Follow the progression, and let's connect a few dots...
So why do I bring this up now?
Even as a Californian who supports with enthusiasm the legalization of marijuana, I have been watching the global push to legalize drugs and trying to figure out their agenda.
It's not enough to say, "a drugged-up populace is more compliant."
It's true. But it's not enough, because the fact is, you are not going to turn someone who is against drugs into a junkie simply by legalizing it... and any junkie could care less about the laws.
And if you've ever spent some time with tweakers, you know they are hardly more easily controlled.
So, what's their angle?
Why would @gavinnewsom decriminalize drugs and give safe harbor to the cartels in California...
Because—NEWSFLASH—here's what every tweaker already knows:
The test will probably be once a month, in order to get paid.
They will use urine tests, because anything else is too expensive.
Meth stays in your urine for 72 hours, tops.
The *really careful* tweakers will put the pipe down for a few days, eat a few sandwiches, drink a LOT of water, and will show up to give a clean sample. They will then take their payment DIRECTLY to their dealer and TWEAK BALLLLLZZZZ FOR WEEKS.
They also know those classes are nearly always ran by really bored, really bitter failed Social Sciences majors.
They are either the Stuart Smalley's of the counselor crew, or they want to know if they can score a dimebag from you.
And they don't get paid enough to give af...
And, hey! If I'm totally wrong and they get caught?
And why is @gavinnewsom telling us we need to cut down on our shower times, but saying nothing about the drug cartels, who are stealing millions of gallons of water from drought-stricken farmers to irrigate their illegal pot grows?
It's almost as if there's a never-ending flow of federal money to the drug cartels, straight down to the street junkies, who all then get more money from the government...
Sure...
The drug trade benefits China, the Mexican drug lords and the Taliban, but what could that have to do with this administration?
That's the real question, right?
Because it's not like the US Government would ever run drugs on American soil to fund illegal shit in foreign lands, right?
And you *instantly* know that anything written in language like that—sustainable coke, ffs?!—could only come from or be a virtue signal to the United Nations...
@elonmusk I've been on Twitter in one form or another since Demi and Ashton were tweeting each other from the bathroom.
I think the more you can make people like me feel like we are invested in Twitter Blue, the more successful it will be.
It's us versus the advertisers.
1/?
I come from the world of print mags. I know there are 2 main ways to generate revenue: ads and subscribers.
If it is via ads, they will ALWAYS try to dictate content. My mags were casino gaming niche pubs. Trump was one of our main advertisers back in his casino mogul days.
2/?
The more we included our subscribers in special events — poker cruises, VIP subscriber clubs, slot tournaments, ask the editor columns, etc. — the more revenue we generated from them.
3/
Let's pretend you've got a global agenda, of... say... 17 goals that you want to achieve by... ohhh... 2030...
And you would make that happen AT ANY COST because you're a psychopath...
2/3
Would you be able to come up with ANY SCENARIO that would better serve you in achieving the first three goals...
3/3
... than this scenario, implemented on a global scale, all at the same time, in a perfectly coordinated execution of the mother of all plans right here?
I'm a GenX Gal, and I was a drama geek in high school, in Orange County, CA.
I remember being chased through the streets by ignorant jocks because I had my openly gay drama friend in the car with me. They'd have beat the shit out of us had they caught us.
That was a reality.
People forget, we fought HARD to do away with LABELS in the 80s.
The Blitz Kids, "fathered" by Bowie, led the charge.
And there was one, united message to the movement:
Don't slap a label on me. Love me or hate me based on who I am, not what I look like or whom I sleep with.