3 ms·

This would have been interesting if done carefully, but to me it seems like virtually everyone listed is basically some sort of weird exception that doesn't rea

by _yb2s 3y ago

This would have been interesting if done carefully, but to me it seems like virtually everyone listed is basically some sort of weird exception that doesn't really count as land ownership. For example- native tribes should more be thought of as nations than individuals or corporations. Land collectively owned by Inuit people is not a land owner anymore than just listing the size of a large country and calling it a "large land owner." The fact that they are not totally sovereign in the way most nations are is a technicality in this context. Also, this huge amount of land owned by the British Royal Family seems to be just the combined size of all commonwealth countries? They have no real power or property rights to any of that land. I wonder if they are even counting only public land in those places, or also even considering privately deeded land in commonwealth countries?

gizajob 3y ago
It’s all classed as “Crown Land” - “The Crown” being a nebulous occulted entity that ostensibly belongs to the British Royal family, but in reality is a dark and esoteric form of trust run as a private company from the City of London - not part of the UK proper, and a law unto itself within the original Roman square mile of London not conquered by William the Conqueror…ie The King/Queen has to ask for the permission of the Lord Mayor of The City (not Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London) to enter it. It’s like a bit of a cabal that uses smoke and mirrors to hide the nature of its ownership of whole swathes of the Earth, while pretending to act in the name and interests of the British/Soverign. King Charles in reality/personally only owns a few estates like Sandringham in Norfolk and Balmoral in Scotland, as well as the Dutchy of Cornwall now recently passed to Prince William. Hence it’s a little mistaken to label the huge top block listed as belonging to King Charles, it doesn’t at all in actuality, he’s just the front man. The Crown also likely hold ultimate title to all the land listed under the names of all the Australian “landowners” too, when Aboriginal sovereignty was never ceded and is still basically unresolved, because it was taken with extreme force and contract placed on it when it clearly and obviously belonged to the non-contracting people who had been on that land for some 50,000 years.
- _yb2s 3y ago
  In cases where they technically own this land in foreign countries- if they tried to exercise any property rights at all the "ownership" would immediately be revoked.
  - gizajob 3y ago
    Nevertheless they don’t, because they simply don’t have to. You’d be dealing with a power of such age and with such overwhelmingly strong and sticky ideological tentacles that it can’t be undone. But yeah if parts of it, such as islands in the Caribbean, want to become independent and republics they play along, but deals are still done and control still wielded.
    - _yb2s 3y ago
      Do they have any power, and if so how? Just because they are complicated and ancient, doesn't mean they wield any power in modern times. I don't really know much about the crown but in my impression the only "power" they've had for a long time was that of well loved celebrities, and even that seems to have evaporated in recent times. It somewhat seems to me that at some point the power and wealth of the Crown was transferred to various private companies, some of which are still quite wealthy but no longer associated with the Crown.
      - gizajob 3y ago
        Control of the judiciary and their training is a big one. How do you overturn the ideology of justice and power itself? It can’t really be done, because everyone in the system has sworn allegiance not to do so, and they apply cognitive dissonance to the very idea that the root of their authority can be undone. What I’m getting at is that it’s a power so old and embedded in the very fabric of the land it controls that it almost controls thought itself, controls the language and the meaning of language (legalese), prints the money and legitimises its use, allows concepts to become statutes or not. It’s like a web of embedded ideas concerning power and control in the areas where it operates - that’s what The Crown is, essentially, and it uses confusion and divide & rule tactics to hide in plain sight. What I’m saying sounds almost absurd but it’s kind of how it is. You’re dealing with the very idea that a whole territory can be “owned” by writing on dead paper, and everyone embedded in the system agreeing that’s how things are. In the case of Australia, these rules on dead paper were enforced over the living, non-contracting people already there. But the dead paper is backed with guns and extreme force, and makes for a neater world once it’s running. Brit-ish means “men of the covenant/contract” in Hebrew - the covenant with God to go and conquer the world in His name and enforce it with the same kind of dead-paper laws as found in His book. This trumps living people just “on” the land. And as for the sea…
celestialcheese 3y ago
At least with the native tribes in Alaska, many of their land holdings are managed under corporations[1], so I think it's fair to consider it land ownership rather than just "nations", although there are much more restrictions to the shares of these corporations than what is typical. [2] 1 - https://www.ncai.org/tribal-directory/alaska-native-corporations https://www.ncai.org/tribal-directory/alaska-native-corporat... 2 - https://www.propublica.org/article/what-are-alaska-native-corporations https://www.propublica.org/article/what-are-alaska-native-co...

by _yb2s 3y ago

gizajob 3y ago

It’s all classed as “Crown Land” - “The Crown” being a nebulous occulted entity that ostensibly belongs to the British Royal family, but in reality is a dark and esoteric form of trust run as a private company from the City of London - not part of the UK proper, and a law unto itself within the original Roman square mile of London not conquered by William the Conqueror…ie The King/Queen has to ask for the permission of the Lord Mayor of The City (not Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London) to enter it. It’s like a bit of a cabal that uses smoke and mirrors to hide the nature of its ownership of whole swathes of the Earth, while pretending to act in the name and interests of the British/Soverign. King Charles in reality/personally only owns a few estates like Sandringham in Norfolk and Balmoral in Scotland, as well as the Dutchy of Cornwall now recently passed to Prince William. Hence it’s a little mistaken to label the huge top block listed as belonging to King Charles, it doesn’t at all in actuality, he’s just the front man. The Crown also likely hold ultimate title to all the land listed under the names of all the Australian “landowners” too, when Aboriginal sovereignty was never ceded and is still basically unresolved, because it was taken with extreme force and contract placed on it when it clearly and obviously belonged to the non-contracting people who had been on that land for some 50,000 years.

_yb2s 3y ago
In cases where they technically own this land in foreign countries- if they tried to exercise any property rights at all the "ownership" would immediately be revoked.
- gizajob 3y ago
  Nevertheless they don’t, because they simply don’t have to. You’d be dealing with a power of such age and with such overwhelmingly strong and sticky ideological tentacles that it can’t be undone. But yeah if parts of it, such as islands in the Caribbean, want to become independent and republics they play along, but deals are still done and control still wielded.
  - _yb2s 3y ago
    Do they have any power, and if so how? Just because they are complicated and ancient, doesn't mean they wield any power in modern times. I don't really know much about the crown but in my impression the only "power" they've had for a long time was that of well loved celebrities, and even that seems to have evaporated in recent times. It somewhat seems to me that at some point the power and wealth of the Crown was transferred to various private companies, some of which are still quite wealthy but no longer associated with the Crown.
    - gizajob 3y ago
      Control of the judiciary and their training is a big one. How do you overturn the ideology of justice and power itself? It can’t really be done, because everyone in the system has sworn allegiance not to do so, and they apply cognitive dissonance to the very idea that the root of their authority can be undone. What I’m getting at is that it’s a power so old and embedded in the very fabric of the land it controls that it almost controls thought itself, controls the language and the meaning of language (legalese), prints the money and legitimises its use, allows concepts to become statutes or not. It’s like a web of embedded ideas concerning power and control in the areas where it operates - that’s what The Crown is, essentially, and it uses confusion and divide & rule tactics to hide in plain sight. What I’m saying sounds almost absurd but it’s kind of how it is. You’re dealing with the very idea that a whole territory can be “owned” by writing on dead paper, and everyone embedded in the system agreeing that’s how things are. In the case of Australia, these rules on dead paper were enforced over the living, non-contracting people already there. But the dead paper is backed with guns and extreme force, and makes for a neater world once it’s running. Brit-ish means “men of the covenant/contract” in Hebrew - the covenant with God to go and conquer the world in His name and enforce it with the same kind of dead-paper laws as found in His book. This trumps living people just “on” the land. And as for the sea…

celestialcheese 3y ago

At least with the native tribes in Alaska, many of their land holdings are managed under corporations[1], so I think it's fair to consider it land ownership rather than just "nations", although there are much more restrictions to the shares of these corporations than what is typical. [2] 1 - https://www.ncai.org/tribal-directory/alaska-native-corporations https://www.ncai.org/tribal-directory/alaska-native-corporat... 2 - https://www.propublica.org/article/what-are-alaska-native-corporations https://www.propublica.org/article/what-are-alaska-native-co...