Is this really Trudeau?

[Ron]

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

[Angel Eyes]

"This pandemic has provided an opportunity ..."

Why do I cringe whenever someone says that?

Ditto for "reset"

[kgbsquirrel]

"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.

[Fly320s]

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.

[Ron]

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.

[Ron]

Woops, a quick search on YOUTUBE shows it is in fact Justin Trudeau.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2fp0Jeyjvw

[Fly320s]

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.

[Hawkmoon]

What is the "SDG"?

[bedlamite]

What is the "SDG"?

Sustainable development goals. Part of the UN plan for worldwide socialism.

[Hawkmoon]

Sustainable development goals. Part of the UN plan for worldwide socialism.

Ah, mais oui. Mais oui, bien sûr !

[Ron]

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.”

[230RN]

Prepping the proles.

Hard to believe "they're" being so open about it.  I'm not used to that.

[WLJ]

You will be assimilated
Resistance is futile

[Ben]

You will be assimilated
Resistance is futile

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08L8XX545/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0

[230RN]

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?

[Ron]

“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.

[just Warren]

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.

[kgbsquirrel]

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.

[Nick1911]

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

[just Warren]

Here's another article on the dacha system.

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.

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.

[Boomhauer]

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.

[cordex]

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.

[Ben]

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".

[Nick1911]

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?

[HankB]

. . . 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/