Hoonercat wrote: ↑Fri Mar 24, 2023 11:24 am
Stalin took control of Ukraine farms, imposed impossible quotas and left large parts of Ukraine to starve, while it's grain was both shipped off to Russia and sold abroad. The result was that almost 4 million Ukraines starved to death and hundreds of thousands were forcibly deported, only to be replaced those with a more 'Russian' mindset (mainly from Russia and Belarus).
The Dutch want to cut nitrogen emmisions and
part of this process means cutting back on livestock. Some farms will not be able to continue to operate and they will be wil be compensated, there are also plans to provide financial assistance to some farmers to move their business to less affected areas of the Netherlands. I'm struggling to see any comparison other than both involving farms.
Part of the Dutch government’s new plan is a drastic reduction of livestock by one-third over the next eight years. It wants to reach that goal by either buying out farmers, relocating farms that are close to vulnerable natural areas, or making farms more sustainable
The premise of bald bloke's appears to be that there will be a huge megacity and Chinese imigrants will be shipped in something something something (I lost interest). There's no megacity, he's just made that up.
The scheme is similar to any number of regional alliances across Europe, like that of the Hanseatic Cities or the Danube Cultural Cluster, which promote greater infrastructure connections and collaboration between people and administrations.
Well, yes, they both involve farms. So you ask yourself what is actually wrong with Dutch farming compared to any other country. The suggestion is that Dutch farms are actually right up there with the best in the world when you compare pollution with output. If these privately owned farms go out of business due to over-regulation, one assumes the shortfall in production will have to be made up elsewhere. We all still need to eat Tulips so where will the reduction in farmed products be taken up? And by whom? Will "they" be subject to the same stringent regulations?
Or is it part of the plan to reduce livestock and stop you and I from eating steak? Perhaps we should eat bugs as Klaus Schwab suggests. I know for a fact it won't stop the rest of the multibillionaires munching their way through several kg of Wagu beef (I once was asked to help prepare an itinerary for Davos, I can assure you, insects were NOT on the menu).
As for Tristate City, yes that does look far fetched as a proposal (though it has some truth to it:
https://www.tristatecity.nl). The bloke at the end of the video, yes, bit of a fanatic. He certainly has travelled (so he claims) - but sometimes you only see what you're looking for so I take his opinion with a pinch of salt. Again, as I literally just said above, sometimes with these opinion pieces, you have to take the good with the bad when you're looking at sources outside the mainstream.
"Some farms will not be able to continue to operate". You're happy with that as a political ambition? And as for the compensation, how do you compensate a multi generation farming family? If they don't accept your offer, there will be a compulsory purchase. Looks like a land grab to me and it looks like they're using the excuse of "excess nitrogen" to pull it off.
The entire comparison is
only that seizing farmland has been a tactic used by authoritarian states in the (recent) past to achieve political aims. If this is a plan to seize farmland, then the comparison stands and only time will tell. It is certainly something to be wary of. I don't accept I have to eat less beef for the sake of the planet. If it was up to me, I'd start higher up the tree with massively overpolluting global corporations or stop Bill Gates from selling his fertiliser into developing countries but since they're making the rules, I shan't hold my breath.