THE SIMILARITIES BEEN THE LAW OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND THE EXPROPRIATION ACT 

Land ownership among the areas targeted by globalists. And the first thing to note is that it must never be lost on us how intrinsic the weaponisation and corruption of the law is to globalists in pursuit of the areas that they have targeted. And this is no different when it comes to considerations of land ownership. The second thing to note is how almost uniform the efforts at weaponising and corrupting the law are. For instance, what many were talking about earlier this year, is how the Expropriation Act in South Africa would allow the South African government to take property from especially farmers in the vague claim of it being used for “public interests”.

And, in essence, the Expropriation Act of 2024 provides a legal framework for the government to acquire private property for public purposes or in the public interest, including allegedly land reform. It replaces the previous Expropriation Act of 1975 and is said to align the process of expropriation with the South African Constitution. The Act further outlines procedures for expropriation, compensation, and also dispute resolution. The Act also allows for compensation when property is expropriated for public purposes or in the public interest. It mandates that compensation must be “just and equitable”; and this means that the amount of compensation should be fair to both the property owner and the public. And then finally, the Act also outlines the process for determining and paying compensation, including negotiation and, if necessary, court proceedings.

Here’s what is entailed in the American doctrine or law of eminent domain. First, protecting property rights of individuals was a central part of the founding father’s goals when creating the United States government and the courts have routinely ruled that due process of law is required before a person can be deprived of either life, liberty or property.

Nevertheless, pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the US government can acquire real and personal belongings of a citizen for public purpose and the person should be provided just compensation. ANd you find this in the case of Dowling v. City of Barberton, 2008. And the Fifth Amendment’s public use clause is applicable to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment Clause, BUT the taking of property for private purpose remains very much unconstitutional.

In addition, eminent domain laws are created by the federal and state legislatures. Courts have the power to judicially review the acquisition of land. However, if there are no arbitrary and unreasonable decisions, courts cannot interfere in the decisions of the legislature. This can also be found in the McCabe Petroleum Corp. v. Easement & Right-Of-Way Across case in 2004. But also, the legislatures can delegate the power of eminent domain to agencies for public purposes.

Ultimately, this is to say that, based on the American doctrine of eminent domain, the State can take one’s property without his/her consent under the doctrine of Eminent Domain; and eminent domain is the power possessed by governments to take over the private property of a person without his/her consent. In addition, the government can only acquire private lands if it is reasonably shown that the property is to be used for public purposes only – but, generally, federal, state, and local governments can (in fact)  seize people’s homes under eminent domain laws as long as the property owner is compensated at fair market value. THEREFORE, the Expropriation Act does not sound at all different from the doctrine of eminent domain – except that the Exproporation Act was presented as having a secondary aim of serving restorative justice, while primarily being a dispossession tool for the government.

MONEY, EVEN AT MARKET VALUE, IS NOT COMMENSURATE TO “JUST COMPENSATION”

This idea that money serves as just compensation is so narrow minded in conversations on wealth, land ownership and just compensation because currency money is either not backed by anything or highly susceptible to politicised fluctuations, while immovable property like land and houses (on the other hand) are far more valuable, often with an increasing value.

And so, when these laws were being crafted, I do not think that nuances on the value of land in comparison to money were adequately considered, as far as just compensation is considered. In fact, this is a massive consideration even in cases of restorative justice, when we are correcting the ills of historical injustices – and not just when the state wants to take your farm to build a coal reactor. Ultimately, land is not just like any other asset; its value and utility often far surpasses money for the owner: it is about generational history, it is about autonomy and ownership, it is about economic growth potential that can be created, and even that far surpasses the value of the land itself – and all of this does not appear to be adequately captured through notions of market value and currency payments.

THE SIMILARITIES BEEN THE LAW OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND THE EXPROPRIATION ACT 

But now, my aim in drawing these similarities between the law or doctrine of eminent domain and the expropriation nAct is to demonstrate that, ultimately, it all comes back to the point I kept on emphasising earlier this year; which is that while we are busy focusing on race, we miss the bigger discussions, which are tied to the dispossession of land for everyone – period. Because the open ended “public interest” justification for the law of imminent domain which is exactly the same in the Expropriation Act, can easily be abused or appropriated for diabolical agendas. And so, racial divides were a distraction!

Globalists knew the frustrations of black South Africans who desired restorative justice, and they knew the fear of dispossession in farmers who require land to make a living – and so, compounding on these concerns and weaponising them against the people creates the perfect distraction, because you have black people who double down on having the South African government enact the Land Expropriation Bill, while farmers claim they are being slaughtered on a whim and begging for refugee status. But, in actual fact, all that happened is that farmers left South Africa to escape a law that can create a justification for land expropriation, all to go to a country that has the same law in a different name. The same law that globalists can weaponise against anyone.

MAUI AND CALIFORNIA: THE ABUSES OF THE EXPROPRIATION POWERS BY THE GOVERNMENT

Now, to double down on the argument that laws like the law of eminent domain and the expropriation act are a conduit for dispossession of land and property, I would like to make reference to specific cases – beginning with Maui. Mere days after wildfires tore through Maui in 2023 and leveled the historic town of Lahaina, community organisers warned that longtime residents were vulnerable to predatory land grabs. And they were right. As search and rescue teams painstakingly combed through the scorched ruins, survivors began receiving texts, voice messages, and letters from speculators and realtors offering to buy their burnt-out homes.

The Lahaina fire killed 100 people and razed 1,200 buildings, mostly residential properties, displacing around 11,000 residents, mostly working-class families. The trauma was compounded by a stark financial reality: most homeowners were underinsured, and many still had mortgages to pay on houses that would take several years to rebuild. Some survivors lost their homes and jobs, and found themselves stuck in hotels unable to find affordable long-term rentals as tourists returned to the island. Fema asked survivors whether they’d consider moving off island, which many found deeply offensive and insensitive. But, here’s a recapitulation of those events.

But desperate people are sometimes coerced to do desperate things – which is why investors often swoop in after major disasters like fires and hurricanes. Communities end up excluded from reconstruction plans, and old residents get priced out as neighborhoods are gentrified or transformed in some other irrevocable way. Again, it is also during these times that Maui residents reported receiving unsolicited offers from real estate investors and speculators, often described as predatory, to purchase their burned-out properties at below-market prices. For example, Maui resident Goldean Lowe received multiple emails from investors, one suggesting she “abandon” her community for cash, despite her home being outside the fire zone. Another resident, Deborah Loeffler, whose Lahaina home was destroyed, dismissed similar offers, emphasising her commitment to rebuilding the community.

Such tactics obviously exploit the emotional and financial vulnerability of survivors, many of whom face mortgages on now-unlivable properties and lack the resources to rebuild. But, in addition to all of this, the concern of a land grab was further amplified by Hawaii’s history of land loss, particularly since the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom by American and foreign businessmen, which stripped Native Hawaiians of political and economic power.

So, here’s where the opportunity for dispossession comes in; and it is in the immediate question that is often asked following mass devastation in cases Maui; and this question is: what will happen to the land where the devastation took place?

Herein enters the simmering dispossessive plans of the WEF. And in essence, Hawaii became a subject among the cabal-linked figures of the WEF. For instance, in 2018, the WEF released an article on their website, titled “How Hawaii plans to be the first US state to run entirely on clean energy”. The article details plans to cut the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, the launching of the clean energy initiative in 2008, which pledges to establish new green credentials and aims to use 100% renewable electricity to power the entire state by 2045.

In addition, there were talks from the Hawaii Governor about the incorporation of AI into the running of the state: from its uses in monitoring and in the administering of government duties. And so, it sounds like Hawaii was long being conditionalised to function as a smart city, in collaboration with the State. Well, when a highly artificial fire breaks out and destroys a portion of the Island that has resisted land grabs, and residents start receiving calls and texts with offers to sell, it sounds like a way of removing resistance from residents, so the expropriation of that land takes place with ease, and the market value payment seems justified. Ergo, the abuse of eminent domain.

Well, perhaps this sounds like a far-fetched conclusion from someone who does not know the nuances of Hawaii’s history and laws. But, then why is the same thing happening in California in light of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s SB549 bill? After the Pacific Palisades Fire, Newsom signed SB 549, letting LA County buy scorched land cheaply, despite promises to homeowners that no government-led land grabs would happen.

Doubling-down on this, Actor turned conservative activist Mel Gibson has accused California Governor Gavin Newsom of Maui-Style land grab in the Pacific Palisades. Gibson says Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass are plotting to displace locals and “reimagine” California neighborhoods, just like what happened in Maui. He is thus calling for a federal investigation into Newsom’s $40 BILLION funding request, warning that the Palisades and Altadena are next, and that this all happening while no one is asking the people before wiping them off the map – again, proving that this is about dispossession, and not about just considerations or compensation. This is about erasure, control, and profit.

Then there is the climate change agenda, and how the Biden-Harris administration tried to use it as a justification for eminent domain application. We saw this with the Pipeline in Iowa, and similar cases.

THE PRESENCE OF SOCIALIST INCLINATIONS PROVES NOT ALL LAND REFORM IS FOR YOUR GOOD

Now, it is also important to show why certain pronouncements of land reform are based on socialist inclinations, as opposed to a focus on restorative justice or just compensation. And for this, we have to talk a bit about the EFF in the South African context, especially now that the white genocide claims have subsided a bit. And this discussion is both to articulate why the EFF’s ideology is not popular among the majority of South Africans; but also to warn South Africans and nations debating land reform about dispossession dressed as equitable distribution.

So, what is the socialist model for land distribution, and by extension the EFF’s model for land distribution? First, socialists generally critique private land ownership, arguing it concentrates wealth and power, enabling exploitation and inequality. They often view land as a common resource that should be collectively managed or publicly owned to serve the ever-vaguely defined societal interests, and not individual profit. In addition, many socialists also advocate abolishing private land ownership entirely, replacing it with communal or state control. Others, like democratic socialists, support reforms such as land nationalisation, or heavy taxation on large estates (and here you could think of the UK’s inheritance tax on farms as an example).

But, this does not sound like justice, rather it sounds like dispossession dressed as progress: it is the proverbial trojan horse of land reform policies. But, that is ALWAYS the point with socialism. It preys on the socio-economic vulnerabilities of people, all to try to usher in policies that concentrate more power in the state, at the expense of private property rights. And yet, the erosion of free speech, and private property rights is one of the indicators of the workings of anti-Christ spirits!

And so, this is a warning to those who have ignored the socialist inclinations behind certain land reform policies. That is where “you will own nothing and be happy: comes from. That is where the EFF”s so-called land reform policies are also from.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso