Most of us are completely dependent on a system that wants to destroy us. We need the system for food, water, and shelter. As long as we depend on the globalist system then the globalist system will have power over us. We cannot defeat a system that has us by the balls. The best we can hope for is that the kikes will use lube before they fuck us in the ass. If we want any chance to defeat these kikes then we must first stop relying on them.
The first thing we need to do if we want any real chance of beating these kikes is to develop our own system independent from theirs. Buy land, learn skills, start businesses, grow your own food, get a workshop, and build your own shit, but don't stop there. Network with others who want to do the same and have skills that complement yours. Build entire communities of such people and then network with other communities. We need to merge the homesteading movement with the maker movement and the citizen science movement and we can free ourselves from ZOG's global supply chains.
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 1F3F6C974BFE4820003560FC5F991EAD-126548.jpg (123.6 KB, 800x533, 1588409950.jpg)
This must be the 50th thread on this topic.
My response is this: although your proposal builds independence, until technology advances so one's location is totally irrelevant then being clustered around cities provides advantages in employment, services, and other skills. This is why urbanization happens, because location truly is key in success. As rural areas, on the other hand, rely on natural resources for their income people will keep moving from countryside to city until net real income is equal.
From a pragmatic point of view, is it more efficient to "develop our own system" now or use more resources a few years from now to build a better system? These are laudable goals but it's necessary to plot out the best possible path, and it may vary from person to person. One has to be more subtle and inconspicuous in a city environment but there are more opportunities to network, more things to disrupt, and more skills to pick up. Conversely, there's more freedom outside cities but opportunities to expand reach are limited; moreover, federal agencies cautiously watch homesteads after WACO.
My response is this: although your proposal builds independence, until technology advances so one's location is totally irrelevant then being clustered around cities provides advantages in employment, services, and other skills. This is why urbanization happens, because location truly is key in success. As rural areas, on the other hand, rely on natural resources for their income people will keep moving from countryside to city until net real income is equal.
From a pragmatic point of view, is it more efficient to "develop our own system" now or use more resources a few years from now to build a better system? These are laudable goals but it's necessary to plot out the best possible path, and it may vary from person to person. One has to be more subtle and inconspicuous in a city environment but there are more opportunities to network, more things to disrupt, and more skills to pick up. Conversely, there's more freedom outside cities but opportunities to expand reach are limited; moreover, federal agencies cautiously watch homesteads after WACO.
2 replies | 1 files | 3 UUIDs | Archived