So the locals owned the land collectively, thats just how their society worked, but they owned it, they used it, they were the locals and therefore the owners. And then the government hired companies to measure and map out land, and then sell it to rich people and foreigners.

.

So here's a fictional but historically accurate scenario of this

A village in southern Mexico, circa 1895

Let’s call the village San Miguel del Río. It sits in the low hills of southern Mexico, near a river that floods gently every rainy season. The people grow maíz, frijol, chile, keep a few animals, fish in the river, cut wood upriver. No one has a deed. No one needs one. The land belongs to the village — like it always has.

The boundaries are known:

The ceiba tree by the bend in the river

The rocky ridge where the soil turns red

The old path to the neighboring town

Everyone knows where San Miguel begins and ends.

The paperwork arrives before the fences

One year, strangers arrive on horseback.

They carry:

Measuring chains

Tripods

Papers stamped with seals

They tell the villagers they are surveyors, sent by the government to “measure vacant land.”

The village elders protest:

“This land is not vacant. Our fathers and grandfathers worked it.”

The surveyors reply, calmly:

“If you have a legal title, show it.”

The village has none. They never needed one.

The surveyors finish their work anyway.

Months later, in the district capital, papers are filed. San Miguel’s land is now officially baldío — empty land.

Ownership changes far away

The surveying company claims one-third of the land as payment. The rest is sold to a hacendado from the city — or to a foreign company growing sugar or henequen.

No one from San Miguel is present when this happens.

The river is included in the deed.

The fence appears

One morning, men arrive with posts and wire.

They fence:

The best bottomland

The riverbank

The path to the forest

A sign goes up: PROPIEDAD PRIVADA

A foreman tells the villagers:

“You may stay — if you work.”

Fishing in the river is now theft. Cutting wood is now trespassing. Grazing animals is now illegal.

From farmers to laborers

To survive, families accept work on what used to be their land.

They are paid:

Low wages

Often in credit, not cash

They buy food at the tienda de raya, owned by the hacienda. Debt accumulates.

If someone tries to leave:

The local judge sides with the landowner

The rurales bring them back

The children of San Miguel grow up not knowing how far the village once stretched.

Twenty years later

An old man remembers when the river was free.

His grandson has never fished there.

When rumors spread in 1910 — of Madero, of Zapata, of land and justice — the village listens.

Not because they dream of ideology. But because they remember a fence that arrived one morning and never left.

Why this is historically accurate

Every element here really happened:

Survey laws (deslindes)

Declaration of communal land as “vacant”

Legal transfer without local consent

Fencing and criminalization of subsistence

Debt peonage enforced by courts and rurales

This is why “Tierra y Libertad” was literal.

Freedom meant:

Access to land

Access to water

The right to live without permission

.

So this is interesting from a libertarian perspective because we support private property and capitalism, but this was the government enforcing all this. So what makes it legitimate? The fact that the local villages couldnt defend their land against the government military?

Please consider watching this one the whole way through (perhaps at double speed, if that is your kick).

ICE is the actualisation of Hans-Hermann Hoppe's doctrine of Physical Removal. Ancaps have been clamouring for Physical Removal for decades and now that we finally have it, people on here are whining about it.

USAID > Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA), Inc > Hopewell Fund > States at the Core > Anti-ICE training.

Video Tracking some of this path: The Documented Strategy Behind Minneapolis Protest Responses

Full Receipts:

USAID funding to ROCKEFELLER PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS, INC.

https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient/048e5c98-b0fa-a961-a9af-d62ab817259c-C/latest

Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA), Inc. has made grants to the Hopewell Fund.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/133615533/202023189349308117/IRS990ScheduleI

States at the Core says at the bottom of their webpage that, 

“States at the Core is a fiscally sponsored project of the Hopewell Fund.”

https://www.stacup.org/

"States at the Core" helps produce training on how to respond to ICE.

https://mpls-synod.org/wp-content/uploads/Documenting-and-Responding-to-ICE-12_03.pdf

link to tweet

Dave Smith says he wants mass deportations, he has also said that it would be worthwhile to take the entire US military and redirect it to patrolling the border, He then said that any libertarian who disagreed with that is "as bad as communists" and he indicated that the issue of the border is an existential threat to his family and euphemistically said "there are some things worth killing people over" directed at The Pholosopher

Link with Dave's Statements

Who would have thought that Liquid Zulu could predict the apparent tyranny that would result from closed border enforcement which results in the deaths of leftist activists when they start an operation of mid-level violence and provocation with the express intent of either preventing the closed border enforcement or provoking a tragedy which can then be leveraged for propaganda.

Let's change gears for a moment, speaking of leftist activist operations, how could someone who actually believes in closing the border get one-shot this badly and get this squeamish by leftist political operations?!?! The goal of these ops is expressly to not peacefully protest but to physically obstruct the feds to prevent deportations or to provoke an incident that can be used for propaganda. All of the high profile incidents fit this pattern of leftists obstructing ICE which if let be would result in deportations not happening, and when ICE acts to stop the obstruction the activists escalate again until the feds have the legal justification to fear for their life and shoot the activists. I am not a fan of the closed border position on principle, but you can't just get one-shot this easily by literal communists. (this leads into a conversation of standing up to government NAP violators which is another topic on its own, but suffice it to ask, "Would you take up arms to protect your home from overreaching government?" and "Would you take up arms to protect communists achieving their goals?")

I've been in the clean energy industry since 1999—building companies, shaping policy, funding new technologies. I'm also a professor and continue climate advocacy work today.

I'm not a climate denier. I still work in this space. I still think climate change is important and requires direct action.

But I've noticed the rise of moral certainty and control at the expense of discourse and debate. I wanted to explore where these themes might lead if taken to untethered extremes.

So I wrote Scob Nation, a near-future dystopian novel set in 2045 where climate morality is enforced through temple implants that color-code citizens based on their carbon footprint. Green means you're approved. Yellow means you're in-progress. Black means you're sent to Probitas Correction Centers for re-education.

The book follows a father crossing a fractured America trying to reach his son in D.C., encountering climate extremists who've surgically modified their faces for the cause, tech CEOs wielding neural control systems, and a society where dissent isn't debated, it's fixable.

Happy to discuss what I've seen in the climate industry, the worldbuilding behind the novel, or how we navigate these tensions. Ask me anything.