The UN's War on Private Property
Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and
concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice....
Public control of land use is therefore indispensable....1
United Nations "Habitat I" Conference Report, 1976
In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property.
Precisely so; that is just what we intend.2
Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 1848
Property is theft!
P. J. Proudhon, the "Father of Anarchy," 1840
Property struck the first blow at Equality; ... the supporters of
Governments and property are the religious and civil laws; therefore, to
reinstate man in his primitive rights of Equality and Liberty, we must begin
by destroying all Religion, all civil society, and finish by the destruction
of all property.4 (Emphasis in original.)
Adam Weishaupt, founder of the Order of the Illuminati, 1776
According to Karl Marx, "the theory of the Communists may be summed up in
the single sentence: abolition of private property." 5
That's pretty plain,
and it's directly out of the Communist Manifesto. It has been the rallying
cry of collectivists of all stripes
communists, socialists, anarchists, fascists and has guided the most
ruthless and bloody regimes of the past century. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi
Minh, Ceausescu, Tito, Gomulka,
Castro, Pol Pot, Mengistu, Ortega, and dozens of other Communist dictators
and satraps all fervently espoused that Marxian precept and applied it with
And in so doing, they produced mountains of corpses and rivers
of blood unequalled in all history.
Conversely, the champions of freedom have ever recognized that private
property is essential both to human liberty and to the material well-being
and economic advancement of all classes of people.
"Let the people have
property," observed Noah Webster, "and they will have power a power that
will for ever be exerted to prevent a restriction of the press, and
abolition of trial by jury, or the abridgement of any other privilege.''6
(Emphasis in original.)
Justice Joseph Story, who was appointed to the
Supreme Court by President James Madison and became one of America's most
revered jurists, put it this way:
"That government can scarcely be deemed to
be free when the rights of property are left solely dependent upon the will
of a legislative body, without any restraint. The fundamental maxims of a
free government seem to require that the rights of personal liberty and
private property should be held sacred." 7
"It is the glory of the British constitution," said Samuel Adams, "that it
hath its foundation in the law of God and nature. It is an essential,
natural right, that a man shall quietly enjoy, and have the sole disposal of
his own property."8
Moreover, said Adams,
"Property is admitted to have an
existence even in the savage state of nature.... And if property is
necessary for the support of savage life, it is by no mean less so in civil
society. The Utopian schemes of leveling, and a community of goods, are as
visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown
are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government, unconstitutional."9
In his famous encyclical Rerum Novarum, written in 1891,
Pope Leo XIII
"We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save
by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and
inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy
should be to
induce as many as possible of the humbler class to become owners."
always work harder and more readily," he continued, "when they work on that
which belongs to them; nay, they learn to love the very soil that yields, in
response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat but an abundance
of good things for themselves and those that are dear to them."10
In our own day, this same powerful truth was expounded clearly by the great
economist Friedrich A. Hayek.
"What our generation has forgotten," he said
in his 1944 Nobel Prize-winning classic, The Road to Serfdom, "is that the
system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not
only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It
is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many
people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we
as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves." 11
It is easy, then, to see why those who have totalitarian ambitions always
attempt to destroy private property. Because, like Hayek, they understand
that as long as "the control of the means of production is divided among
many people acting independently," their plans for total power will remain
The millions of farmers, homeowners, businessmen, shopkeepers,
artisans, laborers, and professionals who own their own property form a
natural obstacle to tyrannical aspirations. If people are allowed to own
their land, grow their food, manufacture whatever products they choose, live
in homes of their own, and freely exchange their goods, services, and labor
why, they just might not meekly yield to the dictates of central planners,
whether of the fascist, communist, or socialist variety!
So whom do you think the folks at the United Nations and their Insider
sponsors choose to follow: Adams, Webster, Leo XIII, and Hayek? Or Marx,
Mao, Lenin, and Stalin? You guessed it: Time after time after time, they've
chosen the path of power, slaughter, tyranny, and destruction, rather than
liberty, morality, and justice.
As we will see next, with an examination of
a few of the UN's eco-Marxist programs.
The UN Gets Into the Act
We begin with "Habitat I," the Conference Report of
the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, held in Vancouver,
Canada, during June 1976.
The Preamble of this important document, endorsed
by the United States and the other participating nations, declares:
Land ... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals
and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land
ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration
of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice.... Public control
of land use is therefore indispensable....12
The main body of the text then proposes the following Marxist policies,
Recommendation D.1 Land resource management
Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the
single most important means of... achieving a more equitable distribution of
the benefits of development whilst assuring that environmental impacts are
Land is a scarce resource whose management should be subject to public
surveillance or control in the interest of the nation....
... Governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete
sovereignty over such land with a view to freely planning development of
Then there is Agenda 21, the massive environmental manifesto that came out
of the 1992 UN Earth Summit. As we saw in Chapter 6, this is a monstrous
socialist scheme for micromanaging every square centimeter of the planet's
surface not to mention the air and space above it and the ground and seas
This green communist manifesto holds that,
"land must be regarded
primarily as a set of essential terrestrial ecosystems and only secondly as
a source of resources."14
We must develop
new social systems, it says, because "traditional systems have not been able
to cope with the sheer scale of modern activities." These new systems will
"have as their goal both the effective management of land resources and
their socially-equitable use."15
Agenda 21 states further:
"All countries should undertake a comprehensive
national inventory of their land resources in order to establish a system in
which land will be classified according to its most appropriate uses...."16
"All countries should also develop national land-management plans
to guide development."17
Another frightful creature to emerge from the Rio Earth Summit (UNCED) was
the Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA). The GBA is a huge, 1,140-page
instrument that claims to provide a "scientific" basis for implementing the
Convention on Biological Diversity.
"Property rights are not absolute and
unchanging," it informs us, "but rather a complex, dynamic and shifting
relationship between two or more parties, over space and time."18
And the UN ecocrats are determined to make any property rights they don't abolish
outright as "complex, dynamic and shifting" as possible.
"We should accept
biodiversity [i.e., plants and animals] as a legal subject, and supply it
with adequate rights. This could clarify the principle that biodiversity is
not available for uncontrolled human use."19
Translation: We must assign
legal "rights" to animals, trees, bugs, bushes, weeds, birds, fishes, even
mountains, and then appoint "custodians," "guardians," or "trustees" (all of
whom must be watermelon Marxists, of course) to look out for and speak for
"Contrary to current custom," says the GBA, "it would therefore become
necessary to justify any interference with biodiversity, and to provide
proof that human interests justify the damage caused to biodiversity."20
other words, under this socialist scheme, a "guardian" or "stakeholder"
(someone claiming to represent a plant or animal species on the property)
can assert a priority right over that of the actual property owner, and
force the owner to "prove" that any activity he contemplates for "his" property will not adversely impact the flora and fauna which constitute the
"biodiversity" in that "ecosystem."
Two other alien entities spawned at the Earth Summit were the UN Commission
on Sustainable Development and an international NGO with quasi-official
functions known as the Earth Council. These organizations coordinate the
activities of national councils on biodiversity, which have been established
to implement Agenda 21.
The Earth Council is presided over by Maurice
Strong, Secretary-General of the Rio Earth Summit, a director of the World
Economic Forum, a member of the Commission on Global Governance, and a
director of the Gorbachev Foundation.
U.S. Pressure From Above In 1993, President Clinton (CFR) created the
President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) by executive order.
The PCSD joined five Cabinet members with the leaders of the Sierra Club,
the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, and
the Nature Conservancy and charged them to "develop policy recommendations
for a national strategy for sustainable development that can be implemented
by the public and private sectors."21
They were to use as their guide the UN
Convention on Biodiversity, which Clinton signed in June 1993 (but which the
Senate has yet to ratify).
In 1995 the PCSD issued its report, Sustainable America, A New Consensus,
Privately owned lands are most often delineated by boundaries that differ
from the geographic boundaries of the natural system of which they are a
part. Therefore, individual or private decisions can have negative
ramifications ... that result in severe ecological or aesthetic consequences
to both the natural system and to communities outside landowner
That same year, President Clinton demonstrated how such internationalist
socialist policies can play out when he brought in a team of UN bureaucrats
(at U.S. taxpayer expense) from the
UNESCO World Heritage Committee (WHC).
Their mission was to close down a
proposed gold mine on private property in the vicinity of Yellowstone
National Park, which the UN lists as a World Heritage Site. Militant
eco-fanatics together with the Clinton-Gore administration had been trying
for years to stop the Crown Butte Mining Company from starting operations
there. The company had jumped through all of the costly and convoluted state
and federal environmental impact analyses and presented no risk to the park
or surrounding area.
But before Crown Butte could begin operation, the UNESCOWHC "scientists"
came up with a finding that allowing the project to go forward would be
ecologically disastrous. That was the only pretext President Clinton needed
to issue an executive order stopping all new mining permits within a
19,000-acre area of federal land near Yellowstone.
The UNESCO delegation
went even further, seeking to review all policies involving mining, timber,
wildlife, and tourism within an area of nearly 18 million acres surrounding
the park, including millions of acres of private land. They and their U.S. enviro-Leninist allies want to create the "Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem,"
an enormous "biodiversity reserve." This is part of the UN's global
Wildlands Project, aimed at "re-wilding" literally half of the U.S. land
Wildlands are constructed of habitat zones called "core areas," in which
human activity is increasingly restricted and ultimately (virtually)
eliminated. The core areas are then linked to restrictive "buffer zones."
These areas are then connected by networks of "wildlife corridors."
It's important to recognize that this U.S.-UN eco-entanglement didn't begin
with Bill Clinton and it won't end now that he has left office. George Bush
the Elder (CFR) occupied the White House in 1992, and his main
representative at the Earth Summit that year was EPA Administrator William
Reilly (CFR), a militant greenie.
Before coming on board the Bush team,
Reilly had served as president of both the Conservation Foundation and the
World Wildlife Fund-U.S. And he had served as executive director of a
land-use task force chaired by Laurance S.
Rockefeller, which promoted Marxist land-use controls and expropriation.
Reilly's contempt for private property was evident not only from the EPA
policies he promulgated, but also from his own words. In his introduction to
the 1985 book National Parks for a New Generation, for example, he advocated
Under this concept, closely akin to the UN schemes,
privately owned land adjacent to federal or state parks could be declared
part of the park system by executive fiat and its use restricted to conform
to park purposes in blatant disregard and violation of constitutional
protections against such abuse.
In addition, Reilly argued that the "mainstream'' American attitude toward
property rights in land has been,
"the right of citizens to exercise dominion
over land they own," but if "parks are to be protected ... the tradition of
park stewardship must gradually be extended beyond park boundaries, to
domains where mainstream attitudes about private property and freedom of
action still prevail today."23
This "watermelon Marxism" green on the outside, red on the inside has
been promoted and supported continuously in the highest levels of our
federal government, through both Republican and Democratic administrations,
by the CFR Establishment.
And the same one-world coterie also has
continuously provided the "pressure from below" as well.
More Establishment Radicals
Take, for instance, watermelon Marxist Jeremy
Rifkin, whose book, Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World, we mentioned in the
previous chapter. It was published by Bantam New Age Books, a division of
Bantam Books, one of the largest Establishment publishing houses, and was
highly praised in the CFR press.
And who is Mr. Rifkin?
A radical activist
in the Vietnam anti-war movement, he was a founder of the Johnny Appleseed
Brigades. In 1976 he headed up the Peoples Bicentennial Commission (PBC), a
thoroughly Marxist operation funded by the usual tax-exempt foundations and
the federal government. He has lectured for the KGB-front Institute for
Policy Studies (IPS) and written for the radical socialist Mother Jones
All of which, of course, has qualified him to join the august
company of savants who participate in the Gorbachev State of the World Forum
palavers. It also guarantees him Insider foundation funding for his
Washington, D.C.-based Foundation on Economic Trends.
And what type of economics does Comrade Rifkin espouse? Because of the
worsening greenhouse crisis, he says in Entropy,
"For the first time in our
country's history we will have to deal with the ultimate political and
economic question redistribution of wealth."24 (Though rest assured it is
not his or Mr. Rockefeller's wealth he wants to redistribute.)
system he favors,
"The long-accepted practice of private exploitation of
'natural' property is replaced with the notion of public guardianship."25
This is also the message of Peter Bahouth, the former head greenie at
Greenpeace. Now he is director of the Turner Foundation, where he ladles out
millions of dollars to his comrades at Greenpest, Fiends of the Earth, the
Environmental Defense Fraud, and other eco-fascist extortionists.
Foundation insists that property rights are responsible for a host of
problems associated with urban and suburban sprawl and further insists that
state governments must impose more restrictions on property rights.
must insist localities determine ...defined urban growth boundaries,"26 says
a recent Foundation statement. Indeed, says the Foundation, "politically
potent bubbles about free markets and property rights must be popped."27
The Turner Foundation, of course, is the eco-hobbyhorse of Citizen Ted
Turner, whose multi-million dollar palatial estates on several continents
are not to be counted among the private property bubbles to be popped by
Turner's Greenpest lackies. Turner, Rockefeller, and other members of the
ruling elite smugly believe that their money and political clout will
protect them from the Marxist programs they are foisting on us lesser folk
the middle class.
As Marx pointed out in his Manifesto, his immediate target
was "not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois
Yes, it is the property of the bourgeois the middle class that is the
principal target of Marx and his present-day disciples. We have already seen
the "future" envisioned by these one-world corporate socialists. It is an
Orwellian nightmare world in which Soviet Commissars luxuriate in their
Black Sea villas and the upper-level Communist nomenklatura enjoy pampered,
privileged lives while the vast majority of the Russian people exist in
misery and grinding poverty.
But the Pratt House billionaires already possess greater wealth and enjoy
more luxury than their Soviet counterparts could ever dream of, you say.
True, but the Communist elite enjoy something that the top Insiders crave
more than wealth and luxury: power raw, unchallenged power. The power of
the master over the slave. The power of the tyrant over the masses.
their path to totalitarian power is the middle class.
Thus the ongoing
attack on middle class property by the would-be global overlords and their
watermelon Marxist minions.
Back to Contents