Everywhere you go, it's the same story: sprawling new "student accommodation" complexes springing up everywhere. There's a huge development just down the road from me, that can house up to 500 people, and a giant new project under construction in the centre of town.
So what's wrong with that, you may ask? Students do require residences, after all.
Indeed they do, but therein lies the issue - all students resident in the conurbation of Huddersfield, where I live, are already catered for with the existing student accommodation in the locality, and they certainly don't require more, since the town's university - the University of Huddersfield - is, like many higher education institutions, in dire financial straits and so is in the process of contracting - dispensing with staff, shrinking departments, and potentially doing away with some courses altogether. There is, in short, no sudden mass influx of students into the town of Huddersfield, outstripping the current supply of student housing with demand. On the contrary.
In short - and also because there are less and less 18-year-olds in the population year on year - there are going to be fewer and fewer students resident in Huddersfield going forward, not more and more - so why the sudden explosion in "student accommodation" - not just in Huddersfield, but in literally every town and city centre?
This seems especially baffling when one considers that more and more university courses are moving online (which is where all education will reside eventually), thereby doing away with the requirement for teenagers to relocate to study - they can just stay at home and learn online, so they don't need specialty accommodation in other cities.
This being the case, I don't think one needs to be a particularly consummate theoriser of conspiracies to conclude that, actually, a lot of this accommodation isn't intended for 'students' at all.
So who is it really meant for?
How about... you?
What do you mean?! You may very well object. I have a house, thanks very much. I like where I live and have absolutely no intentions of moving into grotty, cramped student digs - why on earth would I?!
We are on the precipice of a massive housing crisis where many people will be forced into an impossible position - can neither afford their mortgage repayments, nor find anywhere to rent (which will prove particularly challenging if they've struggled to keep up with soaring utility bills and so have lost their credit rating) - so what will happen to all these people?
The government will swoop in to "save" them, in its usual confected problem-reaction-solution way.
"Oh, so terrible you're about to be made homeless [because of the economic problems we intentionally created] - but, hey, guess what! We're here to save you! We've got loads of empty student accommodation just sitting around the country, doing nothing [the huge complex mentioned at the beginning of this article has been empty for four years], we can give you a room there! No, no, you don't have to pay, it's all on us, just like the UBI you need now AI has taken your job. Sure, it's a small room, tiny actually, and just has a bed and a desk, but it's fully SMART enabled! So you can spend all day catching up with friends on Facebook, watching your favourite show on Netflix, and existing as an avatar in the Metaverse! Doesn't that sound great?!
"I mean, obviously, you'll have to share communal facilities like bathrooms and kitchens with everyone else in the block, just as students do - we can't lavish too much luxury on you, after all, ha ha! What's that now, a tiny single occupancy room where you have to share all other facilities with strangers sounds a bit like prison? Oh, tosh, you silly conspiracy theorist! It's nothing like prison. I mean, prisons let you out for an hour a day, we certainly won't be doing that in the next pandemic..."
Okay, so I may have employed some slight hyperbole there (a real government agent wouldn't be nearly so jolly), but that is the inevitable conclusion I have drawn about what these "student" complexes are really for. And, with looming mass unemployment on the horizon courtesy of AI (which is predicted to take 300 million full-time jobs in the next few years), perhaps most living in these residences will actually be 'students' of a sort - required to take endless online government re-education courses in return for their "free" room and UBI...
As ever, the overlords have been playing the long-game and have coerced and corralled millions of people into a situation where they will be forced to accept the offer of prison-like accommodation and subsistence-level rations in the form of UBI, because they no longer have the multifaceted support system that was once common.
For example, I live next door to a Muslim family who are a multigenerational household. Grandparents, parents, and young adult children all living together, meaning there are at least four wages coming into the household every month. So, this family have been far more able than the average UK household to absorb the spiralling costs of living, because multiple people are covering the mortgage and bills. If one person loses their job, it's not a disaster, because there are three others still working. If someone gets sick, there are others available to care for them. And so on and so forth.
Compare this to the average UK household which has a maximum of two earning adults, and very often, only one. Such arrangements are far less robust and far more vulnerable to the effects of inflation and unstable economies.
The overlords know this and that's why they've pushed us into such arrangements, aggressively encouraging people to seek "independence" as early as possible, e.g., leave your home community at age 18, move to an alien city where you don't know anyone, and throw yourself on the vagaries of the market. Be completely dependent on an employer who has no actual ties or loyalty to you and can cut off your "independence" any time they like, as many (including me) experienced in "lockdown".
They've sold this package - segregation, isolation, and atomisation marketed as "independence" - to the masses, whilst doing the exact opposite themselves. The ruling classes are ultra-traditionalists in terms of "keeping it in the family", ensuring their offspring work for the family firm and that wealth is handed down generationally, meaning each successive generation enjoys more security, power, and influence than the one before.
They do this because they know that creating and sustaining families, communities, and dynasties keeps people strong and empowered. Severing them from their networks as early as possible and tossing them out into alien concrete jungles to compete with millions of strangers in the rat race, is a surefire way of disempowering people and making them vulnerable. There may be the odd exception to this rule, who is able to flourish and thrive following such a path, but on the whole, this kind of lifestyle - and its aggressive social promotion - has resulted in people lonelier, unhappier, and poorer than ever before.
This has happened very quickly, too. I was pondering my own situation: I have two parents, one surviving grandparent, and six aunts and uncles. Of these nine people, seven of them lived within a five-minute walk radius of me when I was born.
Now, none of them live in the same city as me nor, indeed, as each other. If I wanted to visit all nine members of my immediate family, I would have to travel to Stoke, Malvern, North London, Buckinghamshire, Stratford, Cambridge, South London, and Kent. It would take me weeks and (as I don't drive) cost potentially thousands in train fares.
In 1990, I could just walk up the road.
Likewise, in the same year, all my closest friends lived within walking distance of my home. Of those six friends, they now live in Liverpool, London (two of them but at different ends), Spain, Bristol, and York respectively.
There's nothing remarkable or unusual about this: that once close and entwined families and communities are now scattered all over the country and globe. It's completely standard and "normal". Except, really it's not: it's not normal at all, not measured by any barometer of how successful human communities have organised themselves throughout history. These new trends have been cynically strategised and pushed as "normal" for aspirational and ambitious people (staying in your own hometown all your life, ugh, what a smallminded failure you are! Is the trope pushed by all schools, social media, and Hollywood movies). That's for a reason: to give the ruling classes a huge advantage in terms of increasing their power and control over us.
Now that the overlords have largely succeeded in severing most people from natural, entwined, intergenerational communities, and that one in three households are single occupancy, they pounce.
They sold the illusion that this kind of fake, subsidised "independence" - separated from communities and support networks, living on your own - was sustainable indefinitely, but unless you happen to be very wealthy, it isn't - as many are now finding out. Living with other people can be very, very annoying (I am a veteran of shared housing and so I know), and sometimes even dangerous, in which case of course other arrangements must be sought. However, it can also save your life, because there's strength in numbers and power in community - and that's why the overlords have worked so relentlessly to destroy this and to create their "dream" society - where every human not "in the club" lives alone in a single occupancy pod, existing only as an avatar in the metaverse.
The most effective way of their achieving this desired outcome is to put individuals in student-style accommodation with people they don't know.
First of all, such accommodation is very cheap to maintain (that's why it's traditionally designed for poor students who can't afford "real" houses), much cheaper than making traditional homes available for everyone, and second of all, the effect of having to share communal facilities with strangers is, overwhelmingly, to drive people to spend as much time as possible alone in their rooms.
I've seen it first hand and I'm sure many have: living in shared accommodation with friends can be great, but if you enter a house-share with strangers, the most common result is that people avoid each other, spending as much time as possible away from the shared facilities, whilst they listen acutely at their bedroom doors for when the kitchen has been vacated so they can scuttle in to get their Pot Noodle and eat it alone in their rooms (I've just learned this phenomenon is so widespread, it has an actual name: it's called 'kitchen anxiety').
Especially now, when the cultural and political wars are so intense and divisive, the chances of thirty random strangers put in shared, student-style accommodation together, liking each other and getting on, are really rather low. Indeed, it could easily be all-out mutiny, especially if another "pandemic" is declared and half the inmates believe in it and take it deadly seriously, and the other half think it's a(nother) audacious government hoax...
So what do I suggest to avoid this fate? Well, if you think you're at risk of losing your home, then I recommend starting to make contingency plans with others in similar situations who, if it comes to it, you think you could live with. People you broadly share views with and would be okay sharing communal facilities with (whom would not induce endless 'kitchen anxiety'...). Indeed, for some people, it may be better to get ahead of the curve and move into shared accommodation by choice, rather than by force, whilst we still have a relatively free market and can choose where, and with whom, we live.
And I say this having lived in multiple shared houses (including a Buddhist commune between the ages of 8 and 12, but I can't get into that now, I need to save some juicy details for the autobiography, after all...), so I know it's not always a bed of roses, and that living with others, even friends, can be epically challenging at times. It's just a question of, is it going to be less challenging than dealing with whatever sinister "solution" the government has in store if you can no longer afford your home?
Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that (unless you're financially secure enough that there's no possibility of you losing your home, even if costs rise further), the more income-earning adults there are in your household, even if that income is only small or part-time, the more collective power you will have between you to resist what's coming.
Money is always how they control us in the end: after all, why did care home workers submit and take the jab? Because they were scared of losing their job - money - if they didn't. Why do they punish us dissidents with PayPal bans and other demonetisation strategies? Because they know without income, we are weak and vulnerable to their control.
This is why they're staged so many situations over the past few years to reduce our ability to generate money. "Lockdowns" had a catastrophic effect on small businesses, with many going under altogether, and those that survived, making drastically less money. "Furlough", which got people used to having 80% of their income (next time there's a furlough, it'll be 60%, and then 40%, and so on). And now, an engineered cost of living crisis where people are having to deal with having less and less money - because the less money at people's disposal, the less ultimate autonomy they have, and the more likely it is they will be forced to throw themselves on the mercy of the government to survive.
We must continue doing all we can to stop the government from manoeuvring us into their desired position, and seeing in advance what chess moves they are likely to make next gives us the best possible chance of mounting our own successful counter-strategy (and, of course, of avoiding both 'kitchen anxiety' and the dreaded Pot Noodle...).
Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...
1. Subscribing monthly via Substack
2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee
3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA
Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.