Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 16, 2019 - Project Camelot

01:51:07

MISCHA POPOFF: BAYER TAKES OVER MONSANTO

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Going live.
	You bet.
	All right.
	Hi everyone, I'm Carrie Cassidy from Project Camelot and very happy to be here today.
	I have Misha Popov here with me and this should be a really fascinating show.
	So Misha, welcome to the show.
	Yeah, hi!
	Good to be here.
	I'm going to read your short bio here and then we can get into more detail.
	So Misha Popoff worked for five years as a USDA contract organic inspector after growing up in an organic farm on Saskatchewan.
	And he is the author of Is It Organic?
	He earned a BA from the University of Saskatchewan where he specialized in history of nitrogen for fertilizer and warfare.
	He now lives with his wife and kids in Texas where he works as a freelance writer and consultant.
	He's written for many daily newspapers over the years as well as the Daily Caller and Breitbart.
	His latest article is on my website, and so you can go to projectcamelot.tv or projectcamelotportal.com and see the link below the actual show link.
	So, Misha, again, welcome.
	And what I'd love to do is hear more about your background, how you got started, how you wrote this book, is it organic, and then kind of the trajectory that you've gone off on now.
	Yeah, well, again, thanks for having me, Kerry.
	So I grew up on an organic farm, but I like to tell people we were organic before there was really such thing as organic, you know, officially.
	There's been organic farming really since the 1920s.
	It used to be called biodynamic.
	There are still biodynamic farmers.
	Some people think they're the fringe of the organic movement, but they're wonderful people, trust me.
	But yeah, there we were in the early 90s, and my grandparents, God bless them, they decided to get off the chemicals, if you will.
	And so there we were.
	We were organic.
	But there was no such thing, really, as an official organic movement, really until 2002.
	So we were, you know, 10 years ahead of the curve, and that's sort of a moral victory, if you will.
	Certainly not a financial one.
	In any case, it was in the early 90s that I did get my degree in history.
	And yeah, I was fascinated by the history of nitrogen.
	Because nitrogen is not only the most important fertilizer in the world, it's also the key ingredient in gunpowder.
	And interestingly, just a bit of a tidbit for you and your listeners, prior to 1917 when a German Jew by the name of Fritz Haber figured out how to get an endless supply of nitrogen from the Earth's atmosphere, prior to that all farming was done of course with compost, with manure.
	But not only all farming was done with manure, all wars were fought with manure.
	Or human feces.
	I mean, any source from which they could obtain a ready supply of nitrogen.
	So again, you know, mainly feces from animal and human waste.
	So all the wars, including, leading up to and including the First World War, all of the bullets and shells fired, all the cannon and everything, all of that was with a nitrogen-based explosive, the nitrogen coming from feces.
	After 1917, that changed.
	And not only did we, of course, then start using what's called synthetic nitrogen, although there's nothing synthetic about it, as I described in my book.
	Nitrogen is nitrogen, no matter where it comes from.
	But that gave rise to the organic movement, or at the time, the biodynamic movement.
	If you put too much nitrogen, you know, call it man-made nitrogen, if you put too much of that on your crop, sure the crop grows and you get many bushels per acre, but you start losing the nutritive content of your food.
	So all of those trace elements, zinc, cadmium, things you didn't even know you were getting in your food, manganese, all of that plummets because you're basically getting what I forget his name, the founder of the biodynamic movement.
	You're getting what he called empty food.
	And he's right.
	He's absolutely right.
	And that's why the organic movement is necessary.
	Unfortunately, as I describe in my book, I went on to become an organic inspector and I worked on both sides of the border.
	You and your listeners know I was born and raised in Canada, but I worked in the United States and in Canada.
	As a USDA inspector, all Canadian farms until 2009 were USDA certified because Canada didn't have its own certification system until about eight years after America got theirs.
	So yeah, I worked on both sides of the border.
	And I met a lot of honest, hard-working organic farmers.
	I mentioned already the biodynamic farmers.
	I met a few of them.
	But what I saw over the five years that I worked was a gradual or maybe not so gradual decline in the reliance on domestic organic products.
	And so what we see now, Kerry, and I wrote an article for the Daily Caller On this, I estimate three quarters of the organic food sold in America right now is being imported.
	So some of that's coming from Canada, some, because Canada and America do a lot of trade, especially in agricultural products.
	But a lot of it is coming from China, Mexico, Turkey, Brazil, and nothing against Chinese, Turkish, or Brazilian farmers, nothing against them, but it's the brokers.
	All they have to do is fill out paperwork and pay hefty fees.
	It's basically a government-sanctioned pay-to-play system.
	And so when you go to your local Whole Foods, now owned by Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, Or if you go to Walmart and Costco, those are your three leading grocers when it comes to organics.
	When you go there, you've got a better than 50-50 chance that you're getting something that was imported from overseas.
	And often it's not organic.
	Often it's fraudulent, as I described in that article.
	And so my book actually came out when things were still okay, when farmers domestically were still providing more than half Of the organic food to the store shelves.
	So my book came out in 09.
	But in the last 10 years, as I say, it's reached monumental proportions.
	Three quarters, just to say it one more time, I estimate three quarters of the organic food sold in grocery stores is being imported and is highly questionable.
	So my book kind of predicted that and yeah, it came to pass.
	Okay, that's a great overview.
	So when you made a transition into really, I mean, I don't know if you consider it a transition, but when you sent me your bio, you don't mention your book, and it looks like you kind of branched out from there.
	So do you want to talk about why you branched out, what has gone through your mind, and so on?
	Sure.
	Well, yeah, it's been 10 years.
	I did a number of public speaking events and a lot of interviews surrounding my self-published book.
	And now I've moved on to more spiritual matters, frankly.
	If the organic industry is going to implode under its own inertia, there's nothing I can do.
	I tried and I realized that there's nothing we can do about anything.
	There's nothing we can do about Donald Trump.
	There's nothing we could have done about Obama.
	There's nothing we can do about the wars in the Middle East.
	Is reach other people and save them.
	And when they're saved, and you don't have to be a Christian to be saved, although I really think you should be, but just in case any of your listeners don't read the Bible, don't worry about that.
	You have to be saved, so the other word for that would be enlightened.
	And once you're enlightened, you're at peace.
	You're at peace and you realize, well, okay, so we might go to war with Iran.
	That'll be horrible.
	I mean, that'll just be a repeat of all the world wars we've ever had.
	Bankers wars.
	But there's nothing I can do about it except tell others.
	And that provides a lot of sanctity in my heart and soul.
	So, yeah, I started writing.
	You already read The Daily Caller.
	Breitbart ran some of my stuff, but then their masthead changed.
	They quit publishing my stuff.
	I now write sometimes for Culture Wars magazine, and I've appeared on shows like Jeff Rantz.
	And Power Prophecy, Tex-Mars.
	Sorry to mention your competition here, but just to give people an idea.
	No, that's okay.
	I don't even think of them as competition.
	We're all in this together at the end of the day.
	Yeah.
	And just to give your listeners a flavor for what I'm doing now, I used to work or give interviews exclusively with agriculture and food websites and outlets.
	And now, as I say, it's more spiritual.
	So yeah, when I sent you my bio, I didn't include my book.
	But yeah, I did work as a USDA inspector, and I think that hopefully provides me with a basis to talk about this purchase that we're going to get into whenever you're ready.
	But just to leap ahead, yeah, Bayer CropScience, their $66 billion purchase of Monsanto.
	Absolutely.
	Okay, so let's do that.
	Let's go in that direction then.
	Sure.
	Sure.
	Yeah, so if anyone's following it, I think everyone's heard about it.
	It's not news to anyone.
	Even people not in the food business or in agriculture, they know that bear, the makers of aspen, And a bunch of other stuff.
	They were mainly a pharmaceutical company until about 25 years ago, they started to get into what they call agri-pharmacy, where they're going to grow your vitamins or, sorry, grow your pharmaceuticals or something.
	Something they haven't gotten around to doing yet, but that's their vision.
	So yeah, they decided a few years ago to start negotiations to buy Monsanto, which is a full-fledged ag company.
	There's nothing else Monsanto does except deal in the agricultural sector.
	And of course Monsanto has been under a lot of scrutiny.
	Well deserved for things like Agent Orange, Dicamba, I think even aspartame, that's another good one that Monsanto came up with.
	And funny enough, of all the things Monsanto ever came up with, It was Roundup.
	Roundup seems to have struck a chord with activists and more importantly with lawyers.
	So it was a few years ago that this idea came about that maybe Roundup causes cancer.
	And I just want to get it out here right now.
	I have no idea if that's true and I don't care.
	What matters here is the impression.
	And so the question is, even if these are baseless lawsuits, and by the way, again, I can't stress enough, I don't know if Roundup causes cancer.
	I tend to think it probably doesn't if used properly.
	But with these Roundup lawsuits hanging over Monsanto's head, and I think at the time of the purchase, there were a few thousand lawsuits.
	And then all the way to the present, there are now over 13,000.
	But if we go back to when Bayer entered into negotiations to buy Monsanto, there were a couple thousand lawsuits pending claiming that people had contracted, I think it's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a type of cancer, from using Roundup.
	So, again, whether this is true or not, the question becomes, first of all, well, why did Bear proceed with the purchase with this hanging over Monsanto's head?
	And someone might say, well, Bear probably thought they could get a good deal.
	No, it turns out they didn't get a good deal.
	They paid...
	Fair market value.
	If you read the Wall Street Journal or in Canada, the Financial Post, they really paid, if you apply the typical formulas where you take a company's gross annual revenue or their net profits for the year or their market cap based on the stock market, really, they paid fair market value.
	In other words, Kerry, Bayer did not get a deal.
	And they were fine with that.
	They thought, okay, let's go ahead and buy this company that is facing thousands of lawsuits claiming that their lead product causes cancer.
	And then, of course, Bayer had to go and borrow that money.
	And then that raises the second issue.
	Now, how do you borrow money for that kind of purchase when there's that kind of power hanging over the company you're trying to purchase?
	And so not only were they able to convince lenders, you know, these are global banks, international banks, they were not only able to convince them that, no, no, don't worry about those lawsuits, they were able to convince the insurers of those banks.
	Now, we already saw what happens with bad investments.
	We saw that in the housing meltdown, and we know there's Allegedly a lot tighter scrutiny now.
	It's supposed to be harder to borrow money.
	And it's not for these people, evidently, because they were able to go ahead and borrow $66 billion.
	That's not chump change.
	So, why did they do this?
	Why didn't they wait for the dust to settle?
	Well, the simple answer is, the CEO of Bayer, his name is Werner Bowman, he's German, he sees this as an opportunity.
	He sees the, yes, he sees the Roundup lawsuits as an opportunity.
	So, a lot of people think that he bought Monsanto to get their patents, their GMO crop patents, and certainly those are valuable.
	But you have to understand that in order to sell a GMO crop like Roundup Ready canola or Bacillus thuringiensis, BT corn, in order to sell that crop, you have to employ hundreds, actually thousands, of pedigree seed growers.
	So you need to understand that when it comes to farmers, you have your regular farmers growing food, and they rely on On a whole lineup of better farmers who are growing the seed stock for them.
	Now, throughout the ages, farmers always save their own seed, but seed eventually becomes exhausted.
	Usually, there's some variety, some types of food where the seed never becomes exhausted.
	Weed is one, by the way.
	But some seeds, even the, you know, the cheap farmer, every now and then he has to go to a pedigree or foundation seed grower.
	Now, those seed growers, they rely in turn on other seed growers to grow the seed for them that they're going to then use to grow the seed for all the farmers who grow all of our food.
	So you've got pedigree and foundation seed growers, and they are the elite of the elite when it comes to farmers.
	So just to explain, when Bear bought the seed The patents, they now own the patents to all of Monsanto's GMO crops.
	Yes, and they have to pay all these farmers to grow them.
	It's still a very profitable business to be in, or Monsanto wouldn't have been in it for the last, you know, 12 or 15 years.
	But my point is, it's revenue intensive.
	It's not just like you sit back and make money, you know, like Microsoft does or something like that, where you own a patent and just make money off it.
	So what I think is that Bayer bought Monsanto for the Roundup.
	Now, Roundup is off-patent.
	There are currently 40 manufacturers around the world that make off-brand, non-patented versions of Roundup.
	And Roundup has become a huge growth sector.
	Most people think of Roundup for weed control.
	So when it first came out in the late 70s, early 80s, Roundup was used mainly to, it's called a pre-seeding burn-off.
	You would kill all the weeds in your field Before going out to seed.
	Prior to that, you had to cultivate your field.
	And in farming, we used to call that turning it black.
	So even if you had brown or red soil, you would turn it black.
	That was the expression.
	And no farmer in his right mind would seed into a field that wasn't turned black.
	But you use 10 times the fuel to turn a field black with cultivators or a plow or a disker or whatever implement you care to choose.
	So with one-tenth the fuel...
	You use Roundup, and that was its original intent.
	And this is why earlier I was saying, I don't know if Roundup causes cancer, and I tend to think that if it's used properly, it doesn't.
	I think if Roundup is used as a preceding burn-off, I think that's fine.
	It's been used for close to 50 years now, at least 40 years, without incident.
	And it's only recently that we saw these Roundup lawsuits come to light.
	So what's happening now Roundup is no longer being used as it was originally intended.
	It is still being used, but they're also using it now as a desiccant.
	And desiccation of a crop is forced ripening.
	Now everyone will tell you, including Dr.
	Patrick Moore, former Greenpeace founder, he'll tell you Roundup is safe enough to drink.
	And I kind of doubt that.
	They say it's as safe as dish detergent, and I'm not going to drink dish detergent.
	But again, the point is, Roundup was never consumed by anyone, not even in parts per billion, because if you sprayed your field before you seeded, well, then it was gone by the time the crop grew up and was harvested.
	Now it's being used at the opposite end, Kerry.
	It's being used as a desiccant to force ripen the crop.
	And the reason it's being used, and that's probably way more than half, like probably 60% of the Roundup being sold today is being used to force ripen crops.
	And it's being used over in Asia more so than it is here in North America for this purpose, to force ripen, say, like rice crops.
	And the reason is we have less farmers now.
	So it used to be a farmer would estimate the optimum time to harvest his crop.
	We don't have as many farmers now.
	We have fewer farmers with much larger pieces of land.
	So then rather than going out and assessing your crop and saying, you know, maybe it's a late summer or maybe it's an early fall.
	So harvest time is never at the same time, or at least it wasn't.
	Now, with Roundup being used as a desiccant, you can set a date on your calendar And this allows you then to hire a custom harvest company.
	So these multi-million dollar custom harvest companies, they go around and they harvest crops and they do it by the calendar instead of by the season.
	And then what you do if you're the farmer is you just go out and you desiccate your crop, you know, a few days before the contract harvesting company arrives.
	So this is a symptom of People call it efficiency in farming, but it's a symptom of getting rid of farmers.
	Instead of having a farmer with a section of land, 640 acres, you'll now have a corporate manager with 40,000 acres under management.
	And he'll have a number of people that do all the work to seed the crop, but he'll only have one custom harvest company that comes through every year.
	And that custom harvest company is harvesting everyone's crops, coming all the way up through the Corn Belt, and they go all the way up through the Midwest, where I used to live in Saskatchewan.
	And it's all, again, it's all done by the calendar.
	And the only way that you can have that, again, is by force ripening the crop.
	Well, now you're applying Roundup pretty close to when the crop is going to be eaten.
	And so that might explain why we're having these, you know, these roundup lawsuits.
	Of course, so far the lawsuits have been from people who were applying it.
	So if you applied it in the spring or in the fall, I guess it wouldn't make any difference.
	But there's no doubt, Kerry, That when they force ripen a crop with Roundup, you are now eating the breakdown byproducts of Roundup, which you never ate for the last 40 years.
	I guarantee it.
	You never even came close to eating those Roundup breaks down as it decomposes in the soil or on the crop.
	And by the way, one more point.
	The beauty of Roundup was that It goes, unlike other herbicides, it goes inert when it comes into contact with soil.
	The microbes in the soil tear it apart.
	So it's still there, but it's in broken down form and then eventually becomes undetectable.
	Now, could it still cause health problems?
	Well, no one ever found out, but it doesn't matter because now, again, it's being applied to the crop and it doesn't break down on the crop.
	It only breaks down when the microbes in soil tear apart.
	Roundup apart in its constituent parts.
	So yeah, it's called desiccation, forced ripening.
	And right now, a farmer has, I mentioned, there are 40 off-brand manufacturers of glyphosate is the chemical name for Roundup.
	So you might say, well, why would Bear think they're going to get Roundup if they buy Monsanto?
	Because Roundup is off patent.
	Well, because they saw these roundup lawsuits.
	Again, I'll mention, they see them as a positive, not a negative.
	There's talk that they might pay all of the remaining 13,000 lawsuits.
	They might pay them all out.
	They'll just write one big check.
	And they're talking about an $8 billion settlement.
	Well, that's nothing.
	$8 billion, like I said, they paid $66 billion for Monsanto.
	And the tobacco settlements of the 90s, if anyone remembers those, the tobacco settlements were, I think they were close to a quarter of a trillion dollars.
	In other words, $250 billion.
	So yeah, if Bayer writes an $8 billion check, that's nothing.
	But even if they don't get off the hook, here's their plan, Kerry.
	They're going to say, you're right.
	Roundup is dangerous.
	They probably won't say it causes cancer.
	Again, that's probably not ever going to be proven.
	But they're going to say, Werner Bowman from Bayer is going to say, wow, Roundup is so dangerous, the FDA and USDA and EPA need to get back in and regulate it again.
	And what will happen is what happened with GMO crops, which Bayer already has some experience with.
	Bayer will help those regulators write the regulations.
	And they will make sure the red tape is so thick and the bar is set so high that most of those 40 off-brand makers will be driven out of the business.
	It'll become too expensive.
	And again, the example is GMO crops.
	It costs right now, I'm not a fan of GMO crops, by the way, but let's just use this example.
	It costs almost $250 million to bring a new GMO crop to market.
	That doesn't count research and development.
	That doesn't count those pedigree seed growers you're going to have to hire, you know, the elite of the elite of farmers.
	That doesn't include dead ends in the laboratory where you were developing some crop genetically and then it failed after six months or a year and you have all that money tied up in a failed experiment.
	No, no, no.
	It's over $200 million right now just to get a new GMO crop through the regulatory hurdles in Washington.
	And some people think, well, that's good.
	Those GMO companies like Monsanto, they should pay that much.
	Well, they helped write those regulations and they set the bar so high on purpose, Kerry, to ensure that no other startup companies would compete with them.
	So if there is a startup company, and there are a few, their only hope is to get bought out by Monsanto.
	Or now to get bought out by Bayer.
	Because a startup company can't afford the $200 million in legal fees just to get a new GMO crop through the regulatory hurdles in Washington, D.C. And so that made Bayer and Monsanto and a couple of other GMO companies.
	Well, I think Intrexon is another one.
	They do the GMO Salmon and they also own the GMO Arctic Apple.
	Again, I'm not a fan of any of these.
	Yeah, so you got like maybe four or five GMO companies and that's it in the whole world.
	And again, it's because companies like Bayer and Monsanto help write the regulations that just make it impossible for new GMO startups to compete with them.
	So yeah, I think that's what they're going to do with Roundup.
	They're going to Roundup could never be patented again.
	It's already off-patent.
	But it could be regulated so heavily that most of those 40 off-brand companies will be driven out of business or driven out of the Roundup business.
	And that'll leave Bear as the king of the hill.
	And again, we're using more Roundup per acre, per person, per bushel of food.
	We're using Roundup more today than we ever have.
	So it's being used in the spring, which I think is fine.
	It's not organic, by the way.
	That wouldn't be allowed in the organic industry.
	But we're using it in the spring.
	And then most farmers, probably like 95% of farmers, are using it again in the fall.
	And that puts it as close to your food plate as you can get.
	And no one knows, you know, you might have heard that they're finding traces of Roundup in, you know, boxes of cereal.
	No one knows what this is going to do for our health.
	But yeah, once again, Werner Bowman, the CEO of Bayer, he doesn't care.
	He doesn't care if Roundup causes cancer.
	He doesn't care if desiccating a crop is bad for the health of the people.
	He doesn't care.
	He sees a huge growth potential.
	And so, one last thing I mentioned.
	When you hold the patent to a GMO crop, you still have to do a lot of work every year to bring that GMO crop to market to sell it to farmers so they can grow it.
	You have to hire all the farmers, the pedigree and foundation seed growers basically to produce the product for you.
	Roundup is like I mentioned earlier, it's like Microsoft.
	You just sit back and make the money.
	Roundup is very simple to make.
	You can look it up online.
	It's a very simple chemical formula.
	It's not very complex.
	And yeah, it will be a license to print money.
	If Bear can just get rid of half of the 40 off-brand makers of Roundup right now, if they can just get rid of half of them, they will be sitting pretty.
	They will pay off their loan That they bought Monsanto with.
	They'll pay off the settlements for the Roundup cancer lawsuits no matter what.
	They could turn out, instead of $8 billion, they could turn out to be $80 billion.
	It won't matter.
	If they can secure rights to round up again, they will be king of the hill and they will effectively control the world's food supply.
	Okay.
	So that's actually a wonderful overview.
	And I do want to ask you, though, about the situation with...
	Bayer and Monsanto, their relationship going back to history, and also Bayer's relationship to Nazi Germany, etc.
	So there is, I think, something even larger behind the scene than what you have noticed, which is obviously very astute, what you're doing, and you're a real kind of feet-on-the-ground type of investigator, right?
	Because you know your stuff.
	But what I'm wondering is in the larger picture, what is the real sort of endgame here?
	And if you can think about that and see what beyond, okay, controlling a food supply, big, very important thing.
	I also think that perhaps it could just be a brand name change that actually benefits the product and the plan and that they may be working together behind the scenes.
	And There's reasons to believe this, and I don't know whether you tried to investigate their linkups in Germany and also with other things, like I would tend to look at the linkups between Bayer, Monsanto, and the secret space program.
	What is really going on here?
	Because there's something going on here which is not obvious.
	So what are your thoughts on that level?
	Yeah, well the link to Nazi Germany, definitely that's bare.
	Bayer and then formerly, of course, BASF, Baden-Adeline Soda Factory.
	They were the ones who first synthesized nitrogen, as I mentioned at the onset.
	That's when Fritz Haber came up.
	He cracked the code to get an endless supply of nitrogen out of the Earth's atmosphere.
	And that, of course, is nitrogen both used in agriculture and in war.
	And yeah, that was BASF that pioneered that...
	Within a corporate framework, if you will, so they can mass produce it.
	But yeah, BASF and Bayer have links to Nazi Germany.
	Monsanto, meanwhile, is an American company.
	And I'm not aware, maybe you know, I'm not aware of any links they have to the Third Reich.
	But we don't need to paint them with that brush.
	I mean, what they did right here in America was plenty unconscionable.
	They came up with Agent Orange.
	And, of course, a lot of...
	It's not even debated anymore.
	It was debated all through the 70s.
	You know, does Agent Orange cause cancer?
	Really?
	And a lot of servicemen, they got illnesses that they actually passed on to their offspring, children they conceived after returning from From the Vietnam War.
	Yeah, and so there's Agent Orange.
	No one denies it anymore.
	Everyone knows Agent Orange is horrible.
	And ironically, a diluted version of it was sold.
	I don't believe it's sold anymore, but it was sold commercially for agricultural use for decades.
	Monsanto's defense was, well, we were just doing what the Pentagon wanted.
	Maybe there is a link, Kerry, between Monsanto and Hitler.
	I don't know.
	They've dug their grave without such a link.
	Agent Orange...
	I also mentioned aspartame.
	And then another herbicide they're responsible for, I believe, is dicamba.
	It's really horrible.
	I mean, you really got to watch when you're eating soft-skinned fruit, like strawberries and cherries.
	I mean, you really got to watch because the chemicals they use, because it's a soft-skinned fruit, they're really toxic.
	There's one that can render young boys sterile.
	So if you're not washing the fruit, Yeah, it can sterilize your young boy when he's like two or three years old and you won't know for 10 years or hopefully longer that he's sterile.
	In any case, yeah, they make these chemicals.
	And ironically, again, as I mentioned earlier, the least toxic of all the chemicals Monsanto ever made was Roundup when used properly as a preceding burn off.
	And yeah, they Sort of got away with that for years, until about two or three years ago, some lawyers decided, well, there's enough evidence here.
	Let's sue them.
	Let's sue them over Roundup.
	And again, whether it's true or not, that led the CEO of Monsanto.
	It was actually just prior, I think, to when the first lawsuit was launched, but he knew it was coming.
	His name is Hugh Grant, by the way.
	Not to be confused with the movie star Hugh Grant.
	He's a Scottish guy, like Donald Trump.
	He's Scottish.
	A hapless Scot, I like to say, although I have some Scottish blood in me from my mother's side.
	But yeah, he didn't know what to do, Kerry.
	He was like, oh no, we're going to get sued.
	So the first thing he decides, and you nailed it, a name change.
	This is his brilliant plan back in 2014, 2015.
	Hugh Grant decides, we need a name change, like as if that's going to fool anyone, right?
	But yeah, cooler heads prevailed, I guess, in the boardroom.
	Lawyers or other executives came to him and said, Hugh, that's That's not gonna fly.
	Whatever we change our name to, people will just start hating that name, and rightfully so.
	They'll know the new name is still the people who gave all those Vietnam War veterans cancer and passed it on to their children, no less.
	So yeah, I think you're right.
	The merger, or it's actually called a purchase, but there's no difference between a merger and a purchase.
	I think that was really what happened here.
	And it was a way for them to change their name.
	And by the way, that might explain why Bear Paid full market value for Monsanto.
	In other words, all they were doing was changing the name.
	And I'm sure a lot of people from Monsanto will end up working at Bayer now that it's a new company.
	And that's very interesting.
	But I also did, while you're talking, I'm doing a little bit of research on this because I'm noticing that actually Bayer was formed as part of IG Farben.
	Okay, so IG Farben is the company in the background of Nazi Germany in many ways.
	And it also appears that not only will they own the seeds, apparently, they'll also own the pharmaceuticals.
	And so, as you say, in other words, this is extremely diabolical.
	This actually indicates a plan for the future.
	And the question is, what is the plan?
	And I see that you're focusing on this roundup, and I forget the terminology, but for having the crops ripen when you tell them to, in essence, right?
	Yeah, the term is desiccation.
	So there's something to that as well in the farmers, and actually...
	I'm controlling the food supply.
	So control is a big one.
	But there is something even more going on here.
	And I am finding more information about...
	It has to do with drugs and also has to do with probably genetic engineering of humanity.
	So I don't know if you ever looked into that.
	But it is very possible that Roundup and some of these Agent Orange, of course...
	Not only cause sickness of a variety of kinds, but that they are also genetically re-engineering the human body in the process.
	So I just wondered whether you thought about that and what your thoughts might be.
	Well, I have thought about that.
	Well, I have thought about that.
	Transhumanism, that's a huge issue.
	And it's to the point now where we're hearing in Syria, there's talk, legitimate talk, not conspiracy talk.
	Not that there's anything wrong with conspiracies.
	I'm a conspiracy theorist of the first order.
	But we're hearing talk from Syria that there's the use of genetically engineered soldiers.
	So how are they genetically engineered?
	I don't know.
	Are they stronger, faster?
	Or are they just resistant that if they're wounded, they can carry on more so than a normal person?
	But yeah, I think that's real.
	I didn't research that in this case.
	And let me tell you why.
	We've known for years that Monsanto was gaining monopoly control over the world's seed supply.
	So not only were they getting farmers to grow their crops exclusively, their Roundup Ready crops and their BT crops, But they went ahead and bought out seed companies just to own them.
	They had no intention, like gardening, seed companies.
	They are doing some work.
	They might come up with genetically modified broccoli or something.
	But no, but the main impetus, Kerry, was they just wanted to own these companies.
	So there was an obvious move afoot by Monsanto to monopolize the world's seed supply.
	And that is very real.
	But the reason forced ripening, desiccation, is going to be bigger than that, I predict, or at least grant me it will be as big.
	We are reaching a point now, we have so few farmers, and remember Asia is following suit.
	Asia is already using more Roundup per acre and per bushel of food produced than all of North America.
	So they caught up to us real fast, and not in a good way.
	What's happening, there are going to be fewer and fewer farmers.
	And you will only be able to harvest a crop if you force ripen it.
	You will only be able to.
	So it won't matter where you got the seed.
	You could be growing a non-GMO crop.
	You could have saved your own seed.
	But you'll be part of a farming system.
	Maybe you'll be the last farmer standing who has a small enough piece of land that you can manage it properly.
	But the way the whole system is moving with fewer and fewer farmers, it won't matter where you got your seed.
	When it comes time to harvest, you will not be able to harvest unless you go and buy glyphosate.
	Okay, now I want to understand that.
	I see what you're saying, but I don't understand why if you grow, you know, organically or whatever you do and you aren't part of that system, why do you have to suddenly join that system?
	Why are you forced to join that system?
	Organic, not allowed.
	Organic would be the exception.
	But again, ironically, here are the numbers.
	Yes, 4.5% of the food sold in America is certified organic.
	But less than 1% of the acreage in America is certified organic.
	So that's how I came up in that Daily Caller article.
	That's how I came up with the ballpark estimate that we are importing three-quarters of our organic food.
	So my point being, that's a rounding error in this.
	But yes, sorry, to clarify, an organic farmer will not desiccate a crop ever.
	It would decertify him and he or she wouldn't think of doing it.
	But take them out of the mix.
	They're less than 1% of the American farming community by headcount and by acreage.
	Okay, then I want to understand why is it that all of the other farmers also have to get on this bandwagon Of harvesting their crop at exactly the same time.
	Why would they...
	In other words, you act as though they're forced to.
	Are you saying they're forced by the market competition because they're in a market situation in which they want to come out at the same time as these other farmers because that's when it's hot?
	No.
	The market is hottest?
	Or why is it they have to use this system even if they're not organic?
	Right, right, right.
	Okay, now we're framing it perfectly.
	Yes, so still there are a number of farmers who are small enough, and by small I would mean under 5,000 acres if it's a grain operation, wheat or corn, canola.
	Under 5,000 acres, you could still manage it.
	But a lot of those farmers, even a lot of those smaller farmers, are moving to desiccation.
	And here's why.
	There are two reasons.
	And no, just to clarify, it has nothing to do with the perfect time to sell the crop.
	Once the crop is harvested, it might sit in the farmer's bin for six months or a year.
	Probably not that long, but it could sit there for as long as a year because the farmer is basically playing the market the same as a stockbroker would.
	Except the farmer has actual bins full of grain.
	He's not just dealing with pieces of paper.
	But yeah, it has nothing to do with the market per se.
	Two things.
	First of all, harvesting equipment is very expensive.
	So on a large scale grain farming operation, what's called a combine or a harvester, you're looking upwards of a million dollars.
	And if you have just a thousand acres, there's no way it makes sense.
	You're not gonna go to a bank and borrow a million dollars to have your own harvester.
	The banker will tell you, hey Larry, just use a custom harvester, right?
	Like I work on my own car, but I don't have my own hoist in my garage.
	That's a $20,000 feature that I can't afford and I couldn't justify it.
	So yes, harvesting equipment, very expensive.
	The second thing is, as I'm saying, As a farmer, manages more and more acreage.
	So his neighbor retires, let's say, and the neighbor's kids don't want to take over the farm.
	So this farmer buys out his farm.
	Suddenly he has a little bit too much land to manage properly.
	And remember, every fall harvest season is different.
	It's never the same.
	And so he walks the fields or he takes his motorbike out or goes out on horseback and he He estimates the perfect time to harvest a field.
	Sometimes also, Kerry, you'll have a field that has a low land that's more moist.
	And so you'll just harvest the high land and you'll leave the low land for a few more weeks if you can get away with it, if you don't have an early frost.
	Well, all of that goes out the window, all of that decision making as the farms get bigger and bigger.
	And then we get into corporate farming.
	And as soon as you have a corporation, now some farmers are incorporated, the husband and wife are the, you know, they're the executives of their own corporate farm for tax purposes.
	But I'm talking about an actual corporate farm with 10,000, or as I mentioned earlier, as much as 40,000 acres.
	Forget it.
	They're not walking the fields.
	They're not estimating the best time.
	They're sitting in an office.
	They're not even out at the farm.
	They're in an office in the nearest town or in the nearest city, and they're looking at a calendar.
	And they decide, okay, that custom harvester that we used last year, he's going to be in this area on September 15th.
	So we call this, as organic inspectors, we call this farming by the calendar instead of farming by the season.
	Because remember, again, the season is always different every year.
	But instead of that, you just throw out the seasons.
	Who cares if it's a wet fall?
	Who cares?
	If the custom harvester is coming on the 15th, You go out on the 10th and desiccate the whole, all thousands of acres.
	Just do it all at once.
	You just hire, it was really good.
	You put in the promo, you put a picture of an aerial sprayer, a helicopter.
	Of course, he looks like he's spraying a vineyard.
	But yeah, you'll do aerial spraying or they'll go out with a high boy so it doesn't damage the crop.
	And again, most farmers don't own their own spraying equipment.
	It'll be custom spraying done on subcontracting.
	And so, yeah, it's just a symptom of having fewer and fewer farmers on the land who can properly manage the harvesting of a crop.
	That's what's happening. - Sorry, I have to keep muting and unmuting.
	So the thing is that if they're doing this, is there also a cost to what you call the vitamins, the minerals, etc.
	in a crop that's been forced to speed along to be harvested very quickly in this desiccation or whatever you call it.
	So, you know what I'm saying?
	In terms of the health value of the food, have there been tests done in this way?
	Yeah, there's been some testing.
	By the way, there's been no safety testing.
	I alluded to that earlier.
	This was not the original intent of Roundup when it was first approved for use back in the 80s.
	So, yeah, there's been no safety testing, but there has been some nutritional testing, and the claim is that it's the same, that you're just speeding up the process.
	So the advantage is, in the old days, part of that decision-making that a farmer made when he harvested the crop, he might swath the crop, cut it, in other words, but leave it in the swath for a few years.
	If the crop was cut off from its roots, it would still ripen.
	There were enough nutrients in the stem of the crop to still fill out the head where the seed is.
	So yeah, that would be called early swathing or early cutting, and then you wait a few days to combine it.
	Well, with desiccation, they claim the advantages, the crop is still standing, it's still connected to its roots, they claim.
	And so they're saying it's like, have you ever heard of buying, you know, vine-ripened tomatoes?
	As you know, tomatoes are picked green usually, so they ship better.
	But you can buy vine-ripened, and the claim is, no, no, the tomato turned red while it was still connected to the vine.
	But it wasn't because they cut the vine.
	So all you had was like a little six inch piece of vine.
	And there's not much nutrients in that vine to help really put that last bit of nutrition into the tomatoes.
	So when you see vine ripened tomatoes, it's kind of misleading.
	The real way to ripen a tomato or any crop would be to leave it on the vine so it's still connected to the vine, which is still connected to the stem and still connected to the roots.
	And then it's really going to get whatever nutrients it needs because it has that whole system still connected to it.
	So again, the claim is when you desiccate a crop, the claim is, well, it's still connected to its roots.
	So they claim it's better, but to answer your question, they've never proven it.
	I know they've tested it.
	They've claimed, look, we're getting a good protein level and falling number, all these tests they do.
	But they're not testing for those micronutrients that I mentioned that you should be getting if you get an honest organic crop, all the trace minerals that should be in your food, like iron and zinc.
	So they've never even tried to prove that.
	Okay, so in terms of your article, and again, I want to urge everyone, if you're listening to this, to go and read Misha's article, which is a PDF on my website, you know, under the Misha Popov website.
	Post.
	But because he's putting a lot of what he's saying is also in the article.
	But Misha, again, looking towards the future and this, again, this merging.
	And I don't know, did you through the years deal with Monsanto?
	Because, you know, Monsanto, the name has been so...
	It's like a trigger, right?
	Whereas Bayer doesn't, for some reason, maybe because of stealthy marketing tactics, I don't know, even though it has the Nazi past, that is much more clear cut.
	What you have is Bayer not having the stigma that Monsanto has right now.
	People will go out and demonstrate against Monsanto.
	It's understood that they're trying to own our food supply.
	But doing this, putting this company under the shade of Bayer at this moment, which is clearly a German company that goes back...
	I don't know if you follow my work and if you know the work of Jim Mars, for example, who wrote...
	You know, about basically the return of the fourth right to America.
	And so on.
	What we see is a very sinister trend here.
	And I'm also wondering, what is China's sort of investment in this scheme?
	Because I don't think they're far away from wanting to control the food supply.
	There's evidence that they want to control not only the food, but the water supply on planet Earth, and that they want to invade the United States to do so.
	In fact, the ultimate plan was said to be That the United States would become, you know, what it sort of already is, but the breadbasket of the world.
	So that a lot of people would be taken off the land We've moved into these controlled city environments.
	Of course, this is after a certain amount of death and destruction, but whatever.
	And so I don't know whether you've followed all of that.
	So you see, you know, I'm always interested in the bigger picture, the ultimate objective.
	And we can see where all of this is sort of going.
	And I do think, you know, obviously you're talking transhumanism.
	So if you take these elements...
	First of all, what was your conclusion in your article?
	What did you want your conclusion to be?
	And then what would you say in relation to this sort of picture that I'm trying to paint here?
	Well, let me start with China.
	I already mentioned China is using more glyphosate, more Roundup per acre and per bushel of food produced than we are.
	What we're seeing in China Is what we already saw here in the Americas is a depopulation of the rural areas.
	China remained rural for much longer.
	They were backwards, you know, and now they're suddenly, you know, they're, you know, you take a city like, I'm from Canada, our biggest city is Toronto.
	Well, I'm told there are 33 Torontos in China.
	And that's not even the biggest city, you know, it just shows you.
	But yeah, they're depopulating the rural areas.
	So what's happened with their staple crop, rice, is you've all seen the sort of the cliche picture of the rice paddy submerged in water.
	And People planting the little shoots of rice that have already been sprouted, planting them by hand.
	Well, that's not done anymore.
	In fact, I think California at one point was growing more rice than China, but China's back on top again.
	They're not planting it by hand.
	It's all automated.
	They've figured out how to plant it by air.
	They can actually seed rice from the air right into a paddy that's already flooded, or they can seed it mechanically on the ground and then go back and flood the paddy afterwards.
	So they're depopulated.
	They don't need as many people.
	And adding to that, as I already mentioned, the custom harvesting that's being done.
	And that certainly not only applies here to our grain and cereal crops and our oilseed crops, but it applies to China as well.
	So you have a fully automated farm in the future.
	Where you will have no people.
	I don't know if anyone saw the movie Intergalactic.
	It's that three and a half hour movie about going into outer space.
	But in the movie, the lead guy, I forget his name, but he's an astronaut, but he's retired and he's living...
	On the farm.
	And yeah, the farm has all this automated equipment on it, which is true.
	That is here and now.
	It just hasn't been perfected yet.
	And they have, so for all of the functions of a farm, for cultivating the land, seeding the crop, spraying the crop, and then spraying the crop again to get it ready for harvest, and then harvesting it, all of that can be done basically with robots.
	So if you go out of the city right now, you'll see a farmer driving a tractor, Or you'll see someone driving a high-voice sprayer.
	Well, the cab is just going to disappear.
	The cab where the person sits and steers, that is just going to totally disappear.
	It's all going to be...
	And again, this is here and now.
	They just haven't perfected it.
	But you'll have humanless farming.
	So yeah, when you say America's going to...
	It's going to be the bread basket, because yeah, America, it's just incredible.
	America is the world's leading exporter of food, which is ironic, just briefly to go back, that we're importing all of our organic food, but that's another story.
	But yeah, America...
	Little old America with just 300 million, 320 million people is the world's leading exporter of food, more than Russia, more than China.
	And yeah, that's only going to keep, that's going to augment.
	We're going to see more and more food being exported out of America.
	And what we're doing when we do that, we're not just exporting a, you know, a commodity, like digging coal out of the ground or something.
	We're exporting our nutrient base.
	Hey guys, come on, go out, I'm on the phone.
	We're exporting the topsoil of America.
	We're exporting it all around the world in the form of food.
	And yeah, I think food should be local.
	You know, it doesn't have to be right down the street, but it certainly should be within your county or your community or at least within your state.
	And I don't think there's any reason at all to be shipping food all over the world.
	The last thing you want to do is fill a container with corn or wheat or rice.
	It makes no sense.
	Those are the last things you should be putting onto a ship.
	But yeah, you're right.
	That's where it's headed.
	And we're not going to just see fewer farmers.
	Probably within our lifetime, Kerry, we're going to see no farmers.
	So yeah, the conclusion of my article, again, I stress, I think Bayer envisions owning the choke point for all harvesting.
	All harvesting.
	Especially of your staple crops, like your cereals, your oil seeds.
	Basically, those are categorized as grain crops.
	So yeah, you'll still see people out in orchards pruning the trees, and they'll still hire pickers in the fall to pick the apples.
	You'll still see migrant workers being brought up to pick the lettuce in the Sonoma Valley of California.
	That's not going to change in the near future.
	Although all of that will someday be automated as well.
	But immediately our staple crops, all of our oil seeds, every deep fryer at every fast food restaurant is full of canola oil.
	Every potato french fry, every sandwich you eat that has bread in it.
	All of those staple crops will be made without any humans at all.
	And so again, to the conclusion, Monsanto and Bayer, they have no interest in the robot market for agriculture.
	That's going to be like John Deere and Massey Ferguson and the like.
	Their interest is in the chemical, and it's the only one.
	There are many alternatives for the spring burn-off.
	Roundup is generally viewed as the best and the cheapest and the safest.
	But there are really no alternatives for the fall desiccation or forced ripening of a crop.
	Roundup is it.
	Okay, so also I want to ask you about GMO and how much you investigated, and maybe even this is more in your past, but the effects of GMO on the human body, so to speak, because GMO is, from what I understand, a very big part of all this picture, right?
	And I believe that GMO, I've read that it actually causes humans to gain weight and to do all kinds of Well, I'm on record.
	I think it's in one of my Daily Caller articles, but I've done many interviews on this.
	I'm organic, so no GMOs allowed, but there's an exception, and that's the types of GMOs that are non-cross-species.
	So the best example is papaya.
	The papaya crops in Hawaii were developing a blight.
	And there was another type of papaya that the farmers had stopped growing because it wasn't as juicy and sweet.
	And basically staying within the genus or the species of papaya, they took traits.
	From the resistant papaya that didn't taste good, and they crossed it with the vulnerable variety that they were losing that did taste good.
	And I support that, you know, tentatively.
	The other good thing about that example, Kerry, is they never patented it.
	I don't think any life form can be patented.
	None.
	Whether it's a mouse.
	That happened back in the 90s.
	They patented a mouse.
	First genetic life form patented.
	Or a crop.
	There's...
	It makes no sense.
	It's like when a French guy invented the car and he tried to patent it, and he actually held the patent in the early part of the 20th century.
	He actually held it for about 10 years, but then he tried suing Henry Ford, and Henry Ford won.
	And thank goodness, cars would be even more expensive, and we'd all be beholden to this one person, kind of like we're all beholden to Bill Gates and Microsoft.
	So yeah, life forms shouldn't be patented.
	But as to the health effects, where I stand on that, really, I have to admit my limited knowledge, it's the same as Roundup.
	Does Roundup cause cancer?
	I don't know.
	My article, it doesn't matter if it does or not.
	I say Bayer is going to play that to their advantage.
	And they don't care what it costs.
	It could cost $100 billion.
	They're fine with it because they're going to make it all up in the future by selling a A more expensive version of Roundup to farmers, because farmers won't be able to live...
	Farmers can't live without it now, and more so in the future, they won't be able to live without it.
	But back to GMOs, I don't know much, if anything, about the alleged health effects, but I think it's unconscionable to force farmers to buy your seed, and that's really the business model behind GMO crops.
	You can't save seed, as you know.
	And there's even plans to come out with a Terminator seed.
	So even if you did save it, it would just...
	It would go inert or sterile in the next generation.
	So to me, that's just totally unconscionable, whatever the supposed health effects might be.
	Okay.
	Well, have you heard that all corn is GMO, regardless of where you get it?
	Even when they say it's organic, it's not, because there is some infiltration of the corn.
	I have a friend who worked in the organic industry and said, Two things.
	One, that all corn is GMO. And two, that actually behind the scenes of all the competitors, they're all on the same team and they all work in the same direction.
	So, you know, again, this Monsanto-Bayer sort of Issue being orchestrated from above both those companies, in essence, or at the top levels of the, you know, the CEO and above a board of directors type of thing.
	So any thoughts on that?
	No, I don't know too much.
	No, I don't know too much about corn.
	Yeah, except to say that you remember I mentioned we're importing three quarters of our organic food.
	Well, that includes animal feed.
	And yeah, so here we are.
	We live in America.
	We're exporting food all over the world.
	The Corn Belt, where they grow corn, it used to be 50 bushels an acre was good.
	That was considered a bumper harvest.
	Now they're up to 150 bushels, sometimes reaching 200.
	And yet, when it comes to the organic industry, they're importing corn from overseas, from Turkey and God knows where.
	And it's just crazy to be doing that when we have such productive capacity right here.
	Because even if you were growing organic corn and only getting 50 bushels an acre, I mean, 50 bushels an acre is awesome.
	I grew up on a wheat farm and, you know, 40 bushels an acre of wheat was incredible.
	50 was definitely a bumper harvest right there.
	You didn't have to go any higher and few rarely did.
	But yeah, they've pushed it so high up now that the pressure on landowners The pressure is to rent out your land or yourself, if you're still the owner and the operator, to grow a GMO variety because that's the only way you're going to make 150 bushels an acre.
	And that's just insane.
	I mean, they've pushed it so far.
	I think that's...
	I don't know, maybe there is fraud, I guess we would call it, so that organic corn is still GMO. But I think it's more of a market pressure, Kerry, that there's such market pressure.
	If you could rent land out to a farmer, For $1,000 an acre or $5,000 an acre.
	I mean, which would you do?
	So all of the landowners, a lot of them don't farm anymore.
	As I mentioned, it's all becoming corporate.
	They would rather find a farmer who's going to grow a GMO crop for them.
	And then they'll just get that much more rent out of them.
	A lot of people rent land out on a share crop basis, I should explain.
	So they'll get half of the harvest.
	So yeah, when I say renting land out for a thousand an acre or 5,000 an acre, that's called a cash rent.
	But most people, most landowners, they'll, to their credit, they'll take a stake in the harvest.
	So if, let's say the crop is hailed out, well then the landowner doesn't make any money that year.
	So that's fair.
	But on a share crop basis, would you rather have a farmer who's growing 50 bushels an acre of organic corn, even if it's, you know, got a 30% premium on the price?
	Or would you rather have a GMO farmer growing 150 bushels per acre?
	That's the guy most landowners want to enter into a share crop agreement with.
	And I think that's more of the pressure.
	But again, I don't know a lot about that.
	And I have heard that, that a lot of Supposedly organic crops may contain GMOs.
	But for me, the greater issue, I mentioned earlier, we're importing three quarters of our organic crops.
	Three quarters!
	That's insane!
	Well, here's another statistic.
	43% of our organic food in America tests positive for prohibited pesticides.
	So while I agree I'm worried about GMOs, I don't know a lot about the potential health effects, but I'm worried about them for other reasons as well as the potential health effects.
	But I can guarantee you, I am very worried about the health effects of pesticides.
	And that's supposed to be the reason to buy organic, that there's no pesticides.
	But again, 43%.
	There were two USDA studies done during Obama's years in office.
	And Obama was a very pro-organic president, so he wasn't out to embarrass the industry.
	Two studies by the USDA showed 43%.
	The next one was a bit better.
	It clocked in just under 42% of all organic food Contains traces of prohibited pesticide residues.
	Prohibited, in other words, in the organic industry.
	So for me, that's the far greater problem in the organic industry.
	But again, I just don't know that much about that crossover you're mentioning with GMOs.
	Okay, so what I would wonder is that If the organic is not really that organic.
	In other words, that's what you're saying.
	And I wonder how they pass.
	Like this study that you're saying, has it made no impact on the organic industry?
	They keep it secret because that's actually quite concerning.
	I buy organic and I think a lot of people do.
	We pay more for the organic.
	And then you're saying that Close to almost half has got pesticides that possibly even the non-organic don't have because they're not imported.
	Is that correct?
	Yeah.
	Right.
	Yes.
	So the reason is there's no field testing.
	That was something I talked about in my book.
	As an inspector, I always wondered, why aren't we testing the crop?
	It's very inexpensive to test for pesticides.
	And the excuse given was always that it's too expensive, but it's not.
	It's very inexpensive.
	So to his credit, going back to Obama, Obama appointed a really good guy that I used to know, Miles McAvoy.
	He appointed him as the Deputy Administrator of the National Organic Program.
	And Miles, to his credit, he hails from Washington State, And he ran the Washington State Department of Agriculture Organic Program before he graduated to Washington, D.C. And to his credit, he was the first government official anywhere in America, federal or state level, to test organic crops.
	And there I was, I was an inspector in the field at the time, and I thought, hey, right on!
	There's someone with brains here.
	Like, doesn't that just stand to reason?
	You know, we test Olympic athletes for performance-enhancing drugs.
	Heaven forbid you get pulled over for drunk driving.
	They have a breathalyzer test and then, you know, they follow that up with a blood test.
	I mean, testing, testing, testing.
	It's just common sense.
	But there was no testing.
	It was mentioned in the standards prior to Miles McAvoy coming to Washington under Obama.
	It was mentioned but ignored.
	So to his credit, when Miles got to Washington, he brought this philosophy with him, and he altered some of the verbiage and the standards in a good way to require certifiers to test crops.
	And by the way, all of the certifiers are private or not-for-profit.
	Now you see, when I say I was a USDA contract organic inspector, the reason for that is we're all on contract.
	All of the inspectors and all the certifiers, all of the people who read reports and decide whether or not a farm should be, all of those people are working on contract.
	There are no staff inspectors.
	Washington decided, under the Clinton administration, not to create a big organic bureaucracy in Washington, which was really good.
	Although, with that said, with Miles, he did expand the organic office.
	It started out with 10 people, and then that doubled under Bush.
	I don't know why Bush doubled it.
	Bush was supposed to be a free market guy.
	But he doubled it to 20.
	And then, yeah, under Miles McEvoy, he doubled it again to 40.
	I think it was 46 people.
	He's got 46 staffers working in the office.
	And again, none of them are inspectors.
	None of them go out in the field and look at crops or anything.
	They just sit in an office in Washington.
	But again, back to what Miles did that was good.
	He required the certifiers to start testing product.
	It would have been nice if he required them to test in the field because that's when a crop is still growing and that's when you would spray it.
	You don't spray things after they're harvested.
	But at least he did that, Kerry.
	Miles, he made the rules that were nebulous, he made them more concrete to where all of the certifiers couldn't just look at paperwork.
	They had to start testing.
	Well, under Trump, I admit I had great hopes for Trump.
	I fell for it.
	I really thought he would continue with that and maybe make it even better.
	But instead, we're back to where we were before Miles McAvoy came to Washington.
	We're back to everyone's just ignoring it.
	And as you know, Jeff Bezos bought Whole Foods.
	And there's a guy who doesn't care whether a crop is tested to ensure it's genuine or not.
	But yeah, you nailed it.
	Because it's overseas, because it's just paperwork that's exchanging hands through the brokers, through the certifier.
	See, these are American certifiers in America that are certifying the crop overseas.
	And they'll hire a Chinese or a Turkish inspector to go and inspect the crop for them.
	And submit the paperwork to them sitting in their office in Nebraska.
	I'm not kidding.
	That's how it works.
	And there's no testing done.
	And that's why, yes, that is why you'll see 43% of your organic food testing positive.
	And yeah, maybe some conventional food isn't testing positive because you're not supposed to spray a crop Close to harvest.
	So even conventional crops, you're not going to see those levels of pesticides.
	Sometimes you will, though.
	And what I would say in conclusion on that is to only buy organic from a farmer you know.
	Don't buy it from Costco, Walmart, or Whole Foods.
	Only buy it from a farmer.
	Go meet a farmer at a farmer's market.
	Even go out, visit the farm, see what it's like to be on a corn farm or whatever.
	And yet, buy your organic farm.
	You have to be your own inspector, essentially.
	You can't trust this system anymore.
	Okay, well, that's actually a tragedy to hear about because obviously a lot of people don't have time.
	To do that.
	And also in terms of getting food, we don't necessarily have access to that many farmers markets.
	And even when you do, they aren't selling organic nine times out of ten, at least in my experience.
	So that's sort of interesting.
	Now, I want to say that for my show, I have a chat room and I want to invite questions.
	And I think there was a question...
	And if that's okay with you, we'll take a little time with that.
	And so people that have questions, go ahead and please put them in all caps.
	I'll try to find your questions in the chat.
	There's quite an active chat room going along with this.
	But one person was talking about something about, what about when inspectors don't show up and the crop spoils before it can be certified?
	I'm not sure what that entails, but what are your thoughts on that?
	That will never happen.
	If it did happen, the farmer, the organic farmer could sue the certifier.
	Remember, it's a private certifier.
	It's a for-profit certifying body that's accredited under the USDA to perform inspections for the USDA. So it's a A private for-profit certifier or a not-for-profit, but even the not-for-profits, I mean, they'll generate millions of dollars a year in not-for-profit business.
	So yeah, I just call them all private certifiers.
	And yeah, it's the duty, once the farmer is signed up, it's the duty of that certifier to ensure his crop is inspected while it's still standing.
	And if they can't find an inspector or if they had an inspector who got sick or whatever, they have to find another one.
	Or that farmer will sue them for the value of that crop.
	So again, the rule is the crop has to be standing in the field.
	It has to be standing.
	Now it could be standing just, you know, one inch high.
	I've inspected crops because we inspect all summer, right?
	So I've inspected crops in May and June, got an early start.
	And all the way to harvest.
	And yeah, the crop has to be...
	And by the way, that's why when it came to putting field testing into the standards, well, it only makes sense that you'll do the test in the field.
	There's no point testing something after it's been harvested.
	I say that's like testing an Olympic athlete after he or she flew home after the Games.
	What's the point?
	As soon as you win a medal, they test you.
	Even if they already tested you before, they just do random testing.
	But if you want a metal, you're guaranteed you're going to have to submit a urine and blood sample for testing.
	Well, not with organic crops, just to reiterate that.
	But yeah, the crop has to be standing in the field, and that's the responsibility of the certifier to get an inspector out there in a timely fashion.
	Well, someone, the person who wrote that question, says it actually did happen that, I guess, the certifiers didn't show up and I don't know what the recourse was, whether they sued or not, but that appears to be one of the people in the chat.
	Now, in terms of...
	Sorry?
	Yeah, Carrie, the only exception would be if it was the farmer's fault So here's quickly, this is a really bad rule in the National Organic Program, but the farmer has the right to refuse an inspector.
	So I would often go back to the same farms year after year.
	You can only inspect the same farm three times and then you have to take a year off.
	I guess they're afraid you'll become too friendly.
	But let's say a farmer didn't like me, and this happened a few times, they could refuse to let me onto their farm and then my employer, my contract employer, would have to find another inspector.
	Now in that case, If the farmer refused a perfectly legitimate inspection in a timely manner, then it might be that farmer's own fault that they didn't find enough.
	That's the only circumstance I can think of where the farmer wouldn't sue.
	All right.
	I think what they said here, it was some kind of mix-up, and rather than get too much into that particular situation, and I am asking those in the chat to put questions there so that I can see, in the end of the day, you have been an inspector, and you seem to know a great deal about farming, and yet...
	Sorry?
	You skipped out there briefly, Carrie.
	Oh, yeah.
	Okay.
	Well, we're getting interference, which happens.
	But nonetheless, so what I'm wondering is why, if you are so interested in organic farming and have such a history in organics, have you not also researched, you know, The vitamin quality that's affected by these various things.
	In other words, maybe that's a whole different kind of chemistry or a different kind of approach.
	You know what I'm saying?
	In other words, why did you choose the approaches you have and so on?
	Well, that's a really good question.
	I believe that the nutritive content in organic food is better.
	It's never been proven.
	Back in the 1940s, there were the Hawley experiments carried out by Lady Eve Balfour.
	And that's Lady Eve.
	She's the niece of the Balfour Agreement, which, you know, created the State of Israel.
	Balfour was the Minister of State or whatever.
	After World War I in Britain, in the British Parliament.
	Well, his niece, very wealthy, she had the money to do this.
	And in the 1940s, what she managed to prove was that growing organic is just as good as conventional.
	So people might think, well, what's there to get excited about there?
	Well, that was in the 40s.
	Oh, sorry, I hit my computer.
	That was in the 40s.
	I mean, their laboratory analysis was rudimentary.
	And I believe that organic food, if grown properly, is better.
	Here's the problem.
	No one is testing this.
	No one is bothering.
	And I believe it's because there's fear.
	There's fear in the organic.
	I'm not the only one who knows that we're importing most of our organic food.
	I'm not the only one who knows the Obama administration tested organic food and found 43% containing prohibited pesticides, indicating probably fraud.
	So the powers that be in the multi-billion dollar organic industry, Kerry, they're sitting on their hands because they know the last thing they want to do is go out and do nutrition experiments because it'll blow up in their face.
	At the same time, they don't want to do anything about all of these imports because it's their bread and butter.
	And so, you know, that's unconscionable as far as I'm concerned.
	But to answer your question, no one's really done any serious analysis.
	There's been some work done on carrots and tomatoes comparing organic to conventional, and there's slight differences in trace minerals.
	But again, we're dealing with a flawed system.
	I mean, were those carrots even grown here in America?
	It's crazy.
	You wouldn't believe the things that are being imported.
	I mentioned earlier Grain is being imported and exported all over the world, conventional and organic.
	But apples, whole apples, not apple concentrate, apples are being shipped over the Pacific Ocean.
	From where?
	From China and New Zealand.
	That is insane!
	And so yeah, so there you are.
	Let's say you're a higher up.
	Maybe you're at Whole Foods, you know, and you might think, hey, you know, we should do a test on organic apples so we can show our customers why organic apples are better.
	And no sooner do those words come out of your mouth in the Whole Foods boardroom, someone with more brains than you says, yeah, you know what?
	Shut up.
	That's the last test we want to do because it'll, like I said, it'll blow up in our face.
	We'll either find there's no difference or maybe they're even worse.
	Because who knows if they're even organic?
	And that's why the title of my book was, Is It Organic?
	Yeah, there's no way to tell, Kerry.
	So I believe organic food is better.
	I believe it's better.
	It has yet to really be proven because we're dealing with a broken system.
	Wow.
	Well, that's actually very concerning, obviously.
	And I guess this has been said, but coming from someone like you, who's backing up what you say with some very intelligent research, I would say that that's actually kind of nailing it.
	Now, I have some more questions that I'm seeing here, so I'm going to just quickly see if I can...
	Is there one item we can grow at home that would be considered a survival food?
	Well, yeah.
	First thing, everyone should get out of the city.
	You hear about urban farming?
	Forget it.
	It takes an acre of land per person.
	That's what you're looking at.
	An acre is about the size of an American football field.
	It's 43,560 square feet.
	So unless you're living in an area of a city where there's lots of blown out buildings or maybe you have a huge yard, 43,000 square feet to feed one person.
	Now, if you're growing potatoes on that acre, you'll have enough potatoes to probably feed 100 people.
	But you're not going to eat potatoes all winter.
	You're going to want other things.
	And so when we look at the average overall, if you want some dairy, if you want some meat...
	You want some, you know, legumes and grains.
	You want a mixed diet.
	Yeah, it all averages out to an acre per person.
	Now, the good news slash bad news is with modern industrial farming, they're getting that down close to a half an acre.
	You only need a half an acre now.
	Yeah, but it's...
	It's empty food, it's genetically modified, and they've sprayed it with God knows what.
	My point is, before you look at the crop, the survival crop, and by the way, it would be a grain of some sort.
	It would be like wheat, because it'll store for years as long as it's cool and dry.
	They've found wheat in the pyramids.
	And it still sprouts.
	So it's amazing.
	As long as it's dry, it'll stay.
	So your staple crop for survival is going to be a grain, a cereal.
	Sorry, not a grain, because grain includes oilseeds, and they'll go rancid after a year.
	So it'll be a cereal crop of some sort.
	Oats, barley, or wheat, I would say.
	I'd go with wheat myself, even though we've all heard that too much wheat is a bad thing.
	The other really good one is rye.
	Of all the cereals, rye is the best, but it's hard to make a loaf of bread with rye.
	You need to mix some wheat in it to get the gluten because there's no gluten in rye.
	But anyway, again, before you do that, before you embark on your survival plan, You must get out of the city.
	There's no way to do it in an urban setting.
	Now, if you're in an urban setting, do it anyway.
	I mean, it can't hurt.
	And you'll become more familiar with how to grow food.
	And then at such time as you do vacate the city, as Jesus told us all to do, he said, get out of Jerusalem when you see the abomination coming.
	And I'm not kidding about that.
	You get out.
	He said, don't even go back to your house for your coat.
	He said.
	And he was right.
	When you see it coming, get out of the city.
	So if you can get out before, get out now.
	Start making plans.
	Get out of the city.
	And again, you need an acre of land per person.
	So if a family of five, if you had a little, you know, even if you just had five acres, because remember, you're not going to grow all your own food.
	You might trade with another guy who has five or ten acres.
	You know, you can't be the jack of all trades.
	You can't You can't grow eggs and grow cereals and ground crops like vegetables.
	You'll never do it all.
	It's just too intensive.
	But yeah, if you move out of the city, a small family with five or ten acres, you'll be set no matter what happens, as long as you have a source of water.
	Okay, now hold on one second here because I'm...
	I'm looking for the rest.
	There's some other very good questions.
	One person asking aspartame based on derivative of a nerve agent.
	Do you know anything about that?
	Oh, aspartame.
	Aspartame, yes.
	What I know about aspartame is it breaks down into formaldehyde.
	But that's going the other way.
	I don't know how they got it.
	I don't know how they made it.
	But I know what it breaks down into.
	So I have no idea except that I don't...
	Excuse me, I don't touch this stuff.
	A lot of people are worried about sugar intake, as they should be, and you should also worry about starch intake, because starch becomes sugar in your digestive system.
	And that's why, you know, the food pyramid is upside down.
	They've now admitted, they've gone, they've done away with, the food pyramid used to have grains on the bottom, and you don't want to have a diet consisting mostly of grains.
	That's for ruminants or chickens.
	It's not for humans.
	We're supposed to have protein and vegetables.
	So yeah, they've gotten rid of the food pyramid and they've moved to what's called MyPlate.
	And you can go look it up on the USDA website.
	I still don't think they got it right, but at least they got rid of the food pyramid.
	And you do want to watch your sugar intake and you do want to watch your starch intake, but you do not want to replace your sugar with fake sugar of any sort, any of them.
	Splenda, all these brand names, it's all garbage and it'll all kill you.
	Okay, yeah, I agree with that.
	Okay, now someone else is asking organic beet powder from Walmart.
	Is that any different than other brand names?
	Wow.
	Wow.
	Yeah, I've heard that the beets can be really good.
	There's all sorts of powders.
	You can get drinks that you mix it up into a shake or something.
	And beets are very sweet.
	That's, you know, we get a lot of American sugar comes from sugar beets.
	But those are different beets than the ones you'll have in there.
	And I would say this, you need to understand.
	So you pick up that package at Walmart, and it might say product of the USA on it.
	And in the ingredient list, it won't say where all the ingredients came from, but just on the package itself, it'll say product of the USA. And since it's certified, it will say USDA certified.
	So you might think, oh, these beets were grown in whatever, in Nebraska or Ohio or something.
	Maybe they were.
	But here's how it works for labeling.
	They bring in raw ingredients from overseas, and then they package them here.
	And the packaging is worth more than the raw ingredient, and that qualifies under American law as product of the USA. If you add more value to something, so the other example is concentrated apple juice from China.
	They'll bring that in, they'll add water to it, so now they're adding more volume To it, right?
	And then they'll put it in a bottle and the bottle is worth more than the apple juice from China.
	And so now by volume and by value it qualifies legally as product of the USA. So are these, is this beet powder good or not?
	There's no way to know and I just want to warn people that just because it says Certified by the USDA. Well, they're doing that.
	It even says on their website that their standards are for the whole world.
	So they admit it.
	Their standards are being applied all over the world.
	And remember, they just hire inspectors in China to inspect Chinese farms.
	They don't send Americans over there.
	And then it'll also say product of the USA. So you got two things on there that might make you think that it's domestic.
	There's no way of knowing.
	You don't know where those beets came from, I'm sorry to say.
	Okay, so it's great to have someone who has the knowledge you have about this subject matter.
	And I wonder if, I hope this is not a dumb question, but you said that they don't test organic, but I'm assuming you're saying they do test regular crops.
	And if nobody tests anything, then how do they get certified to begin with?
	It's record keeping and record checking.
	That's how all of Washington runs.
	So you'll hear that there are 30,000 people working at the Environmental Protection Agency.
	They're all in offices.
	All of them.
	You'll hear, I think it's more than that, working at the USDA. Now occasionally the USDA goes out and will arrest a farmer who's selling raw milk or something like that.
	So they actually get out of the office for that kind of thing.
	And they strap on a badge and they carry guns.
	USDA inspectors carry guns.
	And yeah, they'll go and shut down a raw milk dairy farm.
	But all of these people, my point is, all of these people are in offices.
	And it's all done on paper.
	And the model, again, it's called record keeping.
	So the person being inspected keeps records.
	And then it's record checking.
	And that's what Bernie Madoff was under.
	Bernie Madoff, who pulled off the largest Ponzi scheme ever, he kept records.
	He kept meticulous records, Kerry.
	And when the guy from, what is it called, the Security and Exchange Commission, the SEC, when that inspector came, and again, they don't come, he would just send his paperwork in to the SEC office.
	They thought, wow, Bernie Madoff has the best record-keeping ever.
	He was known for having the best records.
	And he would give classes in New York at various colleges to young finance people, you know, economics, business majors.
	He would give classes on record-keeping.
	And his motto was always, keeping good records makes you a better businessman.
	Yeah.
	And look how it turned out!
	So yeah, that's record keeping and record checking.
	All of the Washington DC regulatory apparatus operates on that same system.
	Now, you mentioned conventional food.
	It can be tested.
	There's random testing to make sure a farmer didn't spray a crop too late.
	For instance, or in the meat industry to make sure a cow didn't have a hormone or antibiotic injection too close to slaughter.
	They have to wait a certain amount of time.
	Yes, but ironically in the organic industry, we don't even have that.
	We don't even have that random testing.
	And when we import allegedly organic products, it comes into port.
	Now, the USDA has Port authorities, and they have the power to open up any container.
	And they do.
	They will open containers randomly.
	Or if there's a funny smell, Kerry, sometimes things are rotting, so they'll open that container for sure, and they'll reject it, obviously.
	But the problem is...
	They don't open organic containers with any higher frequency.
	In other words, if a big container ship comes in and 10% of the containers on it are organic and the other 90% are not organic, It's just random.
	Again, unless they smell something or they saw a rat, it's random.
	It means there's only a 10% chance that they will randomly open the organic container.
	In other words, they apply no higher scrutiny to the organic products.
	None.
	It's the same level of random scrutiny applied to all food being imported into America.
	And yeah, once again, even if they did test, if you test end product, you're much less likely to find someone cheating.
	And that's why we do inspections in the field.
	So yeah, if you were going to test organic product, you'd want to be testing it in the field.
	That's when you're most likely to detect something that shouldn't be there.
	Okay, now I have...
	At least one or two other questions, and I didn't see any more questions in the chat, but I know this is a little strange.
	Maybe you don't know anything about it, but there is a huge market now for wine, and wine is grown, especially in California, in places where it never used to be grown, like What we call the Central Valley that's very flat over by Highway 5.
	I don't know if you know California, but at any rate.
	And it's very strange to see vineyards that are not grown on hillsides because I grew up in California and that's the normal place that even in France where they don't grow on flat ground.
	I don't know exactly what the principle is.
	One assumes that water has to drain out easily and so on and so forth.
	So the vines don't rot.
	But I would wonder what is going on with this incredible upshoot of wine manufacturing really worldwide now.
	It's become very fashionable and it's also very profitable because they charge a huge amount for a glass of wine with no necessarily reason why one glass is $10 and another is $20, for example.
	But Have you looked into that at all?
	And do you know any reason why suddenly these crops, are they GMO? What are we talking about?
	You're absolutely right.
	Wine vineyards are They're supposed to be kept on the dry side.
	Of course they need water, of course.
	But yeah, that's why you used to see vineyards on the hillside.
	And then in a traditional setting like, you know, the Bordeaux Valley of France or whatever, they would grow crops for human consumption, like grain crops on the flat plains.
	And they grew the wine up on the hills.
	And it was perfect because again, like you say, the...
	See, a crop can soak up water.
	A grain crop, instead of getting 40 bushels, you'll get 80 bushels an acre if you get a lot of rain.
	And it's rare that a grain, it does happen, a grain crop obviously can be flooded.
	But a grain crop can soak up way more water than a vineyard.
	Vineyards are sparse, there's room in between the rows, and there's reasons for that.
	Like the French say, there's only so much flavor per acre of land.
	And yeah, what you're seeing is the destruction of that old system.
	I think of wine growing, because this was certainly going on in Canada before I left seven years ago.
	I lived in British Columbia, north of Spokane in the Okanagan Valley.
	And what's happening, it's kind of like casinos, okay?
	So it used to be if you wanted to be bad, you'd go to Vegas with your buddies, right?
	Well, now there's a casino in every state, except here in Texas.
	Everyone's in the casino business because it's such a great revenue generator.
	Well, I'm still waiting.
	I'm still praying, actually.
	I'm hoping that someday we'll see a saturation point where there's so many casinos that people just stop going, right?
	Or that some of them will go broke because there's too many casinos.
	Well, and I'm hoping, I don't mean any ill will to any viticulturalist who's invested money in a vineyard, but I'm hoping we'll see the same thing with wine.
	It's crazy.
	Everyone's growing grapes now.
	You're right.
	As long as you're below a certain latitude, like even here in Texas.
	Well, Texas isn't known for wine, but there's...
	A few hundred wine growers or grape growers here that produce their own wine right on site.
	And that's fine, but I really think we're reaching saturation point.
	But it's market pressure.
	As you can imagine, an acre of vineyard is probably worth 50 to 100 times more than an acre of cropland.
	In other words, the amount of revenue you'll make off growing wheat It's a fraction of what you can make growing grapes.
	But how long will that last?
	I mean, if they're growing grapes in the Ohio Valley, how long will that last?
	And again, I think it's reaching saturation point.
	One more thing on that, though.
	Unlike the commodities market in cereals and oilseeds, There's no upward limit for wine.
	Like you said, $10 a glass, $20 a glass.
	And then remember, the government has to get their due.
	In Canada, they're getting over...
	It's about 60% of what you pay is taxes.
	So the government's happy.
	The government will guarantee your loan if you want to start a winery in British Columbia in Canada.
	It's insane.
	But yeah, there's no upward...
	There's no upper limit, if you know what I mean.
	So yeah, they're paying $150,000 for an acre of grape land.
	That's without any grapes growing on it.
	Just for land that's been deemed suitable to grow grapes in California and Oregon and Washington and Canada.
	It's $150,000 an acre all the way up, heading all the way up north.
	For what's called grapeland.
	And one more thing on that, the reason is, even if you don't make your own wine, if you're just a grape grower, you can just make grape juice and put it in containers and ship it to a winery and they'll pay you good money for it.
	Meanwhile, things like apples and plums, well, they don't keep so well.
	You know, they've got to get to the store shelf within a day or two, three days max.
	And if they sit there for too long, they go into the garbage.
	So yeah, what we're seeing is a lot of land that used to grow fruit is being converted to grapes because grapes, once you make them into juice, they're a commodity, just like wheat or canola.
	It's just a commodity market now.
	Okay, so great information.
	Now, in terms of the future, and then I'll let you go.
	We've been going for quite a while here, and thank you.
	You've got great information, and it's quite valuable.
	So in terms of where you want to go now, obviously you're very educated in terms of The overall situation.
	And when you see something versus someone else sees something, whether it's about food or organics or even pharmaceuticals, I would imagine you have sort of a better take on getting the big picture.
	How are you applying yourself to the future at this point for those that are interested?
	And I think one of the things is you have a very old website out there, and I guess you no longer bother with it or whatever, although it's still online.
	I don't know.
	I mean, you can correct me.
	But just for people that are interested in following you and your work and what you might be doing in the future.
	Sure.
	Well, as I mentioned in the intro, I used to be involved in politics in Canada.
	I worked on both ends of the spectrum.
	I worked for the New Democrats.
	That's the Canadian version of the Democrats.
	And then I transitioned over to the Conservatives, which are the...
	A Canadian version of the Republican Party.
	And it took me 20 years to realize they're all a bunch of morons.
	And I abandoned that.
	But yeah, it was in that transition that I wrote my book, Is It Organic?
	I established a website.
	I had a Facebook and Twitter account.
	I did a number of public speaking engagements.
	And I was really active.
	And then it slowly dawned on me that not only these people are all the same, the same side of the You know, different sides of the same coin, as the expression goes.
	I mean, they all want to go to war with Iran, things like that.
	They all think Bayer's purchase of Monsanto is fine.
	I mean, really, find me a Democrat who's worried about what we're talking about today.
	I don't think you'll find one.
	And you already know before I even ask, there's no Republicans worried about Bayer buying Monsanto.
	So yeah, they're all cut from the same cloth.
	And so after I wrote the book, And through this transition from the extreme left to the extreme right, I finally realized there's no point.
	But with that said, what I was left with is the essence of it.
	Yeah, there's no point trying to get someone elected.
	There's no point trying to change public policy.
	There's no point, in other words, trying to get the USDA to start testing organic crops in the field, which was really my focus of my book and of all my work and all of my lectures that I gave.
	I really thought I could do it.
	And I realize now, forget it.
	But what I'm left with, as I say, is the essence.
	All we can do now, Kerry, is what you're doing, is reach people.
	Reach people to save them.
	And if you're listeners, if you're not Christian, you don't read the Bible, I think you should read the Bible.
	I think it'll really help.
	But even if you're not, you just need to save yourself.
	And that's all we can do.
	And then in saving yourself, you will save others.
	Even if you're not doing a broadcast like this, even if you're not lucky enough like me to come on to a great show like this, you will save others.
	Others will see you.
	They'll say, well, what are you doing packing up?
	Why are you leaving the city?
	And you will save others if you save yourself.
	And so what's happened is I've given up on all of the tumult, if you will.
	Of activism, and I'm left with the core of activism.
	And that's what we're doing here, or at least I hope it is.
	Okay.
	Very, very interesting and very lovely talking to you.
	I think there are different takes on what you're I'm not saying here about activism, but I certainly get the spirit of where you're going with it and probably agree on some counts for sure.
	Now, in terms of the show and everything, I hope you will consider coming back.
	I'd like to hear what you're into at any given time.
	Don't have time to go into other things that you might have been investigating, you know, in the last few years, etc.
	I know you had written to me about some other subjects, but feel free to send me material and I'll take a look at it and we can bring you back, if you like, to talk about some of those things.
	They may be a bit more controversial.
	I'd be happy to come back.
	Oh, and one other thing you asked, where can people find me?
	So, well, first thing, they'll find me in the comments section under this video, Kerry.
	I don't know why people, they have a website or a Twitter account, but no, no, by not having that, we're going to want to love me or hate me.
	We're going to funnel them into your comments section.
	And that, again, as they comment more, that'll bring more viewers in front.
	For you, so I really think it's like, the less I try, the less I try by having social media everywhere, the less I try, I think the more impact we'll have through interviews like this.
	And again, yeah, I'd be happy to come back in the future to discuss this or other issues, and I'll keep you abreast of what I'm doing.
	Excellent.
	All right.
	Thank you again, and you take care.
	Yeah, you too care.
	Yeah, you too.
	Okay, sorry about that.
	I think I just kind of cut him off by mistake.
	It's just for me when I'm doing shows, my focus is on the content, obviously, and the questions and the answers and so on.
	So I do tend to screw with the technology when I'm doing everything by myself.
	So it's a bit difficult, but I hope you don't mind and you can bear with me.
	The information is usually stellar.
	So again, I want to thank people that have been donating lately to try to keep us afloat.
	Please do keep even small donations.
	Five dollars here or there is great when you have an audience of this size.
	So thank you again for supporting my work.
	And I will have Mike Sparks with me, I believe, on Thursday night.
	So that's tomorrow night.
	at 7pm and this time provided his computer works and we can make the broadcast.
	It should be a fascinating show.
	So thanks again for watching and listening and take care and have a good day.

▲