Topple the Tyrants Sequestrate Gadaffi Towers

As predicted, or at least recommended here, valiant Squatters have occupied one of the most conspicuous Gadaffi properties in London on behalf of the Libyan people. And already the bitching has started from the Property Worshippers online and in the push media. (links available on request).

Their cry of 'They're breaking the law!' really shows their true colours, valuing property above freedom as it implicitly does, and is in effect merely a nice way of hiding a belief in slavery, which the current economic law still endorses. But what else is to be expected? Fundamentalist Consumerism bred Ghadaffi and his kind, and so it shouldn't be surprising when Consumerists leap to the defence of his soft-furnishings and right to spend his wealth as and where he wishes.

The propaganda benefits of the action are immense. Surely there will be a Topple the Tyrants TV station within 7 days, if Ghadaffi's henchmen can be kept away. If they can't, and there is an attempted forced eviction, prepare to see a mass defence of the squat - which will be an interesting trial of Values, and all televised from the inside, which would be a focus for global TV attention.

If this sequestration of the ill-gotten gains of a murderous dictator is wrong, then the theft of the funds of a union for representing the interests of its members is also wrong. Especially since the same core values are being fought for by the union and the people of Libya (as the message of support from Bengazi to the Wisconsin workers shows). Needless to say, the orthodox consumerist line is to defend the dictator and attack the union. 

There seems to be a general consensus that Gadaffi's bank accounts should be frozen, and some have. But what is the difference between freezing his property assets and freezing his bank accounts? You can object to both, or neither, but you can't have it both ways, as many are trying to. A Dictator's Hampstead Home is Not HIS Castle, it belongs to the Libyan people, and now cannot be sold. The Squat secures the asset for the Libyan people. But still the dogma keeps reappearing that squatting is theft (whatever that is now). But even if it was, it is teenage shoplifting compared with the monstrous corporate theft of social housing which was the Right To Buy selloff, which was on a par with the 'sale' of the Russian gas industry for 1 dollar and which reduced many young people to squatting as a means of finding a roof.

Again the Consumerist media are forced to reveal the true priorities of the market. Their view is that Ghadaffi Mansions are the sacred property of the Ghadaffi Clan. End of Story. How can it be Ghadaffi's property? Just by paying for it with money like every gangster with a drum on the Costa? Gadaffi doesn't have any property rights. Stolen property is not owned by the thief. His Hampstead hideaway was bought with money stolen from the people of Libya, and the only reason not to occupy it is in deference to his power and ruthlessness. Or, as the apologists would say, all money is good, no matter how blood-soaked, which makes all the moral posing about 'laws and norms of behaviour' look like the ravings of the terminally indoctrinated.
The squatters aren't indoctrinated, they are merely exhibiting natural human morality, not the tribal control mechanism of property rights, a position which comes naturally to them because of a broader perception of modern political realities. They are better informed, and more moral than the property laws as a result, no matter how many Millionaire Birdcages they turn into community centres and creches.

But the main point, which those crying crocodile tears for the Libyan people while defending their murderers bank balance do not get, is to prevent the sale of the property by Gadaffi to help finance his bloodbath. It is one less asset he can liquidate. Everyone's happy except him and the property fundamentalists. The hope is that many other global gangsters will wake up soon to find their luxury pads overrun with determined reclaimers. It could become very popular, in the current climate.