Private property: a silver bullet to socialist vampires

Private property: a silver bullet to socialist vampires

by Jon Rappoport

January 11, 2018

“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.”

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

23 comments on “Private property: a silver bullet to socialist vampires

  1. Annie says:

    As long as property taxes are enforced there is no such thing as private property. Try not paying your property taxes for awhile and see what happens.

    • George Reichel says:

      Very true.The State owns all.

    • Padre says:

      In the 49 common law states, each individual has the Right to “creature comforts” which are food, clothing and shelter. You can’t tax a “shelter”, so they created a fiction called a “residence” which has been legally determined to be a commercial designation.

      They complete this “constructive fraud” by providing no zoning at all for ANYTHING other than their personally determined catagories.

      Which is why they turned every peace officer in the country into revenuers with guns.

    • Ken May (kenmay139) says:

      The USA is already a United Nations controlled communist police state.

  2. ErnieM says:

    China’s mixed economy with a larger socialist component is wiping super-corrupt capitalist USA’s ass every which way. The pic Jon paints of absolute communism is a straw man.

    • truth1 says:

      They are kicking our @$$es because China is a slave state that pays little, gives little and keeps most of the profit. Its not a straw man at all. It is an obvious reality that possibly you have chosen not to see, says I.

  3. mallik sharma says:

    Dear Mr. Jon Rappoport,


    Just as you concede that private property could be misused by corporate cannibals, and is also being misused so, and as you say even the ideal of socialism is misused by corporate giants, you have to slowly concede that perhaps the philosophy and evolution of private property itself is the foundational vice for such developments in human history. Also that State Socialism has failed is no ground for people trying to achieve a real people oriented and humane, democratic socialism. Nobody doubts that posts and telegraphs (or telecommunications), even defence, etc. are to be in government hands – and a government is expected to represent the collective of the people and not private will of this or that individual. That it does not work that way is no warrant for sudden and total abolition of the government itself. In contrast, socialism starts with the working of friendly and humane communities of people having no rabid attachment to private property [private and personal properties are strictly distinguished in the beginning and private property is that which allows you to exploit some other person not having that to work or slave for you and fetch you profits, and is worked with profit mentality] gradually finding a way out to use the science and technology of the day to forge better lives including better state of personal freedoms to one and all. Marx aimed at the “all round development of the individual” and he never aimed at or desired any enslavement of the people. That in the great transformation process, much undesirable things happen is the complexity of real history. The socialism you decry and think has made slaves of people (you abused Krushchev and said he was making use of our technology and science as if those are anybody’s fathers’ property) were never the cause of any world war and it was the rabid capitalist imperialist systems so protective and eulogistic of private property which were the ‘demons’ causing those wars and genocides. Even now it is the rabid imperialist government of the US which is the cause for all the genocidal wars all over the world.


    Had you only known the pleasures and virtues of a joint family system [I am also aware of its aberrations and pitfalls though] and reared up with love and care in such families, which are still there in our oriental countries, I think you will never sing such eulogies for private property.

    – IM Sharma, Editor, LAW ANIMATED WORLD, Hyderabad, India.

    • trishwriter says:

      In the system you describe, the individual counts only as part of the collective. Pure democracy from such a collective is mob rule. From what I’ve read of Jon’s work, he advocates for the individual, not the collective mass. One problem with collectivist thinking is that it requires consensus. What to do with the outliers? In any socialist system, those who are different must be made to conform, whether it is by gentle or not-so-gentle means.
      I’m well aware of the U.S. empire’s seeming desire to conquer the world; this desire does not stem from a free market, but from a government-manipulated oligarchy. A few of us see the benefits of private property and a truly free market, but we have never actually experienced this situation.

    • truth1 says:

      You seem to be missing a big part of the formula. All supposed benevolent forms of government are masquerades to get the people to go along with something stupid that will more easily enslave the people and make them work 12 to 18 hours a day minimum. All supposed benevolence is nothing of the sort. Enslavement is always slavery. Slaves have no rights over their lives. You’re a gullible fool or member of the Communist Party.

    • Greg C. says:

      You are so dishonest Mr. Sharma.

      You say that because corrupt people own private property, therefore private property is bad. But you don’t say it outright, which would be the honest thing to do.

      You say that oriental countries using a “joint family system” get along fine without private property. But the truth is, people in India and other Asian countries prosper only to the extent that they get to keep what they earn. And that’s private property.

      You say that Marx wanted the development of the individual. As long as the individual doesn’t get to decide how that will happen! Because Marx had that all figured out for him, for his own good, of course.

      “We know what’s good for you” is the basic lie that spreads everywhere. It means to stop thinking your own thoughts and doing your own things, because you are too weak and dumb. People who accept that lie only become weaker and dumber. We can see that easily, by the kind of weak and dumb arguments they put together to defend the system that told them that lie.

  4. paschnn1 says:

    Spot on. Therein lies the danger of cloaking what happened to Russia rather than exposing it to the light of day – All thanks to the U.S., Britain and a lesser degree France. That’s why all but three or four countries are crushed by the kosher Central Banks…

    When Jacob Schiff’s “boys” went to work on Russia they were victorious because of the “snowflakes” and “millennials” of their day. “Bolshevik communism will give WE THE PEOPLE a bigger share of the pie”, they shouted to the malcontents. But, who REALLY benefited from the “revolution”?
    Those snakes CREATE an environment that screams for justice, then USE that environment to agitate throngs of the victims THEY created to bring about their end result. With THEM on top.

    The bloated snake Churchill was right. He just lacked the moral character to expose/fight/eliminate their treachery BEFORE it destroyed Europe and set up the west for the same evil – but on a global scale this time.

    “We have exterminated the property owners in Russia. We are going to do the same thing in Europe and America
    (The Jew, December, 1925, Zinobit)

    Wake up – this was NOT a hollow boast!

    • From Quebec says:

      “Few Russians are willing to take out mortgages because the risk of foreclosure is unacceptable, and because they view interest payments – which they call overpayments – as unfair. As one Russian put it: ‘To enter into a mortgage is to become a slave for 30 years, with the bank as your master.'”

      Russians find it odd that Americans call themselves “homeowners” from the day they close on a mortgage loan. For Russians, ownership only begins after all debts are paid off.

      In a way, they are right.


      • truth1 says:

        I agree! debt is not ownership, nor are property taxes. Nor are zoning laws and building codes.

      • paschnn1 says:

        They are E X A C T L Y right. All brought to the WORLD via the Shabbos Goi in D.C. using OUR money to crush resistance in nation’s “round the world and slip-it-to-’em via the kosher Central Bank. The Jew owns the world thanks to same. What have WE got to look forward to? Under these (LOL) “benevolent effendis?

        Let’s look at the evidence;

        “It is our duty to force all mankind to accept the seven Noahide laws, and if not ~ they will be killed.” ~ Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg

        The site, by congressman Bill Dannemeyer, is gone. It laid out how, under cover of a holiday weekend, (think FED RES in ’13), Bush and AIPAC’s “team” signed a bill into law essentially making Noahide Law the law of the land. These 7 laws make the Pharisees judge/jury/executioners the moment they decide to enforce it. Don’t be fooled by the “Noah” part in it. It has nothing to do with Noah and is directly from The Talmud.

        Signed into law in ’91, (I believe the law is 104-12, NOT sure, can’t verify unless the site reopens).

    • Steven Rowlandson says:

      Not sure Churchill should be cut much slack at all since he was a protege of the very tribe that imposed Bolshevism on the world. His speech about Jews and communism might have been more a revelation of the obvious than an outright condemnation of it. Even a modest rebuke on Winston’s part would have cost him his job. If he was still around to answer the right questions we might have gotten a clearer insight into his thinking. In any case Patton and Churchill are reputed to have said after the war that we killed the wrong pig and that suggests they had a change of mind after the fact because the world of Jewish propaganda didn’t stand up to contact with reality.

  5. middleway says:

    Once private property (including the self) is lost, there is ‘Nothing Left to Loose’.

  6. MrDuncmck says:

    was it old man rockafeller or rothchild who used to give away shiny dimes way back when? nice pick up to present day.

  7. SanityClaus says:

    Fake money printed by the military is not honest payment. Silver is honest payment. The pentagon pledges to serve the BritishEmpire/N.A.T.O. FAKE MONEY HEROINE MAFIA FOREVER. They wipe their ass with our Declaration of Independence. They poison and murder our children with heroine that they produce from opium they grow in Afghanistan.
    They rob us of our labor, our property, our children and our ability to practice honest charity using honest money. It is impossible to cultivate ones luck using fake money as charity. Wanting fake money is a perversion of honest ambition. Wanting fake money is a desire to cheat and lie by making false payment. Wanting silver is a desire to make honest payment.

    • truth1 says:

      The money is fake, because they tamper with its value. What good is it to give say $100 to someone and then devalue that 100 so that you need far more than $100 to pay of the original $100. If they did not tamper, then there would not be much of a problem. Our society is just too damned dishonest and greedy and full of corrupt motives.

  8. Dominus says:

    Unfortunately even privately owned mansions of tv stars are not immune from the wrath of nature. The simpleminded civil engineers and landuse planners of Orange County are on a slippery slope literally. Too many moving parts to comprehend soil liquefaction for the proletariat.

  9. truth1 says:

    “To 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.”
    OK, we’ll wait for the population to become enlightened. But when is it government’s time to become enlightened and benevolent? And Hell is not likely to freeze over any time soon. but of course, the government is of such purity and decency that we never have to question them or their politicians. Luck us, huh?

  10. Nobodys Fool says:

    Thanks again Jon for another really thought-provoking topic. How ironic that now the “powers that be” want to abolish private property when the very concept of private property is what got them where they are today – many native people, not just native Americans, even if they believed in private property, like THINGS they worked to get, or crafted; and even if they fought others for “turf” or for other reasons, really never thought about actually owning the land under their feet. That’s one of the reasons it was taken from them so easily – it was claimed in a way they didn’t really understand. Actual ownership of “Gods green earth” just wasn’t part of their vocabulary. But it WAS part of the vocabulary of those who came and annihilated them for it. Now they (the “powers that be”) want us, their minions, to flip it the other way. Hmmmm, interesting. P.S.I was reading a story about Puerto Rico today saying that armed troops seized equipment that the private electric company was hoarding in a warehouse intentionally, thus keeping power from being restored. The article was painting the company as being just so disorganized, irresponsible, and also uncaring that they somehow didn’t know about this equipment or something, and the government (via armed troops) came in and saved the day by getting this stuff out there to the workers to turn the power back on (thank goodness for them). The article also mentioned something about the company getting some compensation for the equipment from FEMA, but didn’t elaborate on that. Funny it sounds to me like maybe “due to emergency,” FEMA gets to dictate what happens to everyone’s private property (they can order evacuations, and forbid people to return to their homes, and order businesses to distribute their equipment as they say), for some kind of compensation (but is it fair compensation?) and if you resist then they just bring in armed troops to force you to do what the government says with your property. Obviously power restoration is a big deal to everyone, and hurricane recovery is sort of a unique catastrophe scenario when the government really is helpful and maybe even needed to get the recovery accomplished, but is it an accident this story is in the news right now and is it an accident that the government/armed troops in the story are the heroes and the private corporation is the bad guy? Probably not.

  11. Snakewhacker says:

    I just came across this article. Great read and sadly very true. I will visit again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.