None. My video that I did was former
Angus since you yourself were a bit of a former regenerative
farming and one of the comments that I received, I think it was
actually in in the UK column forum when someone said this is
not actually scalable. What are what are your thoughts,
Charles? That's, that's an interesting
point. I, I think my first question,
well, what is meant by scalable? Because if people are, if people
are thinking that there's a model that works on a small
scale, but really we need to do it on an industrial scale, then
I would say they're immediately missing the point and completely
on the wrong track. Which is not to say I'm
attacking whoever it is that did ask that, but the point with
what Angus is doing, what anyone's doing, is that it's got
to be situation specific. So his raising of, let's say
cattle, pigs and chickens is going to work for him given the
conditions at Spear where he is. But you're going to be finding
that somewhere else. Those conditions don't present
themselves and therefore you'll have to think differently in
terms of the the specifics. But the principle should be the
same. And I think that's what it's all
about here. It's it's, it's the principle.
And he is demonstrating the, the, the sort of the front end
of it, the first bit, how to achieve the dual benefit of
delivery of improvement to the environment via, as he says, the
enhancing of the soil and in particular carbon and nitrogen
fixing, as well as the improvement of the health of the
livestock that he's got on the ground.
And, and the, the synergy between those two things and how
they, you know, in effect there, that's part of an upward spiral.
The other side of it, which I think people are are yet to
grasp for perfectly understand, understandable reasons are that
once that is converted into produce for human consumption,
you've, you've got two things to deal with.
I think first of all, the, the, the pricing, let's say the
pricing of it and, and people's understanding of how quality and
price relate to one another. Because I think there's people
are put off to a large extent by the idea that they might be
paying more for food, but they're not qualifying what
exactly they're getting from that, which leads into the
second point, which is what Angus would describe as nutrient
density. So ultimately, what it means is
you need a smaller volume of better food.
And I think that's completely reinforced by, let's say, in the
conversations that you've had in recent months.
The two that spring very obviously to mind would be those
with Tim Noakes and Zoe Harkin. And I absolutely challenge
anybody to do this. I don't mean this in a
confrontational way. I mean a really positive way if
if you're considering what your body needs, then there are many
ways in which you can quite simply test this.
And there's no, I don't think there's really any serious doubt
about the value of animal products in the progress of the
human form as we consider it to be today.
And I think the only regression that we are susceptible to is
due to the way in which diet that is not human specific or
human suitable has pervaded our culture and completely knocked
everybody off kilter, both physically and more disturbingly
mentally. And I think when I, when I say
disturbingly, the, the thing, I, I think I've talked about this
before, but whilst it is easy to make a physical appraisal of
whether or not you're in a good condition with, you know, in
relation to say, your peer group or to any other sort of metric
that you choose to evaluate mental capacity in an absolute
sense is very, very difficult thing to do because you don't
know what your brain would have been capable of or is capable of
until you try. So going back to the the
question on the scalability, my answer to that would be yes, it
is absolutely scalable, but it does require that whole chain to
make sense to everybody that's going to be a part of it.
Therefore, Angus's model, which is to put together a system that
delivers those benefits at at source, at on the literally on
the ground, translating through to a better life for the people
that are consuming that and everybody along the way in in
the the sort of business environment has to make sense
and that can be put anywhere. And this I mean, I had talked
well, I think I spoke to Angus, you know, kind of longer
interview. I must have been a year and a
half ago, I think and, and in quite close proximity that spoke
to Julian Rose, who demonstrates absolutely that it can be done
because he's talking about it thousands of miles away and how
he got into this in the 1970s in the United Kingdom.
So so yes, it's totally scalable.
However, if people are saying, well, he's, he's able to do this
on what might be regarded as a relatively small scale and we
need to do it across thousands and thousands or hundreds of
thousands of hectares. Well, that, that, that just
doesn't make sense. The, the you'll, you'll then,
unless you're going to be subdividing all of that, you'll
then strength absolutely straight back into the area of
monoculture and in in intensity. That is what the main big sort
of, you know, big farm, big food industries have been doing now
for, for decades to the detriment of both animals and
humans. And of course the environment as
it should probably be regarded as opposed to the way in which
it's been hijacked by the unfortunate climate alarmists.
So sorry, not a, not a short answer, but I think it is it, it
is something that I, I just consider to be so important
because it, it, it is made to seem more challenging and more
uncertain than I think it should be.
And I think Angus puts it across very, very well.
And, and he's running a business as well.
If it didn't work in a country where there's not the degree of,
you know, well what we have come to call support by way of
subsidy, If that doesn't exist in South Africa, which it
doesn't, then why on earth would he be doing it?
There's a there's a host of issues here, right?
So each of our countries now has huge populations.
So what is it in the UK at the moment?
Sixty, 70 million, some, some are approaching 70 million or
something. And those people have to be fed.
But we, the lifestyle choices that we are being encouraged to
accept, involve entertainment and involve holidays and involve
things that we want to spend our money on.
We have systematically built a farming industry which is so
running on such narrow margins that they are increasingly
intensively farming. It's, as Charles said, producing
a product which is devoid of the nutrients that we actually need.
And so we're having to consume more and therefore we need more
industrialization to provide the the more that we need.
But, but it's also cheaper. So, you know, whether this is
scalable or not is dependent, in my opinion, on whether we're
prepared to pay for it to be scalable because it'll only
scale by having more. Maybe I'm ready to tell me if
I'm wrong here, Charles. But but you know, these, these
are relatively small enterprises.
They're not intensively farmed, they're not industrial.
Therefore we need more people doing them.
So we have replaced the small farmer in the UK and the EU and
in the United States with the industrialised super farms that
that, you know, frankly in the United States they're they're an
order of magnitude bigger than the UK.
But still we have these industrialised super farms in
the UK that, that are just producing rubbish at, at low
cost and going through the supermarkets at low cost.
And therefore we're spending a small proportion of our salaries
on food and that's giving us all kinds of income for other forms
of for forms of entertainment that we couldn't have imagined
100 years ago. This this a theme of the
conversation that we've had German from the beginning has
been the lifestyle choices that we make.
And this this is another one. And, and my personal view is
that, that we should be seeking out the farmers who are prepared
to to operate on the regenerative model or, or a
model that that we believe is producing a higher quality,
higher nutrient dense product, even if that costs significantly
larger proportion of our income than than we might otherwise
like to. And we have to make those, we
have to make those lifestyle choices and decide whether
whether we want to, where we want to put our money.
And and it seems to me that if we if we make the correct
choices, that then we naturally will create a farming base which
which is providing the right kind of product.
Yeah, but I mean, Angus made the point a couple times actually,
which he said, is it actually more expensive because what is
the value of your health? Well, that that that is
absolutely, I completely agree with that, that that is
absolutely a point that I've been trying to make for quite
some time now. You know, if we are, if we're
looking at the world and we're saying that the world is not
functioning the way that we want it to work.
If we're saying that that the people that are running the
show, the corporate interests, the profiteering, if we're
saying that this is not the type of world we want to live in,
then, you know, the choices begin with us and where we are
prepared to put our money. And if we keep putting our money
into those corporations and those corporations are going to
continue to flourish and we're going to end up with worst
quality food. You know, we know the direction
this is going in. They, they, they, the news this
week was that now we're starting to see lab growing salmon.
You know, it's called lab growing.
We, we, we shouldn't call it lab growing because it's not men in
white coats in, in some clean environment.
That's, that's producing this stuff.
It's industrial factory produced, you know, salmon now
and is, is that something that we, we really want to eat or do
we want to eat something which is being, which is being grown
in a, in a natural way? I, I don't think I want to be
eating this artificial stuff. I mean, I have to admit, in the
past, I've, I've seriously given a serious consideration because,
you know, I'm, I would have have, from an ethical point of
view, considered it potentially a better solution than than
killing. But you know, this is on the
other hand, killing is a natural part of life and, and maybe we
shouldn't be afraid of that either.
So, so you know, it, it, it all comes down to our personal
decisions about where we want to put our money.
And and the idea of some Bill Gates inspired lab, so called
lab grown meat substitute is not something that appeals to me.
And I would rather see my money going to the likes of Angus,
even if that means that it is actually going to cost a little
bit more. And you know, I take his point,
it doesn't have to cost the earth.
I'm sure it's going to cost more than an industrialised process
that I'm sure it must do. Is that am I wrong with that
Charles? Well, this is the thing.
It depends how you how you regard it.
What what is enormously in favour of the regenerative model
or anything that's akin to it is that you have either minimal or
no inputs at all. So where orthodox farming is
having to use not. Well, it depends what what sort
of farming you're talking about. But typically if, if there's any
arable activity that will mean the, the constant use of
fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, all that
sort of thing. And that is a, a very
destructive cycle, very obviously destructive cycle.
There's no, there's no debate about that.
Even the people that are doing it realise that they are
degrading the very ground that they're trying to ask to produce
what it is that they want to try to make money from.
I think just just going back to where it's gone wrong in a
business sense is that on the scalability side of it, the only
people that are suited by this model now are the absolutely
gargantuan players who are able to rely on very few staff, on
lots of technology, on some very, very clever bits of
equipment. I, I'm, I'm not in any way
dismissing the incredible development, if that's the right
word of the methods because it's, it's become a, a very
skilled, very, very efficient process, but that doesn't make
it right. However, there's a, there's a
huge BLOB in the middle of farms, particularly in this
country. And I would put it that this is
the case in, in any country where farming subsidy exists, or
indeed where the marketplace is similar to that of the United
Kingdom. There are an awful lot of farms
occupying the middle ground who have been convinced to try to
farm in that way, but they are the wrong size and therefore it
doesn't make sense for them to do it because the margins are
far too tight and it can't be made to work.
Which is why we go back to this subsidy driven absurdity of
people continuing to do the same thing year after year, in many
cases actually getting a return that is lower than the cost of
all the inputs in the 1st place. Which why would anyone do that?
And OK, you might say, well that's because people have got
it, because they realise they've got to feed the nation.
Well that certainly in the United Kingdom that that I'm
afraid is, is, is fast because people, some people, some
farmers might genuinely believe that that is a call that they
are answering. But the evidence does not point
towards that at all. The self sufficiency slash food
security figures don't back that up, not even slightly.
And also if there were still any doubt, you only have to look at
the uptake of the various environmental Land Management
schemes that have specifically encouraged farmers to take land
out of production so that that's a non starter.
But nonetheless, there are an awful lot of people who who are
trying to make a business model work that they are simply not
suited to making work. And to to go back to Angus's
point about cost, yeah, I would completely agree with him that
the cost cost is twofold. First of all, if you don't take
your health and nutrition seriously, although you might
not realise it as it's happening there, there will likely come a
point where your system starts to do stuff that it wouldn't
otherwise do or shouldn't otherwise do.
It's then up to you as to what measures you take to correct
that. But for the vast majority of
people, that means going into a health service, which is only
very likely to make things worse for you.
And of course the other great part of well, the sorry, the
first part of this, this cost is not just the cost to you of the
limitations you're putting on your own life by degrading your
own health, but also the jacking up of the bill for in, in, in
our case, the National Health Service, which already consumes
half a billion pounds every single day, which is, I would
say, absolutely outrageous when one considers what it delivers
in return. And the other side of it, which
which Mike was alluding to is that yes, item by item, it might
seem to be more expensive to buy food that is produced in this
way. But my point is that in actual
fact, when you compare the nutrient, you know what you're
able to absorb in terms of nutrients from that particular
piece of food. My what I would posit is that
actually it is either the same or not even as expensive to feed
yourself in this way, but it just takes a completely
different mindset and indeed way of eating and and the other
rather unpalatable detail. But I'm afraid to say it cannot
be ignored because you only need to stand outside a supermarket
and just watch people come and go.
So statistics are one thing, but just consider the anecdotal
evidence. 2/3 of people, 2/3 of adults in the United Kingdom are
overweight and a third of those are classified as obese.
These these things are all related.
So the so the way in which one undoes all of this and creates a
sound business case for all the people who are wanting to farm
in a manner that I would say is proper because it does do all
the things that we want in terms of benefits to the environment,
animals and human health. All those things could be
changed by that. And yet we're, we're still
clinging to a system, you know, and indeed having having sort of
various food strategies proposed which absolutely only reinforce
the the status quo with a vague nod to things like human health.
So I think there's still there's, there's just a, a
really, really long way to go in terms of understanding.
But of course, the, the industry pressure and the lobbying
capability of those that are in control of this is so great that
to get these sorts of messages out or indeed to allow people
who want to farm regeneratively, certainly in the sort of the,
the, the West of the Northern hemisphere, it's, it's a great
challenge. There'd be a lot of obstacles
put in your path. And we see that now in terms of
policy and legislation in the UK that is deliberately there to
not only thwart people who want to do stuff on a smaller scale,
and whether that's with regard to selling to the public or how
you kill livestock or any of those sorts of things.
And indeed, conversely, of course is is designed absolutely
to support big, big industry. So, so yeah, it's an uphill
struggle, but the but the way to make it work is to make those
approaches to people that are thinking at least about changing
part of their farming operation to do something like.
What Angus is doing and and absolutely what he does in South
Africa can can be replicated in many, many parts of the United
Kingdom. Of course it can.
And it is being done by plenty of people as well.
But again, that doesn't really get get talked about.
Mike, you mentioned earlier something about ethics and even
that is is superior in the regenerative model.
Yeah, I mean, I've, I've had this conversation with myself
about what, what I actually believe what, what is the right
thing? I think having seen, you know,
people like Charles, I mean, I've, I've met a few others that
are, that are farming on this of in this kind of style.
And I've seen the way that their animals are, are treated.
And it's not just about how they're living, it's also about
how they're dying. And, and the fact of the matter
is it's, it is as good as it could be.
And so you know that you've got that ethical question on one
hand it when I was having this conversation with myself, of
course, I was thinking in terms of the industrialised process
once again, which which I just find pretty reprehensible.
And actually you, you, you experience the results of that
anytime you buy supermarket meat, which you can tell that
the animal was stressed whenever it was killed.
It's, it's horrible. And, and it's not something that
I personally want to consume. And so so that that sort of
sparked that sort of sort of internal conversation.
And of course, on the other side of that coin is the fact that
that these beet substitutes that are coming along is the question
of who's producing these. And would I want to ethically
support these kinds of companies?
And of course, the answer to that is a very firm no as well.
I, I'm a meat eater. So I've got to accept that,
that, that is a part of, of my, my diet.
And you know, if, if I found it such an ethical challenge, then
I would obviously have to consider not eating meat
anymore. That's not something I'm, I'm,
that I'm even considering. So I've got to be, I've got to
be willing to accept what the processes that are involved in,
in putting what I need on, on the plate.
And that, that is to my mind, begins with making a decision
about where you source that product in the 1st place.
And if you want to, if you want to consider the ethical issue,
then then you start by, by just by actually considering and, and
working to, to find a supplier that, that is the best that you
can find. And of course that helps with
your own personal health as well.
But you know, this, this, the whole, it's a, it's, it's a
great example of, of the sort of human condition, isn't it?
Because we're so us as consumers, we are so fixated
and, and tied to the supermarket.
And, but at the same time, we might criticise farmers for
being so tied to the industrialised farming methods
that they're, that they're forced to use.
We, we are the, we are the, the demand side of the equation.
And, and that's what we're demanding.
So they're sort of forced to, to supply in that way.
And, and so, you know, this is not the fault of farmers.
It's, it's, it all comes back to us again and the choices that we
make. And so you know this, if we are
facing this, this mad, mad world that we are at the minute, that
it always comes down to that. And we've got to, we've got to
really think about the choices that we're making and make the
right ones. The issue here I believe is, is
fear actually in that that we are all scared to make these the
choice to move in a different direction.
We're scared that maybe we won't be able to afford if we're
consumers making that choice. Farmers are scared to make that
choice because they don't know whether they can actually sell
the product, whether they can make a living doing it.
It's the decisions that we're making are fear based.
And this is something we've also got to recognise and try to set
aside. But I mean, you know, the, the,
the, on the farmer's side, it, it's so easy to criticise, but
you know, anybody that's an arable farmer now is, is farming
intensively. They're trying to produce the
maximum number of tonnes of, of weight, for example, but they're
selling that into a globalised market.
So you know this, they're effectively putting themselves
out of business by doing this because they are this year, the
U KS wheat harvest is going to be well down on previous years
because because of the the weather.
And but, but the price that they're getting per tonne of
their final product is lower than it's ever been because
apparently there's significant supply globally.
And so they're, they're getting paid an amount on a global
market, which means that they're effectively going to make a huge
loss this year. And that is certainly not
sustainable in the, in the traditional sense of the word.
So, you know, we've got to somehow I'm not, I'm not in any
way underestimating how hard this is when we, we've got to
somehow come together and, and generate the demand and the
supply to, to help this, this situation change.
Well, it says Catherine Austin Fitz often says you influence
people one person at a time. Yeah, absolutely, Jeremy, I or
maybe it was extra, I can't remember.
I made the comment that, you know, we we need to be getting
organised and somebody in the chat box said what do you mean
by that? And what you've just said is a
prime example of it. We need to get organised.
We don't need to get organised necessarily into, into these
massive sort of multi million people movements.
We need to get organised in small groups.
And, and you know, if if a small group of people got together
and, and started canvassing local farms and saying, I want
to buy your eggs, I want to buy your chickens, I want to buy
your beef, whatever it happens to be, maybe that would be a
good start. I think even before that, the,
the idea of organisation has to start with oneself and, and if
if you're going to do any of the things that we've been talking
about and that I was talking about at the beginning in terms
of changing, because fundamentally this is, this is
to do with changing lifestyles, changing diet, changing what
you're spending your money on and how.
But in order to make that work, you need to, I, I, sorry, I
don't mean this in a, in a preaching sense, but it, when
one does it, one needs to be organised so that you can be
sure that you have created your budget accordingly, not just in
terms of financial cost, but in terms of how you're going to eat
what and when. And I know that sounds terribly
simplistic, but but I really would suggest we've just been
talking about wheat. This will upset a few people I
dare say, but I don't believe wheat has any part in the human
diet whatsoever and I would apply.
That with. You all grains, I think that
wheat has a wheat of course has a secondary benefit in providing
straw for purposes that are used with farming of of livestock.
But again there are other ways to manage that as well.
So, so ultimately the vast acreage given over to wheat, I
would say should or could at least be doing something else.
But the the point is that it that it's a massive change.
And if as a listener, you are considering all the various
times during the day that you eat wheat and then you think,
right, OK, well, if that's if that's not going to be what I
want to do from now on for all for a host of readers and I, and
this is I'm not, I'm not telling people what to do.
All I'm saying is that my beliefs are based on, first of
all, a lot of research into this and the anthropological side of
it, but also on my own experiences, not just with diets
but also with the use of land and how soil responds to being
treated either in a pastoral or arable sense.
But, but if for the sake of argument, if you are going to
going to do that, you need to work out how on earth life is
going to work. Because it's, it is no small
undertaking changing what you eat and how you shop.
And so in, in being organised rather than immediately running
around the place trying to galvanised other people into,
into action. But actually you have to prove
to yourself that it does work. And, and, and again, I, I
absolutely speak from personal experience that this is, this
has been a process that I have gone through.
It's obviously such a sort of huge transition.
Because I, I have to admit I, for one reason or another, have
never really particularly been into the idea of supermarkets
or, or a lot of the stuff that is on offer that I think frankly
shouldn't be. But but nonetheless, to, to get
to the point where you think that you are happy doing what
you're doing for the reasons stated, either concerning health
or the supporting the businesses that you see as doing benefit to
the environment and, and to animals and all the rest of it.
And, and then you know, and I don't dismiss the ethical
consideration. I mean, my, my view of it in
terms of the taking of life of animals in order to sustain our
existence, I have absolutely no issue with, and I dare say there
will be some people considering that.
That sounds terribly blase, but but we have been conditioned to
to be made to feel that we should consider that as a point
of conscience. Well, why?
Because every time a predator somewhere in a food chain kills
whatever it's killing, it does not get presented with that,
that sort of element of of consideration.
And we don't think anything of it.
So yes, in some senses we should distinguish ourselves as humans,
but but to only to a point. I don't want to get drawn off
totally down that thing, but but the point I'm making is the main
thing is to be thankful for the animals that in effect are there
to be part of our food chain and to make sure that we ensure that
they are looked after in the best possible way during their
lifetime. And for me, there's no conflict
with that resulting in slaughter for human consumption.
What I would absolutely take an issue with is if there is
slaughter that doesn't result in human consumption and the
processing of animal products meets whatever for for other
purposes. But but anyway, I don't
necessarily want to get drawn down that path.
But yeah, so, so in terms of organisation, I think, I think
as with so many things we talk about you before you consider
really where you're going to go with it.
You have to be absolutely rock solid in your own mind and
indeed your own sort of day to day system that that you know
how it's going to work for you before you can start to enthuse
and encourage others. And I think like there's so many
things, if you are setting the example, you're already living
the life, it's much easier for people to then take up that
baton or or mantle, whatever, you know, whatever you call it,
because they can see that you're doing it.
You can see, they can see the benefits that you're getting
from it. They can see the benefits that
you're putting back into your community.
I mean, how hollow all this talk is about sort of community and
local this, that and the other. If people aren't actually going
to do it and they're still talking about it and yet still
traipsing off to the supermarket and, and, and not following it
through, then then what is the point?
And again, I'm not, I, I don't mean to hector anybody, but
seriously, we've got to be consistent.
We, we, we can only rant about the, the sort of the controlling
entities in the corporate this, that and the other to a certain
point. If we are not going to do deal
with the one thing that everybody does every day, which
is to eat. And, and if you're eating in
such a way that is quite clearly propping up that system, then
why are you still doing it would be my question and my, my
challenge. But, but it shouldn't be too
much of a challenge because the, the point I'm trying to make is
that this is really a positive because once you do turn that
situation around, the, the benefits are absolutely
enormous. But.
You know, it's it's exactly. Mike, people are consumers of
dissidence. That's basically what I was
about to, to get onto because, you know, we, we talk about the
UK column talks about what's going on in the world.
We talk about policies, we talk about the results of policies.
And we have an audience which listens to that and consumes
that information and whether everybody, us included, are
saying that this is wrong. But the question is how do we,
how do we deal with that? And, and it's a very common
question. Well, what do I do about it?
And of course everybody's waiting for somebody else to
come along and solve the problem.
But this, this extends what Charles has just said.
If we, if we are looking at the world and saying this isn't how
I wanted to be, then we've got to, I'm going to use the word
resist. And resistance isn't just about
shouting about things. We all, we all do shout about
things. Of course, resistance is about
actually doing something different and, but not just one
thing, it's every aspect. So, you know, if, if we don't
like, if we don't like 5G, then we've got to consider not using
5G. We've got to switch our mobile
phones off, put them in the drawer and forget about them.
If we don't like the farming industry the way that it is at
the moment, we've got to stop consuming that food and choose
something else. If we don't like the way that
our children are being educated, then we've got to consider home
education. No matter what the cost is to
us, we've got to find a way to do it.
And you know, the, the, the, we, we enjoy our lives through the
conveniences which are provided to us by the corporate interests
that we, that we lambast. And we've got a, we've got to
make a choice about whether that means of that is the, that is
the fundamental choice we've got to make.
If we don't like the world that's being built by these
corporate interests and we've got to stop supporting the
corporate, corporate interests, that means a completely
different lifestyle. And that, as Charles has said,
that's not an easy choice to make.
But you know, when somebody says to me what do, what do I do?
That's the answer. You start with yourself and you
show other people. It's not no good talking to
other people about it. You've got to show other people
and people are going to be able to see, as Charles just said,
the effects of the choices that you're making.
You know, even to the, you know, I, I've said this before, even
to the point of just speaking to people as you walk, as you go
out for a walk or whatever, or going out for a walk,
exercising. These types of things are in and
of themselves acts of resistance because we are encouraging
increasingly encouraged to, to, to vegetate in front of ATV
Don't. And, and you know, it's, it's,
it's just choices. That's how, that's how we deal
with this situation. Reject it and and live a
different lifestyle. And I'm not as, as same with
Charles. I'm not telling people anybody
what to do or suggesting that it's an easy thing, but we've
got to, we've got to remove the demand for convenience.
Also, I think people over complicate these things, Mike,
it's not that complicated. Just when you go buy food today,
think about where you are going to buy food.
It's as simple as that. I mean, yes, I know.
I mean, you know, the, the, I'm not, I'm not going to
underestimate how hard it can be to, to find someone who's
willing to, first of all, finding someone who's providing,
who's producing the food of equality that we're talking
about here. Second of all, finding someone
that's doing that and is willing to sell direct to the consumer
and so on. This isn't necessarily the
easiest, but you can go to a. Butcher, sorry, I'm
interrupting, but you can go to a butcher.
So I, I mean, I've done that. That's what I try and do as as
as as a priority. You say that before by meat.
But you say that, but our butcher, our butcher's gone.
Our butcher, our butcher went 18 months ago because he retired
and his kids were not, were not interested in taking right.
So it's not necessarily that simple.
I. Suppose and he.
You know that the the the old style local butcher doesn't
exist in very many cities anymore.
Maybe if you're in a smaller town or a village that you're
much more likely to find that. And maybe that's also part of
the choice of lifestyle is, is where you live.
That is also not an easy thing to change.
None of this is easy, but you know, it's it's I believe that
this all begins with the rejection of the easy and, and,
and considering actually doing things that are hard and it's
hard not. Straight to the narrow.
Yeah, yeah. And it's it, it comes down to to
our personal morality and personal ethics and what what we
are prepared to accept. But I mean, I've done that.
I mean, I've done that. I've tested my own, my own
ethics. I, against my better judgement,
decided to take a tour of an abattoir.
And I actually strongly recommend people do this because
it will, it will severely, severely influence the way you
think about meat that you consume.
Because when you actually see what's going on, it's, it's,
it's amazing how the theatre of the supermarket has adjusted and
has rewired the thinking of the average person.
You don't think about where meat comes from beyond the shelf.
It's not just the supermarket, it's the whole education system.
You know, the kids these days don't even know where milk comes
from. And that's not, that's a cliche,
but we've heard it so many times.
But it's actually not, it's not a false thing to say.
I mean, there are, I know for a fact that there are kids in this
city that go to school, which is no more than a mile from the sea
and they've never seen the sea, right?
So, you know, kids don't know where their food comes from.
It comes out of a packet that comes out of a a container of
some kind. And and that that's but that's
going into a whole other area. You know that that is a whole
other discussion. Yeah, it's all, it's all
marketing. I mean that that's really the
the human fallibility is that when something.
Is there and can be marketed people will take it up so my
point earlier about the state of this well, it's certainly not
exclusive to the United Kingdom, but the state of people's health
in a general sense. And you can look at this
whichever way, but if you just take it on people's appearance
and general sort of levels of fitness which have have
absolutely deteriorated. And you cast your eye back to
photographs from say the 1970s or 80s of sort of, you know,
typically people on the beach because they're, you can see
what condition they're in subsidy largely in kind of
bathing suits. It's not because at that time,
people in the 70s of 80s and 80s had had sort of iron discipline
and they absolutely refused to take on any of the things that
we're talking about. It was just that those things
didn't exist in quite the same way that they do now and they
haven't been marketed. So at that point, people were
consuming all the various things that were being marketed at that
point. And tobacco is the obvious one.
I mean, you know, you're finding photographs from in particular
the 70s and before smoking, of course, is, is completely
prevalent in a way that it's not today because there's another
marketing con, you know, the, the whole vaping thing has gone
on. So, so we are eternally
predisposed to suck up the next trend, whatever that may be.
And it doesn't have to be to do with with food.
I mean, look at only this morning I was listening to a
report that I must say, I really couldn't believe, but there's a
there's now AI mean. Obviously it's non clinical, but
I think it's called it's it's something like AI hypnosis.
But it's, it's basically, it describes people who I know this
sounds perhaps laughable to AUK column audience, but people who
have fallen into a sort of alternative reality where they
believe that AI chat bots that they are talking to are real
people and are actually invested in their well being and the
advancement of their lives. And this young chap from
Scotland was interviewed about some relationship he'd struck up
with whatever chat bot it was after he'd lost a job.
I don't know what the job was, but the point is this thing
encouraged him to the point of him being completely and utterly
convinced that he would be a multi millionaire if only he did
XY and Z. And it wasn't, it wasn't I, I
didn't mean it wasn't a scam. So, you know, put all your money
in this account and, and we'll convert it into whatever it was
to I think it was to do with convincing him that if only he,
you know, he made a series of sort of video documentaries
about himself and wrote a book or something.
The return on that would be in the region of £5,000,000.
So it doesn't really matter what the specifics are.
But the point of it is that that the marketing of AI in this case
is so all pervading that people are really, really struggling to
resist it. And, and indeed, if you are not
sort of cognizant of this or you're not seeing sort of where
the influences are coming from, then I would encourage you to go
and look just as A, to get a frame of reference, go and look
at Elon Musk's Twitter or X account and look at the number
of posts he puts out now about his grok, his XAI Grok thing,
which, which is one of these chat bots.
I don't want to talk about this for too long.
So I find it's incredibly tedious.
But but he, it's, it now has this thing called grok imagine.
I think so. So now we are in a position
where our very imaginations are being marketed away.
So rather than encouraging that brain that stuck in your head to
give you an image of whatever it is you instead are invited to go
on to, I suppose you have to go to Twitter in the 1st place and
ask this thing called grok to, to conjure you a picture or a
video of something that your brain is not going to imagine
for itself. And yet people are doing it.
It it so. So this is this is a marketing
thing and to get to go back to what Angus was saying it it not
only are we fallible or susceptible to marketing, but we
seem to absolutely believe what it is that's being inferred by
the benefit of the marketing in the 1st place.
And his example was free range eggs or free range chicken.
Absolute lie upon lie upon lie. Yes, the idea has been made to
suggest that, you know, that's kind of a chicken per acre.
And they all get books to read and they have a great time and,
and the reality is absolutely not the case.
They. Are.
You are yeah, exactly. Yes.
To imagine what life might be like if they weren't free range,
but they and they have access to the outdoor should they choose
to it. But of course it's set up in
such a way that absolutely they won't be going out.
So, so all, all of these things, everything we talk about is all
marketing. The, the another sort of again
news item keeps coming up now is the closure of banks and how
it's presented in such a way as to be sympathetic to people who
want to use banking services. You know, these poor old people
who can't get to the bank and don't understand anything.
And this that and the other, you know, actually what, what,
what's the, what is the underlying marketing inference?
We're all destined for digital currency and that's it.
Get on with it. So we have to be able to discern
where this marketing stuff is is taking us.
But also how incredibly gullible perhaps is a bit strong, but it
but it but it might be the right word.
How how gullible we are when it comes to marketing.
People really need to evaluate absolutely what it is and look
beyond when something is presented as free range or as
even as regenerative actually, because Therese coffee again, I
mean, what a caricature Therese coffee.
Who was the agriculture minister in the United Kingdom a couple
of years ago who is overweight? Quite considerably.
Well known for smoking cigars? OK, that's fine.
Kenneth Clarke and drag, by the way.
Right. OK, yes, actually that's a
fairpoint anyway. But she was absolutely making a
case for the use of an extremely deadly herbicide, which I've
talked about a lot on the UK column News before glyphosate.
She was making the case that glyphosate was absolutely a
critical part of regenerative farming.
So again, marketing regenerative farming has been completely
captured and the efforts of people like Angus are already
being wilfully subverted in order to further corporate
interest. Because guess what?
You know, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, all those guys are all
into this stuff and labelling it regenerative.
So we have, we do have to be very, very discerning and very
critical about all of this stuff that's presented to us.
Here in South Africa, I think it was Woolworths.
I might have it wrong, but there was some lawsuit that involved
them labelling a whole pile of their products as free range.
But what they had done was that they had trademarked the term
free range, which no longer means free range.
It can mean anything which. Feeds, yeah.
That's exactly what you're talking about, Charles.
Yeah, it is. Yeah.
I mean you, you see it all the
time. You get supermarket brands who,
again, trademark names that have farm in the title.
So you have the idea that you're buying something from a farm,
but actually that's just the name of the business.
Some somebody there, there was again another one, someone did
it with, with sun dried tomatoes and they they got round it by
naming their oven sun dried or something.
I can't remember exactly how it worked, but it but it was that
cynical. It's like, it's like the only
fools and horses Peckham spring water, if anyone remembers that.
But but, but this is it. And, and so you, you do
absolutely have to have to look because the moment you've got
these labels, the floodgates open and everybody comes out and
tries to jump on it. And, and, and so in a way, where
possible, I would say that actually the best thing to do is
to avoid the labels in the 1st place, because by our knowledge,
they are meaningless or, or at best, sort of disingenuous or
maybe at worst. But, but yes, now, I mean, I
every type of chicanery to, to, to, to get this.
And also, let's face it, if we're considering, if we're, if
we're still to consider a tall supermarket, I mean, if, if, if
there's the thought that, well, you know, there, there are
probably some things in the supermarket that that that must
be OK or that must be, you know, sort of ethically sourced or, or
whatever one wants to say. I would, I would say I doubt
that very, very, very much indeed.
Because to make it work, to be able to sell to a supermarket
and operate on that basis, given the margin that you're going to
get on that and not to have cut significant corners in your
business model, I would say is extremely, extremely unlikely to
the point of being not really possible.
But also just to to be producing on a scale that that they can
carry that product. Yeah, precludes any kind of.
Yeah, I think. I think there are some.
I might be out of date, but I think budgeting, which
admittedly is one of the smaller ones, I think budgeting did
attempt to have a process by which they were going to stock
certain products on a local basis.
So, so some of their buyers were going to be able to be supplied
in smaller quantities by businesses that were local to
those particular supermarkets. But the same, the same probably
still applies. But yes, absolutely that's
another thing which takes us back to the start the the this
whole idea of scalability and I suppose I mean Charles.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it but it, it seems that of course
the other thing that we're used to is receiving product, you
know, 365 days a year, strawberries in the winter and
that kind of thing because industrialised growing in other
countries and imports and whatnot.
The other thing we need to do is is to consider what a British
diet should be. Well, that yes.
I mean. That is true, but that that's
that's potentially the start of intensely, I thought and very
long debate because how does one go back to a a particular point
in time where you say, Yep, that that is that those are the foods
that we should be eating? And is it not just as simple as
saying well? That's not available locally at
this time of the year. Well, to an extent, Although,
although. I think the counter to that is
that because because of the way in which horticulture in
particular has has worked over centuries, the what?
Well, what has now become effectively genetic
modification, but was more conventional hybridization and
selective breeding has meant that a vast number of species of
crops, cereals, but also fruits and vegetables are not in fact
in any way naturally occurring. So I think it's easy to think,
oh, wow, you know, strawberries, for example, which which you do
get wild strawberries. But but let's say strawberries
are in season now or apples or pears or whatever it is are in
season. But in that fact, when you look
at the composition of those particular fruits or, or
whatever they may be, they've been selectively bred in order
that they have a higher say a higher fructose content or, or
something that actually in terms of 1's body's response to it.
And in particular the creation of insulin are probably going to
be more harmful than anyone would ever consider.
But that's, that tends to be a hurdle that we leap over
blindfold because you just look at an apple tree and you think,
well, I mean, you know, that's an apple tree.
It can't be anything wrong with that.
You know, it isn't anyone's been tipping fertiliser all over it
or any of that kind of thing. So it's got to be fine.
But I, I think in actual fact, that's probably not the case.
OK, You could take that on to, to livestock as well, because of
course there's been a huge amount of selective breeding
there too. And in particular, the results
of protein in milk, whether A1 or A2.
And, and if all of this is sounding like gobbledygook, then
I would refer back to an interview I recorded with John
Cook, who's a dairy farmer, Royal Milk dairy farmer.
The the title of the interview is, is Raw Truth.
And, and John actually going back to the organisation thing,
John has a fascinating life story because he changed the
diet of his cattle at the same time as changing his own diet
completely radically so. So the the process of, of
getting organised and indeed the multiplier effect from that,
John is a phenomenal example because he's, he's been through
himself, he's put his cattle through it.
The benefits are absolutely undeniable and his business has
thrived as a result. So I, I really would encourage
people to go and listen to that, that, that interview.
I mean, obviously, as well as if anyone hasn't listened to Germ
talking to Angus Macintosh just recently, or indeed Angus's
earlier UK column interview, which again, I think was called
from the ground up, then then do because that's just a wealth of
information from people who not just know their stuff, but has
actually done their stuff. And, and I think that's that
those are great places to start. I wanted to punch the wall.
When I read some of the comments underneath that interview you
did with Angus what year and a half ago, whenever it was, and
it made me realise that there has been such a great
psychological operation imposed on the average thinker that they
struggle to get past terminology and labels.
So the term sustainable has been utterly hijacked.
So when Angus talks about sustainable farming, people
suddenly get all dismissive and they get funny about this
because I think of the UN and oh, he's a grifter, he's a Shoal
and all this kind of stuff. And that that's why when I used
the word sustainable. Earlier I said in the
traditional sense of the world, but word, because that that that
word. This comes right back to, to, to
Charles's marketing point. That word has been trademarked
effectively, it's sustainable doesn't mean sustaining
something anymore. It, it means Agenda 2030.
And, and so, and people are susceptible to this marketing
and, and that applies to the, to people that are considering
themselves, you know, in opposition to, to, to that
particular policy agenda. We have in the broadest sense,
the word, we have fallen for the same marketing campaign.
And so anytime we see that word being used, we suddenly decide
that that it's the person is a shell or they're shelling for
Agenda 2030. It's not the case.
Sustainable has a word, a meaning in English.
And, and we need to start reclaiming these words and not
being afraid to use these words in their traditional sense.
And yeah, I mean, people need to, that's one of the things
that that we all need to do in order to resist this thing is to
not immediately jump to conclusions just because a
particular word is used. It it's it's like it's real
Beavis and Butthead sort of stuff.
And, and we need to, we need to stop that.
I totally agree. Yeah.
Again, that's that's all about mental attitude, mindset, all
that stuff. You, you have to, you, you have
to own that. You have to own that yourself.
And, and, oh, we've probably mentioned it before, but why
not, let's go again. The, the rainbow, the, the, the
NHS doesn't own the rainbow, nor do the, nor do the pride people.
They don't own the flipping rainbow.
That, that is God's creation and we are privileged to see it
naturally occurring in the sky to great dramatic effect when
the conditions are right. That's a rainbow.
So any of this, the nonsense that that is meant to market a
particular idea is, is secondary.
So yes, I think we must try, or at least we must I, I would
encourage people to try to be less, less responsive to, to
again, what is exactly like Mike describes, you know, it is
another marketing exercise. We're supposed to conjure a
particular idea of, of something when, when we hear the word
sustainable. But, but frankly, we should
think about these things in their, you know, in their real
terms. So I think it's very important.
I'm going to focus on health. And I'm going to go on a
comments section. Diet, I think I'll tell you, you
get caught up in that, in that it's not a rabbit hole.
What is it? It's just it's just like this
black hole. It just sucks you in sometimes.
Sometimes it can be and and. It is a trap and you know, but
this is, this is another area where where we need to resist.
We need to resist the urge to post negative comments to each
other and wind each other up and so on.
This it, it takes us into a bad psychological place.
There's, there's a lot of, a lot of negativity and in comments
sections everywhere. And you know, but comments
sections could equally be used to help people get organised.
It's a choice again. All right.
Well, I think that's a great note to come in for a landing my
controls as always, it's been a pleasure.
I'll catch up with you guys next week.