Ranjana Zwijnenberg verteld de waarheid


donderdag 11 januari 2018

Private property: a silver bullet to socialist vampires

(To read about Jon's mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
Private property: a silver bullet to socialist vampires
By Jon Rappoport
"Once private property is abolished, the advocates for utopia win. They build their heaven on earth, which means they can take what they want and run civilization, top-down. They can keep saying nobody owns anything, but in fact they own it all. They execute this squeeze play as if they were messiahs eradicating the prime evil. This is such a preposterous stage play that, in a sane society, it would close down after one night." (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
Newsflash: There is a difference between an idea and the way that idea is applied in practice.
The idea of private property can certainly be twisted to mean, "I will steal what you have, make it my own, and then declare it is my property, over which I have control."
But the idea of private property remains independent of what people will do to distort it. A child used to be able to see this.
Centuries of struggle resulted in a shift from monarchs and priest classes owning all available land, to individuals having the right to own land.
Once that principle was firmly established, groups immediately tried to modify the principle to their advantage.
In 1776, a group called the Illuminati declared its existence in Bavaria. One of its guiding ideas was: the abolition of all private property. That concept traveled down to Karl Marx and the Communist agenda.
Private property was called an inherent crime. Instead, the people/everybody would own all property.
This garbled incoherent pronouncement would be backed up by the ruling government, who would act as stewards for the masses---meaning the government would take control of all property until such time as the people evolved to the point where the State was unnecessary.
As a straight con, it was very weak. A two-bit hustler on a street corner with a folding table and three cards could see through it in a second.
The people evolving? The State withering away on its own? Equality defined as everybody owning everything?
Of course, if people injected their own utopian fantasies into the mix, if people assumed the government was a beneficent force for good, if people assumed there was an "everybody" operating unanimously, if people fantasized about a history of tribes (who fought wars against each other) gracefully abdicating the whole notion of individual property...well then, yes, the abolition of private property became a marvelous proposition.
In the light of day, however, with a clear mind, the idea was terrible. It was quite insane. It signaled a transfer of property from the individual to power-mad lunatics posing as "the people."
Needless to say, this idea of no-private-property is alive and well on planet Earth today. We are in another round of fantasy-drenched propaganda.
In a nutshell, the threat of pure private property is: it establishes individual rights that stand against the unchecked force of the government-corporate-banking nexus. It implies the individual is free, independent, and the ruler of what he owns.
To which the addled mind replies: "But suppose a person is polluting his land and the poison is running beyond his borders and endangering others?"
Well, that is called a crime. It should be prosecuted. It should be stopped.
The fact that it is often ignored doesn't negate the whole assumption of private property. It points to the corruption of public officials who refuse to prosecute the offender.
Here is utopia laid bare: the government and its partners, who are doing everything they can to limit, squash, and outlaw the individual right to own property, are the same force that is acting as the wondrous representative of all the people; surrender to this force; give it power to appropriate all property and hold it in trust, for that day when the population has risen to enlightenment, when the open sharing of "everything" is a natural impulse. Then victory will be ours.
Not the iron fist. The open helping hand. Not the hammer. The smiling guide. Not the monarch. The servant of humanity.
If you buy that one, I have waterfront condos for sale on Jupiter's four moons. No terms. Cash up front. Construction begins in 2058. Promise.
The Homeowners Association actually owns the condos and the land. They are a subsidiary of the Jupiter Government Authority. There are rules. No flags of any kind flying from porches. No privately owned electricity generators. No growing of vegetables or fruit on the land. No weapons. Domiciles must be shared with migrants arriving from Earth. The migrants are given beds, meals, and clothing. Possessions are shared. The prime directive: everything belongs to everybody. Power to the people.
There is a direct line from Adam Weishaupt's secret society, the Illuminati, which he formed in Bavaria in 1776, to Karl Marx, and onward to the modern Globalist agenda.
One of the key shared ideas: the abolition of private property.
Many people hold a negative view of Weishaupt, the Illuminati, and especially Marx, and so it fell to Globalists to couch their ideas about property in more acceptable terms.
That feat (one of many attempted) was expressed, in 1976, by Carla Hills, US Trade Representative and a key member of the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission. Hills is credited as the principal architect of the Globalist NAFTA Treaty, which has destructively affected the US and Mexican economies.
Patrick Wood, author of the classic, Technocracy Rising, unearthed Hills' brief statement on private property. I've broken her remarks up into three parts, so I can comment after each mind-bending point.
Carla Hills: "Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market."
Her use of the term "human settlements" is curious, as is her reference to "crucial role it [land] plays." Is she trying to take us back to an ancient period in human history, when people were first abandoning nomadic existence and turning to agriculture and fixed communities? It appears so. She wants us to think of land in terms of "oh, look, we can stop wandering and live here, and this space of soil will play 'a crucial role' in our future." It's been centuries since private ownership of land became a reality. But Hills doesn't like acknowledging that. And through her use of "human settlements," she also wants us to believe that the ancient concept of an entire community moving on to land to live is the only valid view. An individual staking a claim to land or buying it is verboten. It's a corruption of the natural order.
I assume Hills isn't living in a kibbutz or a commune. I feel certain she owns a home. But as an elite socialist, she's excused. The arbiters who should decide the disposition of all lands, for the rest of us, deserve their perks. They need their own space, in order to think more clearly.
Hills asserts that private ownership of property isn't ordinary and can't be thought of that way. Individuals shouldn't "control it." And the free market causes problems. Well, of course, the free market causes problems, if you assume that no one should own more land than anyone else. And yes, private ownership, based on hard work, is inefficient, if that means some super-government can't take land away "for the public good."
Hills stops short of saying government should own all land, but that's where she's going.
She continues: "Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes."
Social injustice, that familiar theme. Some people might own more land than others. That's not right. That's unjust. There should be no reward for hard work and intelligence. No. Instead, there is only planning from above. The wise demi-golds, who have our best interests at heart, can decide all the uses to which land is put. They can own huge tracts of land themselves, because they are gods. But the rest of us must submit to the development schemes they lay out. Only bitter clingers, who actually work for a living and strive and make their own way in the world, believe in private property. They're for social injustice. They don't want to give way to Greater Sharing.
Finally, Hills states: "Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole."
Kinder and gentler vision. Just launch a plan to give EVERYONE a decent dwelling and healthy conditions. That's how land should be used and thought of. No more private property. EVERYONE, of course, includes people (in unlimited numbers---no ceiling) who come here from anywhere in the world. And they come because here they'll get justice. They should get free housing. They should get "healthy conditions." No problem. Eventually, everyone gets a 20-foot by 20-foot square box to live in.
What could go wrong?
Carla Hills is couching her statement to avoid the heavy philosophy and militant threat and totalitarian thrust of the Illuminati and Marx, but she's on the same page. She's "sustainable" and "green" and "kind" and "thoughtful" and "caring." She's perfect for self-styled liberals and the virtue-signaling Clueless.
She's part of the tradition that wants to take down the individual spirit and stuff it in the collective.
I know many people (and I'm sure you do, too) who have worked hard, bought land, built a home, raised children, who would nevertheless applaud Carla Hills' statement. They've succeeded in compartmentalizing their minds. It never occurs to them that if the Globalist dream came true, they would wake up one day with their homes and property ripped out from under them. If they think about it at all, they think they can have it both ways. They can continue to live as they've been living, but somehow, at the same time, social justice will be served.
They're in a dream. It's so pretty. For them.
There is no iron hand, no Lenin, no Marx, no Stalin. All the land is dotted with lovely little free cottages nestled in valleys, and it's spring, and the trees are flowering.
Down a country road, in his wheelchair, comes arch-Globalist George Soros, cackling and humming and talking on the phone with his broker. He's flanked by bodyguards. Perched on nearby hills, snipers are in position, just in case a threat develops.
A young boy approaches him. Soros raises his hand, signaling his hidden shooters to hold their fire.
"Mr. Soros," the boy says, "I'm studying civics in school, and I'm trying to figure out who EVERYONE is. Because EVERYONE owns everything."
Soros chuckles. "That's an advanced lesson, son. You'll learn about it in college."
Soros reaches into his pocket and tosses the boy a dime. "Go buy yourself an ice cream soda, and remember where you got the money. I stand for charity. Good works hold us all together."
"What's an ice cream soda?" the boy asks.
Soros shrugs. "I have no idea. It's just something I say. But if you study hard in school, perhaps someday I'll contact your parents, take you under my wing, and teach you how to short the currency of a whole nation and make a billion dollars in a few weeks, while simultaneously preaching that no one owns anything and everyone owns everything. It's the most beautiful hustle you've ever seen."