Reign of Ecoterror by 2050: Mass Urban Confinement and Cars Eliminated

The government of Canada has funded a study to prove that drastic policies must be adopted, so to "stop climate change".

Amongst those policies, the government plans on:

- banning consumption of meat (even though Canada currently has an overabundance of deer, those deer have in fact become a pest),

- confine the population into designated urban areas,

- eliminate individual cars, and enforce instead a public transport system between cities.

The policies have been applauded by extreme-leftist Canadian media, including the main newspaper in Quebec.

Le rapport recommande un aménagement urbain orienté vers le transport en commun, une densification des quartiers et la mise en place de moyens pour freiner le transport individuel.

("The report recommends that cities be designed to favour public transport, to increase the density of people in city blocks, and for the phasing out of individual cars.")

www.journaldemontreal.com...



Despite the fact electric cars do not emit greenhouse gases, and despite the fact here in Quebec the electricity itself is produced by a 100% green hydroelectric power plant that's about to power New York, they plan on eliminating even the individual ELECTRIC car itself:

l’étude de Dunsky recommande également de modifier nos comportements pour réduire notre soif d’énergie.

(...) Des coupables : un appétit pour des maisons unifamiliales pas très bien isolées, l’auto solo, même si elle est électrique, des camions électriques

("The Dunsky study also recommends to modify people's behaviour so to reduce consumption of energy. (...) The culprits: too many individual houses that are oftentimes not insulated enough, the individual car even if it's electric, and electric trucks")

www.journaldemontreal.com...



Those policies are presented with a casual tone, however the practical implications are rather disturbing. This means no one will own a land any longer. Nor will people be allowed to move outside of cities. I doubt those policies will apply to law enforcement, military and government agencies, however.

What policies will they NOT be implementing in the name of "fighting climate change"? We are at the point where they plan on confining all of the population into apartment blocks, force-feed people with cattle fodder, and prevent people from escaping, by eliminating people's cars. If people don't agree with the plan, those people will be called guilty of causing climate change, and what then? "Neutralized" so to "save the Earth"?

Are we not witnessing the rise of a reign by fear of climate change? A reign by ecoterror?

a reply to: swanne

confine the population into designated urban areas

Sounds like a nightmare and much like 2030 Sustainable Development Goal.

a reply to: swanne

I can't help but wonder, what data are they basing the projections for the future from?

If we base the entire climate change cause on carbon creation, then we can pin point the "root causes" of that quickly, and find out who is causing the most trouble. If we don't concentrate on solving the issues with the abusers, then attacking the one's who are already at or close to their goals surely won't help anyone. That's assuming that climate change is in fact going to do all the damage stated, and that our climactic cycle will never change.

If we roll into another ice age, it would likely increase our output of carbon, thus driving the global temps up, and saving the world from freezing to death. I believe that would be considered irony.

It has been shown in:
Logan's run , 1976

(Limited number of people alive in cities, common transportation, AI, climate change)

When has there not been climate change? The Commonwealth nations have gone full blown totalitarian retard and the USA is a close second.

When the elites say must reduce 'carbon' emissions, Net-Zero, and green new deal nonsense they mean humans.

Hello smart cities is part of their globalist plan.

Welcome to Telosa: A Technocratic City In The Making

Bertrand Russell in 1953: bio warfare is more effective for depop and social engineering than war and will lead to global governance:

Are mere numbers so important that, for their sake, we should patiently permit such a state of affairs to come about? Surely not. What, then, can we do? Apart from certain deep seated prejudices, the answer would be obvious. The nations which at present increase rapidly should be encouraged to adopt the methods by which, in the West, the increase of population has been checked. Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation.

There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy: one is religion, the other is nationalism. I think it is the duty of all who are capable of facing facts to realize, and to proclaim, that opposition to the spread of birth control, if successful, must inflict upon mankind the most appalling depth of misery and degradation, and that within another fifty years or so.

I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's. However, I am wandering from the question of stability, to which I must return.

There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority. All these methods have been practiced: the first, for example, by the Australian aborigines; the second by the Aztecs, the Spartans, and the rulers of Plato's Republic; the third in the world as some Western internationalists hope to make it and in Soviet Russia. (It is not to be supposed that Indians and Chinese like starving, but they have to endure it because the armaments of the West are too strong for them.)

Of these three, only birth control avoids extreme cruelty and unhappiness for the majority of human beings. Meanwhile, so long as there is not a single world government there will be competition for power among the different nations. And as increase of population brings the threat of famine, national power will become more and more obviously the only way of avoiding starvation. There will therefore be blocs in which the hungry nations band together against those that are well fed. That is the explanation of the victory of communism in China.

These considerations prove that a scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government.

Impact of Science on Society, Bertrand Russell, 1953 (pg 103-104)

If you never heard of Cambridge Apostle Lord Bertrand Russell, Fabian socialist, Royal Society, Technocrat figure, a devout Malthusian and life long promoter of eugenics and population control, see this article .

Many of these evil technocrat thinkers are long dead but their ideology and intent lives on.

a reply to: swanne

Canada, while mostly fictitious, used to be a place populated (I thought) by sane and rational peoples.

WTF happened???

You will note that the concept of mass urbanization

is directly contrary to

global depopulation.

originally posted by: sraven
You will note that the concept of mass urbanization

is directly contrary to

global depopulation.

Not if there's a viral outbreak in the city and no one can escape. Or a sudden "climate change" flood destroying the apartments.

Depopulation is hard to achieve when people are decentralised and spread all over the place. But when concentrated in a single area, however...

a reply to: swanne

Well the elite have to cull the human race, clear them away before there evil alien overlords come to colonize the planet now don't they.

Besides controlling people is all they ever wanted to do and what better way than to imprison the entire planet with rules, regulation and a removal of rights even those to freely travel within ones own nation.

Scotland is doing it here under the guise of Covid 19 rules to block English from freely travelling to Scotland with Fish Lady on a power trip and that evil look in her eye's that most mistake for determination while she vies for personal power and is even scheming to run an illegal referendum hoping that the current crisis will give her a knee jerk vote.

But this in Canada AND what is happening down in Australia are beyond a joke and literally in my opinion government and authority's over stepping there own powers way too far.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: swanne

Canada, while mostly fictitious, used to be a place populated (I thought) by sane and rational peoples.

WTF happened???

Right?
The majority elected an idiot and here we are.
Just slap the label of " ecoterrorist " on me along with all the other antisocial ones.

a reply to: swanne

1. These are changes natire will force us to adopt anyway, and the sooner we do so the fewer and less devastating catastrophes we shall have to deal with. And the more of a habitable world we shall leave for generations yet unborn.

2. This is a study report, with recommendations. It's a long way from becoming official policy, no matter who commissioned it. Besides, the extracts you quote don't propose any kind of coercion, so why are you alarmed? If there are other parts of the report that do propose coercion, show us.

I think you're distressing yourself unnecessarily, or least very prematurely. You, too, have a political voice. If these things worry you, oppose them in a practical way that will get you listened to by power, don't just go about crying Doomsday. I will oppose you in my turn. Doesn't matter. Democracy in action.

I am in hearty agreement with these proposals, if you haven't guessed already. Without dealing with everything you mention, I'll just note that electric vehicles are far less green than fossil-powered ones (which are already unacceptable -- and I speak as a petrolhead: bikes, cars and old Land-Rovers -- because (1) the carbon debt incurred in manufacturing the bloody things, with parts and raw materials shipped from all over the world, is astronomical. And (2) batteries.

The future demands more cooperation, less individualism. This terrifies and depresses me too, but I shan't expect you to understand that.

Are Volcanos, or at least the country they reside considered EcoTerroists Yet
Asking for a friend

a reply to: sraven
Much easier to get rid of huge numbers if the area they inhabit is densely populated.
Also much easier to control thought, action, behavior, culture etc.

They want to turn us into obedient slaves, or rid the surface of us pesky humans.
Surveillance is also much easier in densely populated areas, especially if everyone is on a 5g network.

originally posted by: swanne
... Are we not witnessing the rise of a reign by fear of climate change? A reign by ecoterror?

I can't see that there's ever been any doubt that this is what it was about all along. The world is hurling headlong ti a global technocratic dictatorship. It is evil, demonic, destructive and God-hating.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: swanne

Canada, while mostly fictitious, used to be a place populated (I thought) by sane and rational peoples.

WTF happened???

I live there and I'm wondering the same!!!

My parent's won't allow me to visit in their house because I'm not vaccinated ffs. I mentioned a slippery slope akin to nazi germany and my bro shut me down with "you be careful with what you say, that's kind of anti semitic" I unfriended all my oldest friends because they believe in the government nonsense from the op.

ARGGGGG!

I can't speak to anyone about this because well, they're not sane and rational any more. Canada sucks

looks like Earth is not going to be popular destination for our next incarnations.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: swanne

1. These are changes natire will force us to adopt anyway, and the sooner we do so the fewer and less devastating catastrophes we shall have to deal with. And the more of a habitable world we shall leave for generations yet unborn.

2. This is a study report, with recommendations. It's a long way from becoming official policy, no matter who commissioned it. Besides, the extracts you quote don't propose any kind of coercion, so why are you alarmed? If there are other parts of the report that do propose coercion, show us.

I think you're distressing yourself unnecessarily, or least very prematurely. You, too, have a political voice. If these things worry you, oppose them in a practical way that will get you listened to by power, don't just go about crying Doomsday. I will oppose you in my turn. Doesn't matter. Democracy in action.

I am in hearty agreement with these proposals, if you haven't guessed already. Without dealing with everything you mention, I'll just note that electric vehicles are far less green than fossil-powered ones (which are already unacceptable -- and I speak as a petrolhead: bikes, cars and old Land-Rovers -- because (1) the carbon debt incurred in manufacturing the bloody things, with parts and raw materials shipped from all over the world, is astronomical. And (2) batteries.

The future demands more cooperation, less individualism. This terrifies and depresses me too, but I shan't expect you to understand that.

why don't we just kill most of the people (republicans) and then have everyone who's left ride a bike. Or is that already the plan?

a reply to: DBCowboy

That's what happens when you have trash can heads that separate when you talk.


You start losing your brains out ya head and dyin off.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: swanne

1. These are changes natire will force us to adopt anyway, and the sooner we do so the fewer and less devastating catastrophes we shall have to deal with. And the more of a habitable world we shall leave for generations yet unborn.

2. This is a study report, with recommendations. It's a long way from becoming official policy, no matter who commissioned it. Besides, the extracts you quote don't propose any kind of coercion, so why are you alarmed? If there are other parts of the report that do propose coercion, show us.

I think you're distressing yourself unnecessarily, or least very prematurely. You, too, have a political voice. If these things worry you, oppose them in a practical way that will get you listened to by power, don't just go about crying Doomsday. I will oppose you in my turn. Doesn't matter. Democracy in action.

I am in hearty agreement with these proposals, if you haven't guessed already. Without dealing with everything you mention, I'll just note that electric vehicles are far less green than fossil-powered ones (which are already unacceptable -- and I speak as a petrolhead: bikes, cars and old Land-Rovers -- because (1) the carbon debt incurred in manufacturing the bloody things, with parts and raw materials shipped from all over the world, is astronomical. And (2) batteries.

The future demands more cooperation, less individualism. This terrifies and depresses me too, but I shan't expect you to understand that.

Nature is not a problem, those claiming climate change is a problem as well as those that actually believe it are the problem.

Every 10 years, we only have ten years left. Unless you pay the govt more taxes the earth will be destroyed.