up in here. And, you know, theysay, okay, but this guy, he's so
smart. He made his money onMicrosoft, how could be, he'd be

(12:12):
doing stupid things? Well, hedid stupid things. Remember that
seed bank he did in Norway, onthe island spent a lot of
millions of dollars to dig thishuge hole where he stored all
the seeds. They were saying thathe's doing this for the weird
purposes, because apparentlyeverything else is a GMO
genetically modified. So theywant to store original seeds

(12:34):
somewhere. I'm like, okay,whatever they doing this for
like Doomsday Seed Bank, that'sall cool. They build it right on
the volcano. That thing is gonnabe literally the first thing
that goes down when the climatechange increases. So it's like,
it was a bad location toactually do this thing. It's not
gonna work. But okay, what's it?

(12:55):
What's he's trying to do? Now?
He compared wearing masks towearing pants. He's like, if you
wear pants, you should wearmask? No, Bill, it's not the
same. It's your face. Face ishow people see each other how
they distinguish they reademotions. It's not the same as
pants. I understand that evenbrilliant people do stupid
ideas. Sometimes they have, butyou don't have to articulate it

(13:16):
out loud. You have to thinkabout it, what kind of thoughts
you're processing. And then Ihad to read a little bit more
about the history of how heactually built his company. Is
it really what's behind it? Andyou know, apparently, his
parents are super rich parents,and they coming from wealth from
big money. And they had thisorders backed up like most of
his stuff, which anyone who usedWindows know how much shitty the

(13:37):
product is that how much you'reconstantly having troubles with
viruses and everything. Viruses,right? Isn't that ironi? But
it's mostly governmental orders.
And up until these days, thisstupid, stupid browser,
Microsoft Internet Explorer isonly being used by the
governmental organizations andsome like governmental banks. So

(14:01):
for people who produce software,it's really a pain in the butt
to constantly verify theirsoftware to make sure it works
not only on Google Chrome andSafari, and possibly Edge but
also that freaking InternetExplorer, which everyone hates.
But because it's governmentalorders, and because Bill still
making money on that thing orwhatever his company, people

(14:22):
have to verify that that workstoo. So only because someone
made a lot of money takingadvantage of the economical
situation, his parents beingable to get him governmental
orders and so on contract,doesn't mean we have to trust
all our lives and everything andall the money all the farmlands
everything to the hands of thisguy. So I totally understand why

(14:43):
people freaking out when theyfind out that this guy just
bought 2100 acres of farmland inNorth Dakota, and did it in
through some shady scheme with,like third party companies
involved in there. This is soweird, like, just the whole
weirdness of this situation itraises questions. So coming back

(15:04):
to thess poor farmers inNetherlands, like what options
do they have? You literallysaying them don't produce meat
anymore. You are bad for theenvironment. Well, excuse me
what people supposed to eat?
Excuse me, if it's thegreenhouse gases, then most of
it is produced by the oceansthat's heating up from the
bottom due to geothermalactivity. You don't even want to

(15:24):
talk about that, like, what'syour agenda, then, if the true
agenda is to reduce population,or to do some other things which
are not disclosed, then itperfectly makes sense. It's
like, you know, they say, Oh,this politician is so silly, we
need the other one, then theother one who was exposing this
stupidness goes into power. Andhe continues doing the very same
thing that the previous guy did.

(15:47):
And everyone's like, Oh, well,all of a sudden, did he get
stupid? No, he just receivedsome information, which you
didn't know, and probably hedidn't know. But that's what it
I don't know the only way out ofthis is truly to think think out
is.
of the box. And this is veryinteresting that in the country
of Netherlands, believe it ornot, they have been studying

(16:07):
limitarianism for more than six,seven years now. And they came
to the conclusion that the onlyway out of this situation where
like, you know, this economicalsystem is not working would be
to limit personal wealth, on theamount between 10 to 20 million
dollars. And this amount forindividual would be more than
enough to thrive. And at thesame time, we could make our

(16:29):
society thrive. At the sametime, all the money above that
would really go to thedevelopment of the technologies,
we would have no food shortages,we could provide universal basic
income to everyone housing, forevery person, like you don't
have to pay for your house orsuch thing as taxation for the
personal housing should not beexisting in any way at all. But

(16:51):
also free medicine, free highquality education, this should
be a basic human need just asfood and water. Applying this
would really eliminatecorruption, eliminate crimes and
give us funds to thrive. This isnot being discussed, instead of
that we trying to limit thefarmers in Netherlands. So it's

(17:11):
better for everyone, includingthose politicians to think about
the ways to create a sustainablesociety not in the green liberal
agenda of sustainability. Thatthing just simply doesn't work.
Having the solar panel on yourroof is not sustainability. Look
it up even LA Times has beenpublishing articles about how

(17:31):
much damage the solar panelsdoing to the environment, and
how much chemicals are gettinginto the grounds of the
wastelands here in Californiafrom those panels. Because the
technology for recycling hasnever been developed. Like, you
know, as Douglas Vogt says, Ifeel like I'm in the mental
house where patients took over.
I think that was a very exactquote about what's going on

(17:53):
today with all this climateagenda with the war agenda with
everything else that's going onwith opressing farmers,
opressing truckers, opressingwhoever is the working class.

Alexey (18:06):
I've come across this video by a French guy. His name
is Etienne Chouard. He said,something that's really, you
know, changed how I see thiswhole thing that we've been
talking about for severalepisodes already, if not the
whole season. He's saying thatit is an error, to think about

(18:30):
politics and politicians, thatthey are incapable, that they
don't have enough power, or theydon't understand. It was as if
they were serving the publicinterest, but for serving the
interests of the population,they're not good. We can confirm
this. We all see this being thecase. But if we change the

(18:52):
perspective at how we'll look atthings, and if we look at these
guys, from the perspective thatthey are serving the interests
of those who made them elected,the 1%, then at this very
moment, it's not at all acatastrophe. We can't even say
that there is a problem, likeeverything goes perfectly.

(19:18):
If we see the Social Security isdestroyed in every country,
unemployment is skyrocketingeverywhere, which allows to have
lower salaries and lowersalaries, they allow for more
profits. So basically,everything is good for those who
paid who lobbied for theirinterests to be implemented at

(19:41):
the legal level. And if you gofurther into all these things,
we see that banks basically theyhad to go bankrupt many times
over again, and their leadersshould be thrown in jail. Well,
they report extraordinaryprofits and the directors, they

(20:01):
receive bonuses like up to abillion, if not more. So if you
look at everything that we'vebeen saying, and we also check
who is controlling thenarrative, the same guys, so why
banks? Why are they buyingeither the whole media outlets
everywhere around the world, orthey're having major stake in

(20:25):
these media outlets? Becausethey're controlling the
narrative. And there was a studythat showed that whoever is
shown the most on TV wins theelection, 10 to 15% of more air
time leads to major leaps interms of voting. Things can
change, we see differentcandidates, we have this idea

(20:46):
that we have many differentparties. But if you look at the
whole trajectory of society, andI'm not talking about any
particular country, we can takeany country and this will be
valid, whoever is elected fromleft from right, Democrats,
Republicans, at the end, theycontinue on the same trajectory.

(21:07):
And the same trajectory is well,fighting with the climate by
reducing the CO2 or the nitrogenemission or whatever. By
reducing what we can eat. Imean, not only what we can eat,
but also reducing the quantitiesbecause there will be famine. So
we already being prepared to eatbugs or each other. And this is

(21:30):
something that's beenpopularized, as you said,
they're saying, Oh, this isreally fancy. Guys, I don't want
even go into details, but don'tthink that they will collect
people who died from naturaldeath. Right? So I will let you
imagine the rest. Just thinkabout it. And they will be even
more disgusted about all theseideas. You know, it's not only

(21:53):
about who wins the elections orwho doesn't. We talked about
this already. The problem isthat somehow we continue
thinking that we will elect thisother person who seems to be
really nice during the electioncampaign, I mean, while they're
campaigning, and then we justlet them do their thing. And we

(22:15):
forget, and then we kind of haveto endure the consequences.
We've been doing this for allour life. And not only us, but
our parents did as well. Socan't we see the pattern that is
repeating? And if it doesn'twork, we clearly see that it
doesn't work? Why are we lettingthe power to someone else and

(22:36):
not willing to do something inorder to change this? And you
touched upon this topic ofUnited Nations being actively
involved in censorship. And thisis quite interesting, because it
can not solve any of theproblems that all of it's almost
100 organizations are sayingthey're working on or fighting

(22:58):
against for 75 years, 76 yearsalready? Yet, they're going to
censor what people can say. Andthis is very, very interesting,
because they were created, theUnited Nations, in order to
prevent wars, same as the Leagueof Nations just before them, and
it was actually dismissed afterthey failed to fulfill their

(23:22):
mission and prevent the SecondWorld War. What is very
interesting is that UnitedNations during all the wars that
happened, since its inception,only expressed dismay or
disapproval against any war,they did not change anything.
Yet. Now, they are activelyinvolved, and they're pushing

(23:45):
people to fight withdisinformation, they are
propagating themselves, justhave a look at IPCC. They are
making fake graphs and say thatthis is what happened. And when
they don't have enough, let'ssay, strength in their message.
They continue as, as he, as youwere telling they continue

(24:06):
refining the data, not the data,but actually redrawing the
graph. They are throwing awaythe data that they don't need,
and they're fighting withdisinformation. Well, will they
be also filing a case againstthemselves? I would really like
to see this. If they are askingpeople to report the cases of

(24:26):
conspiracy theories anddisinformation. We will be
reporting on them because wehave enough data.

Taliy (24:34):
Yeah. And you know, transparency and honesty because
it really doesn't make sensewhen this very same people who
tell us Oh, the ocean level isgoing up so much they buying the
properties on the shoreline.
Like do you guys even believe inwhat you're saying? If you doing
complete opposite and then yousay reduce the CO2 emissions?
But from like simple lookinginto the statistics, we know
that the top 1% of thewealthiest people contribute

(24:57):
more than 50 percent of CO2emissions into the atmosphere.
You cannot blame you can cannotsay it's all China it's all
China producing these thingsbecause you are the ones who own
the factories in China. It's youproducing the stuff you consume
in the stuff you selling thisstuff. But you say oh it's China
producing it doesn't make senseyou guys are not being honest

(25:20):
with literally your very basicbasic things which don't require
much transparency of theinformation just a simple thing
show us where your money at sosimple. And you know that
honestly, like people can putthe plus two on they say,
something's fishy in here whenthe we've been fighting this
COVID for the whole years, andthen everyone's still got COVID

(25:43):
even after three boosters if, ifmy dog got three rabies vaccines
in a year and still got rabies,I'd start asking questions,
guys.