Ulterior Motives for Promoting Nomadic Living?
#1
I've been thinking about this for several months now and thought I'd put it
down here in long-form to see what you guys think.

RV living. Nomad living. People living out of vehicles of all sizes and descriptions. Tiny houses.
Of course, I think it's a great idea, for some, especially in small doses. But upon closer scrutiny
one realizes that it's not a way of life meant for everyone. We're all different.

Now, on the surface of it, it does look great! And probably is! The freedom of movement one 
could experience daily, living a "where I lay my head is home" life would for some be the 
ultimate way to spend their time upon the Earth. But as great as it all is, as liberating as
that kind of life can be, I've come to question the dark side of that coin.

In essence, this whole thing sprouts from the seed of what? Down-sizing. Living a more
economical life. Some would prefer to say "simplifying" and that is totally acceptable. 

Now I understand not everyone taking part in these types of living arrangements do so
out of financial necessity. A lot of people just fall in love with the idea of hitting the open 
road and letting life unfold in front of them as it will. There's NOTHING wrong with that!

I just think there's a darker motive at play here and that, like with most things in life, a small
few stand to benefit greatly as the masses continue to "settle for less". 

Don't get me wrong here, I don't think we all need huge homes, 1/2 acre yards, three or four
vehicles per household, etc. But I don't think society should accept the conditions that force 
such a down-sizing as THE only option for them to live.

The "elite ruling class", as they have been labeled, don't seem to be reducing their family size
by having fewer children. They also don't look to be giving up their sprawling mansions, castles 
or millions of acres of land all over the world. Meatless Mondays will probably never be a thing
for the billionaires/trillionaires of the world. 

These extremely fortunate few will never be caught down-sizing their lives in the ways that many 
people have had to in recent years. But you can guarantee that a good number of them have hands 
in the hidden reasons of why others are forced to in order to survive.

And it's those people, the ones resorting to these sometimes very restrictive lifestyles, that I'm
referring to here. Sure, it's being pushed as all the rage to simplify your life and down-size your
living situation [for many different, some very attractive reasons] but as I've mentioned, for a lot 
of people it's not a question of maybe but more a harsh reality of have to

Making it unfeasible for many millions of people [including a lot of families] to own a home and 
live as we've become accustomed to casts a very dark shadow upon the human experience. Again,
not sprawling mansions and tons of land, just a modest home offering shelter and security.

And what happens one day when "they" decide that due to whatever nonsense reasons, I'm sure
tying it into "national security concerns" [Agenda 21 - 2030?] that no longer will it be allowed to 
camp for free on BLM land? Not only that, but for "reasons tied to terrorism" no longer will people
be able to carry firearms in vehicles. Sounds extreme, I know, but The Patriot Act would've sounded
like pure sci-fi-fantasy back in the 80's. 

So already, in such a scenario, they've taken away a persons ability to have/own a home, to have a place 
to "nomadically" call home AND to be able to protect themselves while living said lifestyle. Pretty neat, huh?

Please don't think I'm trying to tarnish the nomadic lifestyle here, I'm not. I just can't ignore so many of the
potential pitfalls of that way of living. As free and unfettered as most claim to feel living on their own terms
out on the open road, the whole thing is STILL at the whims of an at best very fickle government entity.

All those empty WalMarts. Possible containment units for those nomads who refuse to adhere to "new government
policy" forbidding dry camping on BLM land. Only until they can gate them all off. That's a LOT of RV's and vehicles 
to be confiscated and sold at auction. Then, not only do they not have a home, but no means of transport either. I'm 
guessing that's how they'll keep them there. They just won't have any other place to go and no way of getting anywhere.

Thoughts?
Reply
#2
(05-09-2019, 11:08 PM)somethingelseishere Wrote: I just think there's a darker motive at play here and that, like with most things in life, a small
few stand to benefit greatly as the masses continue to "settle for less". 

Excellent point.

Great thread in general.


(05-09-2019, 11:08 PM)somethingelseishere Wrote: Sounds extreme, I know, but The Patriot Act would've sounded
like pure sci-fi-fantasy back in the 80's. 

You're right... well said.

I can't disagree with you.

But I also think that there is a future being forged out of the modern nomadic approach, and that the intentions are not all bad... this is a true movement taking place, and of course it will be met with dark forces seeking to manipulate the situation to gain control ultimately. It'll fail though... if we haven't noticed yet, the battle between "good and evil" is constant and on-going. No one ever wins.

The nomadic lifestyle has been greatly popularized in recent years, but I think rather than anything nefarious, the purpose behind that has simply been to make money re: advertising, products related to the genre, and so forth.
Reply
#3
(05-09-2019, 11:14 PM)Mister Obvious Wrote: But I also think that there is a future being forged out of the modern nomadic approach, and that the intentions are not all bad... this is a true movement taking place, and of course it will be met with dark forces seeking to manipulate the situation to gain control ultimately.

The nomadic lifestyle has been greatly popularized in recent years, but I think rather than anything nefarious, the purpose behind that has simply been to make money re: advertising, products related to the genre, and so forth.


Agreed. I just hope that the wrong hands don't get too much of a hold onto things. 
Despite my usually somewhat negative view of things [haha] I do see a lot of good
and certainly tons of potential within the nomadic living community. I'd like to see its
continued growth and to spread positivity and awareness.
Reply
#4
While MO has been advocating a more outdoorsy lifestyle, tent living, and what-not, she has also touted the benefits of owning your own land. Tent living and so forth needn't necessarily mean being a nomad. Private land ownership is the real foundation of liberty. It's much harder to kick someone off their own property than to kick them off BLM land. I'd say the freedom to wander about the country is of dubious value compared to that. One place is as good as another as long as our essential liberties are intact. One place is as bad as another without them.


Commercial interests will always try to cash in on any movement because that's what they do. They keep an eye out for new cultural and counter-cultural phenomena and find ways to monetize them, create new product genres and new markets, and so forth. That's just capitalism. It's not in their best interests in the long run to so impoverish the masses that nobody can afford to buy their products.


I think modern nomadism is really just an extreme reaction of people getting tired of the consumerist lifestyle. We've been barraged with advertising and consumer goods of dubious value for well over a century since the industrial revolution, and the luster of the consumerist cult has worn off for many people. In Victorian times, easy affluence, or the illusion of it, was a fresh phenomenon, and people crammed their parlors full of "Empire goods" - mostly useless items purchased for show that were made abundant and affordable due to industrialization and more efficient modes of global trade. Unfortunately, that early pattern of consumer behavior became the standard habit of life for most people for the next century. It's difficult for a cult follower to recognize himself as such while he believes he's reaping some benefit from the situation. Only when things turn sour does he begin to question his circumstances.


More and more people are realizing the pursuit of excessive wealth and its material trappings hasn't created a more fulfilling life. Not only that, excessive mindless consumption has created in mega-corporations that are so wealthy and powerful their existence threatens liberty. While in some cases becoming a nomad may seem to have been forced upon people by economic hardship, the cause of their privation itself may very well be due to their deciding it's not worth the sacrifice of time, effort, leisure, and liberty to keep up with the Joneses.
Reply
#5
(05-10-2019, 09:59 AM)Guest Wrote: While MO has been advocating a more outdoorsy lifestyle, tent living, and what-not, she has also touted the benefits of owning your own land.

Oh yeah for sure... owning your own land is very important and it doesn’t even have to be a lot of land. Maintaining that land is something you have to take into consideration... not biting off more than you can chew and keeping things manageable is essential.

(05-10-2019, 09:59 AM)Guest Wrote: I think modern nomadism is really just an extreme reaction of people getting tired of the consumerist lifestyle.

I completely agree.

And eventually a nice balance will be struck.
Reply
#6
(05-10-2019, 10:16 AM)Mister Obvious Wrote: Oh yeah for sure... owning your own land is very important and it doesn’t even have to be a lot of land. Maintaining that land is something you have to take into consideration... not biting off more than you can chew and keeping things manageable is essential.

That's the one point where I disagree with the OP, really. Everyone should own at least an acre or two. Not for the sake of having a weed-free suburban lawn, but to be secure in their person and property.
Reply
#7
when you are a nomad/gypsy, you are both advantaged and disadvantaged. the main disadvantage is that you cannot lay a foundation to accumulate power. it's not a good situation to create and raise a family, nor is it to create a business, nor is it even to make good, close and lasting friends. unless they're traveling with you, and yeah internet muddies those waters a ton.

someone in a state of drifting is of little consequence to the power structures. someone that lays down roots, creates and cultivates community, attracting like minded individuals... now that's a threat to them.
rhombus will set you free.
“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” ― Michael Ellner
Reply
#8
(05-10-2019, 10:38 AM)Guest Wrote: Everyone should own at least an acre or two. Not for the sake of having a weed-free suburban lawn, but to be secure in their person and property.


I agree. But it seems that more and more people are experiencing economic hardships
to a level that prevents them from even owning small plots of land. In some cases, land 
being priced out of their reach.
Reply
#9
(05-10-2019, 06:51 PM)genba Wrote: when you are a nomad/gypsy, you are both advantaged and disadvantaged. the main disadvantage is that you cannot lay a foundation to accumulate power. it's not a good situation to create and raise a family, nor is it to create a business, nor is it even to make good, close and lasting friends. unless they're traveling with you, and yeah internet muddies those waters a ton.

someone in a state of drifting is of little consequence to the power structures. someone that lays down roots, creates and cultivates community, attracting like minded individuals... now that's a threat to them.


Very good points. When you own land/a home, you have a foundation and rights. 
Rights that cannot be had living a nomad lifestyle. Which is why it would seem that
this push to take on that way of living could have darker intentions. 

Now, the "elite" are going to make their money either way, they always hedge their bets, playing 
both sides of one another. But sometimes power and control are worth more than money.

When you can manipulate and marginalize huge swaths of society by painting them into
a tight financial corner, you've not only got the money aspect [home foreclosures, car repo's, etc.]
but control over how much influence those people affected can now wield. A rolling stone
gathers no moss as they say. 

I still see a lot of positive angles to the nomad life, for sure. Mostly for those that choose
it willingly, not out of necessity.
Reply


Please note that new posts in this forum must be approved by a moderator before becoming visible.
[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Image Verification
Please enter the text contained within the image into the text box below it. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.
Image Verification
(case insensitive)






Disclaimer | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

Board Rules | Chat | About | Contact


















You are what you think about. This is your mind online.