Written by Abdun Nur
We are in the Age of Anomy
Anomy – a state or condition of individuals characterized by a breakdown or absence of living in unity with others or in a community.
Hierarchical society is inherently poor in structure, it can exploit resources and build, but as unearned resources dwindle, and no neighbours are left to rape and pillage, it grows visibly poorer every day, and like any cancer it’s inherently designed to consumes the hosts, with its victims singing its capitalist mantra of ‘endless growth’, while poverty, disease and violence ever accelerate, and the small soulless paedophile class of owners hoard ever more.
Ponzi economics and corporate fictions that allow certain individuals to pay no price for any actions, no matter how destructive, protected by the fiction of the centralized State mafia, are undoing the work of organic evolution. By creating vast urban agglomerations of concrete, metal, and glass, where the masses are unnaturally concentrated, without community or connection, overriding and undermining highly complex ecosystems, replacing a complex organic communal environment with a simplified inorganic one. Hierarchical systems impose this same inorganic destruction upon the planet itself, slowly disassembling the biosphere that supports life, to extract profit, create monopoly and develop monocultures.
Scarcity is a profound Myth… the financiers ensure too little oil is supplied to the machinery of society – lest peace arises from wealth.
The political method of fencing is to force the poor into destitution, with the intent, to accomplish the objective of their extermination. Fencing is to raise a defense, the act of protecting the monopolies and possessions of the elite class.
The original fencing policy was introduced in 1086 catalogued through the doomsday book, after the genocide of the British population was concluded enough to begin re-population, this established the constructed legal fiction of ownership, which is the bedrock of the feudal system. However elements of the original system remained and the poor could utilize common lands.
At this point ownership was in transition, what is now considered ownership, is a modern idea, only a few hundred years old. The idea that one man or corporation could possess all access to one stretch of land to the exclusion of everybody else, was outside the comprehension of most tribes people, or indeed of medieval peasants. The king, or the Lord of the Manor, might have owned an estate in one sense of the word, but the peasant enjoyed all sorts of so-called “usufructuary” rights which enabled him, or her, to graze stock, cut wood or peat, draw water or grow crops, on various plots of land at specified times of year. (Usufruct – the right of enjoying all the advantages derivable from the use of something that belongs to another.)
The open field system was fairly equitable, and from the analysis of the only remaining example of open field farming, at Laxton, Notts, the Orwins demonstrate that it was one where a lad with no capital or land to his name could gradually build up a larger holding in the communal land.
During the 14th century onwards the landlord’s progressively and continuously, over several centuries, deprived most of the British people of access to these ‘rights’ to agricultural land utilization through the enclosure of commons. These ‘rights’ of access were taken from collective local utilization, to be held in the ownership of a select group who were generally not local. The historical process bears little relationship to the “Tragedy of the Commons”, the contrived propaganda theory which the neoliberal adopted as part of a smear campaign against common property utilization.
The physical fences and hedges that stake out the private ownership of the fields of England, just as with every feudal State now installed globally, are shadowed by the metaphorical fences that now delineate more sophisticated forms of property (ownership), the fencing of resources, ranging from the atmosphere and the oceans to pollution sinks and intellectual property.
The elite once inaugurated through genocide over the centuries install elaborate hierarchical fictions, these constructed legal fictions are all founded upon the same basis, ownership, the elite invent a deceptively named, ‘common property system’ perceived as the ‘State’, as a corporation which claims ownership of all the land and resources, and takes a share of the gains from those who utilize those resources, this corporation is named a country; that share of the real wealth of those laboring upon the land is determined by the owners upon the tenant, therefore the resources are inherently prone to decay, ecological exhaustion and collapse, as the owner seeks to extract ever greater returns from the slaves labouring upon the resources they hoard.
Today nearly half the country of Britain is owned by roughly 40,000 land millionaires as a reflection of the fencing method, this is in stark contrast to the situation that existed before feudalism was installed through genocide, when ownership did not exist in Britain, instead the allodial utilization of land was the norm, which was completely free of ownership.
Fencing is the imposing of scarcity through the active blocking of access to resources, fencing them off from the masses, and maintaining a monopoly for the few, this is once again being applied to the global population by the elite as a resolute strategy, with a view to depopulation and wealth consolidation; this fencing method has been rebranded ‘austerity’.
Tragedy of the Commons
In the 14th century the common grazing lands were ruined by over grazing because the landlords demanded ever-greater shares from the tenant they exploited.
The Statist view: “The rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another and another . . . But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a common. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit — in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.” (Garrett Hardin)
The pressures of the greedy landlords and State extorted ever-greater revenues from those who generated the wealth, and this forced the wealth creators to exploit all available resources just to survive, and in so doing destroyed the very resources they required to exist. However Hardin was not exposing this reality, his main point was the need for population control, the extermination of the poor, he used the reality of the ruined commons to suggest men will ruin any common resource that is not dominated by hierarchical control, when in reality the very opposite is true. Hardin’s “Hobbesian struggle of each against all”, is the psychopathic perspective of the elite, this is how they perceive.
The obsession of the soulless elite of hierarchy has always been depopulation, even in the 14th century when the earths population was only 350–375 million, and in Britain only around 3.5 – 5 million the murder of the poor was a constant objective.
The first onslaught, during the 14th to 17th centuries, came from landowners who converted arable land over to sheep, with legal support they created through the constructed legal fiction of the Statute of Merton of 1235. Villages deprived of the ‘rights’ of utilization, starved or were abandoned; several hundred villages disappeared. The peasantry responded with a series of ill-fated revolts.
The Peasant’s Revolt, also called Wat Tyler’s Rebellion
In the 1381 Peasant’s Revolt, enclosure was an issue, albeit not the main one. The main cause of suffering was a crippling poll tax initially levied at the rate of four pence on every person over the age of 14. A second poll tax was imposed, this time with a sliding scale of taxes against seven different classes of English society, then finally a third poll tax was imposed, this time on a flat-rate basis of 12 pence on each person over 15. Widespread evasion proved to be a problem. One royal official in Essex, John Bampton, who was working like others violently demanding unpaid poll tax from the impoverished, triggered the revolt. The rebels burnt court records and opened the local gaols. They sought a reduction in taxation, an end to the system of slavery known as serfdom and the removal of all the King’s senior officials and law courts.
Led by Wat Tyler, a contingent of Kentish rebels advanced on London, King Richard II, then aged 14, retreated to the safety of the Tower of London, most of the royal forces were abroad or in northern England, the rebels attacked the gaols, destroyed the Savoy Palace, set fire to law books and buildings in the Temple, and killed anyone associated with the royal government.
Richard met the rebels and acceded to most of their demands, including the abolition of serfdom. Meanwhile, rebels entered the Tower of London, killing the Lord Chancellor and the Lord High Treasurer, whom they found inside.
Meanwhile William Walworth had been gathering a militia from the city and when the king knew negotiations were no longer needed to disperse the rebel forces, he left the city to meet with Tyler claiming further negotiations. The revolt had also spread into East Anglia, where the University of Cambridge was attacked and many royal officials were killed. Troubles extended north to York, Beverley and Scarborough, and as far west as Bridgwater in Somerset.
Richard mobilised 4,000 soldiers to restore order. Most of the rebel leaders were tracked down and executed; by November, at least 1,500 rebels had been murdered.
In Jack Cade’s rebellion of 1450 land rights were prominent demands, rebels began to join together in an organized fashion moving towards London. Cade sent out delegates to the surrounding counties to elicit aid and additional men. By early June more than 5000 men had assembled at Blackheath, 12 miles southeast of the capital city. They were mostly peasants, the king sent a small host to quell the rebellion led by Sir Humphrey and William Stafford. The royal forces underestimated the rebels’ strength and were led into an ambush at Sevenoaks. In the skirmish the two Stafford brothers were killed. Cade took the expensive clothing and armour of Sir Humphrey as his own. On 29 June, king’s personal confessor William Ayscough the unpopular Bishop of Salisbury one of the most powerful men in the country was murdered by a mob in Wiltshire.
Archbishop John Kemp (Lord Chancellor) persuaded Cade to call off his followers by issuing official pardons, and promising to fulfill the rebel’s demands. None of which was ever honoured, although Henry VI had issued pardons to Cade and his followers, a proclamation written by the king shortly after the rebellion voided all previously issued pardons. A reward of 1000 marks, was promised to whoever could capture and deliver Jack Cade to the king, dead or alive.
Cade fled towards Lewes, but was overtaken by Alexander Iden, a future High Sheriff of Kent, who captured him, in the skirmish, Cade was mortally wounded and would die of his wounds before reaching London for trial. As a warning to others Cade’s body underwent a mock trial and was ritually beheaded at Newgate. Cade’s body was then dragged through the streets of London before being quartered. His limbs were sent throughout Kent to various cities and locations that were believed to have been strong supporters of the rebel uprising. The remainder of Cade’s followers were searched out and murdered.
By the time of Kett’s rebellion of 1549 the fencing-off of common land by landlords for their own use left peasants with nowhere to graze their animals. Some landowners were forcing tenants off their farms so that they could absorb their holdings and convert arable land into pasture for sheep, which had become more profitable as demand for wool increased.
The historian Mark Cornwall observed:
“They could scarcely doubt that the state had been taken over by a breed of men whose policy was to rob the poor for the benefit of the rich”
In the town of Attleborough fences built by the lord of the manor to enclose common lands, were torn down. The rioters thought they were acting legally, since the king had issued a proclamation against illegal enclosures.A group of people set off to the villages of Morley St. Botolph and Hethersett to tear down hedges and fences. One of their first targets was Sir John Flowerdew, a lawyer and landowner at Hethersett who was unpopular for enclosing land. Flowerdew bribed the rioters to leave his enclosures alone and instead attack those of wealthy farmer Robert Kett at Wymondham.
Having listened to the rioters’ grievances, Kett decided to join their cause and helped them tear down his own fences before taking them back to Hethersett where they destroyed Flowerdew’s enclosures.
Camping for the night at Bowthorpe, they were approached by the sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, Sir Edmund Wyndham, who ordered them to disperse. The response was negative, and the sheriff retreated back to Norwich. Next the rebels were visited by the mayor of Norwich, Thomas Codd, who met a similar response.
Kett set up his headquarters in the abandoned St Michael’s Chapel. Kett’s council, which consisted of representatives from the Hundreds of Norfolk and one representative from Suffolk met under the Oak of Reformation to administer the camp, issuing warrants to obtain provisions and arms and arrest members of the gentry. The camp was joined by workers and artisans from Norwich, and by people from the surrounding towns and villages, until it was larger than Norwich, a population of about 12,000. The city authorities, having sent messengers to London, remained in negotiation with the rebels and Mayor Thomas Codd, former Mayor Thomas Aldrich and preacher Robert Watson accepted the rebels’ invitation to take part in their council.
The rebels drew up a list of 29 grievances expressed a desire to limit the power of the gentry, exclude them from the world of the village, constrain rapid economic change, prevent the over exploitation of communal resources, and remodel the values of the clergy”, signed by Kett, Codd, Aldrich and the representatives of the Hundreds, and sent it to Protector Somerset.
All the while they tore down hedges and filled in ditches, one grievance was against the 1547 Act for the Punishment of Vagabonds, which made it legal to enslave a discharged servant who did not find a new master within three days, and calling for the manumission of the hundred of thousands of Englishmen and women who were serfs (slaves).
A messenger from the King’s Council, York Herald Bartholomew Butler, arrived at Norwich from London, and proclaimed the gathering a rebellion, and offered pardon. Kett rejected the offer, saying he had no need of a pardon because he had committed no treason. York Herald lacked the forces to arrest the rebels and retreated.
The rebels had retreated back to the safety of the high ground overlooking the city; the peasants defeated this force.
With the loss of a senior commander and his army the Earl of Warwick was then sent with a stronger army of around 14,000 men including mercenaries from Wales, Germany and Spain. This was a disaster for the rebels. In the open, against well-armed and trained troops, thousands were killed and the rest ran for their lives. About 3,000 rebels are thought to have been killed at Dussindale, with Warwick’s army losing some 250 men. 27 August was made a holiday to commemorate “the deliverance of the city” from Kett’s Rebellion. The lands of Robert Kett and his brother William were forfeited, after the battle those rebels caught were hanged, Kett was beheaded.
The terms “leveller” and “digger” appeared at this point, referring to those who levelled the ditches and fences erected by the landlords to hoard the resources, during the Captain Pouch revolts or Midland Revolt of 1604-1607.
Protests took place against the continued enclosure of common land. The protests drew considerable support and were led by “Captain Pouch”, otherwise known as John Reynolds, a tinker. He urged his followers to use ‘no violence’ against anyone in their efforts to destroy the hated enclosures. 3000 protesters were recorded at Hillmorton, Warwickshire and 5000 at Cotesbach, Leicestershire. A curfew was imposed in the city of Leicester, as it was feared citizens would stream out of the city to join the protests. A gibbet was erected in Leicester as a warning, and was pulled down by the citizens.
The culmination of the Midlands Revolt was the Newton Rebellion. King James I issued a Proclamation and ordered his Deputy Lieutenants in Northamptonshire to put down the protests. Women and children were part of the protest.
The local militia refused the call-up, so the landowners were forced to use their own servants to suppress the rebels on 8 June 1607. The Royal Proclamation was read twice. The non-violent protestors continued in their actions and the gentry and their forces charged. A pitched battle ensued. 40-50 protestors were killed and the leaders of the protest, including John Reynolds, were hanged and quartered by the landowners.
Many more uprising and rebellions could be sighted, and of course these rebellions failed, as the landlords know it’s simple to pay one group of the population to murder the other group, for a very small wage.
These same effects are now being applied globally, depopulation strategies of toxic food, medicines, water and education, along with the scarcity strategies that force populations to exploit every natural resource to meet the demands of landlords and legalized extorters, so the seas are over fished, the forests are over logged, the rivers are poisoned, the land is depleted of nutrients, the earth is driven ever onward to the desolation of ruin, simply to meet the demands of the landlords, now renamed globalist, and the State fictions they administrate.
Austerity (fencing) is defined as difficult economic conditions imposed by the administrators of the fictions of government corporations, to reduce or remove the outgoing expenditure of benefits the masses can receive, the very benefits that are the justification for the State corporations extorted revenues extracted from the population it dominates, while substantially increasing the monopolies and revenues of the landlords (globalist elites), in effect consolidating the position of the globalists, and diffusing and diminishing the position of the mass populations.
The largest out going of all extorted revenues of the government corporations is debt interest paid to the globalists, because they granted themselves a money monopoly. Spending cuts, and tax increases is the name of the game. Reducing the benefits and services means the interest payments can be met, as the fictional debt exponentially increases the longer the system is in place.
The next thing is to consolidate physical resources, this has two forms collective resources of the state and individual resources of the population, but you must reduce the cost, as no globalist wants to pay full price when pennies on the pound are possible. Mass unemployment is created through restricting access to loans reducing them to a minimum, and as all money is debt, and only more debt can provide the interest to pay the previous debt, inevitably all non globalist corporations and businesses reduce their output and so workforce, ultimately the globalists can buy the failing businesses they desire for pennies, and incorporate them into the mega corporations they administrate, consolidating their market share and removing competition.
To take the collective resources takes a little more effort, first monopolies must be created, the globalists create war to allow governments to legislate state monopolies of key industries, forcing the existing companies out of business, only in locations they do not hold a dominant market share.
During world war one the railway companies narrowly managed to escape the globalists machinations, but after world war two in Britain the state took over all railway companies forming a national railway, this monopoly was then badly managed, and turned from a efficient and highly profitable business, into a heavily subsidized and extremely poor expensive service, this money pit was then eventually gifted to the globalists to add to their conglomerates, turning what had been cheap mass transit into an extortionately expensive and far more limited service.
Again during world war two the car industry in Britain was denied steel even after the war ended, and the state formed a car manufacturing monopoly, this built low quality, expensive cars, and through bad management this money pit was eventually sold to the globalists who had through this method successfully stripped away all competition of car manufacture. Nationalization is common after or during wars around the world, in 1945 the French government seized the car-makers Renault claiming its owners had collaborated with the Nazi occupiers of France.
To get the state monopolies cheap the State corporations services are run down, ready to be bought by the globalists for next to nothing, intentionally poorly managed and under funded, once owned and fenced off by the globalist, it allows them to extort greater revenues from the populations for services previously used as the rational for taxation, while taxation is increased, and the state services are renamed private.
Political fencing (austerity), is designed to increase the national debt, so increasing the interest demanded, so increasing the revenues of the globalists, so increasing the burdens on the masses, driving them ever onward into destitution, the first point to achieve their extermination.
Using the media whore the truth is hidden, and the poor, the immigrant, the disabled are blamed for all the ills, this is the Hegelian dialectic. Create a them and us; the struggling masses with employment are seen as the rich by the poor, the unemployed poor are seen as parasites by the struggling masses, the globalists using the media whore to create the thesis of the struggling masses suffering is caused by the antithesis of the poor destitute masses, to create the synthesis they desire, their mutual extermination; depopulation being a centuries old obsession of the soulless psychopaths of hierarchy, of course the poor are not able to give much defense against the struggling masses who are costumed and armed by the elite in order to exterminate in an orderly fashion. This thesis and antithesis can be between any arbitrary group, immigrants and indigenous, one ethnic group of a population against the rest, one religious group within a population against the rest, the conflict can be engineered as the elite desire.
A new concept was attempted in 1649 during the English Revolution, Gerrard Winstanley a cow herder who previously had been a textile worker, and around 50 fellow diggers, started cultivating land on St George’s Hill, Surrey, attempting to reclaim the land and proclaimed a free Commonwealth stating:
“The earth (which was made to be a Common Treasury of relief for all, both Beasts and Men) was hedged into enclosures by the teachers and rulers, and the others were made Servants and Slaves…. Take note that England is not a Free people, till the Poor that have no Land, have a free allowance to dig and labour the Commons, and so live as Comfortably as the Landlords that live in their enclosures.”
It may seem surprising to anyone that doesn’t understand ownership, that the matter of 50 or so idealists planting carrots on a bit of wasteland and proclaiming that the earth was a “Common Treasury” should have attracted so much attention from the landowners. This is because all ownership is colour of law, and if actually challenged has no true defence, Winstanley sought to level the ownership of real property itself. Additionally Winstanley argued that:
“In the beginning of time God made the earth. Not one word was spoken at the beginning that one branch of mankind should rule over another”
The diggers began cultivating the land and distributing the crops without charge. The army function to enforce the law and they refused to act against the diggers. So local landowners repeatedly sent hired thugs to beat the Diggers and destroy their works, which ultimately ended their efforts.
The Peterloo Massacre happened in Manchester were a crowd of 60-80,000 unarmed men, women and children, were charged by cavalry with sabers drawn, and in the ensuing confusion, 15 people were killed and 400–700 were injured, although many hid their injuries from authorities for fear of retribution. The massacre was given the name Peterloo in an ironic comparison to the Battle of Waterloo, which had taken place four years earlier.
The elite sent 600 men of the 15th Hussars; several hundred infantrymen; a Royal Horse Artillery unit with two six-pounder (2.7 kg) guns; 400 men of the Cheshire Yeomanry; 400 special constables; and 120 cavalry of the Manchester and Salford Yeomanry.
The industrialists, who were cutting wages without offering relief to increase their profits, blamed market forces generated by the aftershocks of the Napoleonic Wars for their wholesale greed.
Exacerbating matters were the Corn Laws, the first of which was passed in 1815, imposing a tariff on foreign grain in an effort to protect English grain profits for the elite industrialists. The cost of food rose as people were forced to buy the more expensive and lower quality British grain, and periods of famine and chronic unemployment ensued, increasing the desire for political reform both in Lancashire and in the country at large.
“Nothing but ruin and starvation stare one in the face [in the streets of Manchester and the surrounding towns], the state of this district is truly dreadful” (Joseph Johnson founder of the Manchester Observer newspaper)
Any souls that were subsequently identified by the authorities to the elite industrialists, lost their jobs and so their meager wages. Those who were murdered with sabre and horse, some were even pregnant women and very small children, were declared at their inquests to be accidental death.
Owned land in Britain and the False Claim of Over Population
A “doomsday” census book that actually records land holding with names and acreage has (been) disappeared from public record.
In 1873, the publication of this book revealed that 4% of the population owned deeds (tenancies) to the total land mass of the UK. The 4% consist of the descendants of the aristocratic ruling elite, the feudal landowners variously titled Barons, Dukes, Earls, Viscounts and Lords, while 96% of the population owned nothing at all.
Some small changes have taken place since that time, the figures below are taken from State, banking and mainstream media, of the 94,060 square miles available 89,113 square miles has concealed ownership, the remaining 4947 square miles are on the land registry, which records peoples homes, commercial, industrial, small holdings, farms, roads and municipal buildings etc. Of the available land just 5.26% is held in tenancy by a part of the population of some form or another, of the 64,511,000 people living in Britain only 6.9 million own their property outright, that’s 10.7%, which includes all the elite who dominate not only the hidden ownership of land but also the declared.
Of the 18.2 million families in Britain 65.3% of them have either a debt mortgage or own outright. 11.8 million hold only a debt, with the present average cost of a home at £235,000, demanding on average £15,600 per year in repayments, while for the remainder the average rental in Britain is £9132 a year. The average annual wage is £24,000 which is £19,275 after income tax, being the median of all earnings, from the billionaire to the cleaner. In Britain only 58.9% of the population is employed, 41.1% are dependents, retirees, or on benefits, so living on the labours of other. Of the 38 million workers in Britain 22% or 8.36 million of the working population earn the minimum wage of £7.65 or less an hour, and 10.26 million work only part time. This means millions of families do not earn enough to exist above poverty and that situation is being intentionally and actively expanded to remove fundamentally the ability to make choices and allow opportunities, stripping away dignity. Poverty is ALWAYS imposed inequity, not having enough to feed and clothe a family, not having the land on which to grow one’s food, even with a job not having enough to meet the extortion’s and profiteering imposed, because so much is striped away of the fruits of your labours to others you earn only your poverty. Not having access to resources, having no security in shelter, food or individual safety, being powerless, being susceptible to violence, with the inability to acquire the basic goods and services necessary for survival with dignity. When money is valued above suffering and life, poverty dominates.
This is austerity; do you still think it’s a good idea?