Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Great Reset

Options
1…1112141617…105

Comments

  • Options
    #392
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,214 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Fodla wrote: »
    Indeed. I'd find it rather odd for a person not to be be horrified by the idea of their home being taken away from them.

    where does it say that peoples homes will be taken away from them?


  • Options
    #393
    Fodla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭Fodla


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Because they decided to retweet it. Perhaps whoever was operating twitter for them that day was told to find random stuff online related to the future for tweeting.

    I shouldn't even be writing this because it's so absurd, but do you think a "they" are pushing cartoonishly evil plans to abolish private ownership for 2030 because someone wrote some random piece about futurism and it was retweeted?

    If you are going to hint at this stuff be specific, because it's getting real silly real fast



    It's a global pandemic, it has massively interrupted global economics, so it is a sort of economic reset. Like after the financial crisis in 2008.

    Why are you highlighting that sentence? it's like you are reading into everything as if it means something else, what is that something else?



    Most Canadians will understand that because it's perfectly understandable. Again, you seem to be reading into stuff.

    What is the big "plan" going on here?

    A paranoid person who believes they are being followed will see "evidence" of it everywhere, which then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Getting those vibes with these posts.

    So the random thing they found just happened to be an article about owning nothing in 2030, which just happens to be the year Agenda 2030 is to be implemented by?

    Yes, as horrifying as it sounds, I believe that that is what they are trying to do, hence getting people prepared for it by retweeting a link to that article. If you research Agenda 2030 (and Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset go hand in hand) you'll see that those involved with Agenda 2030 consider private property to be both unsustainable and unjust.

    I didn't highlight that sentence. I just copy and pasted the article.


  • Options
    #394
    Fodla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭Fodla


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    where does it say that peoples homes will be taken away from them?

    In the title of the article it says people will own nothing by 2030. That includes private property.

    People are focusing on the article when, in my opinion, they should be focusing on WEF deciding to retweet a link to the article with the Great Reset, which many believe to be a global push for communism (you can call them crazy, but many people do believe that that is what is behind pushed behind the green mask), with the Great Reset on the horizon.


  • Options
    #395
    Weepsie
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 19,932 Mod ✭✭✭✭Weepsie


    They're not giving themselves a lot of time to get people's private property in 10 years.

    Hell even banks have a hell of a job getting people out of private property


  • Options
    #396
    Fodla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭Fodla


    Weepsie wrote: »
    They're not giving themselves a lot of time to get people's private property in 10 years.

    Hell even banks have a hell of a job getting people out of private property

    Hence WEF, Prince Charles et al referring to 'a narrow window of opportunity'.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #397
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Fodla wrote: »
    In the title of the article it says people will own nothing by 2030. That includes private property.

    People are focusing on the article
    But this isn't true.
    You keep neglecting to mention the author's note at the top and bottom of the article.

    You also have ignored the passage of the article I pointed out that explicitly states people can and do own property in the scenario he's writing.
    Why did you ignore this?

    Why do you keep misrepresenting this article?


  • Options
    #398
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,214 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Fodla wrote: »
    In the title of the article it says people will own nothing by 2030. That includes private property.

    People are focusing on the article when, in my opinion, they should be focusing on WEF deciding to retweet a link to the article with the Great Reset, which many believe to be a global push for communism (you can call them crazy, but many people do believe that that is what is behind pushed behind the green mask), with the Great Reset on the horizon.

    Smart people generally read beyond the title.


  • Options
    #399
    Fodla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭Fodla


    King Mob wrote: »
    But this isn't true.
    You keep neglecting to mention the author's note at the top and bottom of the article.

    You also have ignored the passage of the article I pointed out that explicitly states people can and do own property in the scenario he's writing.
    Why did you ignore this?

    Why do you keep misrepresenting this article?

    Because I believe the author's note to be irrelevant since I'm focusing on WEF choosing to retweet a link to the article a few months before the Great Reset. It's the timing of the retweet, as well as the subject matter, i.e. communism, that's off. The title of the article refers to the year 2030, which is the year by which Agenda 2030 is to be implemented worldwide.

    Re that passage, that makes that article even more dystopian, in my opinion. The idea that people had to flee and live off the grid to escape from communism.


  • Options
    #400
    Fodla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭Fodla


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Smart people generally read beyond the title.

    I read the article. It describes a communist dystopia, in my opinion.


  • Options
    #401
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Fodla wrote: »
    Because I believe the author's note to be irrelevant
    Lol jesus christ.

    The author states clearly and directly that what he is writting about is not nessesarily what he wants or believes is a good idea.

    You claimed that it was his and the WEF's plan.

    You lied.

    The author's note where he spells out his meaning is very relevant.

    You just dodged and ignored it to support your conspiracy theory.
    Fodla wrote: »
    Re that passage, that makes that article even more dystopian, in my opinion. The idea that people had to flee and live off the grid to escape from communism.
    Nowhere in the article does it say any of that.
    That's all your own interpretation, which we have seen is very suspect.

    Be honest, did you actually read beyond the title and first paragraph before posting about it?
    Or did you only repeat those parts cause they're the only ones the conspiracy theory media is repeating?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #402
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,214 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Fodla wrote: »
    Because I believe the author's note to be irrelevant since I'm focusing on WEF choosing to retweet a link to the article a few months before the Great Reset. It's the timing of the retweet, as well as the subject matter, i.e. communism, that's off. The title of the article refers to the year 2030, which is the year by which Agenda 2030 is to be implemented worldwide.

    Re that passage, that makes that article even more dystopian, in my opinion. The idea that people had to flee and live off the grid to escape from communism.

    how could the authors own note be irrelevant? do you think you know what they mean better than they do?


  • Options
    #403
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,799 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Fodla wrote: »
    Because I believe the author's note to be irrelevant

    jesus christ..

    Right so you've decided a note from the author is irrelevant because it interferes with your belief that what they are writing will literally happen..

    You do understand there are thousands of predictions and futurology blogs about what life might be like in 2030 or 2040 or whatever..


  • Options
    #404
    Fodla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭Fodla


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol jesus christ.

    The author states clearly and directly that what he is writting about is not nessesarily what he wants or believes is a good idea.

    You claimed that it was his and the WEF's plan.

    You lied.

    The author's note where he spells out his meaning is very relevant.

    You just dodged and ignored it to support your conspiracy theory.


    Nowhere in the article does it say any of that.
    That's all your own interpretation, which we have seen is very suspect.

    Be honest, did you actually read beyond the title and first paragraph before posting about it?
    Or did you only repeat those parts cause they're the only ones the conspiracy theory media is repeating?

    But it is irrelevant if I'm focusing on WEF deciding to retweet a link to the article a few months before the Great Reset is set to begin in January. Now, you could argue in that case that the article is irrelevant. That's true. But choosing to retweet a link to an article about abolishing private property, which happens to be communism, which a lot of people believe the Great Reset to be about (https://thepostmillennial.com/conservative-mp-starts-petition-to-stop-the-great-reset, for example), is suspicious. And the timing, a couple of months before the Great Reset, is incredibly suspicious.


  • Options
    #405
    seannash
    Registered Users Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭seannash


    It will be interesting if he can hold his hands up and say "Yep I still believe in the great reset thing but I got this particular piece of evidence wrong"
    There's no shame in that.


  • Options
    #406
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,214 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Fodla wrote: »
    But it is irrelevant if I'm focusing on WEF deciding to retweet a link to the article a few months before the Great Reset is set to begin in January. Now, you could argue in that case that the article is irrelevant. That's true. But choosing to retweet a link to an article about abolishing private property, which happens to be communism, which a lot of people believe the Great Reset to be about (https://thepostmillennial.com/conservative-mp-starts-petition-to-stop-the-great-reset, for example), is suspicious. And the timing, a couple of months before the Great Reset, is incredibly suspicious.
    the article doesn't propose abolishing private property. repeating it ad nauseum doesn't make true.


  • Options
    #407
    Fodla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭Fodla


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    the article doesn't propose abolishing private property. repeating it ad nauseum doesn't make true.

    I never said it did. I said that the title does. Owning nothing means no private property.

    And I'm speculating, based on WEF choosing to retweet a link to the article a couple of months before the Great Reset, that they are going to propose abolishing private property. Schwab has said that there are going to be monumental changes. Abolishing private property would certainly be monumental.


  • Options
    #408
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Fodla wrote: »
    But it is irrelevant
    No dude, it's not.

    You were asked for evidence to support your claims about their beliefs and missions.
    You posted and quoted from this article to do that.

    You stated repeated that "this is what they believe."

    Yet, the first passage in the article states the opposite.


    So either you lied and purposefully omitted this author's note and any mention of it. Or you never read the article.

    You are now trying to continue that falsehood even after it's been pointed out to you.
    You claim again in your last post:
    an article about abolishing private property,
    The authors note specifically says that isn't what the article is about.
    It states that it wasn't an ideal future that he or anyone wanted or was planning for.
    This is another lie on your part.

    You are now trying to claim that WEF wants to abolish all property based on the idea that they tweeted about an article on their website that doesn't say that.
    Do you know see how ridiculous and desperate that is?

    Do you have ANYTHING else to show the WEF is planning or wants to abolish private property?
    Any statements from anyone attached?
    Any documents that outline their goals?
    Anything beyond this one tweet from an article you either didn't read or you lied about?
    Anything at all?


  • Options
    #409
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Fodla wrote: »
    I read the article. It describes a communist dystopia, in my opinion.

    Erm, you realise that each individual state would have to make constitutional or legislative changes to allow for public ownership of homes? So the likelihood of that happening by 2030 are nil. More likely is Ireland and the likes will have a referendum on the right to have a home. Other things we're likely to see is the introduction of things like of UBI. Also you keep referring to the reset occurring in January, a discussion will occur on how existing systems work and how we can optimise them. It's up to individual countries and companies to adopt them..


  • Options
    #410
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,214 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Fodla wrote: »
    I never said it did. I said that the title does. Owning nothing means no private property.

    And I'm speculating, based on WEF choosing to retweet a link to the article a couple of months before the Great Reset, that they are going to propose abolishing private property. Schwab has said that there are going to be monumental changes. Abolishing private property would certainly be monumental.

    well there is your problem. you keep insisting that the title is more important than the contents.


  • Options
    #411
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,214 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Erm, you realise that each individual state would have to make constitutional or legislative changes to allow for public ownership of homes? So the likelihood of that happening by 2030 are nil. More likely is Ireland and the likes will have a referendum on the right to have a home. Other things we're likely to see is the introduction of things like of UBI. Also you keep referring to the reset occurring in January, a discussion will occur on how existing systems work and how we can optimise them. It's up to individual countries and companies to adopt them..

    what is even more baffling to me is that the people with the power to influence stuff like this also have the most property. why would they want to give all that up?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #412
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,544 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    the article doesn't propose abolishing private property. repeating it ad nauseum doesn't make true.

    They're going to go into every privately owned house in the world in January 2030 and pull us out and let anyone who wants just to move in and stay for as long as possible. Thats about 1.5 billion houses up for eviction.

    Can defo see it happening. "They" will be forcing the frail and elderly out on to the streets aswell.

    "But Ill freeze to death"

    "Sorry, reset!"

    I for one am eyeing up Bonos house. Ill be first in the queue. Always fancied living on Vico Road but could never afford it until they announced this so I'm happy with this plan.


  • Options
    #413
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Fodla wrote: »
    I never said it did. I said that the title does. Owning nothing means no private property.
    Lol. What?
    The author is disagreeing with his own title?


  • Options
    #414
    Fodla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭Fodla


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    well there is your problem. you keep insisting that the title is more important than the contents.

    I don't understand the confusion. I said that it is explicitly stated in the title that we will own nothing by 2030, but that it is not explicitly stated in the article that private property is to be abolished by 2030.

    And the reason I am referring to the article is because WEF chose to retweet a few months before the Great Reset is set to begin. I find that suspicious.


  • Options
    #415
    Fodla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 281 ✭✭Fodla


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Erm, you realise that each individual state would have to make constitutional or legislative changes to allow for public ownership of homes? So the likelihood of that happening by 2030 are nil. More likely is Ireland and the likes will have a referendum on the right to have a home. Other things we're likely to see is the introduction of things like of UBI. Also you keep referring to the reset occurring in January, a discussion will occur on how existing systems work and how we can optimise them. It's up to individual countries and companies to adopt them..

    A referendum on the right to have a home? Why would there be a referendum on whether a person should have the right to own a home?


  • Options
    #416
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Fodla wrote: »
    And the reason I am referring to the article is because WEF chose to retweet a few months before the Great Reset is set to begin. I find that suspicious.
    And the reason you are doing that is because it's the only thing you can find to back up your claim that they want to abolish private ownership.

    We've also sense at least half of that is based on a lie or you not reading an article.


  • Options
    #417
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Well if the whole 'nobody owns anything' b*llocks is the plan, that must be extended to Klaus Schwab etc. We'll make sure of it ;)


  • Options
    #418
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Well if the whole 'nobody owns anything' b*llocks is the plan
    But so far, we haven't seen that this is the plan.
    All that's been shown is "They tweeted this article..."

    And even that's turned out to be barely half true.


  • Options
    #419
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,214 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    King Mob wrote: »
    But so far, we haven't seen that this is the plan.
    All that's been shown is "They tweeted this article..."

    And even that's turned out to be barely half true.

    barely half true is being very generous.


  • Options
    #420
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    barely half true is being very generous.
    Well they did tweet that article...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #421
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,214 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well they did tweet that article...

    that does really add to the truthiness I suppose.


Advertisement