The “Control System” Is Collapsing – ‘The Great Taking’ Looms As Globalism’s Last Gasp

Authored by Mark Jeftovic via BombThrower.com,

The Great Taking: The Latest “Anti-Mainstream” Conspiracy

A new book has exploded on the alternative / conspiracy / fringe landscape over the past few weeks – I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense. Zerohedge, Bombthrower Media, et al, we all occupy this space. Let’s call it, “anti-mainstream”.

The book is called “The Great Taking” and there is now a YouTube video documentary of it here. You can’t actually find it on Amazon (deliberate choice by author, I presume); I bought my copy via Lulu, but you can download the PDF for free here.

At the risk of oversimplifying it: The Great Taking puts forth a warning that a virtually unknown entity called “The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation” (DTCC) is effectively the “owner” of all the publicly traded companies in the world, and in fact all debt-based assets of any kind:

 

“It is about the taking of collateral (all of it), the end game of the current globally synchronous debt accumulation super cycle. This scheme is being executed by long-planned, intelligent design, the audacity and scope of which is difficult for the mind to encompass.

Included are all financial assets and bank deposits, all stocks and bonds; and hence, all underlying property of all public corporations, including all inventories, plant and equipment; land, mineral deposits, inventions and intellectual property. Privately owned personal and real property financed with any amount of debt will likewise be taken, as will the assets of privately owned businesses which have been financed with debt.”

Over the course of the book, the author describes a 50-year process by which ownership of shares in public companies, and all debt collateral has been “dematerialized”.

In the olden days, you invested in a company – they gave you physical share certificates – and you were now part owner of the company. This is still how many value investors including me think of stock ownership.

We’re not invested in all of these companies in The Bitcoin Capitalist Portfolio simply because we’re trying to time the oscillations in the price movements. We think of ourselves as partial owners of these businesses.

Michael Saylor, Brian Armstrong, Mike Novogratz, Frank Holmes, Jamie Leverton et al, aren’t just celebrity CEOs in this space (Bitcoin)… they’re our partners. Granted, we’re the minority partners, silent ones, betting the jockeys and just along for the ride; but we don’t think of these positions as just stock charts and price gyrations – we think of them as businesses in which we are part owners.

At least I do.

According to The Great Taking, author David Rogers Webb, this is not true. We don’t own small pieces of these companies, we own claims on those pieces, because – over the course of decades, through the exigencies of ever-increasing trading volumes, combined with the machinations behind the scenes of diabolical manipulators – stock ownership has been supplanted by “security entitlements”.

Webb posits that when the debt super-cycle culminates in its ultimate blow up; the trap will be sprung, and actual ownership over all these companies and assets will be subsumed by the clearing houses. An infinitesimal cadre of elites will effectively own everything, and the masses of the world will be reduced to serfdom.

Which sounds familiar; it seems to be the common theme from The Great Taking to the WEF’s Great Reset (or Stakeholder Capitalism, or whatever they’re calling it these days).

It’s the mother of all wealth transfers, one that makes the ongoing wealth transfer of inflation and the Cantillon Effect – or the sharp shock heists that occur during every crisis from the dot-com bust through the GFC to the Covid Panic (the last of which saw an overt war on small business as those deemed “non-essential” were shut down while the megacorps were propped up by the central banks) – seem tame.

Here’s my thoughts on The Great Taking:

Modernity could be described as humanity’s accelerating pace of technological advancement. Part of that advancement is the ever increasing level of intellectual abstraction.

If you’ve been a member or following my writings long enough, you’ll have heard me talk about the W R Clement book, Quantum Jump; written in 1998, it ascribed the entire scientific revolution from the Enlightenment onwards, to the discovery of perspective (then called “God’s space”), in art:

Brunelleschi and the re-discovery of Linear Perspective circa 1400’s

That “quantum leap” began the process of rewiring all our brains for ever higher levels of intellectual abstraction. It enabled us to go from ownership of a coal mine, for example, being ascribed to whomever physically occupied the space – including militarily – to people, and even corporatized entities like pension funds or investment clubs, owning fractional pieces of that mine, from far off places, even other countries.

Initially we did this using physical pieces of paper to represent that ownership. There is a scene in an Agatha Christie “Miss Marple” mystery, “The Moving Finger”, where a man of leisure (played by William D’Arcy) takes to convalesce in a small cottage in a country town, and he visits the local barrister to register his securities with him, reaching into the inside pocket of his sport jacket and handing him the physical share certificates.

Today, he’d just handle everything from a smart phone he carries around in his jeans.

That’s increasing abstraction.

What The Great Taking is warning us about, is that this increasing level of abstraction comes with a price – that we’re no longer really fractional owners of these businesses, we’re owners of claims on these businesses.

And he may be right.

Webb is a former high level financier and an expert in the legislation and regulatory framework that governs the space. The book looks to be meticulously documented and the legalities well researched.

This is no different, I might add, from our mantra: “Not your keys, not your coins”.

In fact as I read through The Great Taking, I found myself marvelling at how closely everything Webb was describing resembled what happened during the crypto carnage of 2022-23, when hapless users who had deposited their crypto with exchanges found their assets rehypothecated, collaterized – even appropriated from under them.

It drove home the lesson, hard.

READ MORE HERE

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

About the Author: Patriotman

Patriotman currently ekes out a survivalist lifestyle in a suburban northeastern state as best as he can. He has varied experience in political science, public policy, biological sciences, and higher education. Proudly Catholic and an Eagle Scout, he has no military experience and thus offers a relatable perspective for the average suburban prepper who is preparing for troubled times on the horizon with less than ideal teams and in less than ideal locations. Brushbeater Store Page: http://bit.ly/BrushbeaterStore

One Comment

  1. Paulo December 24, 2023 at 11:01

    Capitalism Defined
    Capitalism is merely an economic system based on private ownership, control, and operation of the means of production and their beneficial use.

    “Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production”
    “Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned.”

    In these two definitions we see the means is privately owned and what may be produced is also privately owned.

    A typical definition that shows bias and prejudice departing from individual rights and attempting to demonize capitalism includes:

    “Capitalism” is “the name for the capitalist mode of production in which the means of production are owned privately by a small class (the bourgeoisie) who profits off the labor of the working class (the proletariat).”
    “Capitalism: A socio-economic system based especially on private ownership of the means of production and the exploitation of the labor force.”

    These bias definitions try to add a narrative, conclusion, or attribute that is added to the basic definition distorting it’s original meaning.

    Milton Friedman – Donahue interview clip where Donahue speaks of Capitalism does not “reward virtue” while the modern Socialism forbids the reward of virtue. The full interview is at Roots of the Welfare State. 2:30 minutes
    Milton Friedman explained that “History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition.”

    Capital
    Before the term capitalism existed a capitalist was an owner of capital which meant wealth in the form of “real money” or other assets owned by an individual.

    Capital was derived from a word meaning livestock counted by the “head” which was a way of counting wealth. In the 1800’s it was typically cash or liquid assets being held or obtained for expenditures. Cash did not include notes but only real money of “present value”. A note, pledge or promise would not be considered true capital and should be at least categorized under Karl Marx’s “Fictitious capital”[2]

    Karl Marx’s bitterness lead him to write, “Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.” But the truth is capital allows the poor to store wealth for themselves as well as others.

    Not an -ism
    Some complain about Capitalism because it is an “-ism” as if some how that discredits. This is often people with an attitude of jealousy or superiority. That negative ideas connected to an “-ism” is usually a projection of their own prejudice at best or ignorance or both.

    But considering the concerted effort to demonize the base element we may identify as Capitalism it may be important to briefly address this perception.

    What is an -ism?

    The use of the suffix “-ism” is said to mean “a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.”

    While capitalism the distinct practice of recognizing the individual has it does not seem to include system, or definable philosophy and is not political nor artistic. movement.”

    True Christianity is “a distinctive practice”. It would have to be void of any covetous practices that might infringe upon “private ownership, control, and operation of the means of production and their beneficial use” which is the original base definition of capitalism. There is no cause or theory

    In its Interest at:
    Prepariingyou.com

    “Seek and you shall find”

    “Every man to his family and his possessions”

Comments are closed.

GUNS N GEAR

Categories

Archives