Empty Railroad Land- For Sale or Not?

                   
"You have noticed that everything an Indian does is in a circle, and that is because the Power of the World works in circles, and everything tries to be round.  The Sky is round and I have heard the Earth is round, like a ball, and so are all the stars.  The wind, in its greatest power, whirls.  Birds make their nests in circles, for their is the same religion as ours.  Even the seasons form a great circle in their changing, and always come back again to where they are.  The life of a man is circle from childhood to childhood, and so it is in everything where power moves." 

-Black Elk, Ogalala       

Wild Horses on the high plains

From the totalitarian government's perspective, the cordoning off of people from the natural Earth must never subside.  The Totalitarian Government statists, although totally inept as a steward of anything, cannot let people live with the Earth.  Even though it is impossible to be everywhere, the government uses fencing, their costumed law enforcement, and phony authority to acquire more and more land.  

This notion must have dominated the discussion in the Supreme Court yesterday.  The Court was debating whether to allow the government to absorb the millions of acres claimed for the railroads by American Presidents in years past.  When Congress passed the General Railroad Right of Way Act of 1875, they were too busy using their phony authority as they displaced entire cultures of Native Americans from the wide open west.  They weren't thinking about the day when technological advances would render the rail lines obsolete.  That day is here and although the railroad monopolies no longer need all the millions of acres of land, the government is reluctant to open these lands up for private purchase.  Totalitarians are so greedy, they would rather fill the areas with concrete and asphalt and make a "bike path" than open the land up for purchase.  In the mind of the statist, at least with constructing a bike path, no life would grow over their concrete and asphalt and they could continue enforcing all their totalitarian rules as they push people along from ghetto to ghetto.  In the New World Order, that is a win-win.

Supreme Court Administrator John Roberts found it frustrating that the government wants to keep the land, even though "the government doesn't know what it owns."  This absurd policy is just an extension of the rampant destruction of the West during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  Despite the fact government can't effectively use or care for the territory, opening the land up would simultaneously increase the autonomy of private land owners and weaken the government's power.  That is known as a bad move in the totalitarian playbook.  

Why would America and her European masters go through all the trouble of eradicating significant parts of nature like the beaver and buffalo only to give the land back to the plebeians?  Why would the U.S. Army send military escorts to survey the land and plot forts all over the West as outposts from which to attack and ethnically cleanse the American Indians?  Why would the U.S. Government take the land in the first place if they were eventually just going to give it to "ordinary" people?   Why would they ever relinquish the power of control?

"There is a serious tendency toward capitalism among the well-to-do peasants.  This tendency will become rampant if we in the slightest way neglect political work among the peasants during the co-operative movement and for a very long period after."

-Mao Tse-Tung 

Roberts and Scalia can act perplexed all they want as they give each other liberal handjobs behind the bench.  Conquest and destruction is what this is all about.  Ghettoizing and kettling people under a warfare/welfare police state is the aim. The fact is-  America is a shit country with a very un-free economic landscape.  Immigrants who come to America and remark about the virtues of America's freedom and the whining of the natives must not know any better. Most likely, they are just grateful for the opportunity to leave their "shittier" country.  All the other "homegrown" Americans who still wave the flag most likely have an inconsequential  job and keep their head firmly up their own ass, lest they see what is really going on. 

The Earth has been almost completely exploited and destroyed.  The rivers and lakes are unsafe to drink.  The air is polluted with foreign agents.  But hey, you might be able to ride your bike from New York to California without the danger of the highway.  So be thankful.  

   

The Zoo As Civilization

"You're captives of a civilization that more or less compels you to go on destroying the world in order to live...You are captives-  and you have made a captive of the world itself.  That's what at stake isn't it?-  Your captivity and the captivity of the world."

-Daniel Quinn

Ota Benga, African Pygmy caged
and displayed in a zoo, 1904

The idea of the "zoo," a collection of animals held in captivity for display, has existed since ancient Egypt.  In earlier ages, the royal elite collected menageries of exotic animals.  As is usually the case with royal controllers, they like to show off their power by controlling other sentient beings.  For a king or queen, it is not enough for the lion to be majestic on the African plain.  The tyrant must control the animal's essence- a character flaw still present in today's powerful rulers.  Living and allowing to live in accordance with nature has never been their aim.  Theirs has always been a firm drive to bastardize nature through absolute bloodthirst and heart-wrenching imprisonment. 

Many people would be able to come up with strong arguments in favor of zoos.  "My kids like to see the animals."  "The zoos treat the animals like celebrities."  "Having zoos is critical to scientific progress."  By dealing with the animals in captivity, according to zoologists, they can better "protect" similar animals in the wild.  All arguments are merely excuses for a trend of control started in the early 19th century by the secret society of devil-worshipping Freemasonry.  All these reasons are excuses for locking up living things that are supposed to be roaming the Earth free, as the Creator intended.  Today we see the results of captivity in animals and they are not encouraging as newborns in captivity struggle to live.

Panda Mei Xiang cradles her
 dead cub

Indeed, it was a Freemason who started the London Zoological Society in 1828.  Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles founded the Society in 1826.  Not only was Stamford Raffles "fond" of animals, he was also a notable British imperialist, creating Singapore and claiming the port for the British Empire.  The idea of "conservation," preached by those in favor of brutal captivity, is usually popularized after a wild economic boom which decimates an animal population.  For example, when ivory was exotic and much desired, elephants were routinely killed until they were almost extinct.  Comically, the same elite that makes all the profit from the extermination, afterwards uses their immense power to enforce conservation measures.  And conservation measures are a convenient weapon to enhance land control.

In America, during the same 19th Century, Charles Goodnight and fellow Freemason Oliver Loving, conquered the Texas panhandle by fighting the Comanches Indians.  As Texas Rangers, they drove the Comanche from their ancestral home.  After all the buffalo were needlessly decimated,  Goodnight and Loving became some of the first cattle ranchers of the West.  They drove their Texas longhorns north along the Pecos River and sold them for a tremendous profit.  Goodnight and Loving were immortalized in Larry McMurtry's Lonesome Dove series.  Numerous towns and landmarks are named after Goodnight and Loving. 

Palo Duro Canyon, Texas

What do the history books remember? Mostly, the history books are very kind to Goodnight and his Freemason friends, lauding Goodnight's many romantic stories like the time he took the corpse of his friend Loving all the way back to Texas.  History books tend to focus on the time he and other whites brought back a girl stolen by the Indians, a story later adapted by John Ford in his movie The Searchers.  Other exploits such as his raising buffalo and cross-breeding them with cattle are praised as philanthropic and visionary. 

Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones
play Augustus McRae andWoodrow Call,
characters based on Goodnight and Loving 

The flowery accounts of Goodnight's success must be tempered with doses of reality.  After eradicating the Indians, his success was largely attributed to setting his ranch up in one of the most desirable pastures on the Earth, the Palo Duro Canyon, south of Amarillo, Texas.  The JA Ranch, named after his wealthy British-national business partner, John Adair, was yet another extension of control made possible by the shadowy Masonic group.  Goodnight founded the Panhandle Stockman's Association, an organization designed to keep cattle ranching an endeavor of mostly elitists.

The successful ranching efforts of Goodnight was only possible by stealing the land from the Indians and eradicating an enitre competing food source.  His "success" was largely by default, determining on a skewed playing field using racist logic.  It is a shame all those monuments salute him as "the Father of the Panhandle."  Would the same be said today in Singapore of Raffles?

Where are the next Stamford Raffles and Charles Goodnights?  Will it be possible for the next imperialists to substantiate their behavior even if it results in genocide?  How will the elite enforce Agenda 21 and further ghettoize human beings into zoo plantations?