14 August 2012

Property Rights

Your reporter recently (29th-30th June 2012) attended the annual meeting, in Rockhampton Queensland this year, of Property Rights Australia, a group of which he has been a very ordinary member for a number of years, usually without attending anything.

Young nationalists may wonder what a property rights group has to do with the interests of nationalists. This is one of those matters that aren’t what they appear to be, to a casual glance. Secure property rights are one of the things that make the difference between a civilised country and an uncivilised one.

Without going into a lot of romantic stuff about our Christian heritage and the gradual development of “law and order” and the protection of the individual down through the centuries, it is still true, generally speaking, that our rellies in Europe and North America have secure property rights, and the dwellers in the uncivilised world do not.

In the uncivilised world, generally speaking, individuals do not have property: they are property. Their superiors own them. This is of course also the position of, for example, soldiers, even in the civilised world.

The first property right for the individual is the right not to be the property of someone more important, or of a group or commune. Communists disregard property rights, and even their highest leaders, once fallen from grace, have no practical rights against collective decisions. Lenin himself was strictly supervised, told what he could and could not write, in his last days.

The existence of people with secure property rights is a great hindrance to power-hungry governments. They do everything they can to whittle property rights away.

At present the stress point for property rights is the “global warming” story concocted by the environmentalists. It is claimed that the deadly danger of global warming makes it necessary for governments to override property rights. This drives people who own real property (land) wild: they never know what rights are going to be taken away next.

One of the differences between Communists and Fascists is that Communists seize property, but Fascists tell you it is still yours and you are still responsible for it, but they will tell you what you can and can’t do with it, often in considerable detail. Our democratic governments today are very much fascist governments. They have even taken over the family, telling parents increasingly what they can and cannot do with their children, while still holding the parents responsible if the children go wrong.

That is the great joke of the twentieth century: Mussolini and Hitler were denounced as evil men, and their armies were defeated, but the principles they had in common were increasingly adopted by their erstwhile enemies.

Today, we in Australia are the property of the worldwide collective. The plan is apparently to breed us out of existence, in favour of other races who for one reason or another enjoy the favour of the higher groups (pseudo-intellectuals and sentimentalists) who own us. (We might recall the replacement of Hereford cattle by Zebus forty years ago as an analogy.) We do not have property: we are property, and we are junk property at that. Our owners are planning to switch brands.

6 comments:

  1. Part I.
    In your report you mention the man for all seasons "Adolf Hitler", (http://globalfire.tv/nj/04en/politics/ah_e.htm
    the denounced evil man, who ( with regard to Fascists) tells you, that property is still yours and you are still responsible for it, but he will tell you what you can do and cannot do with it, often in considerablw details.
    To this you do not give any details about what someone in the Third Reich could or could not do with his property. Thus I will give you one detail hereto: During the Third Reich a property-owner was required to use his property if neccessary for the common good, as the law required that property of a person had a duty to the community. That applied in emergency cases and cases where for the common good, the property was used to set up industry or mining. A Farmer was fully compensated with a new farm and the same amount a acres, when his farmland was used for mining or industry. What is the farmer getting for it in Australia? Just peanuts and the mining-company and the government get most of it!
    Under the degenerated Democratic Weimar republic, which is symbolic for the degenerated Democracies of the Western World today, farmers in the state or land of Thueringen had mostly small holdings, no money and were often deeply in debt. Communists would rob those farmers or burn their farmhouse down. Farmers also lost their savings in the great inflation. For the Jews and other foreign speculators, this dire state of affairs was an enormous profit-making opportunity. Now you get the picture about those Chinese and others who do similar things in Australia today. At the Bueckeburg Farmers' Day celebrations in 1935, Hitler announced the "Passage of the Farm Inheritance Laws" for the protection of agriculture and the farmers.
    Farms had to be returned to their previous owners and the ones over 15 acres could only be transferred by inheritance. The purchase of farms for a few dollars was nullufied and the speculators got stopped.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The enemies of Hitler, like today in the Western Democratic World never had in mind to give property-rights to the street-sweeper or other ordinary working men. Their property-rights were - and are still based on the money which can afford them. Thus the richest in the USA can buy all the property, while the unemployed are living in tents, vans and sleeping-bags in parks and other places available in their cities. To buy property in Australia is only available for the ones who can put 100s of thousands of Dollars on the banking-deal-table. However under the so bad and evil Hitler, young working-couples got an interest-free loan with affordable pay-back-installments to buy a home. One quarter of this loan was cancelled for every new-born of a family. Thus a family with 4 children had the loan cancelled completely. Young working-couples in Australia are only allowed to dream about something like this, like in the USA, where they can dream the American dream only, if they are asleep.
    Hitler's community-attitude was that the common interest of the people went before the individual interest. Unfortunately the Western democracies will never come to grips with this, as the unlimited greed of individuality is worshipped on the back of the common good of the community. No wonder that they have produced such phenomenal individual creatures like Al Capone, Buksy Siegel, Mayer-Lanski and Madof etc.. And Australia had its Abe Goldberg, Safron, Larry Adler and Rene Rivkins. And the question will be again: "For what did the ANZAC really fight for?" Were they the lackeys of Wall Street and the City of London? Find more information about the Life in the Third Reich on: http://forums.delphiforums.com/oldfri/messages?msg=22.1

    ReplyDelete
  3. One of the differences between Communists and Fascists is that Communists seize property, but Fascists tell you it is still yours and you are still responsible for it

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hitler's National Socialism was not Fascism. It was the third position alternative between Capitalism and Communism. Capitalism gives you only something when you have money or you slave yourself for the banks. Capitalists tell your it is still yours as long as you repay and keep up with the mortgages. If you loose your job and cannot repay, the Capitalist put your house on the market and if the market is giving you less than the price you paid for it, you still have to pay to the banks and own nothing. Yet the capitalist banks still tell you that you are responsible to pay money back to them for something what is not more yours. Great isn't it, this Capitalist democracy!

    ReplyDelete
  5. property right for the individual is the right not to be the property of someone more important, or of a group or commune.

    ReplyDelete