Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ron on November 15, 2020, 01:55:49 PM
-
https://twitter.com/AMinus____/status/1327796357717843968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1327796357717843968%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatriactionary.wordpress.com%2F2020%2F11%2F15%2Fthe-great-reset-eh%2F
-
"This pandemic has provided an opportunity ..."
Why do I cringe whenever someone says that?
Ditto for "reset"
-
"This pandemic has provided an opportunity ..."
Why do I cringe whenever someone says that?
Ditto for "reset"
Because it is an overt declaration that tragedy is being used for political gain that would otherwise not be allowed.
-
Fake video. Probably. I'm not looking too hard, though, because I don't care to.
I scrolled through Trudeau's official twitter account and that video is not on there in the last two weeks.
Well, not fake. See below.
-
Fake video. Probably. I'm not looking too hard, though, because I don't care to.
I scrolled through Trudeau's official twitter account and that video is not on there in the last two weeks.
I should have elaborated more in my initial post.
While nothing said is remarkable as that is the plan, one of the globalists admitting it in so many words seemed implausible.
-
Woops, a quick search on YOUTUBE shows it is in fact Justin Trudeau.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2fp0Jeyjvw
-
Woops, a quick search on YOUTUBE shows it is in fact Justin Trudeau.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2fp0Jeyjvw
Ah, thanks. Posted Sept 29th. I'm surprised it took so long to make the rounds.
-
What is the "SDG"?
-
What is the "SDG"?
Sustainable development goals. Part of the UN plan for worldwide socialism.
-
Sustainable development goals. Part of the UN plan for worldwide socialism.
Ah, mais oui. Mais oui, bien sûr !
-
For those who didn't click
“…reaching the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development…This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a [Great] Reset. This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to re-imagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality, and global warming.”
-
Prepping the proles.
Hard to believe "they're" being so open about it. I'm not used to that.
-
You will be assimilated
Resistance is futile
-
You will be assimilated
Resistance is futile
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08L8XX545/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0
-
Maybe it will reach far enough into the hinterlands of Canada that it will awaken those who vote only with their bellies, eh?
Are Canadians still "subjects," or did they make themselves "citizens" while I wasn't looking?
-
“Building back better means getting support to the most vulnerable while maintaining our momentum on reaching the 2030 agenda for sustainable development and the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals)” said Trudeau.
I seem to recall Biden getting confused and saying something about 2030 during an election speech and everyone laughing at how he said 2030 instead of 2020.
It could be he has other constituents he is trying to please rather than US citizens.
-
If you own nothing and everything is a service imagine getting de-platformed in that society.
Which is the point, I think.
Control people by threatening their lives on a daily basis, but not through the crudeness of verbalizing the threats or literally pointing weapons at them. Just make it clear though a few examples of what will happen if they refuse to comply.
Jane Jacobs wrote that societies where there was an irrigation system tended to be tyrannies as the people who controlled the water controlled life itself and if you wanted to live you had to comply. Whereas in societies that could count on rain were relatively freer because no one could stop the rain and thus people could grow food without the interference of the state.
So in addition to not being able to own anything I would assume that in a "You'll Own Nothing" society that there would be very strict rules about growing your own food. The rules will be couched in "health and safety" concerns.
Nothing will be overtly prohibited but getting permission will be Kafkaesque nightmare of different permits from different offices, fees, rejections, appeals, getting sign-offs from neighbors and nearby food-producers and such like.
It will be so difficult most won't bother and thus tie themselves even tighter to the system.
In time, no one will remember how it used to be and anyone bucking the system will be excised after being turned on by his fellow subjects who will think they are doing the right and good thing.
-
If you own nothing and everything is a service imagine getting de-platformed in that society.
Which is the point, I think.
Control people by threatening their lives on a daily basis, but not through the crudeness of verbalizing the threats or literally pointing weapons at them. Just make it clear though a few examples of what will happen if they refuse to comply.
Jane Jacobs wrote that societies where there was an irrigation system tended to be tyrannies as the people who controlled the water controlled life itself and if you wanted to live you had to comply. Whereas in societies that could count on rain were relatively freer because no one could stop the rain and thus people could grow food without the interference of the state.
So in addition to not being able to own anything I would assume that in a "You'll Own Nothing" society that there would be very strict rules about growing your own food. The rules will be couched in "health and safety" concerns.
Nothing will be overtly prohibited but getting permission will be Kafkaesque nightmare of different permits from different offices, fees, rejections, appeals, getting sign-offs from neighbors and nearby food-producers and such like.
It will be so difficult most won't bother and thus tie themselves even tighter to the system.
In time, no one will remember how it used to be and anyone bucking the system will be excised after being turned on by his fellow subjects who will think they are doing the right and good thing.
The glorious revolution of techno tyranny.
-
Jane Jacobs wrote that societies where there was an irrigation system tended to be tyrannies as the people who controlled the water controlled life itself and if you wanted to live you had to comply. Whereas in societies that could count on rain were relatively freer because no one could stop the rain and thus people could grow food without the interference of the state.
So in addition to not being able to own anything I would assume that in a "You'll Own Nothing" society that there would be very strict rules about growing your own food. The rules will be couched in "health and safety" concerns.
An interesting case study; the dacha system in the USSR. Dachas were basically small rural vacation properties doled out to folks. A common use was food gardening. The garden plots were usually small (<6500 sq ft), but the dacha system produced and still produces a large amount of food. In 2011, dacha gardens produced over 80% of the countries fruit and berries, over 66% of the vegetables, almost 80% of the potatoes and nearly 50% of the nations milk, much of it consumed raw.
At least in the case of the USSR, the state seemed happy to let people toil to produce their own food, as this lessened demand from collective farms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacha
https://smallfarmersjournal.com/russian-dacha-gardens
-
Here's another article on the dacha system. (https://www.notechmagazine.com/2020/03/a-dacha-for-everyone-community-gardens-and-food-security-in-russia.html)
The Soviets were very interested in food-security so they came to allow independent gardening but, according to this article they didn't allow commercialization of the crops so they could stay true to the spirit of communism I guess.
They allowed private gardening and encouraged, it even making it mandatory as their sort is likely to do.
They also did things like this.
(https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2020/04/fruit-trenches-cultivating-subtropical-plants-in-freezing-temperatures.html)
They were looking to make their state more powerful. Yes they were thieves and murderers but they were also nationalists and wanted their state to survive.
However this new group of control freaks are progressive globalists who are ashamed of and hate their culture and respect no borders or individuality.
The Soviets wanted to create the New Soviet Man who would be a vital asset in spreading the gospel of Marxism. An intelligent, strong person who was empowered by the state. At a minimum this requires access to good nutrition. Of course they failed to create this New Man. Some of the posters are great, though.
These new folks don't want those sorts of subjects. They want a subservient class of drones made up of weaklings in both intelligence and spirit. You don't need good nutrition for that. In fact, the opposite is true.
Also I'm guessing that many of them believe in the over-population theory and would be quite content if millions of people died off.
Imagine being trapped in a city where the amount of calories and the access to essential services you get is based on your loyalty to the system and even then the lower you are on the totem-pole the less you get. And it gets less every year because not only do they not care if you die they are actively trying to eradicate you.
The Soviets murdered millions of their own people directly and their economic model killed millions and millions more. They were evil and deserve condemnation.
That said, I think these progressive globalists are worse than that. If they get their way they will try to kill off billions of people. And part of that is the denial of food to their targets.
So that's why I think they'll make growing your own food as hard as possible.
-
If you own nothing and everything is a service imagine getting de-platformed in that society.
Which is the point, I think.
Control people by threatening their lives on a daily basis, but not through the crudeness of verbalizing the threats or literally pointing weapons at them. Just make it clear though a few examples of what will happen if they refuse to comply.
Jane Jacobs wrote that societies where there was an irrigation system tended to be tyrannies as the people who controlled the water controlled life itself and if you wanted to live you had to comply. Whereas in societies that could count on rain were relatively freer because no one could stop the rain and thus people could grow food without the interference of the state.
So in addition to not being able to own anything I would assume that in a "You'll Own Nothing" society that there would be very strict rules about growing your own food. The rules will be couched in "health and safety" concerns.
Nothing will be overtly prohibited but getting permission will be Kafkaesque nightmare of different permits from different offices, fees, rejections, appeals, getting sign-offs from neighbors and nearby food-producers and such like.
It will be so difficult most won't bother and thus tie themselves even tighter to the system.
In time, no one will remember how it used to be and anyone bucking the system will be excised after being turned on by his fellow subjects who will think they are doing the right and good thing.
Tyrants like Cuomo beat off to that every day and have made much of living in their areas like that.
-
At least in the case of the USSR, the state seemed happy to let people toil to produce their own food, as this lessened demand from collective farms.
Talk to the descendants of a small time Ukrainian farmer about how eager the USSR was to allow people to grow enough food to feed themselves. If you can find one who survived the liquidation and starvation, that is.
Warren is right in that the USSR was happy for people the State approved of to grow their own food, but if they suspected you weren't sufficiently dedicated to the revolution they would execute you for failing to turn over any amount of food you raised, even if you were already starving.
The Soviet Union was more than willing to disrupt a functioning agricultural system, and then redirect what food supplies they had into exports and feeding urban areas resulting in mass starvation of millions because peasants who had raised enough food to eat were perceived as wealthy and needed to be made examples of.
-
Jane Jacobs wrote that societies where there was an irrigation system tended to be tyrannies as the people who controlled the water controlled life itself and if you wanted to live you had to comply. Whereas in societies that could count on rain were relatively freer because no one could stop the rain and thus people could grow food without the interference of the state.
Interestingly, I think Oregon and one other state that I forget currently have "you don't own the rain" laws in place that makes it illegal to capture rain unless you're capturing it from an impervious surface, like from your roof into a barrel. Rain that hits the ground "belongs to everyone".
-
Talk to the descendants of a small time Ukrainian farmer about how eager the USSR was to allow people to grow enough food to feed themselves. If you can find one who survived the liquidation and starvation, that is.
Warren is right in that the USSR was happy for people the State approved of to grow their own food, but if they suspected you weren't sufficiently dedicated to the revolution they would execute you for failing to turn over any amount of food you raised, even if you were already starving.
The Soviet Union was more than willing to disrupt a functioning agricultural system, and then redirect what food supplies they had into exports and feeding urban areas resulting in mass starvation of millions because peasants who had raised enough food to eat were perceived as wealthy and needed to be made examples of.
Yea, they certainly didn't want people to be capitalist with their home grown foodstuff. I also recall reading once that the dachas were specifically sized small enough that people couldn't just grow all their own food and drop out.
But here in the US, they'd never tell us what we can and can't grow for consumption on our own property, right? I mean, how could you justifiably regulate that under commerce if nothing is bought or sold? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn)
-
. . . So that's why I think they'll make growing your own food as hard as possible.
I remember reading several decades ago that a senator or congressman from the farm belt proposed taxing backyard gardens "to help farmers" . . . he argued that people who grew their own food weren't buying enough farm-produced food.
He was shut down pretty fast back then.
It seems that "regulating" gardens is being proposed now - by a Chicago Democrat: https://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/2020/02/state-representative-harper-wants-to-give-state-and-local-government-the-power-to-regulate-your-garden/ (https://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/2020/02/state-representative-harper-wants-to-give-state-and-local-government-the-power-to-regulate-your-garden/)
-
Because the Soviet model has worked so well every time it's been tried.
-
When Washington legalized marijuana for medical and then recreational use, the state really cracked down on people growing marijuana for their own consumption. The state wants you to buy it in the pot stores so they get the tax revenue.
-
Because the Soviet model has worked so well every time it's been tried.
I'm certainly not advocating it. I just find it interesting how that particular marxist regime dealt with home gardeners.
-
Yea, they certainly didn't want people to be capitalist with their home grown foodstuff. I also recall reading once that the dachas were specifically sized small enough that people couldn't just grow all their own food and drop out.
No. No, that's not quite it. I mean, you're absolutely right, but it wasn't simply about trying to prevent capitalism, it was literally liquidating a group of people who Stalin felt were insufficiently committed to his cause. The goal wasn't just to keep them from selling their food, it was to keep them from even eating it. They would execute people for keeping back even enough food to just feed themselves. Not appearing starved unto death was proof enough.
Which I think goes back to Warren's point. If the government wanted you to eat, you had food. And yes, they'd give folks they liked dachas on which to grow their gardens and so forth.
But if the State didn't want you to eat, you didn't eat ... at all. Because they had that control.
But here in the US, they'd never tell us what we can and can't grow for consumption on our own property, right? I mean, how could you justifiably regulate that under commerce if nothing is bought or sold? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn)
The ICC has been abused in ways it was clearly not intended and continues to be used for horrific overreach. Totally with you. It will continue to be a prime tool in the toolbox of people who seek to expand the government without actually having to worry about changing the Constitution.
-
I'm certainly not advocating it. I just find it interesting how that particular marxist regime dealt with home gardeners.
My post had to do with the previous post. The page turn I guess made that not so clear
-
^ I've been stung by that, too. I sometimes use carats to indicate reference to a previous post.
I agree that the Commerce Clause has been horribly abused, and I sometimes use that as an example of how the "intent of the legislature" can be "interpreted" in different ways to the detriment of free commerce and indeed to freedom itself. In the case of the Commerce Clause, there would seem to be nothing "intrastate" which cannot ultimately be seen as "interstate."
Where was the iron mined for the "intrastate" firearm you are building for personal use?
Can a case be made legally (as opposed to rationally) that your puny little efforts to build a firearm, legally under NFA, be interpreted to affect interstate commerce?
It would seem so.
Terry, "Yee-haw," 230RN
-
The fact that the calories you used up while thinking about that post either came from food that crossed state lines, or came from a completely native plant/animal that was harvested on your own property and never crossed state lines which means that you didn't buy food that did cross state lines, so in writing that post you have done something that impacted interstate commerce.
-
^ I've been stung by that, too. I sometimes use carats to indicate reference to a previous post.
I agree that the Commerce Clause has been horribly abused, and I sometimes use that as an example of how the "intent of the legislature" can be "interpreted" in different ways to the detriment of free commerce and indeed to freedom itself. In the case of the Commerce Clause, there would seem to be nothing "intrastate" which cannot ultimately be seen as "interstate."
Where was the iron mined for the "intrastate" firearm you are building for personal use?
Can a case be made legally (as opposed to rationally) that your puny little efforts to build a firearm, legally under NFA, be interpreted to affect interstate commerce?
It would seem so.
Terry, "Yee-haw," 230RN
This is playing out now, with several states having adopted various legislation stating federal firearm laws have no jurisdiction over firearms that do not leave the state.
http://firearmsfreedomact.com/
People are still being arrested and tried in federal court, of course. But, this is pretty much what happened with marijuana. While it remains to be seen how that will play out, signs are good that the federal government will relent under the significant public pressure and lobbying money produced by the budding qusi-legal cannabis industry.
-
^ I'll rejoice over that "state's rights" issue when I see use of pot (either habitually or otherwise) being removed as a federal bar to firearms ownership and possession.
Note I do not use any pot or other mind expanding "drugs," but I am passionately interested in defending the "infringed" clause in this respect.
Yee-haw, 230RN
-
The below is a bit of a ramble, you've been warned.
It occurred to me that the "You'll-Own-Nothing" concept is a version of Roko's Basilisk. (https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-rokos-basilisk-2014-8)
In that the humans who control the platforms that people will rely on to survive are going to thoroughly investigate people to find those that did not share the excitement of this concept. The will go through all of your social media history, your forum posts, texts if they can get them, any professional publications and so forth to find a reason why you cannot be trusted and then use that as a reason to de-platform you.
Just like the Basilisk will know that you did not do enough to being it into existence earlier. They will know you were not a True Believer.
This won't be a Day One event but in time they will run back-checks on everybody and separate them into various groups.
The lower the rank of your group, the less options you will get until you are removed from society. In short you will be slowly tortured to death for not doing more to support the concept. Even if you turn into a slavish devotee of the concept you will rank behind those that were on the train before you.
And this will carry on to your family, like in the North Korean prison camps where families are imprisoned for three generations for the political failings of the first generation.
If they want to live they will have no choice but to denounce you.
Please note that I am not a believer in the Basilisk but I am a believer in the potential for depravity in mankind because of the overwhelming evidence of such.
I also do not believe they'll be able to get the entire population enrolled in this concept. There will be significant push-back, including outright armed resistance if it becomes necessary.
But it will capture a lot of the blue-city technophiles who love their gadgetry and their being hyper-connected to everything all the time, and the disruptive business models of the Silicon Valley elite. And everything that comes with it.
Go go go into the future!
They won't realize that until it's too late that they aren't consumers of this concept, rather, they are it's prey. But then, what to do? Rebel? How?
There is a novel called We by Zamyatin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_(novel)) that lays out what such a society might look like.
This novel influenced Orwell and other dystopian writers. Orwell is certainly better known but I think the city in We is much closer to the reality of the You'll Own Nothing concept than is 1984.
In We people ate together in shifts, and went from home to work and back in shifts, lived together as work groups, had virtually no privacy, and you had to get permission to do anything, even to have sex. 1984's Oceania wasn't as tightly regimented as I recall. Still a nightmare, though.
That's how it will eventually become in the Y-O-N society. It has to, if it is going to work at all. And by "work" I mean for those at the top. Everyone must comply as any deviation will risk fracturing the society. The society will be very brittle and fragile if people start having doubts then the whole is at risk of coming apart and the people at the top will not survive that. Not only are they at risk for retribution, if the services go off-line they will have no skills to provide for themselves. They will be a pampered elite that will not be able to survive outside of their gilded cage.
There was a rebellion in We, but whether it worked or not is up to the reader.
-
Very interesting, just Warren. I'm pretty sure it will not play out exactly as outlined, but the framework seems sound. I forgot which historian said it, but "All governmnents trend toward tyranny."
Terry scratches chin, stares at ceiling for a moment... actually, I think the concept may go back to Plato.
The fact that the calories you used up while thinking about that post either came from food that crossed state lines, or came from a completely native plant/animal that was harvested on your own property and never crossed state lines which means that you didn't buy food that did cross state lines, so in writing that post you have done something that impacted interstate commerce.
Well, exactly my point. And considering that both the power and information lines / channels involved in the post cross state lines, there's no escaping the broad authority that can be taken by da goobermink with its salaried silver-tongued attorneys and statist judges in "regulating" my post. Because "interstate," doncha know?
Viz, just Warren's post above. (And thanks for the "groundwork" behind Orwell's "1984.")
Terry, 230RN