The WEF’s War on Rurality

The war on cars is also a war on anyone who does not live in or very near a city. Such people are “immoral in today’s world,” says Klaus Schwab, the unelected leader of the world, who leads the World Economic Forum.

It is less a “forum” – which implies people bandying about ideas – than it is a steering committee of would-be world controllers, led by Schwab – a protege of the Canadian communist Maurice Strong and also of Henry Kissinger, the realpolitik brutalist for whom power is (his words) the “ultimate aphrodisiac.”

The WEF uses money to buy power by purchasing politicians – these are styled “young leaders” – and thereby steer the direction of politics in nations along the course intended, which – they hope – will lead ultimately to a world government managed by a handful of people (them) over which we have about as much control as the resident of a Section 8 tenement has over conditions in his government-provided hovel.

You will own nothing – and be happy.

You will also not live in the country.

Because that entails driving – entails owning – a car, which is not only “immoral” but also “unsustainable,” according to the WEF. By which is meant that private car ownership – and rural living – are impediments to the “collective strategy” of the WEF.

You can “walk or share” (a ride) instead.

This of course not being possible outside of or very nearby to urban areas.

Presto, a way to make living outside of them very difficult, if not all-but-impossible.

Klaus and his acolytes don’t say that out loud, yet. But it is implicit in what they say about private car ownership. It is also why the pretended push for the “electrification” of cars – which is really a push to make cars much more expensive and less practical. This to serve as the vehicle to dramatically reduce private car ownership and, thereby, make it increasingly difficult for anyone other than the very few who might still be able to afford it to live anywhere other than in urban areas and so under the control of Klaus and Co.

They have stated openly that making cars (and energy) more costly is the key to achieving this end – and it assuredly is. Why outlaw something when you can simply price it beyond the means of the people you don’t want to have it? It was once the case that only a few people could afford to own a car – and the early 1900s-era top-hatted simpaticos of Klaus and Co. liked it that way, for it made owning a car exclusive, a luxury the lowing masses couldn’t afford.

They could “walk or share” – and did so, because they had to.

When affordable cars came along – courtesy chiefly of Henry Ford – it upset that apple cart. The proles now had the same freedom of movement that previously only the very affluent enjoyed. They could live away from the smelly, overcrowded cities – where there was much less freedom, especially economic freedom – and relocate to where they could afford land, also previously the prerogative of the affluent. They could raise their kids as they saw fit and do more as they pleased. They had more political control over what went on where they lived, too – because in rural areas, one’s voice can be heard as opposed to being drowned out by the madding crowd.

But even more so because people who live away from cities tend to share a mindset and values at opposition to the collectivized mentality of the urban hives. They don’t need or want “young leaders.” They want to be let alone.

This is what Klaus and Co. mean when they say “unsustainable.”

And it is – in terms of being the chief obstacle in the path of their plans to “collectivize” the world, under their “leadership.” They cannot – yet – utter the other C word out loud, but it is the guiding philosophy behind everything they do. Everything else they say being almost verbatim recitations of what their 19th century high priest, Karl Marx, said – especially as regards the gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country.

The C people have always despised country people – the small landowners, independent farmers and so on – for the obvious reason that such people are less susceptible to the dogmas of the C people. The C people need to impoverish everyone equally – themselves excepted, of course – in order to make their ideology salable.

When you own nothing, you tend to be unhappy about it. Enter the C people, who promise to make you happy about it, by allowing you to use what they own  . . . provided you do as the C people say.

The C people hope you will forget what it was like to own things – and so not mind being owned, by them.