"The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him." -- Proverbs 18:17
The essay is a worthy response to the fear engendered by Webb's thesis and shows us another way out of the dilemma we face. I agree completely with the conclusion reached here.
Unlimited parasitism will kill both the host AND the parasite, which is a possibility here, but more likely, the powers that be want to keep their cow alive producing milk. Unfortunately for them, the structure they have built is like a Jenga tower, becoming more rickety and unstable as time goes on until something happens, until the wrong block is pulled, and the whole edifice crashes. At that point, another system will be built, but it will not be the same as the one previous. It may be better or worse, but it will not be identical.
Kris Kristofferson wrote that, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose..." and it should be evident that, in the universal "taking" envisioned by Webb, an enormous number of people would immediately become "free", with nothing left to lose except their lives and could engender the notion that it would be better to die with honor than to live in abject slavery, creating a situation which the "Takers" would be powerless to control and order. When you have lost everything except your understanding of what is true and right, then you no longer have to be afraid and it is of no importance how large the force arrayed against you or how well-equipped it is.
Matthew 10:28 can be rewritten like this: "Do not be afraid of those who have the power to take everything away from you because, once they have done so, their power over you is gone." This does not mean that we welcome the "taking" to attain freedom, but that we should never, ever, give in to our fears about what MIGHT happen. Que sera, sera! Whatever will be, will be, and there is no sense in worrying yourself sick about the possibility.
Contrary to Kristofferson, it is not the loss of our possessions which makes us free but rather the willingness to lose them for the sake of truth, which is that we are not the sum of our possessions and we cannot be destroyed if they are taken away from us.
"There is nothing which can stop a man who knows he's right and keeps on coming." -- Louis L'Amour
That's more like it. Well said Sir. For my entire adult life I have been hearing from hideous powerful people about how 90% of us should be dispensed with. After the global coordinated attack on humanity that was labelled Covid, perhaps its finally time to realise that they mean it. Couple this with the widely circulated theory that AI will eventually cover 90% of human jobs and I can feel a dot joining moment coming on.
Unbekoming is probably my favourite writer on here, but on this occasion I think the optimism is misplaced, not regarding what to do about what may be coming but about what the end game is; I don't think it is just wealth extraction. I understand the argument that the cash cow needs to be kept alive to continue the milking if that were the plan, but I now think the teat pulling era is nearing its finale, and the 'No Country for Old Men' kit is being prepared. Tally Ho.
Will those 7 billion superfluous eaters lose access to UBI all at once, or one by one over a period of time, determined by their credit score?
Will AI determine who gets UBI, and who gets more booster shots (to reduce life expectancy) based on our credit scores?
AI takes up massive amounts of energy and water, plus it's achilles heel is that it is vulnerable to electromagnetic interference (EMI) and electromagnetic fields (EMF). Can the tech bros deliver what they promised? I still have questions.
But your questions go immediately to the heart of the matter, that is why this system ultimately fails.
For example your question “7 billion at once or over a period of time” is a type of resource question that could not be properly answered in the central economic planning problem.
That is why the Soviet system failed and broke down.
The central planners could not get it to work.
The central planners of today, the totalitarian tech bros indeed, they think they can solve the problem with AI algorithms that automatically decide on these and the many other issues that need to be solved.
Their own “success” and wealth causes the tech bros to live in their tunnel vision consisting of fancy wishful thinking delusions making them think that they can solve everything as long as the can throw enough money and computing power at the planning problems.
So your last question,
“Can tech bros deliver what they have promised?”
No they can’t.
They will fail and will cause an amount of damage that increases along with the degree to which they get this digital prison control system in place.
David Rogers Webb is mistaken about owning your home. Scroll down in this link
http://www.truedemocracy.net/td2_4/73a-ac.html until you see Stephen Ames and then read #13 and #17. Or read all 40 items. You may just learn something. And I don't think this just pertains to America; I surmise that it pertains to all countries, certainly all western countries.
Basically, whether anyone owns what they claim own (irrespective of what any moral/common/legal "law" states) , comes down to 2 factors, namely:
1. Your ability to physically defend what you claim to own.
2. Your willingness to physically defend what you claim to own.
Outside of these 2 factors, ownership of anything is, and always has been an illusion. The money or time that you gave to attain what you claim to own mean nothing if a bigger boy comes along with a bigger gun, and bigger gang, and want what you claim to own. We are all just temporary custodians of what we claim to own
Thank you so much. That link is from my 8th edition, the edition that's devoted to children. One link that the National Security Agency (NSA) didn't allow to arrive in my website developer's inbox said the real reason why Disneyland was built was to give children joy before they were taken off to be tortured. Walt Disney was a 33rd degree Freemason.
i didn't realize that that link was missing when I went to do the final proofreading or I would have told my website developer then in December 2002.
My work is the biggest secret on the planet, because the powers-that-be don't want people to know about it, and I am not on social media because I know why it was established.
See, America, which is where I was born in Los Angeles, California, had a president who wanted peace, the kind of peace we want, not the kind of peace the United Nations wants or Trump's 70 nation idea either. That president was John F. Kennedy. I found out the first two reasons why he was assassinated, and finally launched to international acclaim on March 2, 2001. See http://www.truedemocracy.net/w01/index.html
This is definitely a more logical theory. When there's nothing to lose, there's no motivation to comply.
After reading the book a few years ago, I'd already sensed that although possible, there would likely not be a "Great Taking." I just couldn't put my finger on the why & put it into words as you've done so admirably.
No motivation to comply ONLY if you are one of the very, very few that are capable of providing entirely for yourself in food, water, shelter, clothing, energy. If you are not able to be fully independent in any of those things, then you are in fact susceptible to coercion where you WILL give up all your 'things' in exchange for those essentials you cannot full provide for yourself.
What if The great Taking described not (only) the taking of physical assets but also the enabling of somebody other than the owner to first use said asset as collateral for borrowing virtual money from the system to play with before stealing all you own when the system eventually fails ? Alex Krainer shows that the manipulators of the system can actually rob you twice.
I see that I must become a "secured creditor." Don't know quite how to do that, but will investigate. Thanks for the heads up / warning / info that enables me to take steps to protect myself.
Having read Webb's treatise, well researched as it is, I came to a conclusion then that it is unlikely 'they' will do an all at once taking as that prevents 'them' from extracting further grift from those 'they' control through bought politicians, bureaucrats, regulations, debt, taxes, fees, permissions, enforcement, -law-, threats of violence... UNLESS:
"THEY" have;
1- Secured and control food and energy supplies
2- Secured and control mediums of exchange such as CBDC
3- Secured and control mediums of communication such as social media, messaging etc.
4- Secured and control transportation and freedom of movement such as with ALL modern cars electric or otherwise, which at a touch of a button apart from the driver, can be rendered immobile and inoperative.
I totally agree, it makes zero sense to take everything the producer has, all at once, in a colossal grift while cackling away in glee in some ivory tower Webb may imagines. That's just the fevered conspiracy of the tin foil hat crowd, because to do that kills off the host and the parasite has a tough time with things after that unless they have secured items 1-4 above FIRST.
Yes, it is crazy to think the parasite would want to kill off their host which provides them the cash flow and multigenerational power. Yeah... totally nuts and makes no sense.
Totally crazy just like inventing a phony 'pandemic' and accelerating its narrative deployment by about 10 years. Then making the extra crazy move by imprisoning and / or de-platforming anyone that criticized the 'pandemic' narrative. Then went all in on super crazy, 'never going to happen all in taking everything everyone has' lunacy, 'they' forced 'vaccination' of just about 90% of the worlds population with a substance that is going to shorten their natural lives by anywhere from less than 60 seconds to a slower DEATH of early onset of cancer, myocarditis or clotting, brain function retardation or the good old classic auto-immune disorders that can then kill you with a common cold or simple infection from a mosquito bite.
Yeah... it's pretty out there batshit conspiracy tin foil to think a parasite would take all your 'stuff' in one fell swoop. That will never happen, it's simply to crazy to think things just like a parasite wanting to KILL 90% of the global population to get things down to a more 'manageable' amount they are in CONTROL of.
Oh wait!!
Haven't their great apostles such as Thomas Malthus, JD Rockefeller, Jacob Schiff etc., etc., etc., promotes just this very thing for more than a 150 years?
Oh, and let's not forget the newest relevation where these VERY SAME people who would ENDEAVOR TO take everyones stuff, had in FACT, exempted themselves from the very same 'vaccine' poison they FORCED everyone else to take.
Yeah... it's just crazy talk that anyone would EVER believe 'their' objective was and is to kill pretty much the entire world's population, enslave the rest with a global technocracy with robots replacing the work force and the rest of humanity aside from 'them', being relegated to being nothing more than 'hackable animals.'
Totally agree, Webb is just flat out wrong in his thinking 'they' would ever actually implement something so crazy and outlandish as taking everyone's financial wealth. Makes no sense at all.
Whether the Great Taking happens as per the book is right, or whether the mechanisms put in place are just there to facilitate the continuously slowly tightening noose is right (as both have valid merits) boils down to their abillity or intention to keep the illusion going. At the point they don't need us, they could technivally pull the plug anytime they like and just let us kill each other in the aftermath. We wont need controlling. They will just leave us to go to shit.
"Start with what securities ownership used to mean. When you bought shares in a company, you received a certificate—a physical document with your name on it, registered with the issuing company. You owned specific shares. They were your property, like your car or your house."
If your NAME is in all-caps on that legal document/certificate, then strictly speaking it's not your property, you have beneficial use only and must continue paying tax for that usage/privilege every year.
This is the true great taking, everything in the NAME is used as collateral to prop-up the private Central Banking "system" ie. company-script created out of thin air & owed back with interest.
I am afraid you are wrong here. I had some of the same logic when I started studying the Climate Change scam and Technocracy back in 2018. I contacted Patrick Wood to ask about it. He said: It is because it is about a resource grab, and a total restructuring of human civilization. Money as we know it today will end someday.
Consider Agenda21 and WEF's "Great Reset". The author of Agenda21 was co-founder of WEF. His name was Maurice Strong. Here is an article which conspiracy circles continuously gets wrong: http://ielts-yasi.englishlab.net/wizard_baca_grande_1990.pdf
The important part of the article:
"I leave the Baca with Strong, retracing our route of a week earlier. We pass the Lazy U Ranch and turn south on Highway 17. The desert slides by. Strong tells me he has often wished he could write. He has a novel he’d like to do. It’s something he has been thinking about for a decade. It would be a cautionary tale about the future.
Each year, he explains as background to the telling of the novel’s plot, the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead. With this as a setting, he then says:
“What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it?”
And Strong, driving as I take notes, looks at me. Then his eyes go back to Highway 17. The man who founded the United Nations Environment Program and who wrote parts of the Brundtland Report and who in 1992 will try to get the world’s leaders, meeting in Brazil, to sign just such an agreement, savors the questions hanging in the air.
Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?
Strong resumes his story.
“The group’s conclusion is ‘no.’ The rich countries won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
“This group of world leaders,” he continues, “form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world’s stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can’t close. The rich countries…”
And Strong makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt out the window.
I sit there spellbound. This is not any storyteller talking. This is Maurice Strong. He knows these world leaders. He is, in fact, co-chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum. He sits at the fulcrum of power. He is in a position to do it.
“I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this,” he says.
Highway 17 cuts straight across the desert, heading out of the land of dreams.
When the truth is finally told, Maurice and Hanne Strong fear the world will come to this. No secret societies. No hostage-takings at Davos. But it will come to the same conclusion: the global economy, sapped by credit and debt loads and environmental disasters, will simply come unstuck. And nothing—not even the inspiration of the Baca—can save humankind from itself. They see the struggles and problems at the Baca as reflections of the problems assailing the planet. They fear the Baca will be, at best, an oasis in the desert of the future—and at worst, a place where dreams die."
When Mussolini described his new system of fascism he didn't concentrate on state control, racial hatred and goose stepping. He described a system where preferred businesses were given monopoly powers on behalf of the state.
This has been refined to shadowy individuals pull the strings, writing the laws that they want. They control everything. You only have to look how global warming arise or the covid scam. Even the banking crash was fairly obvious for years before and then despite many articles being written in the press in the years leading up to it suddenly they all parroted "nobody saw it coming".
The parasitic class have done a brilliant job in finance. They have also got rid of any meaningful monopoly laws which allows them to act with impunity. They get any laws they want through in the USA by owning senators and congressmen. Big pharma are brilliant at this. The EU doesn't bother to elect lawmakers so a bit of corruption soon sorts them out. Russia and China come down to convincing one man.
The only way to stop this is the oxygen of publicity. Many sources need to keep exposing them. Too often it travels down it is the Rothchilds and they are Jews so Jews are bad. This nonsense and a welcome distraction for them all.
This page below was copied from the former Frank Webb web site [no relation] which no longer exists. The read is lengthy, but introduces most major historic dictates of Unam Sanctum and it’s political effects. > Frank Webb - A World of Slavery - Unam Sanctam - The Bull on papal supremacy issued November 18, 1302 >>> http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-world-of-slavery-are-you-still.html
The rest of the above web site is not my cup of tea…
Another expose' regarding financial "Trusts" and the fallacy of human "rights": Roman Canon Law
I read and was concerned by what Webb found as soon as it was published. However, I also noted that sofar, noone lost their segregated assets like stocks or funds (very different from a deposit at or holding a Lehman CD/certificate/bond) in the bankrupcies since then, with MF Global being the sole, limited and indeed systemically concerning exception.
Also, the vast majority of potential claims was and is secured and netted with counterparties before its a loss and presented, especially those of these derivatives players and clearing houses. And/as their counterparts are other major financial institutions, it is difficult to see how 'they'/'it' is rigged by and in favour of just a few of them at the expense of first and primarily all those others, not the end (retail) customer, then, in such a 'Great Taking' scenario.
I think the conclusion is, as always: if you can't beat them, join them, aka hold your assets with the biggest/fittest/meanest(?): JPM, Vanguard, ishares&co.
Meaning also: maybe it has become not just more profitable but also safer to own a major index fund or ETF of theirs rather than single stocks?!
And, and that is my real and most astonishing observation and conclusion from 'The Great Taking': if there is something to Webb's findings, synthetically replicating ETFs and index funds are actually safer in such a crisis and Taking than physically replicating ones! Whether that's the case at all, only when comparing funds of the same issuer or across issuers is the other big question. Of note is certainly, that the 'experts' have since a long time badmouthed synthetically replicating ones as being less safe than physically replicating ones and that they are, according to my knowledge, even/still prohibited in the USA: Honi soit qui mal y pense.....
"The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him." -- Proverbs 18:17
The essay is a worthy response to the fear engendered by Webb's thesis and shows us another way out of the dilemma we face. I agree completely with the conclusion reached here.
Unlimited parasitism will kill both the host AND the parasite, which is a possibility here, but more likely, the powers that be want to keep their cow alive producing milk. Unfortunately for them, the structure they have built is like a Jenga tower, becoming more rickety and unstable as time goes on until something happens, until the wrong block is pulled, and the whole edifice crashes. At that point, another system will be built, but it will not be the same as the one previous. It may be better or worse, but it will not be identical.
Kris Kristofferson wrote that, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose..." and it should be evident that, in the universal "taking" envisioned by Webb, an enormous number of people would immediately become "free", with nothing left to lose except their lives and could engender the notion that it would be better to die with honor than to live in abject slavery, creating a situation which the "Takers" would be powerless to control and order. When you have lost everything except your understanding of what is true and right, then you no longer have to be afraid and it is of no importance how large the force arrayed against you or how well-equipped it is.
Matthew 10:28 can be rewritten like this: "Do not be afraid of those who have the power to take everything away from you because, once they have done so, their power over you is gone." This does not mean that we welcome the "taking" to attain freedom, but that we should never, ever, give in to our fears about what MIGHT happen. Que sera, sera! Whatever will be, will be, and there is no sense in worrying yourself sick about the possibility.
Contrary to Kristofferson, it is not the loss of our possessions which makes us free but rather the willingness to lose them for the sake of truth, which is that we are not the sum of our possessions and we cannot be destroyed if they are taken away from us.
"There is nothing which can stop a man who knows he's right and keeps on coming." -- Louis L'Amour
Live well! Live fearlessly!
Thanks Roger. This response is every bit as good as the essay.
Thank you.
That verse is so true!!
What about this:
A crash happens.
They take everything.
You have nothing.
They give you back a universal basic income (based on some form of programmable digital currency).
As a consequence they can shut down the UBI anytime they please.
Then they still control you 100% because you will loose your life without access to UBI.
The argument that they can print all the amount of money they want falls short.
That money becomes worthless anyway and lies at the basis of a crash and they know that.
Also that money is just a means to get something else.
For example food and services.
How do they get these?
From the labor performed by the people.
And they only need the useful 1 billion or so.
The rest are useless eaters anyway of which they can get rid off easy in the UBI case.
So I would say David Webb’s horror scenario still holds up
That's more like it. Well said Sir. For my entire adult life I have been hearing from hideous powerful people about how 90% of us should be dispensed with. After the global coordinated attack on humanity that was labelled Covid, perhaps its finally time to realise that they mean it. Couple this with the widely circulated theory that AI will eventually cover 90% of human jobs and I can feel a dot joining moment coming on.
Unbekoming is probably my favourite writer on here, but on this occasion I think the optimism is misplaced, not regarding what to do about what may be coming but about what the end game is; I don't think it is just wealth extraction. I understand the argument that the cash cow needs to be kept alive to continue the milking if that were the plan, but I now think the teat pulling era is nearing its finale, and the 'No Country for Old Men' kit is being prepared. Tally Ho.
Will those 7 billion superfluous eaters lose access to UBI all at once, or one by one over a period of time, determined by their credit score?
Will AI determine who gets UBI, and who gets more booster shots (to reduce life expectancy) based on our credit scores?
AI takes up massive amounts of energy and water, plus it's achilles heel is that it is vulnerable to electromagnetic interference (EMI) and electromagnetic fields (EMF). Can the tech bros deliver what they promised? I still have questions.
You are asking the wrong person.
But your questions go immediately to the heart of the matter, that is why this system ultimately fails.
For example your question “7 billion at once or over a period of time” is a type of resource question that could not be properly answered in the central economic planning problem.
That is why the Soviet system failed and broke down.
The central planners could not get it to work.
The central planners of today, the totalitarian tech bros indeed, they think they can solve the problem with AI algorithms that automatically decide on these and the many other issues that need to be solved.
Their own “success” and wealth causes the tech bros to live in their tunnel vision consisting of fancy wishful thinking delusions making them think that they can solve everything as long as the can throw enough money and computing power at the planning problems.
So your last question,
“Can tech bros deliver what they have promised?”
No they can’t.
They will fail and will cause an amount of damage that increases along with the degree to which they get this digital prison control system in place.
Very interesting
It would be great to know what mr Webb thinks of your article
Have you reached out to him?
David Rogers Webb is mistaken about owning your home. Scroll down in this link
http://www.truedemocracy.net/td2_4/73a-ac.html until you see Stephen Ames and then read #13 and #17. Or read all 40 items. You may just learn something. And I don't think this just pertains to America; I surmise that it pertains to all countries, certainly all western countries.
Basically, whether anyone owns what they claim own (irrespective of what any moral/common/legal "law" states) , comes down to 2 factors, namely:
1. Your ability to physically defend what you claim to own.
2. Your willingness to physically defend what you claim to own.
Outside of these 2 factors, ownership of anything is, and always has been an illusion. The money or time that you gave to attain what you claim to own mean nothing if a bigger boy comes along with a bigger gun, and bigger gang, and want what you claim to own. We are all just temporary custodians of what we claim to own
The proof of what Stephen Ames said is that if you don't pay your property tax you lose the property.
Thank you so much. That link is from my 8th edition, the edition that's devoted to children. One link that the National Security Agency (NSA) didn't allow to arrive in my website developer's inbox said the real reason why Disneyland was built was to give children joy before they were taken off to be tortured. Walt Disney was a 33rd degree Freemason.
i didn't realize that that link was missing when I went to do the final proofreading or I would have told my website developer then in December 2002.
My work is the biggest secret on the planet, because the powers-that-be don't want people to know about it, and I am not on social media because I know why it was established.
See, America, which is where I was born in Los Angeles, California, had a president who wanted peace, the kind of peace we want, not the kind of peace the United Nations wants or Trump's 70 nation idea either. That president was John F. Kennedy. I found out the first two reasons why he was assassinated, and finally launched to international acclaim on March 2, 2001. See http://www.truedemocracy.net/w01/index.html
This is definitely a more logical theory. When there's nothing to lose, there's no motivation to comply.
After reading the book a few years ago, I'd already sensed that although possible, there would likely not be a "Great Taking." I just couldn't put my finger on the why & put it into words as you've done so admirably.
No motivation to comply ONLY if you are one of the very, very few that are capable of providing entirely for yourself in food, water, shelter, clothing, energy. If you are not able to be fully independent in any of those things, then you are in fact susceptible to coercion where you WILL give up all your 'things' in exchange for those essentials you cannot full provide for yourself.
Community of like-minded people. That works. Support each other. That’s the way, and let’s get cracking.
What if The great Taking described not (only) the taking of physical assets but also the enabling of somebody other than the owner to first use said asset as collateral for borrowing virtual money from the system to play with before stealing all you own when the system eventually fails ? Alex Krainer shows that the manipulators of the system can actually rob you twice.
Great alternative theory, seems the most likely.
I see that I must become a "secured creditor." Don't know quite how to do that, but will investigate. Thanks for the heads up / warning / info that enables me to take steps to protect myself.
Having read Webb's treatise, well researched as it is, I came to a conclusion then that it is unlikely 'they' will do an all at once taking as that prevents 'them' from extracting further grift from those 'they' control through bought politicians, bureaucrats, regulations, debt, taxes, fees, permissions, enforcement, -law-, threats of violence... UNLESS:
"THEY" have;
1- Secured and control food and energy supplies
2- Secured and control mediums of exchange such as CBDC
3- Secured and control mediums of communication such as social media, messaging etc.
4- Secured and control transportation and freedom of movement such as with ALL modern cars electric or otherwise, which at a touch of a button apart from the driver, can be rendered immobile and inoperative.
I totally agree, it makes zero sense to take everything the producer has, all at once, in a colossal grift while cackling away in glee in some ivory tower Webb may imagines. That's just the fevered conspiracy of the tin foil hat crowd, because to do that kills off the host and the parasite has a tough time with things after that unless they have secured items 1-4 above FIRST.
Yes, it is crazy to think the parasite would want to kill off their host which provides them the cash flow and multigenerational power. Yeah... totally nuts and makes no sense.
Totally crazy just like inventing a phony 'pandemic' and accelerating its narrative deployment by about 10 years. Then making the extra crazy move by imprisoning and / or de-platforming anyone that criticized the 'pandemic' narrative. Then went all in on super crazy, 'never going to happen all in taking everything everyone has' lunacy, 'they' forced 'vaccination' of just about 90% of the worlds population with a substance that is going to shorten their natural lives by anywhere from less than 60 seconds to a slower DEATH of early onset of cancer, myocarditis or clotting, brain function retardation or the good old classic auto-immune disorders that can then kill you with a common cold or simple infection from a mosquito bite.
Yeah... it's pretty out there batshit conspiracy tin foil to think a parasite would take all your 'stuff' in one fell swoop. That will never happen, it's simply to crazy to think things just like a parasite wanting to KILL 90% of the global population to get things down to a more 'manageable' amount they are in CONTROL of.
Oh wait!!
Haven't their great apostles such as Thomas Malthus, JD Rockefeller, Jacob Schiff etc., etc., etc., promotes just this very thing for more than a 150 years?
Oh, and let's not forget the newest relevation where these VERY SAME people who would ENDEAVOR TO take everyones stuff, had in FACT, exempted themselves from the very same 'vaccine' poison they FORCED everyone else to take.
Yeah... it's just crazy talk that anyone would EVER believe 'their' objective was and is to kill pretty much the entire world's population, enslave the rest with a global technocracy with robots replacing the work force and the rest of humanity aside from 'them', being relegated to being nothing more than 'hackable animals.'
Totally agree, Webb is just flat out wrong in his thinking 'they' would ever actually implement something so crazy and outlandish as taking everyone's financial wealth. Makes no sense at all.
Whether the Great Taking happens as per the book is right, or whether the mechanisms put in place are just there to facilitate the continuously slowly tightening noose is right (as both have valid merits) boils down to their abillity or intention to keep the illusion going. At the point they don't need us, they could technivally pull the plug anytime they like and just let us kill each other in the aftermath. We wont need controlling. They will just leave us to go to shit.
"Start with what securities ownership used to mean. When you bought shares in a company, you received a certificate—a physical document with your name on it, registered with the issuing company. You owned specific shares. They were your property, like your car or your house."
If your NAME is in all-caps on that legal document/certificate, then strictly speaking it's not your property, you have beneficial use only and must continue paying tax for that usage/privilege every year.
This is the true great taking, everything in the NAME is used as collateral to prop-up the private Central Banking "system" ie. company-script created out of thin air & owed back with interest.
I am afraid you are wrong here. I had some of the same logic when I started studying the Climate Change scam and Technocracy back in 2018. I contacted Patrick Wood to ask about it. He said: It is because it is about a resource grab, and a total restructuring of human civilization. Money as we know it today will end someday.
Consider Agenda21 and WEF's "Great Reset". The author of Agenda21 was co-founder of WEF. His name was Maurice Strong. Here is an article which conspiracy circles continuously gets wrong: http://ielts-yasi.englishlab.net/wizard_baca_grande_1990.pdf
The important part of the article:
"I leave the Baca with Strong, retracing our route of a week earlier. We pass the Lazy U Ranch and turn south on Highway 17. The desert slides by. Strong tells me he has often wished he could write. He has a novel he’d like to do. It’s something he has been thinking about for a decade. It would be a cautionary tale about the future.
Each year, he explains as background to the telling of the novel’s plot, the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead. With this as a setting, he then says:
“What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it?”
And Strong, driving as I take notes, looks at me. Then his eyes go back to Highway 17. The man who founded the United Nations Environment Program and who wrote parts of the Brundtland Report and who in 1992 will try to get the world’s leaders, meeting in Brazil, to sign just such an agreement, savors the questions hanging in the air.
Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?
Strong resumes his story.
“The group’s conclusion is ‘no.’ The rich countries won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
“This group of world leaders,” he continues, “form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world’s stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can’t close. The rich countries…”
And Strong makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt out the window.
I sit there spellbound. This is not any storyteller talking. This is Maurice Strong. He knows these world leaders. He is, in fact, co-chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum. He sits at the fulcrum of power. He is in a position to do it.
“I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this,” he says.
Highway 17 cuts straight across the desert, heading out of the land of dreams.
When the truth is finally told, Maurice and Hanne Strong fear the world will come to this. No secret societies. No hostage-takings at Davos. But it will come to the same conclusion: the global economy, sapped by credit and debt loads and environmental disasters, will simply come unstuck. And nothing—not even the inspiration of the Baca—can save humankind from itself. They see the struggles and problems at the Baca as reflections of the problems assailing the planet. They fear the Baca will be, at best, an oasis in the desert of the future—and at worst, a place where dreams die."
When Mussolini described his new system of fascism he didn't concentrate on state control, racial hatred and goose stepping. He described a system where preferred businesses were given monopoly powers on behalf of the state.
This has been refined to shadowy individuals pull the strings, writing the laws that they want. They control everything. You only have to look how global warming arise or the covid scam. Even the banking crash was fairly obvious for years before and then despite many articles being written in the press in the years leading up to it suddenly they all parroted "nobody saw it coming".
The parasitic class have done a brilliant job in finance. They have also got rid of any meaningful monopoly laws which allows them to act with impunity. They get any laws they want through in the USA by owning senators and congressmen. Big pharma are brilliant at this. The EU doesn't bother to elect lawmakers so a bit of corruption soon sorts them out. Russia and China come down to convincing one man.
The only way to stop this is the oxygen of publicity. Many sources need to keep exposing them. Too often it travels down it is the Rothchilds and they are Jews so Jews are bad. This nonsense and a welcome distraction for them all.
This page below was copied from the former Frank Webb web site [no relation] which no longer exists. The read is lengthy, but introduces most major historic dictates of Unam Sanctum and it’s political effects. > Frank Webb - A World of Slavery - Unam Sanctam - The Bull on papal supremacy issued November 18, 1302 >>> http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-world-of-slavery-are-you-still.html
The rest of the above web site is not my cup of tea…
Another expose' regarding financial "Trusts" and the fallacy of human "rights": Roman Canon Law
3.3 Rights Suspension and Corruption >>> Article 100 - Cestui Que Vie Trust >>> https://www.my-id.org/roman-canon-law
There are numerous other 'legal' constructs, but the majority of the civilian populace will continue to ignore the obvious.
Thank you 🙏Unbecoming for your straightforward explanation of
the whole financial truth of David Webb's book.
He is truly a hero for publishing The Great Taking.
I really appreciate your take on how things could roll out.
I am a natural optimist.Only time will tell.
My guess is somewhere between the 2 scenarios.
Sadly the fear and upset caused, by our understanding of David Webb’s facts,
that our “property” rights no longer apply, is a consequence TPTSB will love.
Even more sickness and death to aid the alleged “cull”.
Shortly they may have the Digital Weapons, and Carbon taxes, necessary for total control,
and parasitising a smaller more manageable World population, may seem preferable……
I read and was concerned by what Webb found as soon as it was published. However, I also noted that sofar, noone lost their segregated assets like stocks or funds (very different from a deposit at or holding a Lehman CD/certificate/bond) in the bankrupcies since then, with MF Global being the sole, limited and indeed systemically concerning exception.
Also, the vast majority of potential claims was and is secured and netted with counterparties before its a loss and presented, especially those of these derivatives players and clearing houses. And/as their counterparts are other major financial institutions, it is difficult to see how 'they'/'it' is rigged by and in favour of just a few of them at the expense of first and primarily all those others, not the end (retail) customer, then, in such a 'Great Taking' scenario.
I think the conclusion is, as always: if you can't beat them, join them, aka hold your assets with the biggest/fittest/meanest(?): JPM, Vanguard, ishares&co.
Meaning also: maybe it has become not just more profitable but also safer to own a major index fund or ETF of theirs rather than single stocks?!
And, and that is my real and most astonishing observation and conclusion from 'The Great Taking': if there is something to Webb's findings, synthetically replicating ETFs and index funds are actually safer in such a crisis and Taking than physically replicating ones! Whether that's the case at all, only when comparing funds of the same issuer or across issuers is the other big question. Of note is certainly, that the 'experts' have since a long time badmouthed synthetically replicating ones as being less safe than physically replicating ones and that they are, according to my knowledge, even/still prohibited in the USA: Honi soit qui mal y pense.....