The Highwire with Del Bigtree - FIAT FOOD WITH MATTHEW LYSIAK

Episode Date: November 18, 2024

Former investigative reporter, Matthew Lysiak, gives his unique perspective on how the US food supply changed in 1971 when the dollar changed to fiat currency. Hear what organizations were responsible for the 55 year gaslighting campaign to shift the American diet from healthy meats to grains and sugar to keep food prices low, which led to unmeasurable health problems in the entire population.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

By watching the news, you would get the impression that, like, nobody is eating whole food. I mean, it seems like everyone in the world just wants to pack as much of this into their face as they can. I'm boozy. I'm like $7.00 boogie. The all-new $7-dollar deal-lovers menu at Pizza Hut. Out for some lazy. You face a test. Which tasty chip will be the best Five dollar meal deal at McDonald's Here's one, two, three, four

And the price makes five Want it time, One it's an epic R double E Nothing beats the perfect combination of tasty peanut butter and chocolate flavor Datoring, is it in you? Mama, mommers

Tofeed! Everyone gets to customize their Munchy meal but I'm giving you your very own. Field you all much you mean. The DQ summer blizzard menu was only here for a few more weeks with seven great flavors like new sourpatch kids. My dominoes makes a match unboxing starts now. Well, I mean, that looked like a bunch of crappy food commercials. But what if I told you that that's not food, it's actually maybe could be considered a currency.

That is what is sort of a fascinating perspective. in this new book, Fiat Food by Matthew Lechek. And I am honored and pleasure to be joined by him now. Thanks for coming in. Thanks, man. The pleasure is mine. And that is a hilarious way of framing it. Potentially misleading, but, you know.

Potentially not. What's sort of the truth than people might imagine. Yeah. Definitely. Yeah. So it's, I mean, this is such a unique. We've been talking a lot about food on our show. there's this whole Make America Healthy Again movement that's sort of sweeping the country.

Cali means, Casey means, you know, all these people now talking about, you know, the food supply, all of this, you know, the seed oils and the colorings and the food additives. But this had a totally different perspective and a very unique one. So just to start to set the stage, you call it Fiat food. So why don't we start with the definition of Fiat currency, which is sort of how this comparator works? What is that? What is a Fiat currency? So Fiat means by decree.

Okay. And a Fiat currency is a currency that is not attached to anything. In America, our dollars used to simply be redemption notes for gold or silver, if you go further back. In 1971, that changed and that shifted. And what we have now is a fiat currency where it's by decree. So when the government says print more dollars, more dollars are printed. And what happens as a result, as our audience, I'm sure, has experienced is the purchasing power of the dollar in time reduces. And we call that inflation.

That's what we're witnessing. So in some ways we can sort of call fiat like a paper, as we know is like a paper. currency, but even more so it used to be attached to gold. This is worth some weight of gold or represents a weight in gold. And one of the interesting points that you make very early on is that a fiat currency in many ways allows a government or whoever puts it out to have a hidden tax. Whereas you'd like to, if it was gold, the king would go, and you're going to have to give me some of that gold to tax them for a war or for anything. This way you hand them a currency, and they don't know that you're really just making more of it, which is devaluing it in some ways funding things that you're not thinking

about, right? Is that inaccurate? That's accurate. In the fiat money printer, the government of America has what I don't think would be hyperbolic to call the most powerful weapon in the history of the world, because since the Bretton Woods Agreement, which was an agreement we made where the rest of the world adhered to the dollar, and America was supposed to redeem those dollars for $35 per ounce of gold, it's been able to weaponize not just the work and effort of the American people, but the whole world.

Because under Fiat, you might have a $10 bill in your pocket, but you don't actually only, you don't actually own that $10 bill. Ownership of your money is more of a slogan because there's a third party who's unelected who can print as much of that currency as they want. And I think a lot of people are starting to understand this now. I would say only in this, you know, last few years is inflation. So I didn't really understand it.

But it is starting to, it's so pain. When something hurts as bad as the current inflation situation does, whether you were deciding you wanted to move. or, you know, or just buying groceries. We're now like, wait, wait a minute, what's going on? I literally was in the grocery store yesterday. Of course, I shop for organic, but a carton of eggs was $9. And, you know, I think, what was the other thing I saw?

And that blew me away. Butter. We got a thing of butter, and it was like $8. And I just, I hadn't been paying attention lately. And I just said, honey, how long is it, how have we been paying these? this amount, it's like outrageous. But take me through Nixon's decision, right? It's Nixon who takes us off of the gold standard, the gold-back dollar.

Why did he do it? So go back to 1971. Okay. We're mired in a war in Vietnam, and we've also began perpetuating a bit of a fraud. We have been issuing out more paper redempties. notes for gold, then gold we had in our treasury. And this led to Nixon having to face a really tough decision. Now, Nixon's a bad guy in this story, but he's not the only one.

He's, in terms of this decision, Lyndon Johnson played a role in the prior presidents as well, where we're spending money that we don't have because at the time, our dollars are backed by gold. So all we would have taken in 1971 was for a few different form of countries. at the same time to try to redeem their dollars for gold, to expose this as a fraud. Okay. So on August 15th, 1971, Nixon gave a prime time speech

where he delivered what became known as the Nixon shock. He declared that the promissory notes that these countries were holding, the gold that we promised in our treasury, was no longer theirs. It was just going to be paper. I have directed Secretary Connolly to suspend temporarily, spend temporarily the convertibility of the dollar into gold or other reserve assets, we will press for the necessary reforms to set up an urgently needed new international monetary

system. This was a huge sea shift that I would say has, there's, you open the show by talking about, there's been a lot of conversation about the food supply and why it's altered. And I am, the work that a lot of these people, people are doing is excellent work, but I feel like they are the doctor who's treating the symptom largely. Right. And to get to the core of the problem, it isn't just corporate greed and capture of government. What really facilitated this was that because corporate greed existed pre-1971.

Sure. Yet we still ate about 155 pounds of red meat a year. But what you find after Fiat is this shift, whereas governments are fine with corruption. We still vote them in office. They can have perpetual war. We keep voting them in. But when food prices rise too high, it leads to government instability. And governments are extremely sensitive and aware of this.

Talk about Sri Lanka in 2022, where the price of animal-based products went up too high, and people rioted. the government had to flee the palace. I mean, I also saw that wasn't at the same time they had changed their farming practices. They were trying to get them to use less nitrogen and all of this. They just got crushed by a lot of sort of world economic form, world, you know, globalist pushes for greener, whatever. I mean, so Sri Lanka just sort of erupted in none of makes any sense. It was a perfect storm.

Yeah. to cause to rise in the cost of living. And what you find is over time, and I chronicle this, because it's a really way out there theory when you verbalize it, but it hits hard when you understand all the levers of power and how the incentives have shifted. What you find is that they've, instead of coming clean to the American people and saying, look, your food's going to go up and price a lot,

they shifted the food supply. So whereas in 1970, people were eating, red meat for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, it became prohibited for politicians and those in power to allow the current situation in terms of red meat to persist because it revealed the true consequences of the degradation of our currency. So, for instance, if you're eating nothing but cereal, you don't really notice monetary inflation. Right. But if you're eating red meat, you mentioned eggs, anything that you can't just print, like you can, these plant products and matter to do some, you notice. And over the past

55 years, what's happened is the nutrients, well, food has become cheap. Food is still relatively cheap, but the nutrients we need to thrive have become cost prohibitive. And red meat is increasingly becoming a food of the upper classes. I mean, it's super fascinating. Let me just, let me just make sure I got this right, because this is what I think makes your book so unique. And by the way, it's sort of the subheading, why inflation destroyed our health and how Bitcoin fixes it. But inflation destroyed our health, you make a great point. So you start printing dollars, which means now you're going to just print whatever you want,

whatever you need. We were in Vietnam War. But as you print the money, the value of it goes down. The problem was people were going to see the value in things like their everyday cost. You point out, I only buy a house every so long or furniture, but food, the housewife is in the market three times a week. So she's noticing, you know, I mean, not to make it sexist or any way, but we're talking in 1970s. This is who's doing the shopping. Mom's in their shopping three times a week.

And wait a minute. But the hard asset that didn't move in many ways was beef, you know, eggs, chicken, these things stayed. So as they just got more and more expensive. And you know, as you pointed out, we've had food panics of the crisis breadlines in Russia or whatever. This idea of not being able to feed your people or them not being able to afford their food is where you really start having, you can just have a calamity. You can have the nation just go into absolute craziness. So is what you're saying is at the moment that started happening, somebody says, hold on a second. We need a food supply that we can control.

that moves with the currency where people don't see it. If we shift the, I mean, this is what's so fascinating because Casey means Cali means that at some point we shifted to bread being the base of the food pyramid. Why did that happen? They put it towards greed. Be like, no, no, no, here's what's happened. Bread, we can always stretch out.

We can put more food at it. We can cereals, and it's cheaper to create. So we can fill people with bread and they won't notice that they can. can't afford to eat. If we keep them on steaks and meat and chicken and eggs, they're going to realize they're poor. And so they put all the energy behind. It's actually healthier for you to eat more bread, more sugar, more of this stretched out added food supply so that we would not be aware that our food was being inflated. Is that the basic concept? No, you totally got it.

And it's evidence out. I mean, it's a fascinating concept. It's, it is. And I, As evidence, I'll point to the fact that pre-1970, corporations were still trying to make a profit, right? Like, they were still pushing all this. So you have these two levers, these two major levers at play pre-1970 trying to change our food supply. One of them was the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which is highly influential in the field of nutrition. And a little background on the church, it was started by somebody named Ellen White. Okay. in the early 1900s, late 1800s,

and she got hit in the head with a rock, and she believed when she came out of a coma that God was giving her messages that basically anything to do with health or ill health came from carnal desires, which were caused by meat. So this movement began to blossom, including John Harvey Kellogg, who was hired by her to create a food to replace meat for breakfast.

And the whole reasoning behind this, as the same with the gram cracker, was to purify the soul so that young men wouldn't have carnal desires and would be able to be ready for Christ to return. They became, John Harvey Kellogg was followed by somebody named Liana Cooper, who started the American Dietetic Association, which in time became the formalized arm, of government. Also during this pre-1970, you had corporations who make far more profit on plant-based products than they do on meat. Because as we said, you can't just, you can't mass produce meat

at scale. You talk to a rancher. It's very time intensive. Yeah. But still, these two factors at play, 1970, Americans are still eating meat for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. What happened in 1971 when the currency was debased was Fiat tilted this table and shifted their resources to fund a lot of the nutrition science through the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Lowell Indian University in California gets around $150 million in grants printed from Fiat. What you also had at the same time was Nixon hiring somebody named Earl Butts, to run the Department of Agriculture. And his job was to consolidate the food supply.

So he began putting bazillions, hundreds of millions of dollars into subsidies for corn, soy, and sugar. That's why if you go to Mexico, you can still get cane sugar in your Coke. Here, we put corn on our pancakes. Corns on everything into form of fructose. And they also talked about how they saw in mouse studies. You could fatten up a mouse better with the same calories of, corn syrup as you could with

than you did with sugar. So, right. It's, it's been completely detrimental to our health. So what happened when Fiat shifted it was it put all this momentum on the side of these anti-meat groups.

Later, the Seventh-day Adventist Church would sort of merge with the environmental group. And you can look at the consequences. Just go to any Walmart and American, look in line. Look at, look at our neighbors. our brothers and sisters and people are sick. And it's a complete result of this distortion

because we've distorted our food to compensate and obfuscate the monetary degradation conducted by authorities. And it's, it's, I appreciate you having me on because I think most people don't understand the core of the problem. They realize that something's wrong with the food supply. And they realize that,

because at this point it's obvious. right? But the core comes down to the money. Well, I mean, I think it's even core, yes, money, but why is getting to be this less and less tangible kind of like, why? Like, sure, money, but then why would all these people that aren't like politicians? I mean, I think that's what's interesting is why is the government involved with it? Like, how much money does the government need from it? But before we get too far down there, I want to sort of stay because there's a fact to what I did not know. know, as you said, the sort of carnal desire, you know, you've got Seventh-day Adventist,

but the Graham Cracker, which is designed by, it's designed by what was his name? Graham. So Graham is a part of this. He wants to solve the carnal desire for self-pleasureing, and his answer was this wafer that would calm people down called the Graham Cracker. Yeah, Kellogg's Corn Flakes and the Graham Cracker were designed as, anti-masterbutorial drugs and we're feeding it to our children.

And we're like, and we're wondering why the birth rates are going down. I mean, it's... So you think it works? Do you think it actually works? Oh, of course. Of course. Meat has been associated with lust and carnal desires. There were, Romans wouldn't go to war sometimes until their soldiers had enough meat. Fertility and meat have been intertwined. And it's interesting because we're starting to understand more the For men, testosterone and meat, there's a huge connection. Testosterone's dropping as is meat consumption.

I don't think that's a coincidence. I think there's definitely other factors. You hear Robert Kennedy discuss a lot of these in detail, and he's very knowledgeable, and I believe he's very well researched. But, of course, they were ahead of their time. And I would argue that John Harvey Kellogg has largely been vindicated. I mean, he after he left Kellogg's and stopped making sense, We actually became a eugenicist, which is in the same wheelhouse of trying to repress human reproduction.

Your book is some things we've covered Fabian society, you know, all of these goals for eugenicists throughout time. It's really very interesting. And one other factor I want to mention is that you go back to 1970 when Nixon did this. There was a book called The Population Bomb. Yep. Written by Paul Ehrlich, who I think, I would regard as one of the dumbest men who's ever lived in the sense that every prediction he made has proven to be demonstrably false. But at the time, this was required reading in all academia, this highbrow book, which posited that we needed to shift to also diet for a healthy planet was another one. They posited that we had to shift to a less meat intensive diet.

because meat consumed too many resources, and we're all going to end up eating each other. So he had all these predictions that by 1986, the population would grow to such an extent, and because we ate too much meat. So there's been these random justifications throughout time why we shouldn't eat meat, but they're more religion than science.

And when your audience is probably right now thinking, but I've seen all these articles about these studies. the majority of these studies done that say that meat is not good for you, when you peel the curtain back, you understand that they're observational studies, meaning they can't have causal relationship, they can't establish a causal relationship, just an association.

And many of them, the vast majority of them, are conducted by Global Indian University, which is run by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. So I would ask your audience to really regard a lot of these studies as marketing. Because that's really what it is, as is the dietary food guidelines,

which are run by, you know, the USDA is heavily financed by a lot of the same corporations who profit most from a cheaper food supply. Coca-Cola and the Biscoe, all these American Heart Association being funded by, you know... I mean, you have the 1980 food guidelines

which told us eat less meat, eat more green, And then American Heart Association had a, they said, well, maybe eat more jelly beans and sugar. That's good. Gumdrops are good. And then you had the 1992 food guidelines. I'm not sure how old are you are. You look pretty young.

I'm not going to remember that. Yeah. Well, actually, just barely. Just barely. So they're telling us to eat at that point, eight to 11 servings of grains a day, which is a recipe for metabolic dysfunction. Right. And I caution people to say, oh, these are just government guidelines.

They don't affect me. Well, the government guidelines become instituted as law for every single public school in America. So by the time I came out of public school, I was already metabolically compromised. I had had huge amounts of grains, sugar. Eisenhower put whole milk into the public school, and that was replaced. It became outlawed. It's against the law to serve whole milk. Nobody liked little fat milk because it's disgusting and tasteless.

So they infused it with strawberry and sugar, which is full of sugar. Right. I mean, it's such a trap that got established that it's hard for people to see outside of it at this point. You know, one of my questions in reading, because, you know, it's hard to tell whether it's a cause and effect that it's just the fiat currency comes in and then you've, you know, you've got to control the food supply so you don't have, you know, riots in the streets. Is that what's happening? or is it a similar, you know, control of the population, as you said, depopulation. But here's my question. One of the things that we, you know, I have a legal team that sues the government all the time

for not being transparent about safety studies and trials. And what my audience is getting really used to is for being lied to all the time. And for some reason, there's this real revolving door between corporate, interests and the regulatory agencies that are supposed to be protecting us are supposed to be doing these studies. And we can't really put our finger on why. I mean, a lot of my works in the vaccine space, you can get that if they ever do a study that shows anybody is getting injured, you know, injured, even if it's a tiny group of people, they'll be a panic and they're just afraid everyone will stop vaccinating. So that seems to be a motivation. But with food, you know,

one of the things that I wondered is, is the reason we are, our regulatory agents, are approving so many chemicals, so many dyes, so many pesticides, and herbicides, and the things that we're, you know, that our nations being told, we have to do it this way in order to produce enough food. And so it's not doing the proper safety studies. Is it because, in many ways, our dollars is not backed by gold is backed by, in some ways, American confidence, but in, you know, our strength as an economic force. So if suddenly Suddenly, the FDA says, actually, you know, all the Kellogg's cereal or Nabisco, this stuff's killing you, and suddenly the stock drops on that.

Or Nabisco's, you know, control over food supplies and other countries could come down. Is our currency, I guess this is my question, is our currency, the way we protect our currency, since it's backed by what we create, is our government covering up for the fact that we have a a substandard product so that it holds on to its value. Does that make sense? It does. It's an interesting question. I'm a conventional, I used to be, before I became a heretic.

I used to be a mainstream journalist, you know, appeared on Fox and MSNBC and all these shows and did a lot of mainstream journalism work. And when I jumped onto this topic and saw what amounted to a 55-year gaslighting campaign, I wanted to write a book that was linear because, You have a background in journalism. You begin with the beginning, right? What was difficult was that it's also incestuous. So trying to write about where corporate influence begins and ends.

I'll give your audience an example. In January of 2023, the Tufts Food Compass came out. Tufts Food Compass is the number one leading group of nutrition experts and their advice in the country. And January of 2020, they came out with their Tufts Food Compass and it ranked foods in order of what was healthiest

and what should be avoided. 55 cereals made that list and ranked ahead of red meats. The federal government vigorously defended this. Vigorously defended the Tuft's food compass.

Same month, same month, Dell, January of 2020, 60 Minutes airs a news segment. And in it, they have a doctor named Dr. Fatima Stanford, who shows up in her white coat, and she explains that science, very articulate, explains that science has now taught us that obesity, health,

becoming bigger, it's not your fault. It's a genetic brain disease. It has nothing to do with lifestyle. For many of us, we can go on a diet, something like the biggest loser, right? 96% of those participants in the biggest loser regained their weight because their brain worked well.

It was supposed to bring them back to store what they needed or what the brain thinks it needs. So willpower, throw that out the window. It's a brain disease. It is? It's a brain disease. Now, the show is sponsored by Novo Nordisk,

the parent company of Wagovi, same producers of these weight loss shots. Yeah. The only other expert on that panel was also a paid consultant. So the show is sponsored by NovoNus. As was going to give you a Zemp Baker. As were the two experts. The same month, the American Pediatrics Association for the very first time recommends that changes in youth obesity to the extent that now we should recommend these obesity drugs, children as young as 12.

Now, I can't think of anything more heinous and destructive to the human soul than telling somebody that they're not responsible for the most fundamental aspect of their own existence, their health. They're saying you're no longer in control. And it's this movement I find where they're trying to push this notion that we need to outsource our volition to credentialed authorities. Yeah. And all these things happened at the same time. Now, I looked for public records for some sort of hint of a conspiracy. Like, did they all? No.

I couldn't find any evidence. But I'd be naive to think that all these things happen at the same time. It's just a coincidence. And it kind of goes into this wider societal movement against individualism and towards collectivism. And I think what I've found, it seems to be the main tool of authority right now is trying to make individuals feel guilty for who they are, A, and out of control. So, you know, it's like, your mask helps you and it helps me. Right. They're not just trying to say, wear the mask for yourself.

They're trying to say, like, you know, you're hurting people. And I just, one of the things that when I went through this deep, deep dive that just hit me was how. self like how our individual health presupposes self-autonomy. Like you're not really free to act if you're not well. Like you're unhealthy,

not feeling good. Yeah, you're not in control of your own destiny if you need to be within a certain distance of a hospital. Yeah. Or a certain distance of a drug. I mean, what do we hear about when there's a hurricane, the people that are really in trouble, like suddenly where am I going to get my prescription? These things, these are people that are really

in harm's way at any sort of turn in fate, they're in real trouble. And our nation now, I mean, this is what is really such a heavy conversation in America, because we have the sickest nation. You know, really, I would say in the world, you could say the industrialized world, but nobody has higher chronic disease issues than we do with the highest chronic disease burden in the world, which is shocking because we have the biggest hospital systems, the best, and we're supposed to be the best at everything.

American exceptionalism is really just fading into the, the distance when I think the staff they're saying is we can't even, you know, right now when people talk about, well, what's the more important issue of our time? You know, it's always like military being able to protect is more important than your food supply or whatever. But the truth is, they're saying now 77% of people applying the military aren't healthy enough to, they're being rejected because of their health. So we're getting to the point where we can't even mount a military to protect this nation. No, we're all getting, we're all fat and sick and compromise. as a country, and it's a national crisis. And I know you've had this subject

on it, I applaud you for raising this concern. I would just keep liking to mention that the core, at the root of this, was the attempt by the government to launch a 55-year gaslighting campaign to convince us that the food that we've been eating for thousands of years as humans is suddenly bad for us.

And if you can convince us that meat is bad for us, which are great-grandfairns that our great-great-grandparents have subsisted on and understood. And now we have these people virtue signaling while eating like 14th-century peasants. Yeah. And, I mean, the propaganda campaign has been unreal. Your great-great-grandmother was right.

She primarily ate meat when she could find it. And when she couldn't, she'd eat some other foods. But nobody in Arizona was eating berries in January. You might have some in the northeast for a little bit of time if a bear didn't get to him first. But we've convinced people to eat essentially non-foods. And it wasn't only the government that caused this. Corporations were happy to exploit this.

You talked about margarine. Give this sort of the history of Marjor a little super fascinating. How I break this down. It started out as just a cheap way to make. Yeah, there were riots in New York over at the time it was called oil margarine because it was cheaper. And people were selling it and telling people it was butter. and people didn't regard it as food.

You have Procter and Gamble around the same time a little bit later, introducing us, I feel ridiculous even saying some of these things, introducing us to Crisco. Because cotton seed waste, post-industrial revolution where we used it to lubricate machinery. Right. So they didn't want to just give that up.

So there was a huge marketing campaign to launch things like margarine and Crisco, which nobody regarded its food. It was not part of the food system. And you talked about the mulsificationally with the hydrogenation that they were able to make it thick. Otherwise, it's just this dripping, oozing, oil out of these cotton seeds out of manufacturing.

But if we can hydrogenate it, it gets thick. We can stick it in a bucket. And now you're literally taking an industrial byproduct and saying, this is food. I mean, it's genius. It's genius because they convince the American public who is hesitant. to consume something that wasn't food.

And then, I mean, I don't know about you, but I never regarded cottonseed as vegetable. So we began saying these things are vegetable oils. There was a masterclass in marketing. And I chronicle how they did that in Fiat food. I go through the very persuasive campaign where they begin saying that the fats we use for thousands of years like lard and suet, that was old-fashioned.

You don't want a stinky kitchen. This is modern and great. This is what the wave of the future, become a great housewife, was how they advertised it. And it worked. It took time. And it was cheaper. I mean, as the economy got more expensive for people, it was like, well, I can switch over this product. And it's good for me.

The cheaper products is the healthier one, as it turns out. Yeah. So these corporations were able to make small inroads pre-1970. But once we detached from the dollar, and then, then the government through Fiat became suddenly now they're funding all these nutrition studies. They're creating nutritional guidelines for people. I can't emphasize enough how people seem to be healthy and live for thousands of years without the government telling us how to eat. The government didn't need to explain, like no more than they would need to explain to a llama.

Let's point this out. Once it started taking up the task of telling us how to eat, we got sicker and battering. secret fat. You know, prior to JFK, who, you know, I think had an exercise revolution, but we look at the pictures of people on the beaches. Everybody was like coming from their old cultural backgrounds. We had a, you know, we were a diverse nation, but everyone walking on the beach was healthy and thin.

And then the government gets involved in selling us on, which you're pointing out, a new way to eat. And part of it to try and hide the fact that you're going to recognize that your dollar isn't worth what it is because you can't afford. much meat, but we're going to just tell you weren't supposed to be eating meat anyway. Yeah. So they sort of beat it to the punch and now we find ourselves in this place, which is what makes us so interesting is you look at the 19701, but now we're literally watching like, you know, even plant, like even growing things is expensive, even farming. So now like we're

genuinely watching like laboratory food, laboratory meats, laboratory, you know, so this idea that you can, I mean, it's dystopian, right? It's soil and green or something like we're, we're about to be eating. eating things that just get recreated by machines and computers and have no attachment to anything natural. And how much is it, is any of it that our government's just afraid they're not going to be able to feed all the people? Because that's what Bill Gates tells us.

We're not going to be able to feed it. We don't, we're not enough farmland to feed all the people now. And it's also the argument I find shocking by people that used to or still call themselves environmentalists. They're becoming pro-glyphosate pesticides, urban. because it's the only way to use less water and protect the planet is we got to basically poison all your foods. The only way we can grow enough food. So this whole idea, again, is the population is so big, this is the only way we're going to be able to feed you.

Is that real? Is it come from a real panic? Or, as you said, like, where is the government and industry? Is industry just pushing this because they can make more money off of it? So it's different baskets. There's different incentives driving. different industries and different foundations for different reasons. So for the environmental movement, I think it's, in the Seventh-day Adventist Church,

I think it's largely sincere. I think they really believe that, I mean, dealt for like hundreds of years people have blamed the weather on humans. There is a point where we assumed it was eccentric women who were leading to frozen crops, so we burned them at the stake, right? and it's gotten a little more sophisticated now. I thought about like that. Even when you go and read Anasazi ruins,

they have rituals to try and overcome any harm or they've done to nature so that the sun will come back. It's usually an eccentric woman in the corner who's like responsible. And then she confesses, right? Yeah, it froze all your cross. Throw the volcano and we'll be okay. Today you have, and it plays on human guilt. Like there's a, I think there's a real innate,

inhuman nature this. belief that so many people have that they're susceptible to like that they're responsible for the weather so now you have people like eric adams who will go in front of any camera he sees and talk about how we're going to stop kids from eating into public school districts meet we already have meatless monday and meatless friday we're going to like put other days on there so that we can change the temperature of the earth it's a lot of hubris yeah too at the same time so i but i do believe that There's elements that have a severe conviction. Corporations, they just want to make money, right?

So they're trying to make a profit. There's the market, the market growing, you know, market of food-based. Altered, and when they stepped into nutrition, that's where you see this remarkable shift in our food supply. Because those two forces were at play pre-1970. If you changed incentive structure at the top, there will still be people pushing plants. But reality will reassert itself. And the human condition, we eat meat. People might not like that.

That's what we eat. That's what's... So we're in a situation now where there's an abundance of food in America, but nutrients for humans to thrive has become cost prohibitive. You go into Austin with me tonight and try to buy a steak. Yeah. You know, it's hard and it hurts. we're always trying to give our audience a solution.

I mean, you know, you very clearly lay out. But I think it's interesting, we've been studying this problem on our show a lot. You have a very different perspective. I mean, you know, a nuance but different perspective on what really drives it, I think, is fascinating. And I would say beyond plausible, it's true. Is it the only, you know, how do these things all mix is, I think, really fascinating. But what's the solution? Like, we're about to lose our food supply.

I mean, I'm watching any moment, but they're going to scream bird flu in the cattle and kill all of our beef and just end this conversation forever. It won't matter if you and I want a stake. It's going to cost $350 a pound, you know. There's no solution that changes things like this, but what will shift, change the trajectory, would be ending the mechanism of distortion.

So the root. of this problem is the government's desire to obfuscate the degradation of the currency and the consequences that we see in our food supply. If we implement a hard currency again, inflation is no longer an issue. And I would argue Bitcoin, and I'm not a financial expert, but it's better than gold because gold over time always become centralized than confiscated. There has never been an example where that hasn't happened. I mean, even in America, under Roosevelt, confiscate the gold, keep the paper. But when you purchase Bitcoin, which is a digital technology, you put a little, and you use fiat dollars to do it, you put a little stick in the spoke of the Federal Reserve and a mechanism of distortion.

So until I would argue ending the Federal Reserve, which I know it's a bit above my pay grade. But you end the distortion. Like just leave people alone. Stay out of nutrition. Stop subsidizing all these foods like corn, soy, and sugar so that there's more of it. I mean, what kind of culture is like they hate us? Like, why subsidize corn and sugar and soy?

Nobody thinks that. It's killing us. we're subsidizing it so that it's cheaper. We're not subsidizing meat to nearly the same level. And if you can just end the distortions, and then you end the government issuing the food dictates that all public schools must do X. So right now it's against the law for a public school to sell whole milk,

which has saturated fat, which is essential to humans to thrive. Yeah. You end all the Fiat dollars going to the subsidies and towards these phony nutrition studies, which are observational studies, no different than me being like, I pulled 10 cancer patients, nine of them drank milk,

headline for my observational study, milk linked to cancer. And today nobody reads the study. People are busy, they're working. The headline. End the distortion by ending the Fed, and that comes through the implementation of a hard currency that takes the control out of the hands of authority

and doesn't right now Fiat's just it weaponizes the entire workforce because every time they create more dollars they devalue your currency and this is going to get worse and worse because the amount of dollars

that are being circulated right now haven't even all come back down to Earth they're not all, they're still floating out there it's the money that's been printed and is continuing to be printed is only going to make meat more and nutrients more cost prohibitive, leading to increased propaganda campaign saying don't eat meat for X reason.

Yeah. And it's going to cycle downward until we change that trajectory. There's absolutely zero chance we're going to get out of this. So like blaming corporations, it's a good, it's good to expose. And these people are doing great work exposing that, but it just leaves the root still in place. Right. It's going to grow back. Yeah.

Super interesting. How do people follow the work you're doing of a website or anything like that? I'm so bad at technology, man. So you're not technology guy where we find this book everywhere books are sold? Yeah. Fantastic. Thank you. It's a super interesting read, a great outlook. And I think in many ways, you're right. We're going to, I mean, we can't just trust the government, but we also have to figure out, you know, how we utilize currencies and how we start pushing back or we're going to be in real trouble.

All right. Well, I really appreciate you joining me today. Thanks for having me on, man. I appreciate you. Thank you very much.