RSS Feed
November 23rd, 2021 
Awake Goy weilunion says:
There are billions of people in the world who lack basic services such as sewer, water, electricity, roads, transport and communication.
And they are clamoring to get on the grid.
It is only first world inhabitants that push the ‘off the grid’ idea and it is unsustainable and a farce.
You need at minimum food,water and shelter to live ‘off the grid’.
In America, take California, there are 51 million people stuffed on the grid. Most live in large cities.
How do they get off the grid?
“off the grid” is a cute phrase that has no currency unless one is rich and has plenty of land and time.
The whole idea is again, the search for individual solutions to massive social and economic problems.
“Buy land”, “live off the grid”, “enjoy freedom from modern life” — all fallacies and carnival barking by the next person who wants to sell you something.
Sorry, the Leviathan is here and you will be lucky if you even have water in a few decades that is potable.
No, the fight is here and although flight beats fight in most minds, the Malthusian minds also want you off the grid so they can stay on the graft.
“In Thomas Malthus’ “Essay on the Principle of Population” (1799), he wrote:
“We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use.
In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.”
There will be many people taken off the grid in the future, but not by their own hand.
As an asidee, did you know that the roots of the Great Reset agenda can very clearly be traced back to 80 years ago, when an American, former Trotskyist who later joined the OSS, followed by the CIA, and went on to become the founding father of neo-conservatism, James Burnham, wrote a book on his vision for “The Managerial Revolution.”?
In fact, it was the ideologies of Burnham’s “The Managerial Revolution” that triggered Orwell to write his “1984”.
He goes on to make the case that as seen with the transition from a feudal to a capitalist state being inevitable, so too will the transition from a capitalist to managerial state occur. And that ownership rights of production capabilities will no longer be owned by individuals but rather the state or institutions, he writes:
“Effective class domination and privilege does, it is true, require control over the instruments of production; but this need not be exercised through individual private property rights. It can be done through what might be called corporate rights, possessed not by individuals as such but by institutions: as was the case conspicuously with many societies in which a priestly class was dominant…”
Burnham proceeds to write:
“If, in a managerial society, no individuals are to hold comparable property rights, how can any group of individuals constitute a ruling class?
The answer is comparatively simple and, as already noted, not without historical analogues. The managers will exercise their control over the instruments of production and gain preference in the distribution of the products, not directly, through property rights vested in them as individuals, but indirectly, through their control of the state which in turn will own and control the instruments of production. The state – that is, the institutions which comprise the state – will, if we wish to put it that way, be the ‘property’ of the managers. And that will be quite enough to place them in the position of the ruling class.”
Posted in 
Tags: 
