It’s impossible to deny. This is exactly the program being run. The Irish have no clue. This also may be the origin of the Problem, Reaction, Solution socio-political-aphorism.
Notable “Housing For All”, the “housing crisis” is manufactured by State Action, we know this, it’s documented, it is a matter of reported fact. They are now moving into the kill or solution phase.
Their “strategy” to implement political crisis to achieve a guaranteed annual income was published in the May 2, 1966 of The Nation, a leading liberal political and cultural magazine. In this publication, their main goal to achieve the crisis was to have “a massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls.” A federal program to administer these large welfare programs would be needed. This is because if it is administered locally, there would be lower enrollment because “the poor are most visible and proximate in the local community; antagonism toward them has always, therefore, been more intense locally than at the federal level.”
This means that if there was more oversight at the local level it would not allow the welfare rolls to increase to the levels needed to cause a financial crisis. Therefore, their solution was to move programs to Washington D.C. where people are not as aware of the costs and oversight of the programs.
The strategy also rejected that a person could overcome poverty through any “institution of private enterprise”, signaling that hard work, education, and personal responsibility are not a solution to poverty. Their only solution is a “federal program of income redistribution” to “elevate the poor en- masse from poverty.”
… The solution of a guaranteed income to end poverty also must be free from any sort of conditions, like work requirements. They say, “conditional benefits result in violations of civil liberties throughout the nation, and in a pervasive oppression of the poor.” So, according to them, not only are people entitled to other people’s money, there can be no conditions on that. Under this logic, **they are entitled to the coercive taking of others money because they exist.**Cloward and Piven also stress the importance of marketing these benefits to the masses.
The Cloward-Piven strategy also stresses that any removal of benefits should require stringent legal review. The benefits should require administrative hearings with additional court hearings to place barriers to the removal of benefits once received. They hypothesized that lawyers could “be recruited on a voluntary basis, especially under the banner of a movement to end poverty by a strategy of asserting legal rights.” Enter the ACLU.
The liberal strategy calls for a “climate of militancy” that would overcome attitudes of being on welfare. They state that “as the crisis develops, it will be important to use the mass media to inform the broader liberal community about the inefficiencies and injustices of welfare.” The liberal infestation of mainstream media has occurred.
Read below in the context of Housing, it’s as plain as day., but you can also see it in all the other area but Housing is their big Wedge for total domination - Globalist Regime are at step 3 on the way to 4:
The four steps of the Cloward-Piven Strategy:
- Overload and Break the Welfare System
- Have Chaos Ensue
- Take Control in the Chaos
- Implement Socialism and Communism through Government Force
Strategy
Cloward and Piven’s article is focused on forcing the Democratic Party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of the United States Congress, to take federal action to help the poor. They stated that full enrollment of those eligible for welfare “would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments” that would: “…deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas.”[2]
They further wrote:
The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.[2]
Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven “proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system – by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice – that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy.”[3]