View Full Version : Come In Sucker. How Are They Trying To Suck Us Back Into Feudalism. WMV files Available.

04-15-2005, 01:17 AM
"The Return Of Feudalism Under The Guise Of "The Commons"

The Lefts wet dream... Here is the perfect example of where we are being led...straight back into Feudalism by the sheep like Left. The Right (orchestrated by the Banking Elite) creates the problem...unrestrained capital, greed, irresponsible business practice and then you are told the solution by the same Banking Elite funded Left...a return to the 'commons' whereby an aristocratic, church elite administer (steward) the land by Gods good grace and you work it...no one owns it ;)...hmmmm, sounds like another great idea permeated at the beginning of last century. What was that called again...It's classic Problem---->Reaction---->Solution...come in sucker.


It should also be noted that another equally vile concept is doing the rounds and gathering strength...that the Bill Of Rights & Constitution was written by a bunch of rich, white guys who only wanted to protect their ill gotten gains from the State. Therefore...the proletariat should immediately throw off this evil bit of paper and let the U.N write them a new one...replete with lots of Secular Humanistic 'feel good' talk...How do they get away with this shit! I actually think I hate the Left more than I do the so called right.

04-15-2005, 06:50 AM
After watching this little clip I have a few objections, my dear.;-)

The woman in the end, Elaine Bernard, seems to me to be of the Socialist/Communist persuasion, when she's stating that "what we're seeing is yet another enclosure and... private taking of the "commons."

Commons being large areas of land, farmed by farmers, administered by the Church in 14th-16th century Europe, called "enclosure movements" by Jeremy Rifkin talking in the beginning of the clip.
Jeremy Rifkin also seem to lean very left of centre.

They both don't seem to like private ownership very much and think that everything should belong to "everybody" - it should be "common property".

This article below is by one of my favourites, Butler Shaffer and says very clearly and logically why PRIVATE PROPERTY is in practice equal to PRIVATE LIBERTY.

BTW, the slogan of the French Revolution, as everyone knows is "Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood". But the Socialist/Illuminist conspirators responsible for the French Revolution excluded a fourth concept from the original, and that was PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.

(excerpt from <a href="http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.10009/pub_detail.asp">THIS ARTICLE</a>)
"Much of the history of the last two centuries has revolved around the pursuit of a single idea—socialism. It has been the most popular political idea man has ever invented. In some ways, even the great religions cannot compare. Christianity, the most widely embraced religion in history, today claims adherence by one third of the human race, a proportion reached about a century ago, in other words, after 1,900 years. It took Christianity 300 years before it could claim to speak for ten percent of the world’s people. By comparison, within 150 years after the term "socialism" was coined, roughly 60 percent of the human race found itself living under socialist rule of one kind or another.

Of course, not all who lived under socialism adhered to it philosophically, but vast numbers did adhere to socialism philosophically. No other political belief claimed the allegiance of so many voters or party members. Nor was there any in which so much energy and hope was invested.

The story of socialism began in the French revolution. The rights it first proclaimed—"liberty, property, security"—closely resembled the American triad of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." However, soon a fourth was added—equality. To be sure, the Americans had proclaimed that men were "created equal," but the French innovation was to include "equality" among the mandatory pursuits of government. "Equality" was no longer simply a moral value which needed to be asserted but a condition of life which needed to be fostered. And, to this the revolutionaries added still another objective, brotherhood, so that the enduring slogan of the Revolution became "liberty, equality, brotherhood."

The first to see that the way to give shape to this stirring but vague slogan was through socialism—to wit, the substitution of common ownership for private property—was a revolutionist from Picardy named Francois-Noel "Gracchus" Babeuf."

Anyway, on with mr. Shaffer!

Liberty and Property
In practice, they are synonymous.

by Butler Shaffer

<a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer22.html">Are There Limits to Liberty?</a>

I shock many students on the first day of my Property classes by defining property ownership in terms of control: whoever gets to make decisions about an item of property is the effective owner, regardless of what legal definitions may have to say about title. I then propose the following application of a property principle (which I ask them only to understand, not necessarily to agree with): "based upon what I have just stated, I may do whatever I want with my property, without any restrictions or limitations whatsoever. If I may not do so, then someone else – the one restricting my usage – is the owner." There is a good deal of uneasiness in the classroom, with students wanting to amend my proposition by saying "as long as you don’t harm another." I respond, "I will accept no such qualifications to my principle: if I am the owner of something, I get to decide what I shall do with my property!"

"Perhaps the following hypothetical will help you," I explain. I proceed to hold up an eraser, and tell them: "imagine this is my brick. Imagine, further, that you have a lovely plate glass window in your house, and that I would like to throw my brick through your window. Based upon the principle I have just enunciated, am I entitled to do so?"

Many of the students begin to give in, saying "yeah, I guess so." But eventually, there will be one or two who will catch on and reply: "you only said that you could do with your property as you saw fit, and my window is not your property!" I go on to explain how the property boundary defines the range of my authority: I may break my own window with the brick – or hit myself over the head with it, if I choose – but I may not, consistent with a property principle, intrude upon your property.

At this point, my students are prepared to consider the broader social implications of "property." I tell them that this is not a course about "things," but about the relationships of people to one another concerning the question: who gets to make decisions about what?, a question so ably put by the late Robert LeFevre. "Who gets to make decisions about the lives and other property interests of people? Will individuals do this for themselves, or will others exercise such authority over them? In other words," I go on, "this is a course in the social application of metaphysics."

In time, most of my students begin to gain an understanding that individual liberty and the private ownership of property are synonymous concepts. To enjoy liberty is to exercise unrestricted authority over not only your life, but over those extensions of your life that we have come to regard as property. Because every living being must occupy space and be able to consume external sources of energy in order to continue existing, the property question goes to the very essence of life itself.

And so, we return to the question asked by this article: are there limits to your liberty? If you have learned to accept the necessity for leashes and leg-chains on human nature, you will probably regard an affirmative response as a self-evident proposition. But if you do answer "yes," then who will define those limitations? Do you not see that whoever you acknowledge as the definer of your liberties can set them as narrowly or as broadly as they choose, restricted only by a fear of your possible resistance? Is it not also evident that, by presuming to direct the range of your behavior, they have set themselves up as the masters of your life?

What can be said of the comparative states of mind of those who insist upon their unrestricted liberty, and those who are prepared to accept restrictions that others – particularly the state – have placed upon that liberty? The former will vigorously oppose such intrusions, asserting a claim to immunity from trespass as the basis for their insistence. There is, within such persons, a kind of spiritual imperative that will not allow for the subjugation of those autonomous qualities that give expression to all of life.

On the other hand, for those who have accepted state limitations upon their liberties, their response to further restrictions will amount to little more than a plea for indulgences. For so long has their systematic conditioning alienated them from the life spirit that, like trained animals, their aspirations reach no further than to be well fed, well cared for, and made secure from fears.

The conflict-ridden nature of modern society is largely accounted for by the kind of thinking which, in F.A. Hayek’s words, amounts to a "fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces." Unable to see, in a system of privately owned property, the informal processes by which the exercise of our liberties are self-limiting (i.e., the range of what you or I may properly do is constrained to the boundaries of what each of us owns), many resort to the state to define the scope of liberty. It is because of the wholesale abandonment of the property principle that we now experience, in statism, what Thomas Hobbes saw in a "state of nature," namely, a "condition of war of every one against every one," and for which he envisioned the state as a solution!

Since Hobbes, we have had three and a half centuries of experience with statism from which to judge the consequences of restricting the liberties of free men and women. Given the 200 million humans killed by wars and genocidal practices in the 20th century alone, the depressions and other economic dislocations caused by state intrusion into the marketplace, and the countless number of intergroup conflicts and bloodbaths perpetrated all over the globe, it is not individual liberty that ought to be on the defensive, but the state! It is state operatives – systematically regulating and despoiling our property interests – who are greater threats to our well-being than the occasional muggers.

But to fully appreciate how privately owned property and individual liberty can generate order in our world, we must be prepared to accept the property principle as an unqualified social system. It is meaningless to assert "I believe in privately owned property as long as the owner behaves as I want him to." To take such a position is, again, to have external authorities defining the range of our liberty. Voltaire’s classic statement ("I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it") has long been insisted upon by intellectuals, who find it useful for preserving the liberties in which they are interested. But what if we were to extend the range of this proposition to human action in general? What if we substituted the word "do" for "say" in this quotation, remembering that the "doing" is confined to one’s property interests?

A test of our commitment to liberty is found in our willingness to respect the authority of each of our neighbors to have unrestricted power over their individual lives and property. This is often difficult for us to do, particularly when we see others engaging in conduct that greatly offends our tastes and sensibilities. Let us see how far this respect for the liberty of others will take us.

Because the property principle, by definition, precludes a person from trespassing upon the life or property interests of another, victimizing crimes – all of which are property trespasses – are not defensible as exercises in liberty. The man who is beating up, murdering, or raping another person, is not doing with his life or property as he sees fit – just as in my brick/plate glass window example – but is violating the property interests of his victim. But what about practices that might be distasteful to us, but for which no property trespass is involved?

Let us take the example of a men’s club that chooses not to allow women as members. A sign appears at the entrance to this club expressing such a policy. A woman tries to join the club and is refused. Since no one has a property right entitling them to do business with an unwilling buyer or seller, would you defend the club’s lawful right to exclude this woman? I am not asking if you would approve of its decision, but whether you are prepared – for the protection of your own unfettered liberty – to support the club’s right to make such a decision? Do you understand that the unrestricted liberty to decide with whom to share – or exclude from – what is yours goes to the very essence of property ownership? From the same civilizing sentiments that allow you to respect the liberty of others to attend churches of which you might disapprove, can you acknowledge this organization’s rightful authority to engage in an act you might find offensive?

If you answer "no" to this question, you have surrendered as much authority over your life and property as others are prepared to persuade the state to exercise in furtherance of their interests or values. Today’s prohibition of private gender discrimination can become tomorrow’s mandate of segregated practices. You cannot place provisos, qualifications or riders on the property principle – no matter how narrowly defined or how fervently desired – without opening the door to anyone else to place their favored restrictions upon you.

Those who dislike such discriminatory practices are, of course, free to exercise their liberty by refusing to do business with this club or its members, and to try to persuade others to do likewise. But by calling upon the state to forcibly deprive the club of its authority to exclude whomever it chooses to exclude, we quickly descend to the kind of society we see all around us: a world of claimants upon the lives and property of others, and with no respect for the inviolability of either.

The idea of "limited liberty" is as self-contradictory as notions of limited pregnancies, squared circles, or dry rain. Liberty, like genuine love, is indivisible and unconditional, not subject to such qualifications as "provided that" or "as long as." For the same reason that conditional love is but a form of affection, conditional liberty is but a synonym for state-conferred privileges. Those who argue for liberty on such limited grounds are doing nothing more than pleading for an extended leg-chain!

June 25, 2002

04-15-2005, 07:07 AM
Yeh, thats my point...the Left is using it as fodder for a workers paradise. Rifkin dissapoints me...i had alot of time for his work until now.

I'm sorry dear Drak...i can never partake in your love of feudalism...for one, it ends in 'ism' and 2, it absolves people of personal responsability.

I have no objections to Feudalism on a small scale such as small communities. But never on the large scale whereby people have nowhere to go if they dont like it. The potential for Totalitarianism is to great.

In the end Feudalism is Paternalism...daddy knows best. I dont think we can go back. It's to much like Durkheim and his 'organic system' thingy where everyone in society knows there place in the system of things.

It could work in an extremely advanced psychologically, society, but...well, dont hold your breath.

Ultimately it should be that the law of the land is written unto their own hearts...and i'm not sure how you get that. Suffering usually brings it on and we indeed may be up for a spot of it.

Loved the article BTW. Could'nt agree more. Which begs the question...you cant even build a pergola without a satellite peering into your backyard and a beauracrat giving you permission...who owns your house?

04-15-2005, 07:55 AM
truebeliever wrote:
I'm sorry dear Drak...i can never partake in your love of feudalism...for one, it ends in 'ism' and 2, it absolves people of personal responsability.

I have no objections to Feudalism on a small scale such as small communities. But never on the large scale whereby people have nowhere to go if they dont like it. The potential for Totalitarianism is to great.

In the end Feudalism is Paternalism...daddy knows best. I dont think we can go back. It's to much like Durkheim and his 'organic system' thingy where everyone in society knows there place in the system of things.

It could work in an extremely advanced psychologically, society, but...well, dont hold your breath.


Loved the article BTW. Could'nt agree more. Which begs the question...you cant even build a pergola without a satellite peering into your backyard and a beauracrat giving you permission...who owns your house?

You're right, it's too late to go back. I don't love feudalism, I just want to remind you and others thrashing it as a totalitarian system, that it wasn't always like that. There was a time feudalism was based on a spiritual, transcendent and ultimately Divine order, I know that's impossible now;-) but let us dismiss the of said system's possibility to work for the right reasons, them being not a defective order of hierarchy but the degeneration, corruption and decadence of the souls of Men, especially the rulers and leaders of our age, that is Kali Yuga.

In regards to the small scale implementation of feudalism; when feudalism worked it WAS on a small scale! The king DIDN'T meddle in the business of peasants; the king in fact was not a despot. He didn't even have the right to ORDER his nobles to do anything. He called upon them in times of conflict, to unite in the defence of the realm. If a noble didn't want to take part the king could not force him. When the conflict was over, everyone went back home to families and farms.

In face of conflict a commander was chosen among the gathered nobles. He had absolute authority and nobody who had sworn allegience could question him. But everyone had a choice NOT to swear allegiance and go about their business. The ones who DID swear allegiance were under his absolute authority and if you didn't follow orders in times of conflict the chosen absolute commander had the right to put you to death.

This Supreme Commander lost his authority AS SOON AS THE CONFLICT WAS OVER, and went back to his original status; a noble among nobles.
The function of the king in such a society was more one of spiritual centre for those that recognized him as their king and ruler. To "defend the king" in those times was to defend a higher ideal for which the king was a symbol.
Today, we have shallow nationalism and the forceful defence of "the flag". I rest my case.:-?

I think I read all this recently in Evola's book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/089281506X/poecentral-20/002-4076047-0911257">Revolt Against The Modern World</a>. I recommend everyone to read this monumental work. It's beyond excellent.

And yeah, Butler is the bomb. I've read almost every article of his on lewrockwell.com and they are ALL right on the kisser.

04-15-2005, 10:05 AM
I guess, yes, i can agree with Feudalism if people have an option to leave.

The trouble is, when it comes in a giant collective form, there will be nowhere to leave to when i object to the micro chip and brain chip.

I still say you're George Soros... :-P

04-16-2005, 12:20 PM
I was at a local baseball game yesterday and I heard this guy behind me say, "I'd like to live in a world where there's a death penalty for going against the wishes of the home owners association". I was in shock and couldn't believe my own ears for a minute. But, given these draconian times, I'm not suprised anymore. :-P

04-16-2005, 04:41 PM
It's not a possibility he was being ironic? :lol:

04-16-2005, 05:32 PM
That's just what I heard him say. You can interpret it any way you like, but you had to be there to hear the way he said it. His tone seemed kinda sarcastic or slightly bitter to me.