The Mind Grab and the Land Grab

How an inheritance tax change links the two

The new Labour Party government in the UK have given their first budget, and the most significant part of it comes in the changes that have been made to inheritance tax. These changes are a perfect example of the way radical progressive globalists operate and the curious but deadly mix they represent where Marxist ideology and corporate greed are in total alignment.

Under Marxist rhetoric and thought, private land ownership is a crime. Land ownership was of course the traditional basis of the power of the aristocracy. For the most simplistic socialist and Marxist narratives, and in the ‘thinking’ of many younger generation students or activists, much of the entire narrative of victimhood on which the promises of socialism and Marxism rest concern the evils of private property, of which the ownership of land is the ultimate expression.

It is always assumed in such ideological frameworks that private ownership is a bad thing and public ownership is a good thing. And this really does not require full and acknowledged Marxism to act as a standard operating assumption. Every socialist who decries the private provision of public services and assumes that State owned industries and services are automatically run better than private alternatives is not only a person ignoring how badly run most State provided services are, but also an inheritor of the Marxist attitude to land. Dimly, at the back of every socialist point on these matters, sits the inherited presumptions of Marxism.

Contesting ownership of the land is therefore still integral to Marxist thinking and still at the core of the steps taken to create a Marxist system in which private ownership is abolished and the State runs everything. And it runs through everything.

Look at the modern rhetoric on colonialism and race, and what you are hearing and seeing is simply the Marxist ideas of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin given a race oriented make-over. The language used is the language largely invented by Marx and first put into operation by Lenin. It is incredibly archaic and speaks to an era where aristocratic land owners ruled vast swathes of Russia with an autocratic Emperor at the top of the system.

In the modern world such language should be laughable, but we still have indoctrinated people talking blithely about imperialism and colonialism as if European administrators are still striding around the far flung exotic reaches of the globe wearing pith helmets and crisp white suits decorated with starburst regalia and silk sashes. People forget that the language all comes from the early Bolshevik revolutionaries. And they also forget that the Soviet Union funded and encouraged the anti-colonial movements that fought against the dying remnants of European empires both before and after World War Two. Much of the thinking and rhetoric of these independence movements came directly from KGB planning and support.

The modern anti-racism movement and woke ideology is therefore a direct inheritor of Marxism, and things like Critical Race Theory are simply Marxism couched in racial terms (as is Cultural Marxism as a whole). An oppressor group and an oppressed group are identified. These identities are fixed. Resentment, bitterness, envy and demonisation is applied to the oppressor group. That group have stolen the land, or exploited the workers. Wokeness and modern racial politics simply transfers these labels from a particular class (the aristocracy, or the owners, or their supportive bourgeoisie class) to whole nations and to white people collectively, parcelling out the fixed identities of aggressor and victim based on race and national origin.

Largely, then, these ancient Marxist ideas end up transferred to all white people, and the anti-racism movement becomes a deeply hypocritical form of racism where all white people are born marked with the inherited guilt of colonialism, whilst all white majority nations must apologize and pay as if they alone have done wrong in the past or present (the reparations movement). But land remains central to all this.

White populations in America are living on stolen land. No matter that so-called Native American tribes conquered, enslaved and murdered each other. No matter that the Comanche had an empire based on terrorizing others, or that the Inca and the Aztecs were also at the head of slave-owning Empires where innumerable lesser tribes were conquered and oppressed, and no matter that the story of the Aztec begins with their migration into an area they did not previously own, but seized and built upon. All of this is forgotten and ignored as taking land that was not yours to begin with becomes, in the facile stupidities and hypocrisies of modern race baiting, a uniquely White European crime.

But of course the absurdity of all these ideas originally framed by Marxism and later spread by the KGB does not end there. They can even be applied to successful or integrated non-white demographics while somehow the rigid race based divisions still hold. This is what we see with the woke progressive attitude to Israel, crudely cast as a modern incarnation of land theft and colonialism despite all the thousands of years of history to the contrary. You stole the land was a lie taught to the Palestinians and the supporters of the Palestinians by the KGB. The Palestinian cause, largely, is a Soviet construct.

All of this may seem a long way from a British Labour Party and their inheritance tax changes. But it really isn’t.

As Peter Hitchens warned before the election, Keir Starmer is the most left-wing Prime Minister the United Kingdom has ever had. Whilst much of the Old Left would find it hard to like a shiny suited lawyer of the upper middle class, whilst Starmer’s personal background reeks of the easy privilege of the affluent cosmopolitan and metropolitan social class, the reality is that this class is steeped in a Marxist understanding of the world. Affluent upper middle class products of the British university system (as with their American Ivy League or even lesser university degree holding equivalents) are raised on a (to use their kind of language) toxic diet of Marxist assumptions.

In their social interactions, in their private life and in their university studies everything they learn was supplied to them by Marxism. They learn that their nations and their race has a shameful history of colonialism and conquest (they don’t learn anything about all the empires and atrocities in history from other cultures and races). They learn the simplistic oppressor-oppressed trope. They learn that sophistication, awareness, civilization consists (oddly, but they don’t acknowledge the oddity) of being embarrassed and ashamed of past success and contemptuous and spiteful to those who don’t share that embarrassment. They learn simultaneously that their race and nation are things to be ashamed of, but that they are better and superior to the general mass of their race and nation. They learn to regard capitalism as purely exploitative and always evil, but also that socialism and Marxism express universal positives such as compassion, consideration for others, and a desire for a better, fairer world.

Everything they learn is framed by Marxist ideology and perfectly conditioned to make them think that betraying their own race, nation and people is a marker of innate goodness rather than the worst kind of perfidy and treason. This is not accidental. Marxist scholars, propagandists and psychological warfare specialists, through their academic and cultural servants in the West, schooled the West in its own defeat. All of the ideas we lump together as wokeness, all of the alleged anti-racism, all of the mocking sense of superiority the indoctrinated student and the woke politician and the professional race baiter applies to the histories and peoples of the West, was created to be what it is: the key to the end of the West.

Philip K.Dick once wrote a short story about a Cold War between humanity and an alien race. In that story war was not obvious, but the hatred and distrust was. The story follows a group of officials examining trade items delivered by the alien race. They know these items might be weapons. But war has not been declared and trade continues. So they examine everything very carefully. They let harmless items pass. They find a few elaborate, terrorist like constructions. These are decoys. They were meant to be found and to occupy the minds of the officials.

The real threat is missed. In the midst of the trade goods a simple little children’s game is considered harmless. It’s an incredibly addictive game a little like monopoly. Only you win the game by losing. You win the game by learning to give away as much as possible, by learning that you will be rewarded for losing. The game is designed to teach people to lose and to love losing and to see losing as proof of their goodness. The official realizes that he has let this game pass and it will quickly spread, and that the lessons it delivers will mean that in the next generation the aliens will conquer humanity.

It’s an astonishingly brilliant little take on psychology, and possibly the only fictional take of the time that might have realized that the Soviets won the Cold War. It wasn’t a victory that saved them from their own collapse, but a victory, ultimately, all the same. Because the Soviet way, the Marxist way, is always to be better at destruction than construction, to have a genius for tearing things down. Even when it looks like they have been defeated, they have seeded the end of their enemies.

And this is exactly what Marxist historians and Marxist professors in western universities, together with their allies in leftist agitation and activism of the Saul Alinsky trained kind, have done in the western world. They have taught the younger generations of the western world to love losing, just like that alien game. They have taught them that past victories bring shame, whilst present humiliations are to be welcomed. Those absurd white ‘liberals’ who publicly kissed the feet of black supremacists in craven displays during the whole concocted Black Lives Matter uproar? They are the template set by the KGB so long ago, and the living examples of the demoralization program described so well by KGB defector Yuri Bezmonov in his interview conducted by G.Edward Griffin in 1984.

The psychological warfare Bezmenov described (particularly in his chillingly accurate depiction of the stages by which it overtakes and destroys a targeted civilization) is what the western world has been living through. And the people most affected by that demoralization propaganda are the people who received it in the university environment. They become the enthusiastic agents of it, continuing the Marxist agenda long after the Soviet Union’s own collapse. Because they have been ideologically conditioned to want to lose.

These people are the comfortable upper middle class. They don’t necessarily have to be super-rich to start with. They just have to encompass everything from the children of reasonably affluent professionals to the children of existing multi millionaires. They are the ones who in the US can definitely afford university fees. They are the ones who go from university straight into the jobs that have power and influence (often based on nepotistic class contacts). They are the ones who become CEOs and direct companies. This is the class that most politicians come from, and even that most journalists come from. It’s the class where mummy and daddy’s money can help a son or daughter pursue that innovative dream-so many billionaires come from it too. That sweet spot of security where you have a very good chance of making it in the first place is ironically also the social demographic most likely to be suffused with Marxist ideology and rhetoric.

The people who have the easiest time acquiring power, are the people who have the easiest time destroying their own power base. They can’t value what they acquired without effort, and they are in fact absurdly bitter towards a past that built the conditions of their own success. Because everything a modern globalist progressive in the West has was built by the ancestors they despise-the technology, the comfort, the leisure hours, the infrastructure, the modern standards of living. All these things came as a consequence of the past success they have been taught to consider a moral crime. And all of it was built too on general individual and social characteristics they have been taught to sneer at-Christian religious adherence, national loyalty and identification, the social cohesion that comes from blood and soil nationalism, the virtues of hard work, courage, manliness, innovative risk taking, exploration and yes conquest too.

The comfort to hate the West today only exists because of the strength and nature of the West yesterday. More barbaric cultures utterly extinguished their enemies. Less successful cultures never created the kind of levels of comfort and complacency by which rich kids can AFFORD to hate their own people.

Marxism thrives in the minds of those who have no experience of real suffering, poverty and oppression. Socialist answers appeal to those who have never experienced the tyranny of the State when there are no limits on its power. All of the participants in LARPing activist movements of the Left tend to come from middle class families. Both those who have seen where Marxist thinking always goes (immigrants from former Communist nations) and those who have never had the kind of comfort that gives you time to believe ideologies that are destructive (the working class) invariably reject woke progressive thinking and recognize it is as modern incarnation of Marxism.

You can’t tell somebody who has very little that the State taking everything makes more sense than him being allowed to acquire more by his own efforts. He knows that what he has he earned. He doesn’t innately want to see others have less. He wants to have the chance to join them. That’s all. Which is why Marxism always does best with those who are already given things they did not particularly earn (through welfare, or through State paid jobs, or through being already in an affluent social group). Those are the people who think someone else has the right to take and redistribute and can’t see the dangers of that.

Kamala Harris is a perfect example of the kind of background that makes a modern Marxist. Her father was a well paid Marxist professor. She imbibed BOTH the Marxist rhetoric and ideology AND the easy inherited privilege. She grew up in a large, beautiful home that screams capitalism is working. Since then she’s never faced real difficulty. Her race (whatever she decides it is on a particular day) and her gender provide in the new woke world automatic advantages, cards to be played in acquiring status and position. She could both sleep her way to the top (criticizing that is sexism) and sell her womanhood in the opposite feminist sense as an automatic marker of strength and integrity (vote for me because I’m female). Despite severe personal shortcomings, innate characteristics aligning with Cultural Marxist ideological lessons and widespread political corruption allowed her to rise far beyond the level talent or intellect would have placed her at.

But her mentality is exactly the same as that of Britain’s Keir Starmer. There’s little difference other than the unlikelihood of him being able to sleep his way to the top, and even that might be debatable given some of the rumors regarding his gift giving friends.

Both have the progressive-globalist combination of Marxism and greed. Both want to tax hard, punish White America or White Britain, govern as a Marxist would, hate the past and instill the conditions of national failure. To do the things that fail. Because these are (and that KGB demoralization psy-op told them so) the things that make them good people.

Thus we have this utterly bizarre seeming contradiction.

The rich and powerful are Marxists, and the poor and powerless aren’t.

Former Labour leader Ed Miliband by the way, despite being a Jewish Male rather than an Indian/Possibly Black/Some Unacknowledged White Woman, had exactly the same background as Kamala in terms of immediate family. He and his brother David were the sons of an affluent Marxist academic. They grew up privileged and deflecting the guilt of that privilege onto their entire nation and all white people. Again and again we see this. The people who talk about the disadvantaged have never BEEN the disadvantaged. The people who support socialist and Marxist policies of punishing wealth or redistributing wealth or hating capitalism or how everything good was built on stolen land are always, always the entitled scions of happily very comfortably off families.

Ed Miliband by the way is now in charge of Britain’s Net Zero and Energy policies. Another trained and raised Marxist (previously rejected by the electorate) put in charge of the energy future of his country.

So what do you do if you are born rich but raised being told Marxist fairy tales?

You don’t give up or give away your OWN power, privilege and wealth. That wouldn’t be in the least bit pleasant. You still want to acquire, accumulate and own. It’s all you’ve ever known. You enjoy wealth. You have wealth. You get more wealth in the series of jobs, public and private, that your family status helps you get no matter how stupid or talentless you are. Everyone you socialize with is just as wealthy as you, or even more.

How do you bridge the contradiction and assuage the guilt?

You double down on the Marxism. Despite being a rich metropolitan and never having met anyone poor who wasn’t acting as your servant, you have to give things away to be a good person. You’ve got to compensate for your privilege and wealth and greed by punishing someone, haven’t you? And you have to show how compassionate and enlightened you are by vast public spending and showering money on others, don’t you?

So you take from and destroy your own people, you squeeze them until they bleed, and at the same time you give, give, give to everyone else. And a fair bit finds its way into your pockets too.

None of these people ever have a sense of the sheer hypocrisy of it all. Whether politician or actor, whether Obama or Kamala, whether Miliband or Starmer, the wealth that they and their friends possess is never the wealth that must be redistributed. Of course not.

Their goodness manifests as giving away what others have, and what they hold in trust. Power and wealth. The money of the nation (the taxpayers wealth). The power (sovereignty and status) of the nation. The money of demographic groups they have been taught to hate. It’s far better to support race reparations and high taxation, open borders and aid packages, foreign aid and asylum claims, than it is to give up your OWN wealth and position.

As Thatcher once drily remarked the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of everyone else’s money.

But that’s OK when you are in charge of printing more money or when you can steal more through increasing taxation or through other means.

Like inheritance tax.

The beauty, for the progressive globalist, is that an inheritance tax increase targeting land owning farmers satisfies both halves of their contradictory nature.

Farmers have land worth 4 million pounds or more? That makes them rich, doesn’t it. And we know what land ownership at even fairly trivial scale means, don’t we? By the old Marxist reckoning it means aristocracy. It means landed gentry. Marx would approve of hammering those guys. Kamala’s academic father and Miliband’s academic father would approve of hammering those guys. So hit them with a £600,000 tax they can’t pay except by selling up.

Punishing a Conservative voting, land owning rural class makes a socialist heart sing. It’s repeating the old destruction of the landed aristocracy (inheritance taxes were what George Lloyd and others used to destroy the old Great Estates and Big Houses from the early 20th century on, a task only fully complete after WWII).

But at the same time it satisfies the other part of their nature…because despite all the Marxist rhetoric of fairness and equality and all that nonsense, these people are the most avaricious, rapacious, ruthless, greed oriented black-hearted thieves you could ever imagine.

So what happens when the farmers can’t pay the inheritance tax? You remove a class that doesn’t vote for you. You destroy the British countryside. What happens to the land?

You steal it. The ultimate irony.

The Tory farmers are forced to sell at a reduced price. The globalist progressives are the buyers at that reduced price. The land goes to Net Zero schemes. It becomes hideous wind farms and solar farms. Each of those is siphoning off massive public subsidies by the way. Or it becomes more urban sprawl with fresh housing for newly imported savages…who will vote Labour of course. There’s money to be hand in the building contracts. The land is stolen and raped.

By the people most likely to talk about stolen land when discussing the past. Doing now far more deliberately what was done in the past. Bu it’s all good. It’s all moral. It all assuages the white guilt and their personal wealth and greed, wiping that clean, because its done in their own country and to their own people.

A crime justified by Marxist ideology, which rewards corporate capitalist greed. If farms are left, they will be owned by companies…and the companies will have globalist progressive share holders, globalist progressive management, and of course all the globalist progressive politicians will have their slice of the profits.

One little move in a single budget does so much. It destroys a rural based very traditional minded demographic. It makes those 15 minute cities and Net Zero land uses more viable. It crushes people who tend to vote for something else. It will make the UK more dependent on food imports which in turn makes things like rejoining the EU more persuasive. It satisfies the Marxist demoralization programming of destroying your own country but it also enriches the people doing that.

The mind grab (Marxist lessons teaching the wealthy to hate their own people) goes hand in hand with the land grab (socialist measures that actually transfer land ownership to globalist interests). Only an elite schooled in hating their nations and people can do such things and feel good about it too.