For readers of MAN’S WORLD, my guest for this issue needs no introduction. You’ll most definitely be familiar with REN’s work, and beyond that, his life’s mission educating us all on the benefits of raw eggs, good health, masculinity and much more. A true renaissance man of our times, the list of topics REN can discuss at length is long! That being said, for this issue we thought it would be fitting to have a conversation about his new book, The Eggs Benedict Option (for which I had the honour of writing the foreword).

In one sentence, The Eggs Benedict Option is the antidote to the Great Reset. In the book, REN meticulously outlines the Globalists’ efforts over decades to capture one of the most essential resources necessary for our survival and endurance: our food. Due to their success in controlling what we eat — and with it the success of deliberately downgrading its quality and advocating poor diet recommendations — our society has declined dramatically compared to the early 20th century. REN documents the factors and methods deployed that have led to a multitude of negative consequences, all undeniable: we suffer of weaker physiognomies, degenerative diseases, downgraded DNA, and decreased fertility, among many other ailments, largely because of the “food” we consume.

While it is painful to take stock of the results caused by the modern Western diet, there is hope, and it lies in The Eggs Benedict Option. The book shows us a way out of this hell they have planned for us — live in the pod, eat the bugs — by reclaiming the way we produce and consume our food. Household gardening and regenerative agriculture, practiced in widespread fashion by our ancestors but also in our recent past and in certain parts of the world today, can once again become the norm — a “New Normal” that actually benefits us. Solutions are out there and have been proven to not only work, but to replenish our soils as well, which have been stripped for decades since the advent of industrialized agriculture. The field of regenerative agriculture is fascinating, and The Eggs Benedict Option offers a great introduction to an essential part of reclaiming our autonomy from the Globalists.

The book is a must read, so get your copy as soon as you can — and in the meantime, let’s find out more from the author himself.

 

REN, you’ve been at the forefront of denouncing impoverished diets and the various poisonous chemicals that are found in our food, pushing instead for clean, nutritious eating habits. Tell us how the book came about, and what was the main takeaway you wanted to convey.

This will make you laugh. I had this old partially read copy of The Benedict Option [by Rod Dreher] kicking around on the floor, getting progressively more and more scuffed. Anyway, one day I looked across at it – I may have been sitting on the loo at the time – and all of a sudden it hit me. THE EGGS BENEDICT OPTION! Well, now I had a great name. But what to do with it?

Initially I thought I’d just write an essay about The Benedict Option and what I saw as the problem with the general thesis of the book (that it’s predicated on the idea that intentional Christian communities will simply be left alone by their avowed enemies to do their own thing, which doesn’t seem at all realistic to me). But then I thought, “the Eggs Benedict Option” is too good to waste on a short essay, so I decided it would have to be a book. I started riffing on the idea of a Benedict Option for RWBBs [right-wing bodybuilders) and what that might look like.

It quickly became clear to me that it would have to be about the Great Reset and the food transformation that the globalists have in store for us, something I had been following closely already. And since The Benedict Option lays out a positive vision for how Christians can respond to the increasingly hostile culture around them, I wanted to do the same. I didn’t just want the book to be a description of all the bad things the globalists want to do. That would be extremely depressing – a black pill. So I needed a comprehensive plan to fight back.

Fortunately, I didn’t have to look too far, since I had been reading a lot about regenerative agriculture. I’ve long been of the opinion that small-scale food production is the answer to so many of our current problems and I’d just been turned on, thanks to the Small Farmer’s Journal, to the little known (in the West at least), but extremely important, form of agriculture known as “Russian household gardening” or “dacha gardening”. This became the jumping-off point, then, for a plan to fight the globalist vision of the future of food with a renewed localism, at the social and political level.

If the book has a main takeaway, it’s that although the powers that oppose us are great, their victory is by no means assured. Klaus Schwab is right about one thing: this is the perfect opportunity for fundamental change. It’s just a question of whose vision of the future wins. Ours must prevail!

 

I think what most people fail to comprehend, is that all of this was deliberate. What makes the EBO so compelling – and convincing for those new to this theme – is that you only referred to official statements from the Globalists’ mouths, demonstrating their machinations are indeed intentional.

Yes, exactly. This is something that greatly frustrates me when people start talking about the Great Reset. They start with a document like “Welcome to 2030”, the famous “thinkpiece” from 2016 that provoked so much discussion and revulsion, and very quickly end up talking about ancient bloodlines and other stuff that just makes them look, to your man on the street, like a total crank. This is very bad. It’s a distraction and it discredits everybody. Our opponents can simply say, “Look at these people. They’re insane with all their talk of lizard people etc.”

I mean, there are all sorts of understandable reasons why people let speculation get the better of reason when they talk about the Great Reset, not least of all because the World Economic Forum has a knack for the kind of stunning coincidences that would shock even the most tired of conspiracists back into life. Just look at Event 201, the pandemic planning exercise held in October 2019 that basically predicted every aspect of the coming pandemic, including the unheralded social restrictions that were imposed. My friend Eugyppius wrote very perceptively about this in Issue Four. It’s mind-boggling. But it’s also hard to get anywhere further than that initial jolt. Event 201 might incline you to think that the pandemic was, to some degree even if not entirely, a plandemic, but there’s just no way to bridge the gap, as it were – in exactly the same way as, however strange it might seem that three prominent opponents of the creation of the Federal Reserve just so happened to die on the Titanic, there’s no way to get from that fact to a credible argument that the Titanic was deliberately sunk to ensure its creation. I talk about this kind of stuff in my Meditations essay for this issue of the magazine, and ask why we care so much about who or what Klaus Schwab actually is. That kind of talk adds nothing to what we already know.

And we already know a huge amount. There are books and articles and studies and public pronouncements, going back years, laying out exactly what the globalists want to do to the food supply and why. It’s all there – publicly accessible – and just waiting to be given a proper airing. People think “You vill eat ze bugs!”, but actually there’s an entire detailed plan for a global diet that’s been produced by one of the World Economic Forum’s partners, the EAT Foundation. This “Planetary Health Diet” is a more or less entirely plant-based diet, developed in order to feed a projected world population of 10 billion in a way that is “healthy” (according to their perverted standards) and that allows the governments of the world to meet their climate targets. Everything you need to know about this project – who is involved and how, what they want to do and why – is there, ready to be discovered. If my book serves any purpose, I hope at least it will make people realise how far advanced the globalist plan is, and of course how bad it is too.

So we don’t need to speculate about Klaus Schwab’s links to the Third Reich’s nuclear programme or whether Justin Trudeau and Jacinda Arden were created in a lab. The globalists want to force us to change our diet in the most fundamental way, in a way that has never happened in history (although there are important parallels), and that’s more than enough to get people motivated to resist the Great Reset.

 

One of these important parallels in your account is with the Neolithic Revolution, which you call “the original Great Reset”. Control over what we eat has been a part of our rulers’ playbook for a long time then? How ancient is the control of food as a form of social control?

As I say in the preface of the book, social control and control of the food supply go together like peas and carrots. We’re talking about one of the most ancient, most fundamental rules of government, which has been understood by rulers for thousands of years. I wanted to make this fact unambiguously clear right at the beginning of the book.

The preface discusses Plato’s Republic and the idea expressed in the second book that the perfect harmonious society must be vegetarian. Although this isn’t the society that Plato’s Socrates ends up elaborating for the rest of the book, it’s very striking that, nevertheless, he sees a vegetarian diet as being one that will best quiet the passions and desires of ordinary people, allowing them to live peacefully, without questioning their lot. The people as happy cattle, essentially. But behind that you have a more general fact – that as early as the mid-fourth century BC philosophers clearly believed that you could fundamentally change a society by changing its diet – which is no less interesting than the specifics of what Plato says.

Now this is ancient enough – we’re talking 2,500 years roughly – but in fact we can go back even further, to the Neolithic Revolution, the creation of fixed-field farming in the Near East, to see the link between changing diet and changing forms of social control revealed in the most dramatic fashion. Rather than being the happy tale of Progress we’re generally told it was, the Neolithic Revolution brought terrible misery to the majority of people who were caught up in it. Only a narrow elite, who often came in from “outside”, as it were, as invaders, really benefitted. And this is clear in all sorts of evidence, whether we’re talking about skeletal evidence of serious malnourishment among early farmers or evidence for societal collapse, which often seems to have taken place as a result of early farmers running away at the first chance they got.

An account of the events of the Neolithic Revolution, and a comparison with the Great Reset plan for food, is central to the book, not only to reveal that societies can be fundamentally transformed by altering how food is produced and distributed, but also to reveal what is at stake in the coming food transformation. I’m in no doubt that many of the things that happened to Neolithic man when he became a farmer – the malnutrition, the shrinking, the illnesses – are likely to make an unwelcome return if we’re all forced to eat plant-based diets. I mean this in all seriousness.

 

Right. Your discussion of the physical changes induced by change in diet is fascinating – and scary. I highly enjoyed reading about the work of Weston Price, author of Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, who proved the superiority of animal vs. plant based diets. Information that would be useful for vegans…

If everybody who thought they wanted to be a vegetarian or vegan was made to read Weston Price first, only the most stubborn and deluded – sadly a decent proportion of vegans especially – would continue down that path. Another book I use quite liberally in the section on the probable health effects of the globalist plant-based diet is Lierre Keith’s The Vegetarian Myth, which is an interesting combination of nutritional information and autobiography. Keith ruined her body by persisting in a vegan diet for nearly two decades, despite almost immediately starting to suffer from excruciating side-effects. One of the things that finally broke her – made her repent from veganism, if you will – was reading Weston Price and realising that she was essentially going against nature with her current diet. She was responsible for all of the dreadful things she was suffering, because she had chosen not to nourish herself with the foods that make human beings have perfect health – i.e. nutrient-dense animal foods. Weston Price is unequivocal that humans cannot reach their proper physical potential eating plant foods alone, and especially not industrially produced plant foods.

I should say some more about Price for those who don’t know. He was a dentist in Cleveland in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who noticed an alarming trend among his patients, especially the children. More and more he noticed malformed jaws – crowded teeth, cavities, narrow dental arches – that not only marred his patients’ physical appearance, but also reduced their health and development and even, in some cases, led to serious behavioural problems. Price was convinced that this was due to a change in diet: this was the time that people in the Corn Belt and the rest of America started to move from a diet of natural whole foods to industrially produced food, especially grain-based products. He decided, around about the 1920s, to travel the world and put his theory to the test by seeing if he could find traditional groups of people who displayed perfect dentition and learn what they were eating. So he travelled the length and breadth of the world over a period of years, from North America to the Torres Straits (Australia) via Africa and even parts of Europe, such as the Highlands of Scotland and high alpine Switzerland, and the book he eventually produced was Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.

One thing you have to realise here is that dentition isn’t just about your mouth and face. Dental development and health are a strong, as well as immediately visible, index of overall health and fitness. It’s not for nothing that we place so much store by a beautiful, properly developed, symmetrical face. People whose faces are in decay are in decay more broadly. If you have a narrow face with crowded, rotting teeth and thin nostrils, you will, as a whole person, invariably be unhealthy.

Price discovered at least a dozen – I think it was 14 – traditional groups who were in “perfect physical condition” as a result of continuing their traditional diet. People like the Maasai, the Torres Strait Islands, Crofters in the Scottish Highlands, the Inuit. The traditional diets of these people varied from place to place, of course, but they were all built on the same foundation of nutrient-dense animal foods, especially organs like liver, fatty cuts of meat, eggs and seafood. Wherever traditional groups had given up these foods for modern industrial food, the same physical problems Price saw in his practice in Ohio were visible.

One of the most useful things Price did to support his thesis was take lots of pictures, and the most striking ones are direct comparisons of identical twins, one of whom still ate the traditional diet and the other, who had given it up. One looks great, the other not so much. With these direct comparisons it’s basically impossible to argue with Price’s thesis, and I’m not alone in thinking that he actually formulated ironclad scientific rules for human health and development. These form the backbone of my case for a return to ancestral nutrition.

I think I ought to say, since we’re talking about vegetarians and vegans, that they get one thing right at least: that industrial agriculture, especially the raising of livestock, is an abomination. It is. But what they get wrong is their insistence that this is the only way to farm animals, with the implication that livestock cannot and should not be raised full stop. No, we don’t have to raise animals in concentration camps. Torture need not be involved. There are other ways. In fact, until very recently we raised animals in an entirely different manner, and that’s what proponents of regenerative agriculture, which is very important to The Eggs Benedict Option, advocate returning to.

 

You draw heavily on Alexander Dugin’s work, specifically, the Great Awakening vs the Great Reset. Your book, I would say, offers a concrete, practical solution for the Great Awakening. How has Dugin influenced you in writing the EBO?

Dugin is a very interesting character who’s been in the news recently for unhappy reasons [his daughter was assassinated a few weeks ago in a car bomb that was clearly intended for him]. I’ve only read a small amount of his work, including some of The Fourth Political Theory, but what he says in his short book on the Great Reset is very interesting and useful for my purposes in The Eggs Benedict Option.

First of all, he offers us a compelling “genealogy” of the Great Reset, showing that it has a deep history and metaphysics that can be traced back to the Middle Ages and the emergence of a new philosophy known as nominalism. For the nominalists, basically, there were no such things as universal entities, only individual entities, in opposition to what the Platonists and Aristotelians (referred to as “realists” or “universalists”) believed. Now, the relevance of this might not be immediately obvious to you, but what the victory of nominalism entails, ultimately, is the dissolution of all forms of collective identity. Nominalism has been an acid-bath for tradition in the West, beginning with the Reformation; continuing through the emergence of capitalism and liberalism, and the triumph over fascism and communism in the twentieth century (“the End of History”); and culminating in the Great Reset. All forms of collective identity, whether we mean religion, race or ethnicity, gender and now even what it means to be a human being (“posthumanism”) have been or are being undermined by the nominalism that is at the heart of modern Western thinking. This is the kind of deep history of the Great Reset that we need, rather than speculation about ancient bloodlines etc. It allows us to see that the Great Reset is, in a very real sense, merely an outgrowth of this trend – the dominant trend? – in Western intellectual, social and political life, including the emergence of liberalism. Fully understanding this means, among other things, that we can’t solve the problem of the Great Reset with more liberalism (the liberal’s favourite solution). We need to think differently if we want to get out of this trap.

As well as this genealogy, Dugin also offers an interesting account of what he calls “The Great Awakening”. This is the global resistance that has emerged to globalism and the Great Reset, whether we mean Trump and QAnon, Putin’s Russia, Islamic regimes like Iran, or the CCP. At present, most of this resistance is spontaneous and largely untheorised, but Dugin sees the potential for a more coordinated front against globalism, in which different nations or civilisations draw on their own native resources to resist the globalist vision of the future. Although I’m not entirely sure how much common ground nations like the US and China, or the US and Iran, can find, I do think that the idea of looking within – looking to alternative traditions in our history – and also looking to other, non-Western traditions, is one powerful way that we can imagine a new future.

 

Russia also inspired you in the latter part of the book when looking at agricultural practices. You recommend we look at their ‘dachas’ as a model of household agriculture that we should consider implementing in the West.

This is precisely what I mean by looking to alternative traditions both within and outside our own culture. Russian household gardening is an ancient practice of small-scale agriculture that goes right back to the earliest days of the first Russian kingdoms, when peasants had their own plots of land in addition to the land they tilled for the local lord. It’s incredibly productive – something like 50% of all food consumed in Russia by value is produced on people’s own land, 90% of the potatoes, more than 50% of the milk and 50% of the meat – and has various incredible benefits beyond the high-quality organic food it provides. Among other things, household gardening keeps people fit and healthy; provides recreation for families and friends; helps build a sense of community (most of the produce is either consumed or exchanged directly with other growers, rather than reaching the market); increases the nation’s food security; reduces inflation. It also has a deep spiritual and political aspect, rooting people in the soil of Mother Russia, which has been developed in a new homesteading movement called Anastasia. I talk about this at length in the book.

Although Russia is now an industrial nation with hypersonic weapons, and the majority of people now live in the cities rather than the countryside, 35 million households spend an average of 17 hours a week during the growing season working on their gardens (which is actually about half the time the average American spends in front of the television each week). Urbanites travel out of the city to plots in the countryside, whereas those who already live in the countryside might have a garden attached to their home and some extra land somewhere else nearby. These plots of land, on average, aren’t all that big, but they provide a wealth of nutrition, from fruits and vegetables to animal products, because they’re farmed intensively, using all sorts of time-honoured techniques to maximise yields, like companion planting. The fact that this system has been going on for so long, and that many of the plots have been in continuous use for hundreds of years, is a testament to its sustainability.

It’s ridiculous that Russian household gardening hasn’t received more attention than it has, but all sorts of prejudices exist in the Western mind about Russia, not least of all the idea that it’s actually a country full of alcoholics who are always millimetres away from starvation or extermination. As a result, Russian household gardening is often portrayed simply as a response to the hardship of life in Russia, rather than a deep cultural form that also has a wider potential application outside the country.

 

You make an interesting parallel with the US, and how this could easily be replicated there. In fact, it largely was already in practice at the turn of the century.

The US may not have an unbroken thousand-year tradition of small-scale farming, but we shouldn’t forget that it began as a nation of small farmers and remained one until not all that long ago. Most of the Founding Fathers were farmers. And I think it was Thomas Jefferson who predicted that America would be in trouble if it ceased to be a nation of small farmers, echoing a very ancient Roman sentiment about the inherent virtue of the small farmer (as expressed for instance in the Horace poem, “Blessed is the man who, far from the city’s business, tends his paternal herds…”).

When the American frontier was finally declared closed in 1890, some, like Fredrick Jackson Turner, believed that Jefferson would be proved right. Life on the frontier, according to Turner, was what made all the disparate peoples who landed on American shores into Americans. The frontier was, in a sense, the nation’s “safety valve”, which allowed it to cope with the massive waves of immigration through the nineteenth century. With that gone, how would the huddled masses be assimilated and become Americans? The “Turner Thesis”, as it’s known, has been hugely influential, and politicians from FDR to JFK have called for the creation of new frontiers (welfare for all, science and the space race) to ensure the American nation continues to thrive.

There have also been various “back to the land” drives since the closing of the frontier, the most notable taking place during World War II, when millions of ordinary people were encouraged to grow their own food as much as possible. Various schemes have also been established, especially in impoverished urban areas, to create community gardens to provide extra food for the poor. Most of these schemes have been very successful.

I’m not sure that Russian household gardening could easily be replicated in the US, but I still think it could happen. Here’s a fact: the total area of lawns in the US is significantly larger than the amount of land under cultivation by household gardeners in Russia. So Americans already have the space if they wanted to put it to use, without the need for things like government land grants – although these have been used to great effect before in American history (e.g. the Homestead Act). One of the main barriers, I think, is the fact that the law in America favours big farmers and corporations. The title of one of Joel Salatin’s most famous essays says it all: “Everything I want to do is illegal”. You would need to create a totally new environment where the little man is encouraged and empowered to produce food and exchange it in his local community, without fear of repercussion. For that, I think, you’d need a renewed populism willing to take on the big corporate interests. That’s no small task, but I think it can be done.

 

Joel Salatin is a fascinating figure, isn’t he? Can you tell us more about the kind of farming he advocates?

Joel Salatin is a really inspirational figure. One of the best ways to get into his work is either through a collection of his essays like Everything I want To Do Is Illegal, or to watch him on Joe Rogan. It was Rogan who first introduced me to him, a few years ago, but since then I’ve read a lot of his work, especially while I was writing The Eggs Benedict Option.

Joel has a 500 acre farm in Swoope Virginia where he’s at the cutting edge of regenerative agriculture. Regenerative agriculture is a model of agriculture that goes beyond simply being sustainable. The aim is not to maintain a certain level of fecundity but actually to restore and enhance it. In this aim and in their methods, regenerative farmers like Joel Salatin are doing more or less exactly what the Russian household farmers are doing, just on a larger scale and, importantly, with the greater involvement of grazing animals, especially cows. Household farmers and regenerative farmers alike shun the use of artificial chemicals and use a variety of time-honoured techniques like cover-cropping and companion-planting, techniques which have fallen out of favour since the advent of modern fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides (the inaptly named “Green Revolution” of the mid-twentieth century).

One of the things that’s most interesting about regenerative agriculture is the absolute centrality of livestock grazing to it. In the regenerative model, livestock are not only responsible for converting indigestible plant matter into the most nutritious food we can eat, but through their grazing, trampling and production of manure, they also enhance the goodness of the soil dramatically. In fact, saying that livestock are central to regenerative agriculture is actually misleading. “Essential” would be a better word, because without them the whole enterprise would fail.

This is the complete opposite of the today’s industrial model of grain agriculture, which includes a significant proportion of livestock-rearing, especially in the US, since much of the grain produced is fed to livestock in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Industrial agriculture on the standard model is often referred to as “extractive” farming, for the simple reason that it takes and takes and takes and never gives anything back. This is why, people like Salatin argue, we must go beyond mere sustainability. We’ve already depleted the earth’s soils to such an extent that just sustaining them isn’t enough: we need to restore them if we are to be able to continue farming in the long term.

The most dire predictions about the state of the earth’s agricultural topsoil are that there may be as little as 60 years of agriculture left before the soils are totally exhausted. The Great Reset model of agriculture has nothing to say about how topsoil depletion will be combatted or reversed, only the confident assertion that we can feed 10 billion people an almost entirely plant-based diet simply by using new technology, including GMO and smart AI-assisted application of chemicals.

One thing people don’t understand, and they should understand, is that the majority of the world’s agricultural land is simply unfit for growing crops. Many people, including those who really should know better, seem to think we could just turn all the land used for grazing over to crop-growing, but they couldn’t be more mistaken. Over 60% of agricultural land is what’s called “marginal land”, which means that it’s poor quality land that’s only suitable for grazing animals. Although the remaining 40% is classified as arable land, i.e. suitable for crops, the truth is that this figure is misleading. Much of the world’s arable land, for instance the arable land of North Africa, is only suitable for a limited range of agricultural products, like olives. Only 3% – that’s right, 3% – of all agricultural land is classed as “prime” arable land, and much of that is in central Europe and southern Russia. If we ruin that, our options are very limited.

 

Both of these small and large scale farming methods are what true environmentalists (a completely co-opted term for big business and the Globalists) should be advocating for, since they allow us to take from the earth whilst replenish the soils. It sounds like the ideal food ecosystem, but goes against the entire narrative of finite resources the Globalists have been propagating for decades…

Yes, but you know, there’s a strange contradiction at the heart of all of this. It’s not the only contradiction in what the globalists say, either. On the one hand, as you note, they bang on endlessly about finite resources, the dangers of population increase – it’s all a zero-sum game and so something will have to be reduced, drastically, if we aren’t to destroy the planet. And they usually say, or at least heavily imply, that this must be the world population. This is the globalism of the Club of Rome (a huge influence on the creation of the World Economic Forum) and of the Georgia Guidestones. “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature”, as the Guidestones had it (may they rest in piss).

On the other hand, though, with the Planetary Health Diet, you have these blithe assurances that we must continue to extract, extract, extract to produce enough food to feed a massively expanded global population. The estimate that’s used in the literature for the Planetary Health Diet is 10 billion by 2050. I’m sure I’m not the only one who finds himself a little confused by this contradiction, but I think I can square the circle without having to claim that all of the writing and pronouncements I’ve been analysing for the book are just a smokescreen or cover for depopulation. I think the Great Reset model, including the Planetary Health Diet, is one that the globalists will go through with if they’re allowed to. In the long term, this may lead to drastic reductions in population, but I don’t think that’s the immediate goal.

The main theme of the Great Reset is corporate control, and the extractive model of industrial agriculture is the one that makes the most money for corporations. That’s why they want to intensify, rather than abandon it. At the same time, there has to be a compelling argument to justify the dramatic transformation entailed by the Great Reset – the total surrender of individual wealth and sovereignty – and what better way to justify this than the twin threats of climate change and population explosion?

 

Following your discussion of these special agricultural methods, you put forward the case that they can form the basis of a ‘renewed populism’. Can you elaborate on your vision?

Unlike in Russia, where the growth of homesteading movements like Anastasia has happened spontaneously, without government support, largely because small-scale agriculture is so embedded in Russian life, in America the growth of such a movement will necessarily be political. There’s no other way around it – but that’s not a bad thing. Far from it.

The movement that was first given the name “populism”, which emerged in the late nineteenth century, was principally a movement of small-scale farmers. And they were fighting to protect their lives and livelihoods from enemies that we would recognise today: corporations and other predatory institutions like the railroads and banks. The prices of crops were declining, banks were foreclosing on family farms and the cost of using the railroads remained almost prohibitively high. Life for the ordinary hard-working man and his family was becoming unbearable. Their great leader was William Jennings Bryan, who is most famous for his “cross of gold” speech and for his later role in the Scopes monkey trial. Like Jefferson, Bryan was convinced that America would change for the worse if it allowed its small farmers to suffer. He said – and I’m paraphrasing – that you could burn down America’s cities and they would spring back up again the next day, but if you burned down America’s farms, the streets of every city would soon be overrun by grass.

Small-scale agriculture, then, was the original incubator of populism in the US, and I think there’s just something about being a small farmer – the kind of work it involves and the kind of people who do it – that makes it necessarily so. The honest hard work; the self-reliance; the rootedness in the soil and the rhythms of the earth rather than the rhythms of money and city life. I’m sure I’m romanticising it a bit, but that doesn’t make it any less true.

In my vision, populism serves a kind of dual purpose. I think there will need to be an initial popular political movement to break the corporate stranglehold on agriculture and US politics. Of course this will find support in rural communities, but those communities are not the same as the communities of the 19^th century. There are nowhere near as many farmers as there once were. Urban communities will be more important, but they have much to gain, not least of all access to better quality food. If the corporate system is broken up, and the government provides incentives to small farmers, perhaps to adopt regenerative methods, then we will see, potentially, another kind of populism emerge that flourishes once again among a multitude of small farmers.

But breaking up the corporate system, which has already caused so much damage to the health of the nation and to the environment, and which has warped the government’s political priorities both at home and abroad, will have to be the main priority.

 

The book is a warning: the Globalists have a near total control over our food supply chain, and they are aiming for full control by the year 2030, in accordance with their stated plans (the Great Reset and the UN’s SDGs). The next moves to accelerate their consolidation are already in motion: artificial food scarcity/famine as a result of the manufactured Ukraine crisis, farmers going out of business due to governments’ ‘ecological’ policies and acquisition of land, to name a few. Tell us about the future that awaits in terms of the type of food we would consume and the allowance system along with it, should they succeed.

So, as I’ve said, the Planetary Health Diet – the new global diet developed by the EAT Foundation, a partner of the WEF – is almost entirely plant-based. Even though it allows for some consumption of traditional animal products, the amounts are token amounts, which is why it’s best to see the diet as a plant-based diet rather than an omnivorous one. The amounts of traditional animal products are so small – a quarter of a large egg and maybe a wafer-thin slice of meat a day – because their carbon footprints, as we’re endlessly told, are just so bad.

Given that climate change, together with global population growth, is the principal justification for the need to transition to the Planetary Health Diet, it’s likely that adherence to the diet would be ensured through a personal carbon allowance. Basically, everyone has a personal allowance of emissions they can “spend” on services and commodities, including the food they eat. It’s possible that these allowances will be earned through working, but I think it’s more likely that they’ll simply be administered as a form of universal basic income. AI and automation – the much-vaunted Fourth Industrial Revolution – are going to make the majority of workers totally redundant, so there isn’t going to be any work for them to do – unless our globalist overlords decide to get us all walking on giant treadmills for eight hours a day, like the inmates of a nineteenth century British prison. I think the scheme will be tied to a Chinese-style social credit score too – just look at what happened to the truckers in Canada who had their banking frozen – so it may be the case that bad behaviour will result in reductions in your allowance.

It’s very important to realise that you don’t need to make meat illegal to prevent people from eating it. You just have to make it so expensive – either in monetary terms, as we’re seeing now, or in terms of its carbon cost – that it’s beyond the reach of ordinary people. If the decision is “Do I have a Beyond Meat burger and heat my home or do I have a real burger and not heat my home?” most people are going to choose the plant-based alternative and warmth. People are making such decisions right now, as the economic downturn starts to bite. It’s already in the headlines that meat consumption is massively down due to inflation, and things are only likely to get worse this winter.

As far as the actual practicalities of using the system are concerned, we’re obviously talking about a credit card or banking app. As long ago as 2007, the Labour government in Britain commissioned a detailed study into individual carbon allowances, on the assumption that such a system would use a credit card of some sort.

But that was fifteen years ago, and we’re well past hypotheticals now. Now we have credit cards that allow you to track your carbon footprint in real time, and restrict your spending on that basis, rather than your financial means. There’s the DO Black card in Sweden, a partnership between a fintech startup and Mastercard, which allows you to see the emissions generated by every purchase you make using the card. The card has a set emission limit, so you can’t pollute too much, and offers various options to offset your emissions as you spend. So the technology is ready; although its use is voluntary at present. All that’s needed is the infrastructure to support it on a global scale, and the political will to make people use it, whether they want to or not.

 

The EBO ends on an encouraging note. We will defeat the Globalists, and we won’t eat the bugs! Please share some of your optimism to close, as many will undoubtedly benefit from it in these trying times.

Absolutely. We can win – we will win! I have no doubt about this. As terrifying as the threat of a total globalist victory is, nothing about it is certain. Yes, these people are extremely powerful and, yes, they’ve got us on the back foot, but it will take far less to defeat them than you might think.

As the famous meme says, “If the situation were truly hopeless, their propaganda would be unnecessary.” Not just the propaganda though: all of the absolutely desperate things the regime has been doing, especially in the US, to accelerate collapse and rig the political system. They’re a sign of weakness as much as strength. Just look at the presidency of Donald Trump, for all its faults and failures. I believe it should be a cause for hope. The relentless attacks, the all-or-nothing attempts to smear, discredit, silence and nullify him – all of these things showed just how terrified the globalists are of a USA that doesn’t dance to their tune. Which is why they’re still doing their utmost to prevent a second Trump term. All it takes is one man and a movement, and I have no doubt that the behaviour of the regime will radicalise more and more people and make them realise what is truly at stake.

This isn’t reason to be complacent. In fact, we must be much more vigilant and much more active than we have been thus far. I don’t think we can just “trust the plan” as the QAnon people would have us do. We all need to be working hard, building friendships, building local networks and spreading the word. Because we have everything to gain – but also everything to lose if we fail.

 

Wait! Last but not least, we must talk about the upcoming Tucker Carlson Originals documentary on masculinity, coming out this fall. Judging by how people completely lost their minds when the trailer came out, it’s fair to say we can expect a total meltdown of the Internet when the whole thing drops! Having had an early viewing thanks to you, I can say it is just SO GOOD.

If the entirety of the last two years still feel like something of a dream, this Tucker documentary is definitely the part I’m having the hardest time believing. I watched the documentary for the first time with one of my best friends and, honestly, we stood in stunned disbelief for the entire 35-or-so minutes, then immediately watched it again from the start to make sure we hadn’t just imagined it. But it really is real! Obviously I have to keep the details close to my chest, but let’s just say that it’s going to enrage all the right people, delight all the right people and help spread our message to a far wider audience than ever before. I can’t think of a bigger white pill at this moment in time. ETA is October. Get ready!