Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐨𝐟 𝐊𝐞𝐧𝐲𝐚 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟒 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝. The first "hut taxes" (East Africa Hut Tax Ordinance 1903) and the later Poll Tax (Native Hut and Poll Tax Ordinance 1910) were partly intended to coerce Africans, who would not otherwise have sought wage employment, into... finding jobs in plantation agriculture or in urban areas in order to be able to pay their taxes. 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐊𝐞𝐧𝐲𝐚: The key characteristics of freehold land include: - Permanency: The ownership of the land lasts until the owner decides to sell it. - No annual rent: The owner does not pay any rent to the government or any other entity. - Inheritance: The land can be passed on to heirs subject to compliance with the Law of Succession. 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐋𝐚𝐧𝐝: Leasehold ownership, on the other hand, means that the person (lessee) is given the right to use land owned by another party (lessor) for a specified period, which is determined by a lease agreement. Upon expiration of the lease term, ownership of the land reverts to the freeholder unless the lease is renewed. With the above in mind: The conversion of our land to lease hold ensures that: 𝐚. 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐜𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝. 𝐛. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝. 𝐜. 𝐓𝐚𝐱𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐲𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐊𝐞𝐧𝐲𝐚. 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐮𝐫𝐞. 𝐝. 𝐔𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐧. 𝐞. 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐆𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐓𝐚𝐱 𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞. 𝐟. 𝐄𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐊𝐞𝐧𝐲𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝. 𝐠. 𝐏𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐲-𝐚𝐜𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐟 𝐥𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐢𝐝𝐥𝐞. The MPigs who passed the Finance Bill should ask Ruto whether he is willing to convert his expansive farms into leasehold tenure as is proposed? Whether MPigs are willing to give up their ancestral homes to the government of the day? And pay land rates and ground rate to the government? Where do they expect to bury their ancestors if the land is converted to leasehold, as burial rights are only execised on freehold land outside the municipality area. #RejectFinanceBill2024 #OccupyParliament #RutoMustGo #OccupyChurchesshow more

Francis Gaitho

274,066 subscribers

321,768 просмотров • 2 лет назад •via X (Twitter)

Образование Финансы Новости и политика

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 10

Фото профиля The Kenyan Millenzy 🇰🇪

The Kenyan Millenzy 🇰🇪2 лет назад

@alfredarapketer please please do for us a video summary of this in Kalenjin so that we send our parents. They will listen to you 🙏🏾🙏🏾

Фото профиля Janarobi

Janarobi2 лет назад

This leasehold tax will awaken boomers in the villages. Ancestral land is a no go zone. If brothers can kill each other over land inheritance and the main motivation for independence was landownership

Фото профиля Charles

Charles2 лет назад

I can't believe someone thinks this is OK

Фото профиля Badgal Kimojino

Badgal Kimojino2 лет назад

Forget about any other thing,this is where the biggest issue is #RejectFinanceBill2024

Фото профиля CorporateMuJaHiD

CorporateMuJaHiD2 лет назад

Gaddamit! About 100 years from now, the colonialists will be in full control.

Фото профиля David XMutai📡

David XMutai📡2 лет назад

This is a protest against the IMF and not against anyone! Proud to see the youth of Nairobi and every county standing up against the Kenya Finance Bill 2024! 📢✊ Their voices echo the frustrations of 57 million Kenyans as the proposed tax hikes threaten livelihoods and economic stability. Together, we demand a fair and just economic Finance Bill for all Kenyans. #YouthPower #StopFinanceBill2024 #GenZke

Фото профиля dan mackie

dan mackie2 лет назад

I think the most worrying bit about leasehold is if you default on the payments they can very easily take away your land

Фото профиля Richard Ra

Richard Ra2 лет назад

There are so many people in the rural areas who don't have jobs or any way of making good money. The only thing they have is the land they were given by their parents or grand parents. How will they be able to pay these taxes?

Фото профиля Elmoukatel

Elmoukatel2 лет назад

Aai Ruto anataka kutua wallahi,and whats funny our parents dont know this na wamenyamaza wanashinda wakituambia we will gain nothing tukienda demonstration.#RejectTheEntireFinanceBill2024

Фото профиля Sajid abu Sajid

Sajid abu Sajid2 лет назад

You will own nothing and be happy. -Klaus Schwab, WEF Chair-

Похожие видео

LAWYER DISPELS LAND EXPROPRIATION MYTHS South Africa's Land Expropriation Act, which was signed into law in early 2025 as part of efforts to provide redress for the country's historical land injustices, has generated considerable debate in recent months. The act allows the government to expropriate privately owned land for public purposes or in the public interest, with nil compensation in rare cases. Some, such as the Donald Trump-led United States governments and right-wing organisations inside South Africa, claim the law is part of what they allege to be 'persecution' of the country's white settlers. However, a closer look at the act shows that this is far from the truth. For instance, in this interview with Newzroom Afrika (@newzroomafrika5914 on YouTube), renowned South African lawyer Tembeka Ngcukaitobi (Ngcukaitobi1 on X) highlights that the act will most likely not result in any active settler-owned land taken away by the state without compensation. Ngcukaitobi explains that, despite right-wing elements portraying the act as radical, it is actually mild, as the nil compensation part will only apply to idle and abandoned land, implying that most settler farmers whose land is in active use will not be affected. This explanation aligns with arguments that have been put forward by progressive organisations such as the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), who say the law does not go far enough to address the land dispossession that Black South Africans were subjected to during centuries of European settler colonialism, which ramped up into apartheid between 1948 and 1994. They argue that the act will not alter the country's current land ownership structure, where white settlers own more than 72 per cent of the land according to a 2017 government land audit, despite making up only about 7 per cent of the population as per the 2022 national census. Credit: Newzroom Afrika/YouTube

LAWYER DISPELS LAND EXPROPRIATION MYTHS South Africa's Land Expropriation Act, which was signed into law in early 2025 as part of efforts to provide redress for the country's historical land injustices, has generated considerable debate in recent months. The act allows the government to expropriate privately owned land for public purposes or in the public interest, with nil compensation in rare cases. Some, such as the Donald Trump-led United States governments and right-wing organisations inside South Africa, claim the law is part of what they allege to be 'persecution' of the country's white settlers. However, a closer look at the act shows that this is far from the truth. For instance, in this interview with Newzroom Afrika (@newzroomafrika5914 on YouTube), renowned South African lawyer Tembeka Ngcukaitobi (Ngcukaitobi1 on X) highlights that the act will most likely not result in any active settler-owned land taken away by the state without compensation. Ngcukaitobi explains that, despite right-wing elements portraying the act as radical, it is actually mild, as the nil compensation part will only apply to idle and abandoned land, implying that most settler farmers whose land is in active use will not be affected. This explanation aligns with arguments that have been put forward by progressive organisations such as the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), who say the law does not go far enough to address the land dispossession that Black South Africans were subjected to during centuries of European settler colonialism, which ramped up into apartheid between 1948 and 1994. They argue that the act will not alter the country's current land ownership structure, where white settlers own more than 72 per cent of the land according to a 2017 government land audit, despite making up only about 7 per cent of the population as per the 2022 national census. Credit: Newzroom Afrika/YouTube

African Stream

12,776 просмотров • 1 год назад

(Political) Zionism is "inherently oppressive," as Peter Beinart explains: "Zionism, tragically, is inherently oppressive because it is based on the notion that the state has a higher level of obligations to Jews than it does to Palestinians... even in Israel "proper" those Palestinians who are citizens... are not treated equally. I'll give you just one quick example: 93% of the land inside Israel proper (I'm not talking about the West Bank and Gaza) is state land, much of it was taken from Palestinians when they were expelled in 1948. The Jews only lived on ~6% of the land before Israel's war of independence so much of it was land Palestinians controlled... Now it's called state land it's doled out for development in Israel by something called the Israel Land Authority. ...If you're a town or maybe even an industry & you want a chunk of land you're given a long-term lease by the Israel Land Authority so you can expand. The Israel Land Authority has 22 seats, 10 of those seats are given to the Jewish National Fund, whose explicit mission is the development of land for Jewish use. The other 12 (seats) are given to members of the cabinet... there's usually not one Palestinian on the Israel Land Authority (sometimes there's one) so that's why Palestinians are not given land for development in Israel... ...which helps to explain why Palestinian municipalities sit on 2% or 3% of the land inside Israel even though Palestinians are 20% of the population ... this helps explain why according to a study, 87% of the home demolitions inside Israel proper (I'm not talking about the West Bank) are of Palestinian homes because Palestinians are in very overcrowded, essentially ghettos, and all of the land around those Palestinian towns is controlled by Jews and Palestinians can't get access to any of that land... the state doesn't function for them.... it's a state in that essentially functions for the benefit of Jews, not for the benefit even of its own Palestinian citizens let alone the Palestinians who don't have citizenship." Full interview:

(Political) Zionism is "inherently oppressive," as Peter Beinart explains: "Zionism, tragically, is inherently oppressive because it is based on the notion that the state has a higher level of obligations to Jews than it does to Palestinians... even in Israel "proper" those Palestinians who are citizens... are not treated equally. I'll give you just one quick example: 93% of the land inside Israel proper (I'm not talking about the West Bank and Gaza) is state land, much of it was taken from Palestinians when they were expelled in 1948. The Jews only lived on ~6% of the land before Israel's war of independence so much of it was land Palestinians controlled... Now it's called state land it's doled out for development in Israel by something called the Israel Land Authority. ...If you're a town or maybe even an industry & you want a chunk of land you're given a long-term lease by the Israel Land Authority so you can expand. The Israel Land Authority has 22 seats, 10 of those seats are given to the Jewish National Fund, whose explicit mission is the development of land for Jewish use. The other 12 (seats) are given to members of the cabinet... there's usually not one Palestinian on the Israel Land Authority (sometimes there's one) so that's why Palestinians are not given land for development in Israel... ...which helps to explain why Palestinian municipalities sit on 2% or 3% of the land inside Israel even though Palestinians are 20% of the population ... this helps explain why according to a study, 87% of the home demolitions inside Israel proper (I'm not talking about the West Bank) are of Palestinian homes because Palestinians are in very overcrowded, essentially ghettos, and all of the land around those Palestinian towns is controlled by Jews and Palestinians can't get access to any of that land... the state doesn't function for them.... it's a state in that essentially functions for the benefit of Jews, not for the benefit even of its own Palestinian citizens let alone the Palestinians who don't have citizenship." Full interview:

Zachary Foster

26,278 просмотров • 1 год назад

𝐇𝐨𝐧'𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐒𝐡𝐫𝐢 𝐍𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐫𝐚 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐢 𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐑𝐑 𝐓𝐚𝐱 (𝐑𝐚𝐡𝐮𝐥-𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐡) 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐓𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐚. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐑 𝐓𝐚𝐱 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧. Now, Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy has shamelessly admitted that he will give Rs. 1,000 crore from Telangana to the Sonia-Rahul family. Why is Revanth Reddy so worried about the economic condition of the Gandhi family instead of his own state where the 6 guarantees and 420 promises have not seen the light of the day? The truth is because for the past two years, Telangana’s RR Tax has become an ATM for the Congress party. After the BRS went on a borrowing spree pushing the state into a deficit, the Congress has now ensured that the Telangana Debt burden reaches Rs. 10 Lakh crores and still have not managed to show anything of worth that has been built in the state. The CM himself confessed publicly in a TV interview that Telangana doesn't have money to invest even Rs. 500 crores every month for Capital expenditure projects. Then how does he have 1,000 crores for the Sonia-Rahul Family? The RR Tax can be seen in several projects that the Congress government is executing in Telangana including in the demolishing of houses of the poor in the name of HYDRAA, taking away the land of tribals in Lagacharla in the name of industry, trying to forcibly seize the land of University of Hyderabad and Maulana Azaad universities, and taking away the land of industries in the name of HILT policy. All they are doing is looting Telangana like gangsters and keeping it for themselves. The Telangana Congress regularly travels to Delhi carrying gunny bags of RR Tax collections to protect their own positions.

𝐇𝐨𝐧'𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐒𝐡𝐫𝐢 𝐍𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐫𝐚 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐢 𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐑𝐑 𝐓𝐚𝐱 (𝐑𝐚𝐡𝐮𝐥-𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐡) 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐓𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐚. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐑 𝐓𝐚𝐱 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧. Now, Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy has shamelessly admitted that he will give Rs. 1,000 crore from Telangana to the Sonia-Rahul family. Why is Revanth Reddy so worried about the economic condition of the Gandhi family instead of his own state where the 6 guarantees and 420 promises have not seen the light of the day? The truth is because for the past two years, Telangana’s RR Tax has become an ATM for the Congress party. After the BRS went on a borrowing spree pushing the state into a deficit, the Congress has now ensured that the Telangana Debt burden reaches Rs. 10 Lakh crores and still have not managed to show anything of worth that has been built in the state. The CM himself confessed publicly in a TV interview that Telangana doesn't have money to invest even Rs. 500 crores every month for Capital expenditure projects. Then how does he have 1,000 crores for the Sonia-Rahul Family? The RR Tax can be seen in several projects that the Congress government is executing in Telangana including in the demolishing of houses of the poor in the name of HYDRAA, taking away the land of tribals in Lagacharla in the name of industry, trying to forcibly seize the land of University of Hyderabad and Maulana Azaad universities, and taking away the land of industries in the name of HILT policy. All they are doing is looting Telangana like gangsters and keeping it for themselves. The Telangana Congress regularly travels to Delhi carrying gunny bags of RR Tax collections to protect their own positions.

G Kishan Reddy

30,256 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

The constitution of Zimbawe is the Supreme Law of this land. Section 44 enshrines the obligation of the state, every person, including juristic persons and every institution, including agencies of government at every level to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the duty to respect fundamental human rights and freedoms. Governments directive for Zimbabweans settled on so called illegal land is a violation to section 28 of the constitution of Zimbabwe which expressly states that the state and all agencies of government should ensure that every Zimbabwean has access to adequate shelter. The government has never been sincere about housing and land allocation for the past twenty years. Native Zimbabweans are living like foreigners in their own country as access to land for farming or residential stands is now a preserve of the elite or ZANU PF card carrying members. These people who are being ordered to vacate their homes, where are they expected to go? Has the government made provisions for them to get alternative accommodation? What are the plans to compensate development done on the land? President President of Zimbabwe administration should stop the habit of just making sporadic, inhumane decisions that affect livelihoods and people's right to personal security as well. In the video below, Minister Chadzamira speaks of illegal parcelled of land, who was parcelling the land? In rural areas masabhuku nemadzimambo and all these are Zanupf patriots, in urban areas, we have the land barons who are predominantly zanupf supporters and in farming communities those selling land are those who got offer letters with no capacity to farm. Before causing so much pain, suffering and homelessness of hundreds and thousands of Zimbabweans, I propose an extension for the eviction of the people who have been told to vacate the land were they are dwelling until they receive restitution or are compensated. We are all Zimbabwean and should not continue to use archaic laws left behind by the Smith regime to make our own suffer. Some of these laws should just be eradicated and every Zimbabwean should just be allocated land at their rural home to build a homestead. Nyika yeDzimbahwe inorema, inezvirehwa rehwa zvayo. Misodzi yevana veDzimbahwe yayerera yakwana. Vene ngavasiwe pamisha yavakavaka vagarewo zvakanaka savamwe. No Zimbabwean should be homeless nor be rendered homeless because of the corrupt and unethical conduct of a few connected ones. Tangai masunga vakapa vanhu minda zvisiri pamutemo nemastands musati mambunyikidza kodzero dzemwana weDzimbahwe. We will continue to fight for the vulnerable and voiceless until sanity prevails. Land belongs to the people and the President is the custodian and not the owner! • Pasi nehuori • Pasi nekudzinga vanhu pamisha yavo • Pasi nekudzinga vanhu paminda yavo • Pamberi nekusimudzira raramo yezvizvarwa zveDzimbahwe!

The constitution of Zimbawe is the Supreme Law of this land. Section 44 enshrines the obligation of the state, every person, including juristic persons and every institution, including agencies of government at every level to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the duty to respect fundamental human rights and freedoms. Governments directive for Zimbabweans settled on so called illegal land is a violation to section 28 of the constitution of Zimbabwe which expressly states that the state and all agencies of government should ensure that every Zimbabwean has access to adequate shelter. The government has never been sincere about housing and land allocation for the past twenty years. Native Zimbabweans are living like foreigners in their own country as access to land for farming or residential stands is now a preserve of the elite or ZANU PF card carrying members. These people who are being ordered to vacate their homes, where are they expected to go? Has the government made provisions for them to get alternative accommodation? What are the plans to compensate development done on the land? President President of Zimbabwe administration should stop the habit of just making sporadic, inhumane decisions that affect livelihoods and people's right to personal security as well. In the video below, Minister Chadzamira speaks of illegal parcelled of land, who was parcelling the land? In rural areas masabhuku nemadzimambo and all these are Zanupf patriots, in urban areas, we have the land barons who are predominantly zanupf supporters and in farming communities those selling land are those who got offer letters with no capacity to farm. Before causing so much pain, suffering and homelessness of hundreds and thousands of Zimbabweans, I propose an extension for the eviction of the people who have been told to vacate the land were they are dwelling until they receive restitution or are compensated. We are all Zimbabwean and should not continue to use archaic laws left behind by the Smith regime to make our own suffer. Some of these laws should just be eradicated and every Zimbabwean should just be allocated land at their rural home to build a homestead. Nyika yeDzimbahwe inorema, inezvirehwa rehwa zvayo. Misodzi yevana veDzimbahwe yayerera yakwana. Vene ngavasiwe pamisha yavakavaka vagarewo zvakanaka savamwe. No Zimbabwean should be homeless nor be rendered homeless because of the corrupt and unethical conduct of a few connected ones. Tangai masunga vakapa vanhu minda zvisiri pamutemo nemastands musati mambunyikidza kodzero dzemwana weDzimbahwe. We will continue to fight for the vulnerable and voiceless until sanity prevails. Land belongs to the people and the President is the custodian and not the owner! • Pasi nehuori • Pasi nekudzinga vanhu pamisha yavo • Pasi nekudzinga vanhu paminda yavo • Pamberi nekusimudzira raramo yezvizvarwa zveDzimbahwe!

Linda Tsungirirai Masarira

30,229 просмотров • 2 лет назад

THE PRESIDENT OF AGRISA INDIRECTLY CALLS DONALD TRUMP A LIER. AGRISA REPRESENTS 99.9% WHITE AFRIKANER FARMERS SAYS THEIR IS NO CONFISCATION OF LAND IN. SOUTH AFRICA There is no persecution of any race in South Africa. Yes we have a crime problem, which government is working on. More blacks are affected by this than any other race. It’s over 30 years the ANC government has not confiscated a single piece of land. The law is very clear, if government wants land it must be willing seller and the person will get market price. If no agreement can be reached it will go to a special court and they will determine the price of the land. The lies being spread about SA is laughable no such things are happening here. I guarantee you at least 90% of the people will return. Don’t listen to anyone but Mr Jaco Minnaar is President of AGRISA who ironically represents 99.9% white farmers, he said” their no confiscation of land in South Africa. Simple terms he called Donald trump a list.

THE PRESIDENT OF AGRISA INDIRECTLY CALLS DONALD TRUMP A LIER. AGRISA REPRESENTS 99.9% WHITE AFRIKANER FARMERS SAYS THEIR IS NO CONFISCATION OF LAND IN. SOUTH AFRICA There is no persecution of any race in South Africa. Yes we have a crime problem, which government is working on. More blacks are affected by this than any other race. It’s over 30 years the ANC government has not confiscated a single piece of land. The law is very clear, if government wants land it must be willing seller and the person will get market price. If no agreement can be reached it will go to a special court and they will determine the price of the land. The lies being spread about SA is laughable no such things are happening here. I guarantee you at least 90% of the people will return. Don’t listen to anyone but Mr Jaco Minnaar is President of AGRISA who ironically represents 99.9% white farmers, he said” their no confiscation of land in South Africa. Simple terms he called Donald trump a list.

Goolam

27,556 просмотров • 1 год назад

#WATCH | Delhi | Gymkhana club row | Advocate Naman Joshi says, "Abhishek Manu Singhvi made a couple of arguments - under the law, if there is to be a resumption of a lease and somebody has to take possession, you have to follow the procedure that is laid down in the Supreme Court's judgment and express newspapers and the government is at no better footing. The government would also then have to file a civil suit which is not what the courts that seem to be on the way that they were following. Second - the notice that has come on 22nd is unspecific and does not specifically talk about what public purpose, what urgent need is there to take over this land in such a short span of time... This lease has been in place for 100 years now, almost. And third - the members having to come would have come to court but today the Gymkhana club is run by 15 people who are nominated by the Government of India. The lesser is the Government of India and the lessee is controlled by the Government of India, so therefore there will be no real fight and which is why the members have to come and agitate the cause in a derivative action to say that the club needs to be protected. He also says, "Fortunately, the court found favour in these arguments. The Solicitor General also then appeared in the matter and said that the government of India will do nothing without following the due process of law. Defendant number 2, the club's counsel, also said that the club has, in fact, written a letter and opposed the government's move to take over and resume the land. The court has taken note of these concerns and passed the order after recording the Solicitor General's statement... It is a reprieve for the club... There will be no eviction on June 5th is what the order would read like."

#WATCH | Delhi | Gymkhana club row | Advocate Naman Joshi says, "Abhishek Manu Singhvi made a couple of arguments - under the law, if there is to be a resumption of a lease and somebody has to take possession, you have to follow the procedure that is laid down in the Supreme Court's judgment and express newspapers and the government is at no better footing. The government would also then have to file a civil suit which is not what the courts that seem to be on the way that they were following. Second - the notice that has come on 22nd is unspecific and does not specifically talk about what public purpose, what urgent need is there to take over this land in such a short span of time... This lease has been in place for 100 years now, almost. And third - the members having to come would have come to court but today the Gymkhana club is run by 15 people who are nominated by the Government of India. The lesser is the Government of India and the lessee is controlled by the Government of India, so therefore there will be no real fight and which is why the members have to come and agitate the cause in a derivative action to say that the club needs to be protected. He also says, "Fortunately, the court found favour in these arguments. The Solicitor General also then appeared in the matter and said that the government of India will do nothing without following the due process of law. Defendant number 2, the club's counsel, also said that the club has, in fact, written a letter and opposed the government's move to take over and resume the land. The court has taken note of these concerns and passed the order after recording the Solicitor General's statement... It is a reprieve for the club... There will be no eviction on June 5th is what the order would read like."

ANI

57,386 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Homeowners furious after Ontario government threatens to seize portions of backyards 🏘️ Eight Burlington, Ont. homeowners face losing massive sections of their backyards to the provincial government without compensation. Why? Talk about a most bizarre and baffling boundary dispute! In sleepy Burlington, Ont., eight homeowners are fighting to save their backyards from the clutches of the Government of Ontario (the Ministry of Transportation to be precise.) The homeowners face losing about two-thirds of their backyards. And they must also incur the costs of moving any infrastructure that stands in the way. This would include everything from backyard patios and storage sheds to even a swimming pool. As to why the MTO is acting in such a fashion, this remains a mysterious question. The crux of the matter is that the eight homes back onto the Queen Elizabeth Way highway. The current boundary is marked by a chain-link fence. As well, a few metres away from the chain-link fence stands a stone wall. One wouldn’t even realize there is a major highway on the other side of that stone wall unless this fact was brought to one’s attention. By way of background, the eight homes in question were constructed some 70 years ago. And for seven decades the current boundary existed without controversy. But the MTO is now maintaining that the land in question has always belonged to the government and that the province is simply reclaiming land that has always been government property. But again, what is the ostensible policy reason for this boundary extension? And why now? This relatively little patch of land surely cannot be used to extend the highway, nor construct a railway line – the typical reasons for land expropriation by the government, or, in this case, land reclamation. Rebel News ventured out to Burlington to interview the affected homeowners who have indeed lawyered up and are not bending the knee without a fight. They are also very concerned that in the expanded boundary area, homeless people might set up encampments, which would seriously impact their quality of life. We also reached out to the media relations department of the MTO. Our queries included: 1⃣ The existing boundary has been in place for some 70 years. Why is the MTO now wanting to extend the boundary? 2⃣ What is the purpose given that there is not enough land in question for any sort of extension of the Queen Elizabeth Way (which is situated on the other side of the backyards)? 3⃣ I understand the residents will not be compensated for the loss of this land. Why is that the case? Our queries were not even acknowledged, which, alas, is standard business procedure when it comes to the communications strategy of the Doug “For the People” Ford Progressive Conservatives. In the meantime, this baffling boundary dispute appears to be headed to a court of law. Stay tuned. David Menzies

Homeowners furious after Ontario government threatens to seize portions of backyards 🏘️ Eight Burlington, Ont. homeowners face losing massive sections of their backyards to the provincial government without compensation. Why? Talk about a most bizarre and baffling boundary dispute! In sleepy Burlington, Ont., eight homeowners are fighting to save their backyards from the clutches of the Government of Ontario (the Ministry of Transportation to be precise.) The homeowners face losing about two-thirds of their backyards. And they must also incur the costs of moving any infrastructure that stands in the way. This would include everything from backyard patios and storage sheds to even a swimming pool. As to why the MTO is acting in such a fashion, this remains a mysterious question. The crux of the matter is that the eight homes back onto the Queen Elizabeth Way highway. The current boundary is marked by a chain-link fence. As well, a few metres away from the chain-link fence stands a stone wall. One wouldn’t even realize there is a major highway on the other side of that stone wall unless this fact was brought to one’s attention. By way of background, the eight homes in question were constructed some 70 years ago. And for seven decades the current boundary existed without controversy. But the MTO is now maintaining that the land in question has always belonged to the government and that the province is simply reclaiming land that has always been government property. But again, what is the ostensible policy reason for this boundary extension? And why now? This relatively little patch of land surely cannot be used to extend the highway, nor construct a railway line – the typical reasons for land expropriation by the government, or, in this case, land reclamation. Rebel News ventured out to Burlington to interview the affected homeowners who have indeed lawyered up and are not bending the knee without a fight. They are also very concerned that in the expanded boundary area, homeless people might set up encampments, which would seriously impact their quality of life. We also reached out to the media relations department of the MTO. Our queries included: 1⃣ The existing boundary has been in place for some 70 years. Why is the MTO now wanting to extend the boundary? 2⃣ What is the purpose given that there is not enough land in question for any sort of extension of the Queen Elizabeth Way (which is situated on the other side of the backyards)? 3⃣ I understand the residents will not be compensated for the loss of this land. Why is that the case? Our queries were not even acknowledged, which, alas, is standard business procedure when it comes to the communications strategy of the Doug “For the People” Ford Progressive Conservatives. In the meantime, this baffling boundary dispute appears to be headed to a court of law. Stay tuned. David Menzies

Rebel News Canada

43,755 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

As a Nigerian I want you to be open-minded and read this first post from an Igbo lady .. also “ check the date “ Now listen to the rest of the Twitter space..” If you give Igbos 10 years in Lagos, we will chase the Yorubas to chad , the rest will become beggars in their own land.” said by the igbos 💥“It show that Yorubas are useless, the truth is that most of these Yorubas are like slaves! Most of them don’t know their mothers, Because of the nature of Yoruba culture. They’re promiscuous in nature that they don’t protect family lineage. So the person they call father might not even be their father.” This was a space I recorded last year by the Igbos “ obedience “ who opened a space and started spewing so much tribalistic hate towards the Yorubas After the war, the Yorubas started welcoming the Igbos into their land and selling their land to them so they could have a fresh start. Today the Igbos are using that kind gesture of the Yorubas to mock them over and over .. People of River State who are the neighbours to the Igbos refused to sell land to them … “ probably they already know who the Igbos are “ The Yorubas on the other end think they are helping a friend in need. Every day the Igbos will hold Twitter space, post on social media and Collectively spreading the same narratives saying Yoruba sold their ancestral land to them to do owanbe. That They have bought all Yoruba land finish.. Yorubas have been doing parties “ owanbe” before you Igbos ever dream to come to over Yoruba land Would you ever want to be friends with this kind of people who says such things to you? Are they telling Yorubas that Yorubas did wrong by selling their land to them so they could have a place to stay? Could it be because they the Igbos can’t and don’t sell their land to foreigners hence the mocking of the Yorubas who sold theirs to them? This is a big lesson Yorubas must learn their lesson “ Liberalism “ would not get us anywhere We tried, our forefathers tried and it has set us back over 50 years, we got mocked, Ridiculed, and disrespected for it. To the other tribes who don’t understand why the Yorubas are now saying enough is enough. If you help someone into your house and the person later turns out to be saying and doing all this to your people “Would you still be hugging them “ and say continue Yorubas we must learn our lesson and say enough …. “ Dig deep “ Land is resources

As a Nigerian I want you to be open-minded and read this first post from an Igbo lady .. also “ check the date “ Now listen to the rest of the Twitter space..” If you give Igbos 10 years in Lagos, we will chase the Yorubas to chad , the rest will become beggars in their own land.” said by the igbos 💥“It show that Yorubas are useless, the truth is that most of these Yorubas are like slaves! Most of them don’t know their mothers, Because of the nature of Yoruba culture. They’re promiscuous in nature that they don’t protect family lineage. So the person they call father might not even be their father.” This was a space I recorded last year by the Igbos “ obedience “ who opened a space and started spewing so much tribalistic hate towards the Yorubas After the war, the Yorubas started welcoming the Igbos into their land and selling their land to them so they could have a fresh start. Today the Igbos are using that kind gesture of the Yorubas to mock them over and over .. People of River State who are the neighbours to the Igbos refused to sell land to them … “ probably they already know who the Igbos are “ The Yorubas on the other end think they are helping a friend in need. Every day the Igbos will hold Twitter space, post on social media and Collectively spreading the same narratives saying Yoruba sold their ancestral land to them to do owanbe. That They have bought all Yoruba land finish.. Yorubas have been doing parties “ owanbe” before you Igbos ever dream to come to over Yoruba land Would you ever want to be friends with this kind of people who says such things to you? Are they telling Yorubas that Yorubas did wrong by selling their land to them so they could have a place to stay? Could it be because they the Igbos can’t and don’t sell their land to foreigners hence the mocking of the Yorubas who sold theirs to them? This is a big lesson Yorubas must learn their lesson “ Liberalism “ would not get us anywhere We tried, our forefathers tried and it has set us back over 50 years, we got mocked, Ridiculed, and disrespected for it. To the other tribes who don’t understand why the Yorubas are now saying enough is enough. If you help someone into your house and the person later turns out to be saying and doing all this to your people “Would you still be hugging them “ and say continue Yorubas we must learn our lesson and say enough …. “ Dig deep “ Land is resources

Nononsense

36,224 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Would like yalls feedback: Foreign land ownership, that SB 17 (2025) is supposed "prevent", is a significant issue facing Texans. SB 17 is entirely reactive and relies on anonymous tips and red flags AFTER the sale is complete. Only after a tip is received, then MAYBE an investigation will happen. It also does nothing to stop leasing from the countries on the "banned" list. That's unacceptable and it functionally does nothing to stop our land from being bought up by countries on the "banned" list (China, Iran, North Korea, & Russia). It also doesn't address the large purchasing of our land from countries not on that list. Let's break it down: 🟥As it stands, the Texas land owned by Countries that SB 17 is limited to represents around 2 to 3% of the share of foreign held agricultural land in Texas. Canada, Netherlands, Italy, UK, Germany, "other Europe", and Mexico comprise 94% of foreign owned ag land in Texas totaling around 4,900,000 acres. 🟥We are relying entirely on federal data sources like the USDA's Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA) reports, which only focus on agricultural land. That report relies on voluntary compliance from the reporting entities (like an actual bad-actor is going to voluntarily tell the truth) and there are no audits to verify beneficial ownership…There is NO State level tracking. 🟥A significant additional problem is the half a million acres of Texas land owned by foreign entities under shell companies with unclear or unlisted foreign ownership. Even more concerning for Texas is the estimated 1 to 2 MILLION additional acres of residential & commercial land that is foreign owned. Here is some potential (we want your feedback on this) fixes Doc Pete Chambers is looking at implementing: 🟩Doc will introduce legislation that requires mandatory beneficial ownership disclosure and real estate professionals (e.g. title companies and brokers) to conduct checks and halt sales if foreign entities are on or tied to Global Power Competitor listing. 🟩Add language in legislation to treat any lease from foreign entities totaling over 3 years as violating the SB 17 prohibition on foreign land leases > 1 year. Require landlords to file annual reports if a foreign tenant has greater than 2 years of cumulative control. ➡️Nothing is stopping foreign countries, even the ones on the "banned" list from leasing land and then renewing that lease each year. It's a dangerous loophole that creates conditions where even the countries America specifically has an adversarial relationship with can lease the land for a hundred years if they wanted. ➡️We can approach business investments (i.e. building a factory or hard structure that employs Texans) from countries not on the Global Power Competitor listing on a separate exemption where they are allowed to exceed lease prohibition limits due to the positive economic impact on that local economy. (we definitely want your feedback and ideas on this because Doc doesn't want to negatively impact employment and the economy, but we have to draw a line on the ridiculous lease loophole.) 🟩Creating a State public registry of existing foreign land ownership (none currently exists) and aggressively auditing. ➡️Already owned land is mostly out of the hands of the Governor to impact. These countries have already entered into contracts and have the titles to this land (talking about the European countries we listed earlier, not China, NK, etc.). Surprisingly significant legal hurdles exist to force divestment of these already held lands. What we can do is start tracking it for public and defense purposes. 🟩Hold sellers, real estate agents, title insurers, and attorneys legally liable for facilitating violations. ➡️No one should profit by intentionally selling out their neighbors to foreigners. It's well past time we put our people first over making more and more money. At some point there will be little to nothing left for younger Texans and future generations, or it will be prohibitively expensive/inaccessible. We have to avoid this. 🟨The idea was floated, and we have considered, setting citizenship requirements in order to purchase land...but there are very surprising legal and Constitutional hurdles that would ensure such action would not survive. As strange as that sounds, there are multiple federal treaties, federal preemption prohibitions, and Supreme Court case precedent that would ensure such action would fail. Until something significantly changes federally, we have to operate within the bounds of what is feasible and what is the law.

Would like yalls feedback: Foreign land ownership, that SB 17 (2025) is supposed "prevent", is a significant issue facing Texans. SB 17 is entirely reactive and relies on anonymous tips and red flags AFTER the sale is complete. Only after a tip is received, then MAYBE an investigation will happen. It also does nothing to stop leasing from the countries on the "banned" list. That's unacceptable and it functionally does nothing to stop our land from being bought up by countries on the "banned" list (China, Iran, North Korea, & Russia). It also doesn't address the large purchasing of our land from countries not on that list. Let's break it down: 🟥As it stands, the Texas land owned by Countries that SB 17 is limited to represents around 2 to 3% of the share of foreign held agricultural land in Texas. Canada, Netherlands, Italy, UK, Germany, "other Europe", and Mexico comprise 94% of foreign owned ag land in Texas totaling around 4,900,000 acres. 🟥We are relying entirely on federal data sources like the USDA's Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (AFIDA) reports, which only focus on agricultural land. That report relies on voluntary compliance from the reporting entities (like an actual bad-actor is going to voluntarily tell the truth) and there are no audits to verify beneficial ownership…There is NO State level tracking. 🟥A significant additional problem is the half a million acres of Texas land owned by foreign entities under shell companies with unclear or unlisted foreign ownership. Even more concerning for Texas is the estimated 1 to 2 MILLION additional acres of residential & commercial land that is foreign owned. Here is some potential (we want your feedback on this) fixes Doc Pete Chambers is looking at implementing: 🟩Doc will introduce legislation that requires mandatory beneficial ownership disclosure and real estate professionals (e.g. title companies and brokers) to conduct checks and halt sales if foreign entities are on or tied to Global Power Competitor listing. 🟩Add language in legislation to treat any lease from foreign entities totaling over 3 years as violating the SB 17 prohibition on foreign land leases > 1 year. Require landlords to file annual reports if a foreign tenant has greater than 2 years of cumulative control. ➡️Nothing is stopping foreign countries, even the ones on the "banned" list from leasing land and then renewing that lease each year. It's a dangerous loophole that creates conditions where even the countries America specifically has an adversarial relationship with can lease the land for a hundred years if they wanted. ➡️We can approach business investments (i.e. building a factory or hard structure that employs Texans) from countries not on the Global Power Competitor listing on a separate exemption where they are allowed to exceed lease prohibition limits due to the positive economic impact on that local economy. (we definitely want your feedback and ideas on this because Doc doesn't want to negatively impact employment and the economy, but we have to draw a line on the ridiculous lease loophole.) 🟩Creating a State public registry of existing foreign land ownership (none currently exists) and aggressively auditing. ➡️Already owned land is mostly out of the hands of the Governor to impact. These countries have already entered into contracts and have the titles to this land (talking about the European countries we listed earlier, not China, NK, etc.). Surprisingly significant legal hurdles exist to force divestment of these already held lands. What we can do is start tracking it for public and defense purposes. 🟩Hold sellers, real estate agents, title insurers, and attorneys legally liable for facilitating violations. ➡️No one should profit by intentionally selling out their neighbors to foreigners. It's well past time we put our people first over making more and more money. At some point there will be little to nothing left for younger Texans and future generations, or it will be prohibitively expensive/inaccessible. We have to avoid this. 🟨The idea was floated, and we have considered, setting citizenship requirements in order to purchase land...but there are very surprising legal and Constitutional hurdles that would ensure such action would not survive. As strange as that sounds, there are multiple federal treaties, federal preemption prohibitions, and Supreme Court case precedent that would ensure such action would fail. Until something significantly changes federally, we have to operate within the bounds of what is feasible and what is the law.

DocPeteChambersForTexas

12,695 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

COMMONS HOUSING SELECT COMMITTEE: STATEMENT FROM FREE LEASEHOLDERS 3/3/26 Today, we told Parliament the truth. About the cynical games Conservative and Labour governments have been playing with your homes, money and lives. It was awkward. We had to motor through to cover as many points as humanely possible in a short time. Sorry if we didn’t cover yours. We are the insurgents against a very closed and broken political system. We will go away when they finally free the people from the property servitude of leasehold. Until then, we will keep challenging the official line and holding power to account, however uncomfortable that may be. Parliament has been talking about abolishing leasehold, a legacy of serfdom, since the 1880s, before working men and women had the right to vote. In 2026, we keep hearing it’s “complicated” and our politicians need more time because they might get sued by the wealthy landowners. What happened to the will of the people? Isn’t Parliament sovereign? Wasn’t that what all the Brexit lark was about? And doesn’t this Labour government have the second biggest parliamentary majority in its 126-year history as the so-called working people’s party? Keir Starmer can do a TikTok stunt on ground rents. But he can’t run away from the truth. His government are peddling a draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill that has been purged of policies that you voted for in the The Labour Party manifesto. Policies promised again in the July 2024 King’s Speech: the remaining Law Commission enfranchisement and Right to Manage recommendations. So you can finally “take back control”. The Starmer administration appears to be captured by the deep-pocketed freeholder lobby and property cartels. And the Prime Minister is in thrall to the hand-wringing lawyers who bleat on about the risk of judicial review and ECHR lawfare, as if the rights of extortionists, many offshore, and lofty international law matter more than the British people being looted in their homes and what election manifestos have promised time and time again. This government claims that they are ending the feudal leasehold system. Instead, they keep it on life support by protecting money-for-nothing ground rents until 2068. We’ll have flying cars before feudalism is banished from our homes! And buried away in the small print, the Labour government concedes our point: “leasehold as a tenure will not disappear overnight and it will be a feature of the housing market for many years to come.” The government is also siding with the leasehold grifters by failing to restrict development value in the draft legislation, which means many flat leaseholders will never be able to afford to buy their freehold, something that must happen before conversion to commonhold. Remember, the freeholders’ main lobby group, the Residential Freehold Association, admits that the typical freeholder owns just 2.5% capital value in a block of flats. These wealth-destroying corporates own a sliver of our homes and have the cheek to talk about their human rights. We are not Mugabeists. We will, of course, pay a fair rate to compensate the freeholder to leave our homes for good. But demanding more of our money so they can thwart our right to buy them out, on the basis that they could theoretically build a skyscraper in the garden, is taking the mick and must end, as the government first promised in 2021. Don’t take our word on the scam of freeholders invoking development value to block leaseholders’ bid for self-rule. Barrister Nicola Muir, of Tanfield Chambers, has written that “it is amazing what developments landlords believe are possible and the profits they claim they will generate”, citing a telling example from practice: “The landlord initially claimed £34 million for the alleged potential to build a skyscraper in the front garden of the block. Such claims can obviously be a deterrent to leaseholders, who probably have no intention of developing.” And we were the ONLY campaign group that urged the Housing, Communities & Local Government Committee to ensure that this government sets enfranchisement rates high in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, to the benefit of leaseholders. There is a major risk that, due to the influence peddling of ground rent grifters and their lobbyists in Westminster and Whitehall, the government will fail to implement these long-awaited reforms already on the statute books. Matthew Pennycook MP promised in November 2024 to put enfranchisement rates out to public consultation last summer, but it never happened. And if the government is forced to begin the enfranchisement changes in the 2024 Act, it will likely set the deferment and capitalisation rates artificially low, stuffing freeholders’ mouths with gold when desperate leaseholders try to extend their leases or buy out the freehold. These deferment and capitalisation rates are already derived from freeholder-friendly case law, specifically the 2006 Upper Tribunal decision known as Sportelli, with the deferment rate set at 4.75% for houses and 5.0% for flats, and a capitalisation rate of 6.0%. While the 2024 Act is vague on what these rates should be, we know that investors routinely buy freeholds at auction or directly from developers at higher rates than those implied by Sportelli, meaning they pay significantly less than leaseholders are already required to pay under statutory schemes with the low Sportelli rates. For example, an analysis of Allsop Ground Rent Auctions found that investors have been paying an average 9% capitalisation rate for the ground rent in freehold titles – well above Sportelli’s 6%. This situation is clearly unfair, and there is significant industry lobbying to keep the deferment and capitalisation rates low, i.e. below the going market rates, so that freeholders are excessively compensated by leaseholders. Once the rates are set in the 2024 Act, they remain fixed for ten years, creating jeopardy that they will be set to the disadvantage of leaseholders, who are less organised and resourced than industry interests to influence policy. If the rates are set substantially below Sportelli rates, the savings from other provisions of the 2024 Act – such as the removal of marriage value, the 0.1% restriction on ground rents, and the end of the requirement to pay the freeholder’s reasonable legal and valuation costs – would be more than cancelled out, leaving leaseholders paying more than they do today under the current rules. Minister Pennycook highlighted this risk while in opposition during the passage of the 2024 Act, stating that Labour “remain[s] convinced that this government, or a future one, could be lobbied by vested interests to set a deferment rate that will be punitive to leaseholders.” He proposed an amendment on the deferment rate to guide the Secretary of State, requiring that “in setting the deferment rate, the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of encouraging leaseholders to extend their lease at the lowest possible cost”, although the amendment was not passed. This policy ought to be in the draft Bill, yet it remains absent. We are urging that the 2024 Act be amended to require that the enfranchisement rates must not fall below an absolute floor of the existing Sportelli rates (with the deferment rate of 4.75% for houses and 5.0% for flats, and a capitalisation rate of 6.0%). But leaseholders should really benefit from market rates, i.e. those which developers and investors already enjoy being significantly above Sportelli, to ensure that they do not pay excessive compensation to freeholders, as occurs under the current system, to buy their freehold or extend a lease. And this isn’t just about what goes into the algorithm for the online enfranchisement calculator under the 2024 Act, or about ending the development value scam, a reform dropped from the legislation after behind-the-scenes lobbying. We will not accept a failure to bring forward a Universal Right to Manage, as part of a glidepath to commonhold. Watch what our founder said about a well-connected landlord and tenant barrister who bragged to the property tribunal last year that he had worked on the Law Commission’s Right to Manage reforms, all while representing an offshore billionaire freeholder trying to block leaseholders’ quest for Right to Manage. It should be easy. But the leaseholders at this development had to spend £150,000 just to defend their no-fault right against this legal onslaught at the First-tier Tribunal. They won, but the freeholder is now appealing… Beyond Right to Manage reform, we need a Right to Participate in collective enfranchisement so that all flat leaseholders can buy a share of the freehold even if they miss out the first time when one group of neighbours has enough support to enfranchise the block. It is unfair for leaseholders to be locked out of decisions over the charges they pay and the services affecting their home when they are ready to buy their share of the freehold. Sorting this inequity was the will of Parliament with Right to Enfranchise provisions in the 2002 Act. It’s also what the Law Commission originally recommended before seemingly being pressured by vested interests to drop the policy from their final recommendations in 2020. Also, why on earth should leaseholders have to contort themselves to get 50% support of all unit-owners in a block? Satisfying the onerous 50% participation threshold is near impossible in bigger buildings and those with high levels of buy-to-let, yet scummy investors face no qualifying criteria when hoovering up the freeholds of our homes from developers or auctioneers behind our backs. Don’t patronise us with Lord Best’s scheme for managing agents. We want liberation, not regulation. There’s a reason both the freeholder and managing agent lobbies are gagging for the cosy Lord Best policy, which wasn’t promised in either the Labour manifesto or the King’s Speech. It will jack up leaseholders’ already sky-high service charges, repeat the cruel joke of the Building Safety Regulator, and keep freeholders and their managing agent cronies firmly in the ecosystem. At the same time, a statutory regulator of managing agents will no doubt restrict competition by keeping out small ethical new entrants. It will also allow the government to claim job done while failing to end leasehold. Even without leasehold abolition, leaseholders will still be denied rightful control of their service charges and the power to easily sack their managing agent - the real regulation needed to rein in rip-off service providers and put them out of business, not some powerless or captured regulator in Whitehall. Labour should be for the grafters. If the government wants to win back public support after the Gordon and Denton by-election drubbing, salvaging this draft legislation and swiftly commencing the 2024 Act must be its priority. Show that politics can be a force for good. Stand up to the ground rent grifters and offshore property mafia. Free leaseholders. 5.3 million households in England and Wales are watching.

COMMONS HOUSING SELECT COMMITTEE: STATEMENT FROM FREE LEASEHOLDERS 3/3/26 Today, we told Parliament the truth. About the cynical games Conservative and Labour governments have been playing with your homes, money and lives. It was awkward. We had to motor through to cover as many points as humanely possible in a short time. Sorry if we didn’t cover yours. We are the insurgents against a very closed and broken political system. We will go away when they finally free the people from the property servitude of leasehold. Until then, we will keep challenging the official line and holding power to account, however uncomfortable that may be. Parliament has been talking about abolishing leasehold, a legacy of serfdom, since the 1880s, before working men and women had the right to vote. In 2026, we keep hearing it’s “complicated” and our politicians need more time because they might get sued by the wealthy landowners. What happened to the will of the people? Isn’t Parliament sovereign? Wasn’t that what all the Brexit lark was about? And doesn’t this Labour government have the second biggest parliamentary majority in its 126-year history as the so-called working people’s party? Keir Starmer can do a TikTok stunt on ground rents. But he can’t run away from the truth. His government are peddling a draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill that has been purged of policies that you voted for in the The Labour Party manifesto. Policies promised again in the July 2024 King’s Speech: the remaining Law Commission enfranchisement and Right to Manage recommendations. So you can finally “take back control”. The Starmer administration appears to be captured by the deep-pocketed freeholder lobby and property cartels. And the Prime Minister is in thrall to the hand-wringing lawyers who bleat on about the risk of judicial review and ECHR lawfare, as if the rights of extortionists, many offshore, and lofty international law matter more than the British people being looted in their homes and what election manifestos have promised time and time again. This government claims that they are ending the feudal leasehold system. Instead, they keep it on life support by protecting money-for-nothing ground rents until 2068. We’ll have flying cars before feudalism is banished from our homes! And buried away in the small print, the Labour government concedes our point: “leasehold as a tenure will not disappear overnight and it will be a feature of the housing market for many years to come.” The government is also siding with the leasehold grifters by failing to restrict development value in the draft legislation, which means many flat leaseholders will never be able to afford to buy their freehold, something that must happen before conversion to commonhold. Remember, the freeholders’ main lobby group, the Residential Freehold Association, admits that the typical freeholder owns just 2.5% capital value in a block of flats. These wealth-destroying corporates own a sliver of our homes and have the cheek to talk about their human rights. We are not Mugabeists. We will, of course, pay a fair rate to compensate the freeholder to leave our homes for good. But demanding more of our money so they can thwart our right to buy them out, on the basis that they could theoretically build a skyscraper in the garden, is taking the mick and must end, as the government first promised in 2021. Don’t take our word on the scam of freeholders invoking development value to block leaseholders’ bid for self-rule. Barrister Nicola Muir, of Tanfield Chambers, has written that “it is amazing what developments landlords believe are possible and the profits they claim they will generate”, citing a telling example from practice: “The landlord initially claimed £34 million for the alleged potential to build a skyscraper in the front garden of the block. Such claims can obviously be a deterrent to leaseholders, who probably have no intention of developing.” And we were the ONLY campaign group that urged the Housing, Communities & Local Government Committee to ensure that this government sets enfranchisement rates high in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, to the benefit of leaseholders. There is a major risk that, due to the influence peddling of ground rent grifters and their lobbyists in Westminster and Whitehall, the government will fail to implement these long-awaited reforms already on the statute books. Matthew Pennycook MP promised in November 2024 to put enfranchisement rates out to public consultation last summer, but it never happened. And if the government is forced to begin the enfranchisement changes in the 2024 Act, it will likely set the deferment and capitalisation rates artificially low, stuffing freeholders’ mouths with gold when desperate leaseholders try to extend their leases or buy out the freehold. These deferment and capitalisation rates are already derived from freeholder-friendly case law, specifically the 2006 Upper Tribunal decision known as Sportelli, with the deferment rate set at 4.75% for houses and 5.0% for flats, and a capitalisation rate of 6.0%. While the 2024 Act is vague on what these rates should be, we know that investors routinely buy freeholds at auction or directly from developers at higher rates than those implied by Sportelli, meaning they pay significantly less than leaseholders are already required to pay under statutory schemes with the low Sportelli rates. For example, an analysis of Allsop Ground Rent Auctions found that investors have been paying an average 9% capitalisation rate for the ground rent in freehold titles – well above Sportelli’s 6%. This situation is clearly unfair, and there is significant industry lobbying to keep the deferment and capitalisation rates low, i.e. below the going market rates, so that freeholders are excessively compensated by leaseholders. Once the rates are set in the 2024 Act, they remain fixed for ten years, creating jeopardy that they will be set to the disadvantage of leaseholders, who are less organised and resourced than industry interests to influence policy. If the rates are set substantially below Sportelli rates, the savings from other provisions of the 2024 Act – such as the removal of marriage value, the 0.1% restriction on ground rents, and the end of the requirement to pay the freeholder’s reasonable legal and valuation costs – would be more than cancelled out, leaving leaseholders paying more than they do today under the current rules. Minister Pennycook highlighted this risk while in opposition during the passage of the 2024 Act, stating that Labour “remain[s] convinced that this government, or a future one, could be lobbied by vested interests to set a deferment rate that will be punitive to leaseholders.” He proposed an amendment on the deferment rate to guide the Secretary of State, requiring that “in setting the deferment rate, the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of encouraging leaseholders to extend their lease at the lowest possible cost”, although the amendment was not passed. This policy ought to be in the draft Bill, yet it remains absent. We are urging that the 2024 Act be amended to require that the enfranchisement rates must not fall below an absolute floor of the existing Sportelli rates (with the deferment rate of 4.75% for houses and 5.0% for flats, and a capitalisation rate of 6.0%). But leaseholders should really benefit from market rates, i.e. those which developers and investors already enjoy being significantly above Sportelli, to ensure that they do not pay excessive compensation to freeholders, as occurs under the current system, to buy their freehold or extend a lease. And this isn’t just about what goes into the algorithm for the online enfranchisement calculator under the 2024 Act, or about ending the development value scam, a reform dropped from the legislation after behind-the-scenes lobbying. We will not accept a failure to bring forward a Universal Right to Manage, as part of a glidepath to commonhold. Watch what our founder said about a well-connected landlord and tenant barrister who bragged to the property tribunal last year that he had worked on the Law Commission’s Right to Manage reforms, all while representing an offshore billionaire freeholder trying to block leaseholders’ quest for Right to Manage. It should be easy. But the leaseholders at this development had to spend £150,000 just to defend their no-fault right against this legal onslaught at the First-tier Tribunal. They won, but the freeholder is now appealing… Beyond Right to Manage reform, we need a Right to Participate in collective enfranchisement so that all flat leaseholders can buy a share of the freehold even if they miss out the first time when one group of neighbours has enough support to enfranchise the block. It is unfair for leaseholders to be locked out of decisions over the charges they pay and the services affecting their home when they are ready to buy their share of the freehold. Sorting this inequity was the will of Parliament with Right to Enfranchise provisions in the 2002 Act. It’s also what the Law Commission originally recommended before seemingly being pressured by vested interests to drop the policy from their final recommendations in 2020. Also, why on earth should leaseholders have to contort themselves to get 50% support of all unit-owners in a block? Satisfying the onerous 50% participation threshold is near impossible in bigger buildings and those with high levels of buy-to-let, yet scummy investors face no qualifying criteria when hoovering up the freeholds of our homes from developers or auctioneers behind our backs. Don’t patronise us with Lord Best’s scheme for managing agents. We want liberation, not regulation. There’s a reason both the freeholder and managing agent lobbies are gagging for the cosy Lord Best policy, which wasn’t promised in either the Labour manifesto or the King’s Speech. It will jack up leaseholders’ already sky-high service charges, repeat the cruel joke of the Building Safety Regulator, and keep freeholders and their managing agent cronies firmly in the ecosystem. At the same time, a statutory regulator of managing agents will no doubt restrict competition by keeping out small ethical new entrants. It will also allow the government to claim job done while failing to end leasehold. Even without leasehold abolition, leaseholders will still be denied rightful control of their service charges and the power to easily sack their managing agent - the real regulation needed to rein in rip-off service providers and put them out of business, not some powerless or captured regulator in Whitehall. Labour should be for the grafters. If the government wants to win back public support after the Gordon and Denton by-election drubbing, salvaging this draft legislation and swiftly commencing the 2024 Act must be its priority. Show that politics can be a force for good. Stand up to the ground rent grifters and offshore property mafia. Free leaseholders. 5.3 million households in England and Wales are watching.

Free Leaseholders

20,976 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Ian Hislop, "Farmers didn't pay inheritance tax at all, and now they're going to pay half of what everybody else pays.. And the limits they set on them are really pretty high" "So it's meant to stop wealthy landowners buying lots of land in order to avoid taxes" "People who come to mind.. Jeremy Clarkson who originally bought his farm in order to avoid paying any tax on it" "Who has now become the champion of the small farmer who is probably not going to get hit by this, and is going to end up worse off for lots of other reasons" Victroia Derbyshire, "Why are you here?" Jeremy Clarkson, "I'm here to support farmers" VD, "So it's not about you and the fact that you bought a farm to avoid inheritance tax?" JC, "Classic BBC.. It's not the fact that I bought a farm to avoid inheritance tax" VD, "You told the Sunday Times in 2021 that's why you bought it" JC shakes his head Ian Hislop, "It's not as though he doesn't have any history with the Beeb, she's quite lucky he didn't punch her in the face with cold food"

Ian Hislop, "Farmers didn't pay inheritance tax at all, and now they're going to pay half of what everybody else pays.. And the limits they set on them are really pretty high" "So it's meant to stop wealthy landowners buying lots of land in order to avoid taxes" "People who come to mind.. Jeremy Clarkson who originally bought his farm in order to avoid paying any tax on it" "Who has now become the champion of the small farmer who is probably not going to get hit by this, and is going to end up worse off for lots of other reasons" Victroia Derbyshire, "Why are you here?" Jeremy Clarkson, "I'm here to support farmers" VD, "So it's not about you and the fact that you bought a farm to avoid inheritance tax?" JC, "Classic BBC.. It's not the fact that I bought a farm to avoid inheritance tax" VD, "You told the Sunday Times in 2021 that's why you bought it" JC shakes his head Ian Hislop, "It's not as though he doesn't have any history with the Beeb, she's quite lucky he didn't punch her in the face with cold food"

Farrukh

2,014,569 просмотров • 1 год назад

🚨 Private solar companies are being given grant money in New York State, they’re then pressuring farmers to sell their land Also Investment firms are offering $40k a month to farmers with hundreds of acres to to sell their land “My neighbors came to my farm last week and told me something absolutely terrifying. He owns over 100 acres of land right across the street from my farm. — We were just talking about different trends that we're noticing in the area and what's happening to farms and all of these different investment firms that are coming out of nowhere to buy up this farmland that is for sale right under our noses and no one even knows it's happening. He told me the other other day for his 100 acres behind me. He has been approached by and pressured by solar companies to sell his land to them. Multiple times they have come and tried to get him to sell this land. He said they lure you in by the promise of paying you anywhere from $30 to 40k a year as a payoff for selling this property to them. This guy's in his 70s. He said it's obviously appealing to other older folks who are just looking to finally get away from farming and retire with a nice 40k a year until they die. The problem is that then 100 hundred acres of arable, beautiful, upstate New York fertile land will turn into a dystopian solar farm that will bring down the property values of everybody in this area, be a huge eyesore. It'll kill the idyllicness of in every direction, not to mention the insane battery systems and overhead wires that have to be set up at these solar farms if any of you have ever gone near them. I thanked him for not selling out to these solar companies. He said he never plans to because that would change everything at all of the farms surrounding this 100 acres of land. It just makes me think about how many other people are being pressured by these companies as we speak to sell out. Doesn't help. In New York State that grant money has been given to these solar companies. There's pressure from the state for them to turn as much of our land into solar fields and farms as possible, and it's horrifying.”

🚨 Private solar companies are being given grant money in New York State, they’re then pressuring farmers to sell their land Also Investment firms are offering $40k a month to farmers with hundreds of acres to to sell their land “My neighbors came to my farm last week and told me something absolutely terrifying. He owns over 100 acres of land right across the street from my farm. — We were just talking about different trends that we're noticing in the area and what's happening to farms and all of these different investment firms that are coming out of nowhere to buy up this farmland that is for sale right under our noses and no one even knows it's happening. He told me the other other day for his 100 acres behind me. He has been approached by and pressured by solar companies to sell his land to them. Multiple times they have come and tried to get him to sell this land. He said they lure you in by the promise of paying you anywhere from $30 to 40k a year as a payoff for selling this property to them. This guy's in his 70s. He said it's obviously appealing to other older folks who are just looking to finally get away from farming and retire with a nice 40k a year until they die. The problem is that then 100 hundred acres of arable, beautiful, upstate New York fertile land will turn into a dystopian solar farm that will bring down the property values of everybody in this area, be a huge eyesore. It'll kill the idyllicness of in every direction, not to mention the insane battery systems and overhead wires that have to be set up at these solar farms if any of you have ever gone near them. I thanked him for not selling out to these solar companies. He said he never plans to because that would change everything at all of the farms surrounding this 100 acres of land. It just makes me think about how many other people are being pressured by these companies as we speak to sell out. Doesn't help. In New York State that grant money has been given to these solar companies. There's pressure from the state for them to turn as much of our land into solar fields and farms as possible, and it's horrifying.”

Wall Street Apes

317,315 просмотров • 1 год назад

Here’s a problem. When a Black political leader whose entire career is built upon the slogan of “land expropriation” stands in front of White landowners and reassures them that only unused land will be taken, while “productive” land will be spared, he’s not fighting dispossession. He’s managing it. He’s saying: It’s okay for you to keep the land, as long as you’re extracting value from it. In that exact moment, land stops being a site of justice or historical redress. It becomes a productive asset, judged only by its economic output, not by how it was acquired or who was dispossessed to make it “productive” in the first place. That’s not radical. It’s violent capitalism. And in a country like South Africa, where the entire architecture of land ownership was violently constructed around White supremacy, “productive land” just means White-owned land. So protecting “productive land” is functionally indistinguishable from protecting the status quo. With this line of argument, the dispossessed aren’t being offered land. They’re being offered food security. They’re told to wait a little longer, for “growth”, for “partnerships”, for jobs, for benevolence from their “bosses”. In fact, this logic says: if you’re a current landowner, all you need to do to avoid expropriation is start farming harder. That’s it. Just produce and there will be no land redress. This is not land reform. It’s land perform. It’s a theatrical gesture of justice that leaves the underlying power structure untouched. Worse, it launders morality: White landowners are cast as generous “partners”, while the dispossessed are still left begging, just more politely. This isn’t revolution. It’s reconciliation with capital. And it’s very unserious.

Here’s a problem. When a Black political leader whose entire career is built upon the slogan of “land expropriation” stands in front of White landowners and reassures them that only unused land will be taken, while “productive” land will be spared, he’s not fighting dispossession. He’s managing it. He’s saying: It’s okay for you to keep the land, as long as you’re extracting value from it. In that exact moment, land stops being a site of justice or historical redress. It becomes a productive asset, judged only by its economic output, not by how it was acquired or who was dispossessed to make it “productive” in the first place. That’s not radical. It’s violent capitalism. And in a country like South Africa, where the entire architecture of land ownership was violently constructed around White supremacy, “productive land” just means White-owned land. So protecting “productive land” is functionally indistinguishable from protecting the status quo. With this line of argument, the dispossessed aren’t being offered land. They’re being offered food security. They’re told to wait a little longer, for “growth”, for “partnerships”, for jobs, for benevolence from their “bosses”. In fact, this logic says: if you’re a current landowner, all you need to do to avoid expropriation is start farming harder. That’s it. Just produce and there will be no land redress. This is not land reform. It’s land perform. It’s a theatrical gesture of justice that leaves the underlying power structure untouched. Worse, it launders morality: White landowners are cast as generous “partners”, while the dispossessed are still left begging, just more politely. This isn’t revolution. It’s reconciliation with capital. And it’s very unserious.

Sizwe SikaMusi

24,319 просмотров • 1 год назад

As Timothy Alberino points out on the Shawn Ryan Show, there is a strong case to make that the Biblical Flood was not global, but local to a specific region. In Genesis 7:23, “earth” and “land” are translated from הָֽאֲדָמָ֗ה / hā ăḏāmāh (meaning “ground” or “land”) and הָאָ֑רֶץ / hā·’ā·reṣ (meaning “land”, “soil”, or “earth”—not in a global sense, but in reference to the ground). This is key, as with an accurate translation, the reader must account for context when determining the meaning. Essentially, "earth" and "land" are relative, and can refer to a specific region or locality, whereas "world" and "globe" are all-encompassing terms that leave no room for speculation. Unfortunately, too many people fail to read through an ancient Hebrew lens, and instead assume that “earth” refers to the entire world or globe. Bronze Age Hebrews had no concept of an all-encompassing Earth or a globe. So, “Earth” and “Land” simply referred to the Earth and Land in focus. The same can be said for passages such as Genesis 7:18-19, which states: "The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.” In this passage, the Hebrew term translated as "Earth" is "Erets" (Strong's 776), meaning land, and the Hebrew term translated as "Heavens" is "Shamayim" (Strong's 8064), meaning sky. So instead, this passage is likely stating that "the waters rose greatly in the LAND, and all high mountains under the entire SKY were covered"; simply speaking, as far as the eye could see, all land under the observable sky was submerged. If this is not the case, it is rather likely that this passage is not literal, but hyperbolic, like many other verses throughout the Bible. Consider that in Genesis 41:57, "all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth." Unless we believe that every single person from every single region and continent travelled to Egypt for grain, this is hyperbolic. A few more examples are 1 Kings 10:24, "And the whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put into his mind"; and Luke 2:1, "In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered." The whole Earth did not literally seek the wisdom of Solomon, nor did Caesar's census get sent out throughout the entire world. So, it is evident that modern Christians are interpreting hyperbolic passages as literal, while disregarding the root terminology. Another factor overlooked by modern Christians is that the Bible is “the book of the generations of Adam”, and focuses primarily, sometimes solely, on the progeny of Adam. As evident through the narrative of Cain, Adam and Eve were not the first hominids to roam the Earth. After murdering his only sibling, Cain was exiled to the Land of Nod (Genesis 4:8-16). Before departing, he expresses his fear that people in the Land of Nod will find and kill him (Genesis 4:14-15). Upon migrating through Nod, Cain finds a wife and has children, then building an entire city (Genesis 4:17). Yet, all of this happens prior to Adam and Eve birthing Seth, and then other sons and daughters (Genesis 4:25, Genesis 5:4). Thus, there had to have been scattered populations who predated Adam and Eve—these were the people who Cain feared to encounter and later assimilated into. In my opinion, the Pre-Adamites who Cain came across were not confined to West Eurasia, but were scattered across the Earth, thus enabling us to evade the criticism of those who point out the fact that there are genetic variations (both autosomally and among haplogroups) that are inexplicable through mutation, especially within the given timeframe. Not all races have to descend from Adam considering that the flood was local and pertinent to the land on which the Adamic lineage was situated. (The video linked below expounds)

As Timothy Alberino points out on the Shawn Ryan Show, there is a strong case to make that the Biblical Flood was not global, but local to a specific region. In Genesis 7:23, “earth” and “land” are translated from הָֽאֲדָמָ֗ה / hā ăḏāmāh (meaning “ground” or “land”) and הָאָ֑רֶץ / hā·’ā·reṣ (meaning “land”, “soil”, or “earth”—not in a global sense, but in reference to the ground). This is key, as with an accurate translation, the reader must account for context when determining the meaning. Essentially, "earth" and "land" are relative, and can refer to a specific region or locality, whereas "world" and "globe" are all-encompassing terms that leave no room for speculation. Unfortunately, too many people fail to read through an ancient Hebrew lens, and instead assume that “earth” refers to the entire world or globe. Bronze Age Hebrews had no concept of an all-encompassing Earth or a globe. So, “Earth” and “Land” simply referred to the Earth and Land in focus. The same can be said for passages such as Genesis 7:18-19, which states: "The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.” In this passage, the Hebrew term translated as "Earth" is "Erets" (Strong's 776), meaning land, and the Hebrew term translated as "Heavens" is "Shamayim" (Strong's 8064), meaning sky. So instead, this passage is likely stating that "the waters rose greatly in the LAND, and all high mountains under the entire SKY were covered"; simply speaking, as far as the eye could see, all land under the observable sky was submerged. If this is not the case, it is rather likely that this passage is not literal, but hyperbolic, like many other verses throughout the Bible. Consider that in Genesis 41:57, "all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth." Unless we believe that every single person from every single region and continent travelled to Egypt for grain, this is hyperbolic. A few more examples are 1 Kings 10:24, "And the whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put into his mind"; and Luke 2:1, "In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered." The whole Earth did not literally seek the wisdom of Solomon, nor did Caesar's census get sent out throughout the entire world. So, it is evident that modern Christians are interpreting hyperbolic passages as literal, while disregarding the root terminology. Another factor overlooked by modern Christians is that the Bible is “the book of the generations of Adam”, and focuses primarily, sometimes solely, on the progeny of Adam. As evident through the narrative of Cain, Adam and Eve were not the first hominids to roam the Earth. After murdering his only sibling, Cain was exiled to the Land of Nod (Genesis 4:8-16). Before departing, he expresses his fear that people in the Land of Nod will find and kill him (Genesis 4:14-15). Upon migrating through Nod, Cain finds a wife and has children, then building an entire city (Genesis 4:17). Yet, all of this happens prior to Adam and Eve birthing Seth, and then other sons and daughters (Genesis 4:25, Genesis 5:4). Thus, there had to have been scattered populations who predated Adam and Eve—these were the people who Cain feared to encounter and later assimilated into. In my opinion, the Pre-Adamites who Cain came across were not confined to West Eurasia, but were scattered across the Earth, thus enabling us to evade the criticism of those who point out the fact that there are genetic variations (both autosomally and among haplogroups) that are inexplicable through mutation, especially within the given timeframe. Not all races have to descend from Adam considering that the flood was local and pertinent to the land on which the Adamic lineage was situated. (The video linked below expounds)

𝖊𝖑𝖎𝖆𝖒

17,432 просмотров • 1 год назад

NEW: Indigenous Activists Occupy Land Near Fort Snelling, Plan To Stay Until 'Land Back' On February 9, 2026, Indigenous activists erected multiple tipis at Coldwater Spring outside Fort Snelling, establishing an occupation. Organizers demand land back in the form of “returning Fort Snelling” to the Dakota people, and invite state officials like Governor Tim Walz, and Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan to have a conversation, said Gary Spears, organizer with First Nations United. Within a wooded area, the occupation sits on the other side of the Whipple Federal Building, which is the headquarters of the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Operation Metro Surge, as well as a detention center for immigrant detainees and a flashpoint of recent protests. Full story: At the occupation, the chairman of the American Indian Movement Twin Cities, Mike Forcia, said, “We need land back like Powderhorn Park, if the Dakota people got Powderhorn Park, we can have green jobs, a cinema, a theatre. Land Back.” Forcia also spoke about the importance of Fort Snelling, the site of a mass hanging of Dakota people by President Abraham Lincoln. “The significance of Fort Snelling is that it was a concentration camp, no one should be held at Whipple at all. They’re Americans, they should never be in there, never again. That’s why the sight needs to be turned over to the Dakota people. All the stuff going on with ICE right now has to do with the land and resources. They decide who comes. They decide who leaves.” As part of the colonization of the Minnesota Territory, the United States government built a military fort on one of the most spiritually and culturally important sites in the area, at the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota rivers. The fort was used as part of the genocide and attempted extermination of the native population.

NEW: Indigenous Activists Occupy Land Near Fort Snelling, Plan To Stay Until 'Land Back' On February 9, 2026, Indigenous activists erected multiple tipis at Coldwater Spring outside Fort Snelling, establishing an occupation. Organizers demand land back in the form of “returning Fort Snelling” to the Dakota people, and invite state officials like Governor Tim Walz, and Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan to have a conversation, said Gary Spears, organizer with First Nations United. Within a wooded area, the occupation sits on the other side of the Whipple Federal Building, which is the headquarters of the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Operation Metro Surge, as well as a detention center for immigrant detainees and a flashpoint of recent protests. Full story: At the occupation, the chairman of the American Indian Movement Twin Cities, Mike Forcia, said, “We need land back like Powderhorn Park, if the Dakota people got Powderhorn Park, we can have green jobs, a cinema, a theatre. Land Back.” Forcia also spoke about the importance of Fort Snelling, the site of a mass hanging of Dakota people by President Abraham Lincoln. “The significance of Fort Snelling is that it was a concentration camp, no one should be held at Whipple at all. They’re Americans, they should never be in there, never again. That’s why the sight needs to be turned over to the Dakota people. All the stuff going on with ICE right now has to do with the land and resources. They decide who comes. They decide who leaves.” As part of the colonization of the Minnesota Territory, the United States government built a military fort on one of the most spiritually and culturally important sites in the area, at the confluence of the Mississippi and Minnesota rivers. The fort was used as part of the genocide and attempted extermination of the native population.

UNICORN RIOT

11,493 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

There was no such thing as Palestine in 1000 BC. In fact, "Palestine" is a word that's made up, and there is some suggestion that Herodotus used the term as a play on words in the Greek period to refer to the Philistine people. The Philistines, by the way, have nothing to do with modern Palestinians, modern Muslim Arabs. They are a non-Semitic people. They are an Indo-European people. They're a Greek people who spoke an Indo-European language, derivative of Greek, and who invaded, not just northern Egypt, but also southwestern Israel, the land we now know as Gaza, at around that time, about 1,000 years before the Romans arrived. The Philistines fought, and this plays out in the Bible, they fought many wars against their rivals. Not just on the western side with the Egyptians, but also on the eastern side with the Jews. And of course, the famous battle with Goliath and David is a battle between the Jews and the Philistines. The point is that by the time of the Greeks, the Philistines had already died out. And Herodotus was playfully making a play on words with the name Israel. The name Israel, as you know, is Hebrew for "He who wrestles with God." And so the Greek word, the ancient Greek word for wrestler, he who wrestles, is "Palaistine." And so since the Philistines were in that land, he had called it Palaistine as a play, a transliteration of the Jewish word or the Hebrew word Israel, He who wrestles with God. The word then disappears from the lexicon, and then there is the Roman conquest of Judea, the land of Israel. Judea, by the way, in Hebrew is just Yehudia. Jew is Yehudi. Yehudia is therefore land of the Jews, the place where the Jews are from. That's the land that the Romans conquered in 63 BC, and the Jews didn't like being conquered by the Romans for a variety of reasons, and they revolted three times. In the third and final revolt of 132 to 135 AD, which we know as the Bar Kokhba revolt, after its leader Simon Bar Kokhba, Simon being the name Shimon, an ancient Jewish name and the second tribe of Israel, but also Bar Kokhba meaning son of the star in Hebrew. In 135 AD, Hadrian, the emperor of Rome, says, "We're done with these Jews. They have rebelled not once, not twice, not three now three times. They do not accept our magnanimity. We have to wipe out any memory of the Jewish presence on this land." And so he does two big things. He first destroys Jerusalem, and he renames it. The Romans like to rename things in order to erase their history. So he changes the name from Yerushalayim, Jerusalem, to Aelia Capitolina. Aelia for his family, the Aelia clan from Spain, and Capitolina for Jupiter Capitolinus, who's the sky god of the Romans. And then he renames the land Judea after the Philistines again and calls it Palestina. And he did that both to punish the Jews and erase any connection between the Jews and their land, but also because he knew that if he named it after a people who had been dead and extinct in the archeological record for a thousand years, there was no risk that they would show up and say, "Hey, the land is our land. You named it after us." So it was a safe way to rename the land. He named it Palestina. I don't think he ever could have imagined just how brilliant the idea would play with young college students in American campuses 2,000 years later.

There was no such thing as Palestine in 1000 BC. In fact, "Palestine" is a word that's made up, and there is some suggestion that Herodotus used the term as a play on words in the Greek period to refer to the Philistine people. The Philistines, by the way, have nothing to do with modern Palestinians, modern Muslim Arabs. They are a non-Semitic people. They are an Indo-European people. They're a Greek people who spoke an Indo-European language, derivative of Greek, and who invaded, not just northern Egypt, but also southwestern Israel, the land we now know as Gaza, at around that time, about 1,000 years before the Romans arrived. The Philistines fought, and this plays out in the Bible, they fought many wars against their rivals. Not just on the western side with the Egyptians, but also on the eastern side with the Jews. And of course, the famous battle with Goliath and David is a battle between the Jews and the Philistines. The point is that by the time of the Greeks, the Philistines had already died out. And Herodotus was playfully making a play on words with the name Israel. The name Israel, as you know, is Hebrew for "He who wrestles with God." And so the Greek word, the ancient Greek word for wrestler, he who wrestles, is "Palaistine." And so since the Philistines were in that land, he had called it Palaistine as a play, a transliteration of the Jewish word or the Hebrew word Israel, He who wrestles with God. The word then disappears from the lexicon, and then there is the Roman conquest of Judea, the land of Israel. Judea, by the way, in Hebrew is just Yehudia. Jew is Yehudi. Yehudia is therefore land of the Jews, the place where the Jews are from. That's the land that the Romans conquered in 63 BC, and the Jews didn't like being conquered by the Romans for a variety of reasons, and they revolted three times. In the third and final revolt of 132 to 135 AD, which we know as the Bar Kokhba revolt, after its leader Simon Bar Kokhba, Simon being the name Shimon, an ancient Jewish name and the second tribe of Israel, but also Bar Kokhba meaning son of the star in Hebrew. In 135 AD, Hadrian, the emperor of Rome, says, "We're done with these Jews. They have rebelled not once, not twice, not three now three times. They do not accept our magnanimity. We have to wipe out any memory of the Jewish presence on this land." And so he does two big things. He first destroys Jerusalem, and he renames it. The Romans like to rename things in order to erase their history. So he changes the name from Yerushalayim, Jerusalem, to Aelia Capitolina. Aelia for his family, the Aelia clan from Spain, and Capitolina for Jupiter Capitolinus, who's the sky god of the Romans. And then he renames the land Judea after the Philistines again and calls it Palestina. And he did that both to punish the Jews and erase any connection between the Jews and their land, but also because he knew that if he named it after a people who had been dead and extinct in the archeological record for a thousand years, there was no risk that they would show up and say, "Hey, the land is our land. You named it after us." So it was a safe way to rename the land. He named it Palestina. I don't think he ever could have imagined just how brilliant the idea would play with young college students in American campuses 2,000 years later.

Roy K. Altman

28,424 просмотров • 22 дней назад