US Federal Prison Ordered By Trump To Prepare For 23 “High Security Political Defendants”


WhatDoesItMean
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

An intriguing Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that the unprecedented “grouping/converging” of US Marshals Service-Eastern District of Pennsylvania (USMS-EDP) agents in Philadelphia and Washington D.C. this past week was due to President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) “informing/notifying” the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to prepare for at least 23 “high security political defendants” being placed in theFederal Detention Center (FDC) located in Philadelphia—one of whom the SVR believes will be Hillary Clinton. [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]

According to this report, while the US mainstream propaganda media this past week was being consumed by their “Russia hysteria” meme against President Trump that has led to a $150 million “kill contract” being put on his life, and whom had just fired his leftist-leaning Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey, SVR intelligence analysts were reporting that a team of FBI agents and US Department of Justice prosecutors had just returned from Bangladesh where they had secured under oath testimony from Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina confirming Hillary Clinton’s criminality.

Read further…

..

#IMF pushing for a revolution?


ArmstrongEconomics

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is always the cheerleader to raise taxes to support government they are instructing Germany to raise taxes and also talking about just imposing a 10% tax on all money on deposit in banks throughout Europe. Yes – you read that one correctly.

The IMF has told Germany it should raise its property tax, cut social welfare contributions and invest more to reduce income inequality. The demands are contentious in an election year. Once again the IMF has demanded higher taxes on savings deposits in Germany. Germany must do more for to raise taxes to impose more socialistic ideals to somehow tax the rich to create a broader participation of all citizens in the fruits of economic growth, if somehow raising taxes actually ever creates economic growth. The IMF warns that there is a relatively high tax burden on lower incomes with a comparatively low burden on assets.

The IMF argues for higher taxes on property are in fact necessary and that the government should demand higher wages to also give impetus to the growth in Germany, yet this is magically creating no inflationary impact. Years ago, Italy simply imposed a tax on money in one’s account. This was called a “capital levy”. This was a one-time charge as an exceptional measure to restore the sustainability of the debt. The IMF is also suggesting that measure be invoked to help the coming Sovereign Debt Crisis. The attractiveness of such a measure is that such a one-time tax can be levied before a tax evasion can even occur, especially if cash is eliminated and money can only exist in bank accounts. This requires the belief that this measure is unique and never repeated.

The IMF has already calculated how much the measure would cost every Eurozone citizen:

“The amount of the tax would have to bring the European sovereign debt back to the pre-crisis level. In order to reduce the debt to the level of 2007 (for example in the euro area countries), a tax of about 10 percent is needed for households with a positive asset. “

As you can see, there is NEVER any discussion about reducing taxes or the size of government. The solution is always to raise taxes and to not even look at the old Italian trick of a 10% seizure of all cash in your account. We highly recommend to diversify to assets that are MOVABLE and not subject to taxation merely to possess.

..

Dark Web “Kill Order Contract” On President Donald Trump Issued For $150 Million


WhatDoesItMean

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

A stunning Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that after yesterday’s meeting between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and President Donald Trump, a “kill order contract” against America’s new leader appeared on the “dark web” offering a payment of 82,900 Bitcoin’s for Trump’s “murder/killing” by the end of this month—and with Bitcoin’s currently being valued at a little over $1,800, amounts to over $150 million being offered for the assassination of an American president. [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]

According to this report (and virtually unknown to most people), internet search engines (Google, Baidu, Wolframalpha, Yandex, etc.), only show about 1% of what’s actually available online, with the vast majority of websites being found in the “deep web—and which the “dark web” is a smaller subset of, uses masked IP address and needs specialized browsers to access—and is occupied by vast international crime organizations and state-actor intelligence services.

Though not conclusively proved, this report continues, SVR intelligence analysts believe that this “kill order contract” offered against President Trump is from Deep State” conspirators in the United States at war with their new leader—who became incensed after President Trump fired one of their main anti-Trump-“Russian hysteria” commanders, former FBI Director James Comey, and less than 24 hours later, hosted two of Russia’s top diplomats in his White House Oval Office.

FBI Director Comey, this report explains, was the American “Deep State” commander who was tasked with creating, and perpetuating, the false “Russian hysteria” meme against President Trump by using what is now called the “Trump Russia Dossier”—that has been revealed to be a completely made up document created by an American political opposition research company named Fusion GPS and paid for by as yet unidentified Hillary Clinton supporters.

Written entirely by an ex-MI6 (British intelligence) operative named Christopher Steele for the Hillary Clinton campaign he claimed “would sway the election against Trump”, this report says, the “Trump Russia Dossier” was so fabricated out of nonsense that the American magazine Newsweek cited a CIA operation who said “it’s hokey as hell” and one of the most esteemed US journalists, Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, called it “garbage.

Shockingly though, this report notes, FBI Director Comey used this “hokey as hell garbage” “Trump Russia Dossieras evidence he presented to what is called a FISA Court in order to obtain a warrant to listen into and record the phone conversations of then candidate Trump and all of his associates—and that then President Barack Obama signed an extraordinary Executive Order to unmask the names of, distribute throughout the entire “Deep State” apparatus, and then leak to the mainstream propaganda press in order to damage the reputation of Trump.

Equally as astounding (and illegal) as his presenting this “hokey as hell garbage” to a US Federal Court as “evidence” of anything, this report continues, FBI Director Comey even attempted to pay the ex-MI6 operative Christopher Steele another $50,000 of US taxpayer money to continue this “cascade of lies—but that Steele never accepted because of his knowing he made up everything contained in the “Trump Russia Dossier.

While the totally made up “Trump Russia Dossier” was being exposed as a lie, however, this report further explains, FBI Director Comey, again operating for the “Deep State”, added another layer of falsehoods to the “Russia hysteria” movement against Trump by his proclaiming that Russia had hacked into the computer servers of Hillary Clinton and her Democratic Party.

Shockingly though, this report notes, in FBI Director Comey claiming that Russia had hacked into these servers he failed to provide any evidence—with his, instead, relying on a now discredited report prepared by a company controlled by Hillary Clinton named Crowdstrike who said they had discovered “proof” of Russian hacking.

With Hillary Clinton and her Democratic Party claiming that the FBI never even asked to examine the supposed Russian-hacked computers, and the FBI countering that it did ask to examine them but were denied, this report explains, the most crucial fact of this matter not being told to the American people by their propaganda mainstream media is that all of Crowdstrike’s claims of Russia hacking these computers have been discovered to be lies—and who are now, also, refusing to cooperate with the US Congress.

As every single, and absurd, claim that Russia interfered with the 2016 US presidential election now being exposed as completely 100% made up lies, this report says, one must then ask why the American mainstream propaganda media still perpetuates their “Deep State” masters “Russia hysteria” meme—and which SVR intelligence analysts state can only be understood by knowing the facts of Hillary Clinton’s communist mentor Saul Alinsky.

Saul Alinsky, this report explains, aside from being Hillary Clinton’s idol and mentor, is best known for his rule-book manifesto for the communist takeover of America titled “Rules For Radicals”—and whose Rule #13 is now being employed against President Trump and states: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it…cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy…go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

As being applied by the “Deep State” and its mainstream propaganda media sycophants, this report details, Alinsky’s Rule #13 using the FBI Director ComeyRussia hysteria” meme has, indeed, targeted, frozen, personalized and removed from sympathy among large numbers of the American populace President Trump—who on an hourly basis since his election has been the victim of the largest smear campaign ever instituted against an American president in that nations entire history—to include even the most shocking allegations of him lusting after his own daughter.

To the effect of Alinsky’s Rule #13 as used by the “Deep State” and FBI Director Comey’s Russia hysteria” meme, this report continues, it cannot be underestimated either as a new poll conducted by the Connecticut-based Quinnipiac University shows that “idiot, incompetent and liar” were the most commonly given answers when respondents were asked for the first word that comes to mind when they think about President Trump—with other less-than-flattering descriptors being “buffoon, con-man, clown, narcissistic, bigot and embarrassment”.

As to why the “Deep State” must destroy President Trump, this report explains, is due their communist-leftist economic model for America quickly failing and unable to be supported by the supposed to be president Hillary Clinton—and as evidenced by the stunning world-record $116 billion bankruptcy of the US territory Puerto Rico, the coming bankruptcy of the Connecticut State Capital—and the bankruptcies of Illinois and California now being imminent too.

Not being understood by the American people, SVR intelligence analysts in this report say, is that their present capitalist economy is incompatible with those of socialist-communist ideology—but in order to turn a democracy into a communist state where citizens are reduced to serfdom (enslavement) the health care systems must be nationalized—but will collapse the nation as Soviet Russia discovered.

In knowing this fact, this report continues, the failed attempt to nationalize the United States healthcare system through what is called Obamacare as a first step towards achieving true communist (elite) rule is why the “Deep State” must destroy President Trump—and why the end of this month is so critical as the “swamp continues to be drained”.

The reason this is so, this report explains, is due to what is called cost-sharing reduction payments (CSR’s) that the Obama regime used to pay insurance companies to subsidize their quickly failing nationalized health plan—and that President Obama had to pay for by stealing billons-of-dollars from his nations mortgage loan providers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac whose investors he defrauded.

Under the US Constitution, this report continues explaining, a US president (Executive Branch) is not allowed to spend any money not authorized by the US Congress (Legislative Branch)—and when the Obamacare nationalized health plan scheme was enacted, it failed to provide any money for these CSR payments to insurance companies.

So when President Obama began stealing money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to pay these insurance companies, this report notes, the US House of Representatives sued him in Federal Court—and where US Federal Judge Rosemary Collyer, of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled that the Obama regime was, indeed, violating the US Constitution in paying CSR’s to insurance companies.

Though the “Deep State” had fully expected Hillary Clinton to win the presidency, disregard the US Federal Court and continue paying these CSR’s in order to save Obamacare, this report says, upon President Trump assuming office he stated that he would not pay them, and sending the insurance companies into total panic—so much so, in fact, that US insurance giant Aetna just announced yesterday that it was leaving Obamacare after suffering loses between 2014-2017 of nearly $1 trillion.

To how completely bizarre, too, this “Deep State” war against President Trump over Obamacare has become, this report further notes, the US House of Representatives lawsuit against the Obama regime for illegally stealing money to pay for this communist health care scheme was titled “House v. Burwell” due to the Obama regimes Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Mathews Burwell being the named lead plaintiff, but has now been changed to “House v. Price” to reflect Tom Price now being Trump’s new Secretary of Health and Human Services—meaning, of course, that President Trump is now locked in an epic battle against his own Republican House over the failed Obamacare health scheme they’ve both vowed to destroy.

Shortly after taking power, though, this report details, both President Trump and the US House of Representatives requested that US Federal Judge Rosemary Collyer stay her ruling against that would destroy Obamacare once and for all—with their stating that they would return to her on 22 May to give her an update as to what they were going to do.

To solve what is truly the only real “Constitutional Crisis” now occurring in America, this report continues, President Trump and the US House of Representatives passed last week what is called the American Health Care Act—that would completely eliminate all cost-sharing reduction payments (CSR’s) to insurance companies thus allowing the “House v. Price” lawsuit to end as Obamacare would be destroyed—and that, also, completely defunds the genocidal black baby-killing organization know as Planned Parenthood.

With President Trump’s and the US House of Representatives American Health Care Act now needed to be passed by the US Senate, and signed by Trump, before it can be made into law, this report explains, if this is not accomplished by 22 May, Trump will most certainly tell his US Justice Department to accept US Federal Judge Rosemary Collyer’s ruling thus destroying Obamacare.

Therefore, this report concludes, not only President Trump, but, also, his “Deep State” enemies are locked in one of the most crucial battles in American history to see who will survive, with Trump’s firing of FBI Director Comey, and less than 24 hours later hosting top Russian officials in his White House Oval Office, proving that he won’t bow down and is unafraid—and with Foreign Minister Lavrov, perhaps, summing up the current state of the US mainstream propaganda media by his stating to them yesterday when asked about the “Russia hysteria” issue: “I can’t believe I’m being asked to answer such a question, especially in the US, where you have a sophisticated democratic political system”.


May 11, 2017 © EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked back to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.

..

…of Prince Philip, Puerto Rico and US bankruptcy


BenjaminFulford

It is time for Canadian LBO of bankrupt US Corporate government

Despite an ongoing pretense that nothing happened, it turns out the US corporate government based in Washington DC and registered in Puerto Rico really did go bankrupt last week. The bankruptcy of Puerto Rico is different from something like the bankruptcy of Detroit because Puerto Rico is a fully owned DC subsidiary and so the parent company must take the fall. This was why the Chinese Finance Minister suddenly canceled a meeting with his Japanese and South Korean counterparts last week because of a “financial emergency.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-adb-asia-trilateral-idUSKBN1802V2

This was also why the British Royal family held an emergency meeting last week at Buckingham Palace and then announced the retirement of Prince Philip.

Both emergency meetings had to do with the cashing of Super Petchili or Lung-Tsing-U-Hai bonds backed by Chinese gold and held by many members of the world’s royal families, according to a senior bank source. To be exact, according to this source, in exchange for resigning, Prince Philip was allowed to cash his Petchilis meaning the British Royal Family now has in its hands enough money to totally transform the planet.

If so, then this means Canada is now in a position to ask creditors of the bankrupt United States Corporation for financing of a leveraged buy-out of its operations. The result would be an end to the never ending insanity and criminality emerging out of Washington DC.

We will look deeper into this further down because, in terms of how this will affect the planet, this under the radar move is far more important than the French Presidential election. This was stolen by the Rothschild’s on behalf of their slave Emmanuel Macron with a in your face, Satanic 66.06% of the vote.

The French election was really a German/Russian proxy war over the control of Europe. US naval intelligence reports that German troops were sent into France prior to the election to while Pentagon sources say Russian troops were sent into Serbia at around the same time.

As things stand now, Hitler’s daughter Angela Merkel has repeated her father’s accomplishment of conquering France, this time through stealth rather than through open warfare.

Regardless though, Japanese military intelligence is now saying that defeated French presidential candidate Marine le Pen was in fact…

to be continued

..

The Myth of the Rule of Law


MisesInstitute

by

Any state, no matter how powerful, cannot not rule solely through the use of brute force. There are too few rulers and too many of us for coercion alone to be an effective means of control. The political class must rely on ideology to achieve popular compliance, masking the iron fist in a velvet glove. Violence is always behind every state action, but the most efficient form of expropriation occurs when the public believes it is in their interest to be extorted.

Mythology is necessary to blunt the violent nature of state power in order to maximize the plunder of property — and, most importantly, provide an aura of legitimacy. The perception of legitimacy “is the only thing distinguishing a tax collector from an extortionist, a police officer from a vigilante, and a soldier from a mercenary. Legitimacy is an illusion in the mind without which the government does not even exist.”1

State authority, and public obedience to it, is manufactured through smokescreens of ideology and deception. These myths sustain the state and offer an illusion of legitimacy, where orders, no matter how immoral or horrific, are followed because they are seen as emanating from a just authority. The state cannot implement violence against everyone everywhere and overwhelm the host, so the battle is waged against the hearts and minds of the public. Fear is exploited, language is distorted, and propaganda is spread, while narratives and history are tightly controlled. The gulag of state power, first and foremost, always exists in the mind.

If the mythology of state power is smashed, then the state is exposed for what it is: institutionalized violence, expropriator of the peaceful and productive, and entirely illegitimate.

The Myth of the Rule of Law

In order for a society to have peace and order, there needs to be a set of largely uniform and neutral laws in which the vast majority of the public agree are fair and just. Throughout the history of Western law, a decentralized process of trial-and-error, competing courts, and private arbitration achieved these rules. A monopoly power was not necessary, nor desirable. Before the rise of the modern bureaucratic, democratic nation-state, the monarch was the symbol of monopolistic order, and his power consisted mostly in enforcing the private common-law tradition that had already developed over centuries.2

Eventually, the nation-state model we see today grew and absorbed this decentralized tradition into a monolithic, top-down coercive regime imposed by legislatures, state police, and bureaucracies. The “rule of law” became the propaganda term used to justify this radical departure from the Western tradition of common-law and private arbitration. The law was now political in nature, subject to the usual array of corruption and disincentives inherent in any political order. With the monopoly state now in charge of law, the idea that a coercively imposed system of justice — in which everyone is governed by neutral rules that are objectively applied by judges — became a powerful myth for states to exert control over society.

As a myth, however, the concept of the rule of law is both powerful and dangerous. Its power derives from its great emotive appeal. The rule of law suggests an absence of arbitrariness, an absence of the worst abuses of tyranny. The image presented by the slogan “America is a government of laws and not people” is one of fair and impartial rule rather than subjugation to human whim. This is an image that can command both the allegiance and affection of the citizenry. After all, who wouldn’t be in favor of the rule of law if the only alternative were arbitrary rule? But this image is also the source of the myth’s danger. For if citizens really believe that they are being governed by fair and impartial rules and that the only alternative is subjection to personal rule, they will be much more likely to support the state as it progressively curtails their freedom.

The rule of law, imposed by the state, is simply a myth. There is no such thing as “a government of laws and not people.” Legislative edicts are always subject to the biases and agendas of those who interpret them, and will be imposed in this manner by whoever currently wields the power of the monopoly state over society.

For example, despite the US Constitution’s very clear language in most of its passages (there are some dangerously vague sections, of course), the most trained and brilliant legal minds can come to completely opposite conclusions over the exact same clause. Whether it is a particular amendment in the Bill of Rights or the particular language of executive or legislative power, a liberal and conservative judge could use sound reasoning and cite historical precedent to make their case — and they would both be right. “[B]ecause the law consists of contradictory rules and principles,” argues John Hasnas, “sound legal arguments will be available for all legal conclusions, and hence, the normative predispositions of the decision makers, rather than the law itself, determine the outcome of cases.”

The law, then, is not a neutral body of rules to help keep order and govern society; it is merely an opinion with a gun. Whenever the state is in charge of anything, the outcomes, process, and administration are always political in nature. There can never be a system of definite, consistent rules that produce determinate results because these laws, no matter how they are written, will always be subjected to the biases, prejudices, and discrimination of those who interpret and enforce them.

The idea that the law is not neutral or determinant is not a revolutionary doctrine and should not be entirely shocking. Over a century ago, former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued that certainty in law is an illusion; judicial decisions rely more on the language of logic than they do on objective enforcement. Since at least the 1970s, the Critical Legal Studies movement has recognized this, and even they are just reviving the legal realists who made these same insights decades before them. The idea of determinate law is actually an undesirable feature — even if we were to overcome the impossibility of making it so — as the strength of an effective legal system lies in its ability to have certain amounts of flexibility. This is why the decentralized, private law tradition was able to produce several codes of uniform laws — do not murder, steal, assault, or initiate aggression in general — while providing the room to adapt to social change and distinct cultures.

When the law is under the dominion of a top-down, coercive state it is transformed from a system of governance to a body of expropriation. Whether through the use of logic or emotional appeals, whoever wields the state apparatus says what the law is and they will dispense their armed enforcers to make sure their law is fulfilled.

If an objective rule of law is impossible, then why does this myth persist? To ask the question is to answer it. “Like all myths,” notes Hasnas,

it is designed to serve an emotive, rather than cognitive, function. The purpose of a myth is not to persuade one’s reason, but to enlist one’s emotions in support of an idea. And this is precisely the case for the myth of the rule of law; its purpose is to enlist the emotions of the public in support of society’s political power structure.

If the public views the law as a neutral and objective arbiter, then they are more willing to support state power and its violent expropriation and parasitism. We are more willing to accept the comfortable delusion of objectivity and the need for predictable laws than deal with the frightening alternatives of supposedly unpredictable anarchy. “Once they believe that they are being commanded by an impersonal law rather than other human beings,” people “view their obedience to political authority as a public-spirited acceptance of the requirements of social life rather than mere acquiescence to superior power,” notes Hasnas. Tyrants of the past used to claim that their rule was inspired by Divine Right to mask the fact that their rule was an exercise of naked aggression over their subjects. When this doctrine became discredited, a new myth was needed, and the rule of law was born.

No matter how impossible the rule of law may be, the state has a heavy interest in promoting this myth.

Before the rise of legislative law, the private, decentralized, and polycentric common-law system was effective at promoting peace and public order because it lacked the monopoly power of a centralized state. Under both models, laws are never determinate or universally objective. But under a private law system, bad decisions that were not accepted by the public or viewed as overreaches could not be coercively imposed on society. This system of checks and balances allowed laws beneficial to the protection of private property to flourish while weeding out the bad laws.

Under a state system, however, it is much harder, if not impossible, to fix bad laws as there now exists a political incentive to keep the law on the books, while most judges serve lengthy or even life terms. If the judge, legislature, and police are all part of the state apparatus, they will tend to find expansive definitions for state power with limited definitions of individual freedoms.

“The myth of the rule of law does more than render the people submissive to state authority; it also turns them into the state’s accomplices in the exercise of its power,” concludes Hasnas. “For people who would ordinarily consider it a great evil to deprive individuals of their rights or oppress politically powerless minority groups will respond with patriotic fervor when these same actions are described as upholding the rule of law.” While the state does indeed provide some law and order under its jurisdiction, the “rule of law” has been used as a propaganda tool in order to help cement and legitimize state power.

 

..

Thousands Of German Troops Prepare To Enter France As EU Civil War Looms


WhatDoesItMean

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

An alarming Ministry of Defense (MoD) report circulating in the Kremlin today detailing the extended session of the Defence Ministry Board states that German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen has arrived in France just days prior to the 7 May presidential election in order to prepare up to 10,000 German Army (HEER) troops entering into this European Union (EU) nation in order to help  “reestablish normal public order” as fears rise that a continent-wide civil war against ruling elites may be looming.  [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]

 

The Same As It Ever Was

According to this report, in 2010, for the first time since the ending of World War II in 1945, German military troops became officially stationed in France—and where Defense Minster von der Leven has been rushed to in order to quell a right-wing uprising among her German Army’s officer corps battling against the Islamification of Europe, thus causing her to put on alert for “immediate combat deployment” her nations Division Schnelle Kräfte (Rapid Forces Division).

With up to 10,000 of these Division Schnelle Kräfte troops now being prepared to enter into France, this report continues, the greatest fears among the ruling EU elites is that no matter how this Sunday’s vote turns out, massive riots will erupt all across this embattled nation—with no one knowing which side the French Foreign Legion will take sides with as this military organization does not swear allegiance to France.

 

 

Pitted against each other in this Sunday’s election, this report details, is the elite leftist globalist banker Emmanuel Macron (whom it was just discovered has been involved in a massive tax avoidance scheme), and the populist-nationalist leader Marine Le Pen—who were both the top leaders in the first round of presidential voting, on 23 April, when Macron garnered 24.01% of the vote while Le Pen came in second place after receiving 21.30%.

With riots erupting all across France after Le Pen’s 23 April win, this report says, her winning the French presidency could very well engulf this entire nation in flames should she prevail on Sunday—but should Macron win, the entire European Union may be plunged into outright civil war as a shocking new poll has revealed that over half of the continents youth are now prepared to revolt against their elite globalist leaders.

 

Results from over 580,000 respondents in 35 countries to the European Union-sponsored survey titled “Generation What?

 

The ruling EU elites, this report explains, detest Le Pen because she has called to restore border controls immediately and to expel or detain all those suspected of being Islamic radicals from France—which is a position opposed by Germany’s communist leader Chancellor Angela Merkel who just today got Sweden to drop all of its border controls leading to fears of a new Muslim migrant rush towards that Nordic nation.

With Macron stating during yesterday’s fiery presidential debate that he would not close France’s borders against Islamic terrorist migrants, this report continues, Le Pen then warned the French people that her opponent was preparing to sell their nation off “piece by piece and grimly stated: “France will be led by a woman, me or Mrs. Merkel”.

 

 

Though the latest polls are showing that Macron will win the French election for his elite globalist EU backers, this report notes, the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom and President Donald Trump’s victory in America clearly prove that Western polling is more propaganda than prediction as neither of them were said have any change of winning by their elites—with the Russian people, who overwhelmingly supported both Brexit and Trump, being more accurate, and whom two-thirds of support Le Pen.

The populist-nationalist peoples in France, the UK and US who support Le Pen, Brexit and President Trump, this report concludes, are now, also, being labeled by their leftist-communist enemies as fascists deserving of death—and where in America today they are arming themselves for violence—and as evidenced by one such leftist group in the US called the Phoenix John Brown Gun Club who claim that they are “working to stem the tide of reactionary recruitment within white working class communities”, but in reality are training to unleash total civil war.


May 4, 2017 © EU and US all rights reserved.  Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked back to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.

..

How Government Literally Makes People Go Insane


TheDailyBell

By Joe Jarvis – May 07, 2017

The most effective way to change the world if you have kids is to treat them right. Everything could change in one generation if there were a radical shift in parenting.

Unfortunately, some indicators suggest things are getting worse. For instance, there has been an increase in kids hospitalized for attempted suicide or suicidal indicators.

Now we can just hope that parents are becoming more alert to the warning signs and are therefore properly identifying them early in order to prevent suicide.

But the most concerning thing is that these incidents tend to be concentrated at certain times of the year. One of the most likely times for a kid to need a hospital visit because of suicidal tendencies or attempts is in the fall when school starts back up.

There are two probable reasons for this. One, being ridiculed and bullied by their peers makes kids feel like social outcasts, and transitioning to a new school year could increase that. Evolution has programmed the human mind to want acceptance of the group for survival reasons, so being ostracized can make you literally feel like you are going to die because if this was 10,000 years ago, you probably would.

And then there are the drugs. You know, the legalized forms of cocaine and heroine that we give to kids to make them alert, focused, or calm, and manageable. There are all sorts of side effects to the drugs, and based on the spiking and dropping levels of dopamine and other chemicals in the brain, this can cause erratic behavior.

But either way, the school system seems to be the root of the problem, whether it is exposing kids to negative people they don’t need in their lives, drugs to help them function “normally” in an abnormal school environment, or just the unnatural environment itself where one is trapped, caged, and coerced in order to prepare them for an equally coercive society afterwards.

Coercion is Ruining Society

It turns out coercion is a serious problem that can lead to mental health issues. Coercion might even cause most of the ills we see in society today. The same thing that makes a teenager lash out and act erratically in opposition to strict rules is what makes people do crazy things in a society dominated by arbitrary and oppressive government edicts.

According to Bruce Levin, PhD, in his article, Societies With Little Coercion Have Little Mental Illness:

Coercion—the use of physical, legal, chemical, psychological, financial, and other forces to gain compliance—is intrinsic to our society’s employment, schooling, and parenting. However, coercion results in fear and resentment, which are fuels for miserable marriages, unhappy families, and what we today call mental illness.

It Starts With Your Kids

Most parents have their kids’ best interests at heart when parenting, yes some still treat their child like a wild animal that must be broken. So many people in our society would have no idea what to do with freedom because all they have ever known is oppression. It starts in childhood, and evidence suggests that a more free child leads to a happier adult.

Levin points out that some cultures see very little mental illness, and he suggests it is because of the way the children are reared.

For many indigenous peoples, even the majority rule that most Americans call democracy is problematically coercive, as it results in the minority feeling resentful. Roland Chrisjohn, member of the Oneida Nation of the Confederacy of the Haudenausaunee (Iroquois) and author of The Circle Game, points out that for his people, it is deemed valuable to spend whatever time necessary to achieve consensus so as to prevent such resentment. By the standards of Western civilization, this is highly inefficient. “Achieving consensus could take forever!” exclaimed an attendee of a talk that I heard given by Chrisjohn, who responded, “What else is there more important to do?”

Among indigenous societies, there are many accounts of a lack of mental illness, a minimum of coercion, and wisdom that coercion creates resentment which fractures relationships.

How could we expect coercion to yield results as positive as agreement? All interaction should be voluntary; you cannot have positive ends if you do not use positive means to achieve those ends. I am not a parent, and I don’t expect perfection from anyone, but parents should at least try to solve issues with their kids without being so forceful and coercive.

Let kids be who they want to be, with the steady hand of your guidance, not an iron fist. Clearly, a child cannot always get what they want, and I am not advocating giving in to any random whim. Just realize how important freedom is for children in order to grow and learn.

This is why the public school system is horribly damaging to a large percentage of children. That is not the only nor best way to learn, and in fact really just teaches obedience to authority. Public schooling sets children up to be mindless drones in the work world, where they will be used to the coercion, but not happy about it.

[Jared] Diamond, in The World Until Yesterday (2012), reports how laissez-faire parenting is “not unusual by the standards of the world’s hunter-gatherer societies, many of which consider young children to be autonomous individuals whose desires should not be thwarted.” Diamond concludes that by our society’s attempt to control children for what we believe is their own good, we discourage those traits we admire:

“Other Westerners and I are struck by the emotional security, self-­confidence, curiosity, and autonomy of members of small-scale societies, not only as adults but already as children. We see that people in small-scale societies spend far more time talking to each other than we do, and they spend no time at all on passive entertainment supplied by outsiders, such as television, videogames, and books. We are struck by the precocious development of social skills in their children. These are qualities that most of us admire, and would like to see in our own children, but we discourage development of those qualities by ranking and grading our children and constantly ­telling them what to do.”

Bravo to home-schoolers and free range parenting. They are ahead of the curve by going back to the basics.

Then It’s Your Job…

I don’t believe the reason so many hate going to work is not the work itself, but the fact that we cannot act like ourselves when at work. We feel coerced in one way or another into not being who we want to be. This is a mild form of coercion, one that often doesn’t go beyond venting over a beer after work, or every once in a while both middle fingers and: “I quit!” screamed at the boss.

But is the quiet desperation of a 9-5 you hate–saving for retirement, but probably drinking yourself to death before you get to enjoy it–really the way to live? What if we couldn’t afford cable, couldn’t afford a new car, or a perfect house–but were happy?

Critics of schooling—from Henry David Thoreau, to Paul Goodman, to John Holt, to John Taylor Gatto—have understood that coercive and unengaging schooling is necessary to ensure that young people more readily accept coercive and unengaging employment. And as I also reported in that same article, a June 2013 Gallup poll revealed that 70% of Americans hate their jobs or have checked out of them.

Unengaging employment and schooling require all kinds of coercions for participation, and human beings pay a psychological price for this. In nearly three decades of clinical practice, I have found that coercion is often the source of suffering…

In all societies, there are coercions to behave in culturally agreed-upon ways. For example, in many indigenous cultures, there is peer pressure to be courageous and honest. However, in modernity, we have institutional coercions that compel us to behave in ways that we do not respect or value. Parents, afraid their children will lack credentials necessary for employment, routinely coerce their children to comply with coercive schooling that was unpleasant for these parents as children. And though 70% of us hate or are disengaged from our jobs, we are coerced by the fear of poverty and homelessness to seek and maintain employment.

In our society, we are taught that accepting institutional coercion is required for survival. We discover a variety of ways—including drugs and alcohol—to deny resentment.

And the government is perfectly happy with the arrangement because it is easier to control–and tax–“normal” people who just go to work every day.

Government Enforces and Exacerbates the Problem

We cannot even live on a piece of land without being coerced by government to earn some money in order to pay the property taxes. But we have to earn more than the amount owed in property taxes because we are taxed on our earnings as well. We are taxed on the vehicle and gas that gets us to work, which require more work to pay off–earnings, again, that must go above and beyond what we need because it will be taxed.

Could this be the overlooked factor that makes America more violent than some other developed nations? Has the American government piled so many laws, regulations, and statutes on top of each other that American citizens can’t just go through life without being told perfectly normal, non-violent behavior is wrong?

I think this highlights the problem with mass shootings that many have been pointing out. Whoever the shooters feel they are being oppressed by, they are correctly identifying that they are being coerced. Of course, their response is insane, and probably related to the drugs they take (some of which we also give kids), but there would never be a need for drugs if a coercive society had not reared them.

The hopelessness felt when being forced to spend money, behave a certain way, or notdo something you want to do, is one of those gut wrenching deep feelings of despair that grow inside some people until they burst.

But now imagine that the government has taken everything from you. Imagine if they took your car as a civil asset forfeiture? What if your tax burden is 50%? What if you give up on that business you want to start because of the pile of paperwork and extra costs required by the government?

What if they take your kids because they are home schooled, or shoot your dog for no reason whatsoever? All these things happen, unfortunately relatively regularly, in America.

Many of us are baffled by why someone would become a terrorist, especially a suicide bomber. Again, this is the coercion the Middle East is smothered in by the USA. Imagine losing your childhood because you could not go outside because of the American drones. Imagine family members having been murdered by laughing soldiers. Imagine all your hopes and dreams bombed away in the blink of an eye. Again, this is the unfortunate reality for many people today.

In the 1970s, prior to the domination of the biopsychiatry-Big Pharma partnership, many mental health professionals took seriously the impact of coercion and resentful relationships on mental health. And in a cultural climate more favorable than our current one for critical reflection of society, authors such as Erich Fromm, who addressed the relationship between society and mental health, were taken seriously even within popular culture. But then psychiatry went to bed with Big Pharma and its Big Money, and their partnership has helped bury the commonsense reality that an extremely coercive society creates enormous fear and resentment, which results in miserable marriages, unhappy families, and severe emotional and behavioral problems.

..