The Globalist Attack on Farmers | Jerm Warfare Weekly Banter

My name is Jim. This is Jim Wolfe, the Battle of Ideas, UK farmers. Now what's

interesting to me is that the South African farmers for a long time have been

under attack and I think the the very primitive approach is that it's racial. I

think it's a lot more complicated than that and I think it is a global or global

list attempt to attack farmers. Are we seeing something similar rolling out in

the UK? Not in the same style but yes the attack on farmers is absolutely

there. I mean as we get into this conversation we can talk about perhaps the

mistakes that farmers are making and because I think I think part of the

problem here is that farmers don't really understand why what's being done

is being done. And it is difficult for people not just farmers but for people in

general to shift their perspective to the to view the state and the

government as being something which is potentially attacking them and their

livelihoods. Okay so just for the purposes of clarity here in South Africa the

whole thing is packaged as racial. It really in my view isn't. I think that is

just the marketing around it as a distraction. Farmer Angus was on my on my

show. He said so himself and he's a farmer and he says a lot of it has to do

with underlying attempts to destabilize the agricultural industry. For

example in South Africa agricultural is one of the centers of our

existence. Now I suspect the UK also has a very very foundational agricultural

sector. Well not really not anymore. I mean well sorry to qualify I think

first of all South Africa and the United Kingdom don't compare at all in this

regard which I'll go on to explain in a minute but but going back if we're to

talk about the position that farmers occupy in terms of their husbandry of the

land but also in their ability to provide food for the people that live in the

country. That as far as the United Kingdom has been concerned that hasn't really

been a thing since well I mean at a stretch the beginning of the 19th century

and even then not 100% now with a fair wind they say statistically that we

produce about half or perhaps slightly over half the food that we consume. That

is gigantic exercise in in Smokin Mirrors I think. If you look at specifically

the commodities because that's really what they are that get imported and

exported barley being a really good example then you get a very distorted

picture and also of course that statistic always includes drink so to say

that just because we can consume beer for example that's produced within the

shores means that that makes us more food secure is again somewhat misleading.

So I think that's that is one part of it that again we can come back to. Another

thing is what the government described as support but is in fact interference and

that's really at the heart of it and that is something that's fundamentally

different between the United Kingdom and South Africa in the government

okay admittedly this is the government playing the corporate hand but nonetheless

it is the government's grip on on the farming sector that has you know it

effectively does do what what it is that we're talking about which is to

absolutely derail everything in the interests of the corporations and to

the detriment of the farmers the land and the people that are forced to make

the choice between food that has been grown or produced in a sort of you know

sensible ethical healthy way which attracts a higher price or to consume highly

processed and or foreign market and I'm not suggesting that everything that

comes in from abroad is the wrong thing of course it's not you know I know

we've talked about this before me and a number of the things that arrive in the

UK clearly we can't produce and and I'm not necessarily suggesting that that

is overall a bad thing but so therefore again that's another comparison I

think worth making that the what South Africa is able to produce compared with

what the United Kingdom is able to produce due to the conditions and again of

course that's not exclusive South Africa being a much bigger landmass and

therefore there are much greater range of climate and

topography and all that kind of thing so there so there are two different things but

yeah I would say that therefore the reason for contextualizing that is the way

in which the attack is made the way the attack manifests it looks different but

ultimately the the end is the same and therefore I think we to a distinction to

make with those that are farming and this is where Angus McIntosh comes into

it is what control do you have over the the final sort of place of your

product but basically are you a slave to either a government or corporation or

not and that in this day and age is the distinction that matters because

that is what will enable you to sink or swim would be the way I think

that I'd look at it all I mean that's kind of where I was hitting with that

when I said a globalist attack on agriculture I mean the

the way I think I think the globalist attack on agriculture is something

additional right so so the government attack on agriculture is making room for

what what globalists are wanting to do so so in the UK a couple of years ago a piece of

legislation was passed whose name escapes me at the moment Charles can help me out with this but

basically it involved the legalization of gene editing in order to produce

different types of products and this could be crops or animal precision breeding precision

breeding act now what the way that this was sold to people was that this was not genetic

modification that this was accelerating what was done by farmers in the past through selective

breeding and so on accelerating that process but that you would end up at the same destination

it would just take a shorter amount of time what they didn't tell people at that time was

while the legislation says that the the final genome should not be modified at the end of the day

that it was absolutely legitimate to insert genetic material from foreign objects into that

process in the in the journey from getting from point A to point B as long as that genetic material

was removed again at the end so what we're doing is not a replication of of what would be perceived

as a natural process of selective breeding and what this is doing is is making room for the big

genetic enterprises that might want to produce large quantities of what are just what would be

described as food in huge sheds that are under artificial light and in controlled AI controlled

robotically managed infrastructure and of course this in order to to to make room for this type

of product on the supermarket shelves they've got to get rid of the traditional farming methods

yeah well I mean that's quite correct I mean you write the government of each country is making

way for this kind of global centralization of agriculture and remember for example inside

Africa agriculture is one of the centers of our existence and if you can destabilize it and create

a sense of perpetual fear within the entire sector you've got a very very

malleable society and as Charles was saying you know when that disappears like in the UK you end up

having to rely on on third parties like imports and then once you have to get to that point you

you become very very dependent and your sovereignty becomes quite compromised

yeah it does yeah I say sovereignty in inverted commas well yeah I know I mean I think sovereignty

is exactly the right point but at every level so the sovereignty really that has been done

away with totally is that of the either the land owner or the tenant the person who's actually

doing the farming and that's why as I said just now where is that food ending up you know what

is driving what are you are you producing food for a local you know largely local market that's

going to pay a fair price for it in a system that benefits sort of every element that it touches

along the way or are you being driven by by by cooperation and the unfortunate reality certainly

in the United Kingdom and I sort of will try to choose my words carefully but but farmers themselves

entered into this situation they weren't they weren't coerced into it they chose it and

yes I appreciate the the conditions were challenging but a lot of this I mean the you know it's

been changing like I just said food security or self-sufficiency or however you want to exactly

term it because they are they are different things I mean effectively the the via trade the

United Kingdom has always been food secure we've had we've had the food so so to

describe food security as being something that means food comes from within is it is a bit

confusing but self-sufficiency so stuff that does come from within that hasn't happened for a long

time but but the point I think that is the most significant is the the period during and immediately

after the Second World War when people were convinced to radically change actually everything they

were doing and at the risk of signing like a broken record this was this was just wholesale change

and you look at the legislation that took place during and immediately after Second World War

concerning not just agriculture but health the National Health Service education all the educational

reforms infrastructure look at the railways forestry I mean absolutely everything mining it was

the perfect opportunity to change everything and in doing so two fundamental differences were

imposed one of which was government control in a manner that it had never ever been able to

exert itself before and and and specifically centralized government control over all of those

things and also and this is the bit that we've already talked about the effectively handing the

the reins of control to corporate entities and and very much specifically where where food was

concerned and though this is why say farmers were not actually forced into this and and the

evidence is right there now because there are plenty although sadly not enough plenty of farmers

certainly in the United Kingdom who are making a go of it with absolutely no involvement with either

government or corporations so it absolutely can be done in in the way that it was but unfortunately

too many people were blindsided by ironically the availability of cheap food from elsewhere and of

course that then became cheap highly processed food from elsewhere and then really not actually

food at all and the the whole thing has been completely subverted to actually the sad reality is

that even you know and again people will bulk at this but a lot of the food sorry a lot of the

produce that is grown within the United Kingdom is actually really not food at all I mean it's

certainly even if it might sort of vaguely constitute food in the in the in the growing stage by the

time it's it is actually harvested or killed or whatever it is it to describe this food is again

very misleading and to qualify that what I mean is for example any cereal which has been finished with

glyphosate it that's not food that is that is toxic there's absolutely toxic and that ends up in

in virtually everything that but people eat the other point that I would like to make which sorry

I'm varying slightly off but just just to just to understand where one should put one's faith

and I've talked I do talk about this quite regularly but it's just quite it's so staggering

every chemical that enters the food chain is supposed to be evaluated by government and everything

has what's called a maximum residue limit so these are these are sort of food safety standards

so every every chemical every food stuff should be analyzed or on this basis and when you go

through the data I mean it is perfectly extraordinary first of all to read the number of chemicals

that are actually involved in the production of what is then called food knowing that all of these

things are of course toxic the number of foodstuffs that have levels that are beyond the maximum

residue limit is quite extraordinary however the one thing I want to talk about is sodium

chlorate sodium chlorate is a band weed killer and was very destructive it is very very very

dangerous to human health and therefore any of it in any food should be considered hazardous and

to be avoided however because sodium chlorate like all these things anything toxic of course just

gets repurposed so rather than being used as a weed killer it's now used to something that's

involved in what's called you know very opaquely as food hygiene so effectively a lot of food

stuffs get sort of washed with it so in actual fact probably the concentration of it is far higher

than it would have been if it were just used as weed killer but because it's involved in what's

called food hygiene which of course is regarded as something of a sacred cow it means that it does

not fall under this under this quality or quantity control so there is no maximum residue limit

for sodium chlorate I mean that is the level of cynicism where the production of fake

ultra-processed non-food is concerned I just think now is such a good example of the way things

have gone and so and and that that strikes right back to the the question at the beginning about

the attack on farmers I mean quite a then you know basically people have been pushed into a

position where that actually really destroying the landscape in the name of producing something

that is that is harmful and it's not just South Africa and the UK I mean it's everywhere the

Netherlands we know that the the Dutch government that doesn't stay so worst yeah I mean I was

getting there I mean the Dutch government openly stated that by 2030 farmers will be redundant

in the Netherlands and they want to remove about 50,000 farmers and are they using the

guys of nitrogen or whatever as the as the mechanism bulgates I think is the largest private landowner

in the US and and that you know he wants to grow bugs and and whatever else you know you're right

the US is the worst so what you said earlier Charles I think brings true that the end justifies

the means each country seems to have a different approach to the same result yeah exactly which is

which is a disaster I mean unfortunately I think you know the problem is that we're having

a conversation now from what is a relatively informed position and I think it's very easy to forget

in this conversation and a lot of the others that we have around these sorts of subjects how little

people know and I'm not just sort of swinging blame about the place how how hard it is to know I mean

when was the last time you saw a mass advertising campaign for something that was healthy rather than

for some ghastly conference yeah I mean whatever it is actually I'm minded of what I've just

finished listening to your interview Jason Christoff germ from from Wednesday you know I love

my love yeah yeah and I love listening to what he has saying his and his specific um identification

of you know particular products particular sort of campaigns and whatnot but I mean that the

absolute case in point you know that everything is about junk there is if there were if there were

any sincerity to the idea that humans should be strong and healthy then I think you might see that

reflected in the advertising campaigns for foods that engender that type of result but but no I

mean every single time yes we might say on the one hour well you know we've done away we don't

we don't advertise cigarettes and alcohol anymore but dot dot dot look at look at all this stuff which

will make you destroy yourself let me add to that when they do advertise healthy stuff healthy

in inverted commas there's a caveat for example if they advertise it's a red peppers right the red

peppers will look beautiful and they'll have they'll have no imperfection so we grow our own

vegetables and my wife brought in some some peppers into the kitchen a couple days ago they looked

very nice but they had marks and all sorts of problems on them which is expected because she uses

nothing other than nutrient dense soil and water and what's supposed to look perfect like in the

in the adverts yeah did you reject them did you do a 10% inspection and then reject all of them

on side because I tell you what I might say I'm joking I choose my battles with my wife

yeah no no no I tell you okay it is a joke based on an anecdote that is quite remarkable but

some years ago I did a degree that had a sort of food um food element to it and as a part of that we

went to a food a Tesco distribution centre down near Bristol and the again I mean I can't imagine

the process has changed very much since this is how it works and I think this is such a good it's

sort of I absolutely enormous great warehouse which has basically sort of goods in and goods out

so you've just got Laurie's turning up one side with you know whatever it is full of bananas

or full of this at the other and then and then people whizzing around on these sort of motorised

forklift things moving things so they'll then go off to a particular store now what happens in

between those two stages is that people who have the quality control people will go round and

they have a little laminated flip book thing and let's say so it's peppers so red peppers they will

go to sort of the enormous great sort of container-sized deposit of red peppers there pull out a couple

of boxes and look at a very small number of those peppers now at no point will they taste them or

test them for nutritional quality but what they will do is they will look at the shape

and the colour of the fruit or the vegetable and on that basis they will either accept or reject

the delivery so if your if for example your peppers that you're describing had been you know

that there'd been several tons of them and there had been blemishes which were

above the limit as set out by this little sort of yeah it means like a child's sort of you know

this is a pepper kind of book I mean it that there's there is nothing sort of intelligent or

scientific about this but this is how they do it so it's so shape and colour and if the criteria

are not met on and let's face it also they didn't go through the whole thing so

luck could have it that for whatever reason they've pulled out a couple of boxes that just have

a slightly higher quantity of of whatever you know they they can't possibly speak for the whole

thing they what they rejected and and in doing so the responsibility for that food is remains

with the the supplier so either you you're forced to come back and collect it and try to find

some other use for it or you have to then pay Tesco to to landfill it and again this speaks

absolutely to the problem now because the you know we say oh well you know the government has

control over all of this they they can sort of make it right well in which case explain why in

order to landfill it was costing at that point this was over 15 years ago but I still remember

it was only it was 48 pounds per ton to landfill and that would be built so you know for basically

Tesco in this instance had absolutely no comeback if they just binned say 10 tons worth of

peppers and those were you know absolutely edible food so of course the question from the

assembled group of postgraduate students was well what the heck I mean you know why it's

seriously why would you waste that what do you not do anything else with it is there is there

really no other avenue and there's kind of you know scraping feet on the floor and lots of

looking down a bit shifty oh well actually you know sometimes sometimes it can go to Bristol Zoo

what because penguins love peppers I mean why would it go to Bristol Zoo it's just insane so that

is the that is the environment in which we are I say we're living you know that and we're then

on the receiving end of whatever might come through that system but I mean that that's how it

works and I think that that is a that is a tale that people need to hear I mean I'd

just say it may be worse still than that but but the point is that the the quality the nutritional

quality of the food and the benefit that it might be given to the land or to the human has nothing

to do with it and people need to understand that I think going back to the attack on farmers

um here in South Africa as you know this this the the the black on white farm attack trope

and it does appear like that on the surface and the media loves to love to ride that I think

what's going on is a bit deeper and a bit more complex for example the government

signed into law the expropriation without compensation act which means that the government can

uh effectively take land without paying for it now to be clear I think this is happening worldwide

this is this is not unique to South Africa um if it were unique to South Africa then the media might

have an argument but they don't because this is just a coincidence then in in that case

it's obvious that this is part in my view of the UN's sustainable agenda sustainable development

goals right one of them is to centralize land right and give it over to state ownership

for the purposes of sustainability for the future or whatever they like to market it as

now going back to the expropriation without compensation act my working theory is that the

government is not merely going to take land I think there'll be a civil war if they do that I think

what they're going to be doing is in line with what the UN wants and as you said earlier the

government is setting it up Mike for exactly that I think what they're going to they're going to

attempt to expropriate tracks of land that are going to connect solar and wind power forms which are

way out of um sort of geographical alignment with the power grid and they need to they need to

obviously attach all those forms to the grid and in order to do that they have to go through a

pile of of geography in order to get that right and I think that is part of it I think that actually

is what's going to play out I don't think it's anything to do with with skin color I think you're

heading on a really important point here right there is a global policy agenda at work and in order to

see uh at that work we've got to take a step back and look at that that level what is the what is

the policy that's that's actually being implemented here and what they will do is they will they will

use whatever mechanisms are available to them at the local level in order to pursue that agenda so

obviously over the last couple of years we've been hearing a lot about white genocide in South

Africa the white farmer is being under attack so South Africa has this risk issue of course they're

going to choose that as the um mechanism by which they achieve their goal they're going to absolutely

choose the low hanging fruit it is absolutely low hanging fruit they will choose people that are

that are willing to go and beat up or kill or uh and otherwise attack uh white farms uh and they

will then generate the headlines for that and they'll put it in the in those terms rather than

describing it as being something about uh the expropriation of land for uh for net zero purposes

because why would they do that that that that that that would be bringing opposition to their

net zero policy so they'll achieve their goal on on two uh counts because they'll divide any

potential opposition between blacks and whites in South Africa and they will uh be able to persuade

global populations this is nothing to do with any kind of globalist policy this is what they do in

every country they choose the the particular um points of of big pain points that that that

cause the most emotional uh engagement from from the general population and they absolutely will

turn the screw on that uh and because people are so emotionally engaged with the with the local

issue and and they're not taking a step back and looking at the global picture they're not able to

see that in fact this is this is part of a game and and then they're getting involved in it and it's

it's uh it is absolutely crucial that people understand that that's the way that this is played

um and as you said they use the weakness all the low hanging fruit of that region

racism really an issue in the Netherlands so they they can't use that one so they use nitrogen

as the as the as the way to get at farmers and agriculture they'll use whatever whatever

is available to them uh and in the UK uh obviously migration is being used as as a major

point of division on so many topics um it's not so much on on farming although there is

the the issue of of uh you know how fruit and vegetables are picked in the UK and whether

migration is is a necessary part of that um but i mean i do charge may have more to say on that but

but you know just just look at the way this the same policy is being rolled out in multiple

countries and and look for the for the the uh sort of justification the the emotional hook that

they get to to to encourage people to accept um the policy at the end of the day and you've got to

look at it in multiple countries and see the same kind of operation going on and then then you can

maybe get a clue as to as to what's actually going on.

I just want to just quickly add to what i was saying just so so that i'm clear

inside Africa these solar and wind farms are being built at scale but they're being built in

parts of the country where there's nothing uh because that's obviously desirable.

Now in order to get the power from those farms to the central grid they've got to go through land

and that's the point i was making just just in case i wasn't there about that.

Yes i mean well the on the expropriation side of it here the the the way in which it's

framed is um well actually like you say on the sustainable development goals it's just the

it's the idea that um what's the idea i mean idea is wrong uh it is the lie that

that climate change and while farming i sort of have a relationship or at least that the

relationship is that that farming causes climate change and therefore um the yeah i mean the change

that started while really back in the 1970s the idea that the environmental completely legitimate

environmental concerns uh largely about farming practices actually using the chemicals that we've

just been talking about um that that has some bearing on or is related to what's being described

as climate change and therefore the answer is for uh the government in particular to step in and

um a certain more control over land and and the weight one of the one of the ways in which this is

done i mean there are several sort of techniques but in terms of what might be described as

expropriation uh natural england is one of the one of the bodies that's uh that is it's a sort of it

describes itself as a kind of arms length body but but actually it's not i mean it's completely

a government body really and they're able to declare among other things what are called

sites of special scientific interest and um that means that they can i mean there's there's no

debates no discussion but what it means is that they can declare somebody's farm to be within

such an area uh and therefore that they are then subject to things that they either must not do

or must do and so whilst it doesn't uh this point sort of necessarily remove the um land from

their ownership there's there's no doubt that it's uh that it's a significant push factor in

in removing people from that land because they're so restricted uh so that that that's sort of

really the way that things are being done here as well as the offering of absurd and clearly

you know ironically unsustainable incentives for all the sorts of schemes that again are supposed

to pursue this end but i mean quite clearly don't there there are no benefit to the environment

but but you know things like biodiversity net gain or exactly like you're saying you know the

constant putting up of um of all these things that completely destroy the countryside

wind turbines solar panels and most alarmingly which i was reporting about a little bit on

Wednesdays news programs the the battery storage things because you know like you say sticking

sticking these things in the middle of nowhere or near where there are people either way you've

got the same problem much more in the united kingdom which is that well you're going to produce

more solar in the summer you're going to produce more wind in the winter sort of by and large

but you're never going to be able to spread the power evenly according to the to the demand

to therefore uh guess what let's put it into batteries and again doesn't you know who cares if

the batteries are going to utterly destroy the environment that we're supposedly saving

through through all of these measures so that that sort of past the other the other part is um

is creating creating the sense that this is you know that all of these things are

are sort of shared shared assets uh so the model there is to bit by bit steal the land off people

and then plug it back to them and either either directly or indirectly directly directly by

actually controlling access to lands that are designated as sort of beauty spaces or national

parks or whatever but yet to take effect because everything is sort of supposedly free or

by the introduction of taxes to to be able to pay for this and this goes right back to what the

now king was saying in 1970 he's you know he he absolutely set the path out then he he spoke

in Wales in 1970 and he said right we're going to make a big thing of this and you're going to have

to pay for it and and this is how this is how it's being done here so um so exactly like you've both

said that there's no um you know that there's no need to introduce anything more complicated than

that there's no need to introduce sort of proxy for race or whatever it's simply predicated on the

oh you know this is a terribly vulnerable thing we don't trust you to look after it we're

going to take control of it you're going to pay and and in doing so you'll lose access to the land

sticking with the environmental thing for a second one of the other really agrees just attacks

on farming that's been taking place in the last 20 years let's say has been over the issue of

of pollution coming off the land into rivers and streams um and uh you know if a farmer is

is fine to have um caused a pollution incident into a river or a stream because he spread

muck on on the ground and then it is reigned and some of that has run off into into a stream

he will be on the receiving end of fines that could very well see him put out a business

well you could say well okay he he caused pollution but actually when we look at the scale of

pollution in Britain's rivers it's not farming that's the major problem here it's the water

companies themselves who are pumping raw human sewage into rivers rivers and other waterways

on a scale that farmer farming has never done um but there's no consequence for the water

companies whatsoever they might get some uh a ticking off from the from off what the water

regulator in the UK they might get a fine which is which represents a half of a millionth of

a percent of their turnover you know a couple a few hundred thousand pounds or something when

they're when they're bringing in billions every year um and and so you know the the disparity

between the way that farming has been um dealt with for the for for water relatively speaking

minor incidents oh you know well a single farm causing a minor incident relative to a major water

corporation causing major incidents not just in the rivers but also a lot right along our coastline

and no consequence for them whatsoever uh I think that the you know the the agenda at work is

pretty clear there I just realized that throughout this conversation we've been talking about

farming and farmers without actually defining what we mean um when I speak about a farmer generally

I'm referring to a commercial farmer um a substance a subsistence farmer obviously doesn't really

fall into that category but I don't think that subsistence farmers are out of the loop I think

they've been targeted also hence the idea of of uh 15 ministries putting people into apartment blocks

that kind of thing and basically removing uh the the ability to grow their own food

yeah I totally agree I mean the as far as a population is concerned it's it the you know the

people who can look after themselves are are absolutely the most threatening to the authorities

and the corporations because they don't need them there's no there's no dependency there they

have everything that they they want and need and and much more dangerously they have their own ideas

so yeah I mean that they're I think um there is absolutely an attack on them of course that

that is a more difficult attack because they are numerous disparate and they have you know small

small holdings of course that to target people who own substantial amounts of land and have

sort of larger business interests is is a much much easier thing to do and that's that's why

the attack specifically has has manifested in the way that it has and that's exactly why um you

know why I go back to the the point about the Second World War and how that how really it was the bigger

you know the bigger landowners that were targeted either through the push for sort of foraging

relationships with uh with corporations rather than with local markets and then for bigger landowners

who might not necessarily only particularly okay but talking UK specific but but in sort of

parts of Wales or Scotland that are harder to farm the introduction of um of subsidy for you

know for for land that was that was having nothing done to it now of course I am absolutely

an advocate for wild spaces remaining wild and I and I I think you know to go back to some

considerable period of time before that which we're referring to I think the greatest disaster

for civilisation in every respect was the agricultural revolution of 10,000 years ago where people

decided that they would seed their self-determination in the in the sort of apparent interests of

collective security and stay in the same place and start growing stuff I mean that that's where

this goes back to in my book so but but there we are we're sort of we're we are where we are um but

but there's still you know people have been in one way or another sort of rendering themselves

vulnerable in in a way exactly like you say in a way that subsistence farmers don't and I think

that that whole thing is so fascinating and again just to to return to what you were talking about

with Jason Christoff the idea this idea sort of inversion of what freedom means what freedom is

you know when when do you like you like you were saying I think you were comparing it with a

word I know he was talking about uh bodily autonomy in a abortion it's not it's not killing an

unborn child it's freedom and and again your point about sort of advertising of um tobacco and

alcohol you know somehow smoking cigarettes can help you to get to the sort of top of a beautiful

mountain and you just light up your gas bar and and they go so yeah I mean and totally odd but

of course no one ever tries to sell you the idea that um that growing your own

uh vegetables or or livestock or whatever is is in some way empowering because it's too much

of a threat it's too it's too difficult and there's a segue uh so you said livestock so right now

as we are speaking there's an apparent outbreak of foot and martyrs these right across

South Africa in fact the president announced a national emergency on TV it's weird how people do

not see the similarity to something that happened six years ago uh what is going on

PCR testing are they running a slaughtered on suspicion policy yes yes uh and so so cattle

across but wait wait wait guess worse cattle across the country are being are being killed uh because

apparently this is a highly contagious deadly disease I read a a daughter point and this guy is

coming on to my show to discuss the actual daughter only 0.2% of all cattle in South Africa um

have the symptoms of what would be described as foot and mouth and even then you can go into a

whole discussion around what actually are those symptoms and how serious are they?

it's basically just a source in the mouth and some issues with the hooves that's really it and

if you leave them they come right off to one or two weeks angus is going to explain this also

next week on my show he's got cattle um and uh but the government is now rolling out

a mass vaccination program which includes MORNA think about where this is going

that you know this happened in the UK in 2001 uh and uh you know this was this is being presented

as being a viral disease um and uh well we know that disinfectant does not kill viruses according to

the mainstream narrative and yet they had people walking through disinfectant soaked mats at ports

and airports across the United Kingdom um this this was the beginning of the this sort of COVID

um mind control operation really in the in the in the modern generation a couple of points here

Neil Ferguson who was the imperial college guy who who developed the models which justified lockdown

and so on um was the same Neil Ferguson that justified the slaughtered on suspicion policy

during the 2001 foot and mouth update uh uh uh outbreak in the in the United Kingdom

um now I don't know enough about the flora and fauna of south africa to answer this question

but the one of the points that was made by the the farmers that we spoke to when we were making the

this lottery on suspicion documentary and if anybody hasn't seen that you need to watch it

uh if you find it on the UK column website if you're in south africa watch it

the the the the thing was that they were busy killing hundreds of thousands of animals burning

them in these massive funeral parts which according to their narrative um the science the science of

around around the thing was undoubtedly helping distribute the virus to other farms but aside from

that they weren't doing anything about all the other clove and hoved animals that were running

around in the wild some deer and so on uh that were potentially uh getting the same illness um nobody

was concerned about those so it was only the domesticated cattle that were being dealt with

in this way and so it was absolutely clear that this was an attack on farming not an attack on

a virus um and it was exactly the same type of operation was done around that as was eventually

done on us all uh during the covid time uh quarantines lockdowns of farms and areas and then one of the

other things that they do and and we can watch out for this in south africa once this thing is over

one of the other things that they would do is that they would compensate a proportion of a community

and not compensate somebody else and this was creating divisions within within communities and

between farmers and farms and so where prior to that you had a sense of community community was

there was definitely an attack on on people on community cases and and the ability for for people

to act in a case a case of way it was quite an incredible operation from start to finish and there's

lessons to be learned on what happened in the uk in 2001 and and um you know people that are

living in south africa now i am going through that need to understand what happened here and maybe

that will uh give them some ammunition to help push back on on what's happening to them or help

them understand what's happening to them anyway listen to this so i mentioned farm angus by the way

i keep saying farm angus because that's how he kind of markets his his name but he's obviously as

you know Charles angus magintosh but listen to this this is on his website farmangus.io.de

he says yeah man destroys the cow's immune system and is then taught that the pharmaceutical

industry will fix the problem he says yeah the basics of cattle husbandry or ensuring a varied

diet of herbivorous plants and moving the animals at least once a day to fresh grazing

depending on where you are farming and your access to water uh it is a minimum of four weeks before

the cattle return to the same field and this breaks the parasite cycle and allows the plants to

recover says the the cow is not a grain of war or a chicken shit of war or an expired chip of

war or a fruit pulp of war it was designed as a herbivore routine antibiotics and asfer drugs

are not in their dietary design either he says we don't live in our toilets yet man as ordained

that most formed animals have to live in theirs is making the point simply fix the environment and

you're not going to have to have these vaccination drives yeah I mean yeah he and he is um he's

absolutely totally right um I'm I'm not uh yeah I mean I think you know that that why why even

that I can see why he has but but you know the reference even to to vaccinations or to any other

input is um you know it's it's absolutely absurd and actually it goes back again this idea of

um an outbreak you know you're a case statistics how and earth are they ever really come by or

two percent I mean no I know but I mean but you know I mean so therefore what it could be zero

it could be so it doesn't really matter the the point is that the the outbreak it is actually

there is not an outbreak of foot and mouth there is an outbreak in suggestion in the suggestion

of foot and mouth and that's what people fall foul of so so the the great the the way to think about

that I would say is in I'm not sure if it really still even happens but in the summer parliamentary

recess in the in the United Kingdom then the newspapers would would enter into what was always

described as silly season and you'd get these absurd reports about whatever it was but that but

but they I would say they absolutely speak to the idea of an outbreak so the moment you had one

newspaper reporting about you know a dangerous dog or that a dog bit something unusual suddenly

there was a there was a flood of oh yeah it's happening there's absolutely happening all the time

all people there was uh I thought sure this is in the newspapers there was there was a sort of trend

um to wear very tight jeans until I think you know a hairdresser somewhere in Essex was caught out

in the rain wearing tight jeans and the jeans um shrank uh because it was it was raining and she

fainted and so suddenly then there was an outbreak of dangerous dangerously tight jeans and this

was all over the newspapers so it's it's exactly the same thing foot and mouth are right yeah okay

well that that that'll be what it is was exactly the same obviously with the um with the idea of

the sort of the covid sniff or suddenly everybody was a was a medical expert and um and yes you know

well the way the you know the the particular symptoms I've got I mean obviously that's that's

covid it's gotta be so it's just an outbreak of people taking leave of their senses and that's how

that's how outbreaks work I would say yeah so well they're largely driven by the media because of

course yeah it's it's potentially even more important to understand what is not reported in the

media as it is to understand what is reported because when something does get reported it will be

presented something which is quite normal which happens all the time that we live with every day

without even noticing it and suddenly somebody shines a light on it in the mainstream press and says

this is a really major problem and then before you know it everybody's noticing this major problem

that they that has just been part of life forever and and suddenly we've got to do something about it

and of course at the end of doing something about it is some further restriction or limitation or

whatever so we you know we are constantly played in this way by by media that they will highlight

something all of a sudden and but it's something that is absolutely normal you know

yeah I think putting this sending a ship through the English channel yeah Russia sends ships

through the English channel every day of the week but we highlight it today and suddenly it's an

issue and something something that's never happened before but actually it happens all the time so

you know we we've got to we've got to be able to recognize that yeah we have just just to return

to what Angus wrote I mean he you know I think he's written that particularly well but isn't it

incredible that people need to have that and well either need to have it spelled out like that

or would fundamentally disagree with it you know they they would say well what are you talking

about you know don't be ridiculous and yet that goes exactly to what Mike's saying with with

foot and mouth here in 2001 which of course is you know where where all the sort of ailing or dead

deer for example I mean there weren't any because they were they were living in those conditions

and therefore they were able to just carry on doing what they were doing I mean I'm not not

I'm not trying to suggest that there was actually a genuine foot and mouth outbreak in 2001

anyway but the point is that exactly like you say if you if you keep an animal in the wrong

conditions exactly like if you keep a human in the wrong conditions that will not be a good health

outcome yeah but I mean ultimately the point that Angus is making is at stop getting worried

this is the same thing as many of us for say in 2020 stop getting worried just carry on in fact

he makes the point further down on on on the page he says yeah he says oh the meat and milk from

these animals is perfectly fine to consume there we go yeah yeah we need to form it and he eats

and he eats same meat so yeah and if they were left alone in a few weeks time they'd be back to

pack to full health in most cases and just just like with COVID if if an animal dies and happens to

have the alleged symptoms of foot and mouth disease you've got to ask what killed that animal because

I guarantee it was some underlying problem that was completely unrelated and because that's exactly

what happened during COVID as well people were you know it's available it's planted on something and

and therefore helps drive the idea that we've got to run this this slaughtered on suspicion policy it's

it's I consider that policy to be one of the most reprehensible things that the governments

do full stop I want to add to that though there's also an underlying assumption that animals

don't get sick this is unbelievably absurd humans get sick it's just part of the normal life cycle

and we don't kill people who get a cold just in the same way not I think we did well I think we

were pretty good at that we okay no we don't but that is exactly what the medical

pharmaceutical industry complex what if you want to call it yes that that is what they're set

up to do and that that unfortunately is what people never realize I mean look at you know I hate to

say it but but look at look at the cancer industry I mean yeah I think there's quite a good reason

that people are the sort of so-called medics are able to predict how long somebody's going to live

and that's because they're setting it against you know the the time that they know it takes for

a particular chemical or other treatment to actually kill somebody yeah I'm sorry is to put it

in those terms sorry Charles go on no no no no I mean that that's it but you know this this idea that

that yes of course you know we don't but but that there is an entire industry based on this and

if you couldn't make money from killing people well there you go what's not to like yeah sorry

what I was going to say is that getting sick is part of the life cycle and you get over it

animals get sick as part of the life cycle they get over it that's ultimately what should be the

case here but it's not and so the so there is this fear porn that is pushed onto us the whole time

and that's what happened I mean we we have animals here that are being that are being isolated

yeah I think also the other thing but I think again another fundamental point which I would like

to put out there is also the way in which we're taught or conditioned to regard what what is either

illness or health and so to go back to foot and mouth you know a problem with the inside of the

mouth or the hoof whatever but but making that distinction between because the way in which a

symptom is described it's it is it is certainly in the mainstream one is never allowed to consider

that that in itself is an expression of the human or animal form healing itself fixing itself

so that so whatever the problem is may not be identifiable until what are described as symptoms

start to manifest and that is indeed the healing process so it stands to reason that it you know

that the recovery has actually begun that is the that is the organism doing what it's supposed to do

but again we're not allowed to think like that it's a total inversion so you know that the inside

of the mouth or that hoof looks sore that's the bit that we'll try to flog you the drug to deal with

to get rid of that all right well we are coming in for a landing and the thread of this

conversation has been the the attack on on farmers of course agriculture and by extension our

food a mass vaccination drive on animals are a can't see as as being healthy for for those

consuming those animals I guess one of the ways to push back to me if you agree is to

not support those actually is that the right thing to do is is the right thing to not support

those farmers no that wouldn't be the right thing to do what what is the right thing to do then

I think there are two elements to it which which could be part of the same thing I mean I would say

if we're talking about supporting farmers then that should be done on a on a direct or as direct

a possible direct as possible level so therefore yeah but you don't want to support hold on child

but you do you do you do you want to support a farmer who's vaccinated his cattle he was forced to

perhaps no okay so so it has to be part of a process of you know evolution but in the first

instance I think the approach directly to farmers in order that they're not then dictated to because

they think specifically that the the the treatment protocols will be dictated back by the

purchaser of if it's livestock they will have a certain number for a certain stage who will

be looked after by a particular person and they will have a schedule that they must comply with

in order for them to go on to the next stage in order for them to be paid so breaking that

cycle and taking a certain percentage of livestock out so that they can go to a local market that you

can deal directly you have some sort of cooperative whatever it is that means that you're already

changing that balance away from the necessity for for drugs because of course the other thing is

that you're not paying for them if you're if that's all part of the package that you're you know

you're growing them for a supermarket whatever it is you you're not paying for the drugs whereas

if you're if you're going outside of that you would be and therefore it becomes a conscious

process and therefore you can have it as a discussion point and you would say that you would like

the meat without such and such a thing in it and you know that that obviously not not suggesting

everyone's going to go along with it but that but I would say that's that's the way to do it because

that you're then taking away power from the corporations because you're not shopping in the places

where they're making their money and also you're not putting further livestock in their hands by

you know the farmer having 100% of what they're dealing with going out to to those end point

so I'd say that in simple terms that's sort of that's the way to do it but I mean ultimately

you know either producing your own food or your food for your family or food for your community

going back to the point about subsistence and how how much of a thorn in the side of

the establishment or all those that currently hold the levers of power how much of a thorn in

their side you are that that's the way to do it ultimately but basically what you're saying

there Charles this is not it's not supporting farmers it's not sufficient to just stick on a

t-shirt that says no farmers no food you've got to actually be supporting them financially as well

by encouraging well that's it and again that is you know it's it's one of the big cons of course

that you slap a union flag on a piece of packaging and it doesn't matter where the foods come from

but people will be given that sense when they go into a supermarket and they see that thing I

I'm I'm buying British that is that you are a million miles off the mark I'm afraid all you're

doing is paying for your end of my eyes well on that very uploading note okay I'll catch up