Calls for referendums to leave EU in Italy, France, Netherlands and Denmark.
Many people in Europe are waking up to a radically changed state of world affairs. Great Britain has successfully voted to leave the European Union. The mainstream media will put forth a controlled narrative of economics, neo-national conservationism and counter globalism, but what really concerned people who were in favor of the end of the European Union is it’s suicidal policies regarding Middle Eastern Muslim immigration. Free societies in Europe could not survive such a continuing influx of people, some of whom in favor Sharia law and approve of jihad. This issue needed to be confronted sooner or later, unless European nation was to continue to opt for appeasement and thus surrender their national identities and sovereignty.
The Brexit election’s results will strengthen the position of Britians political populist and labor parties, and after the Globalist, money movers, Stock manipulators, and former prime minister David Cameron are finished throwing a temper tantrum we should begin to see the Pound to regain some strength.
Within minutes of the Brexit vote decision, the Scottish National Party issued a statement saying it “sees its future in Europe,” suggesting the likelihood of another referendum on leaving the UK.
Next, the Brexit vote affirm the sentiments of other Europeans who have grown disenchanted with the EU. And there are many of them.
A May survey from Ipsos Mori asked residents of eight European countries whether or not they supported a referendum regarding their own country’s EU membership. Nearly half did.
The survey revealed that support for leaving the EU was highest among Italians, French, and Swedes.
European politicians are already preparing for Brexit’s aftermath. On Saturday Jean Asselborn, Luxembourg’s foreign minister and an outspoken critic of the UK leaving, will head to Berlin to discuss the referendum’s outcome with Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands.
Already other European countries are taking actions to distance themselves from the European Union. Hungary, for example, is holding a referendum this autumn that could challenge mandatory quotas
for migrant resettlement set by the EU.
As a result, Germany, France, Italy and several other governments are determined to make Britain’s secession from the EU as painful as possible. “Unwinding British membership is bound to be a miserable business anyway. It is not in the EU’s interests to make it seem simple,” one Brussels official said.
German Finance Ministry papers seen by Die Welt newspaper last night expressed concern that Brexit would set off a domino effect, listing Austria, Finland, the Netherlands and Hungary as countries that could follow the UK’s lead. The papers recommend making the UK ‘an associated partner country’ of the remaining 27 EU nations, according to reports.
The European Council (summit) president, Donald Tusk, has warned that this process could take at least seven years.
Removing Britain from EU laws would take the official two year “secession” period, he said. If the UK decides to leave both the EU and the single market, it would be “much more difficult” to negotiate what happens next, the former Polish Prime Minister said. That would take at least a further five years “without any guarantee of a success”.
In any case, several European governments believe that their own and the EU’s interests may lie in ensuring a failure.
Danny F. Quest is a official 9/11 Truther, anti-war activist, humanitarian, Blogger, and writer/contributer for WeareChange.org Follow him on Social Media.
Sign up become a patron and Show your support for alternative news
for Just 1$ a month you can help Grow We are change
We use Bitcoin Too !
Visit The Gear Store Wearechange.org/gear
How important is the upcoming “Brexit” vote in the UK? In a recent commentary , it was noted that the current leader in French polling to become France’s next president is Marine Le Pen, of Front-National. Ms. Le Pen has already dubbed herself “Madame Frexit”, going back to the time of the “crisis” in Greece.
Given that the UK has never been fully “in” the European Union, a British vote to leave the EU would not, by itself, be a fatal blow for this fascist entity. But the effect of a Brexit vote on France would be twofold. First, it would undoubtedly provide a further boost in popularity for Ms. Le Pen. Secondly, it would strengthen the resolve toward Frexit among the large majority in France who already have an unfavorable opinion of the EU.
The numbers above, cited in an article by Mike Shedlock, paint a clear picture. In only one of the European Union’s founding members (Italy) do we see anything resembling a “strong majority” when it comes to supporting EU membership. Apart from two EU newcomers – Poland and Hungary – we see European populations which are either evenly split in terms of support for the European Union, or (like Greece) are strongly opposed to this political union.
A successful Frexit would undoubtedly trigger a wave of nationalism across Europe, and lead to further, fatal defections in this made-for-the-bankers political hierarchy. Thus in the eyes of the Big Bank crime syndicate, Frexit must be prevented, at any/all costs. Since a successful Brexit would greatly increase the odds of Frexit, it too must be prevented, at any/all costs.
This brings us to the title for this commentary. Alleging the “rigging” of any election is still considered to be a very serious charge in the minds of most Western inhabitants, because the majority of these inhabitants still cling to the myth that we have a political system which provides some bastardized version of “democracy”. What evidence is there to support allegations that the One Bank’s oligarch proprietors arealready rigging Western elections? The best kind: statistical evidence.
This evidence comes in the form of election polling. Here readers need to understand that political polling is a science. There is a very specific set of parameters which are used in gathering the data. The results released by the polling agencies are precise, statistical representations of that data.
Because the “data” involves only a sample of the electorate, there is a margin of error in such polling. That margin of error is also the result of precise, statistical calculations. Because the data involves the voting inclinations of human beings, this produces a second margin of error, known as “the confidence interval.” This is the possibility of an anomalous result, meaning something outside of the margin of error attributable to the mere size of the sample.
This confidence interval is also the product of a precise, statistical calculation. Typically, statisticians calculate a “95% confidence interval” as the level of certainty they seek to achieve in their polling. In other words, 95% of the time (19 times out of 20) the actual election result would fall within the specified margin of error, if voting occurred at that moment.
In aggregate terms, this means that polling agencies are able to “call” elections (within their margin of error) 95% of the time. Decades of practice in such polling has only improved upon the accuracy of this science. In the media, what we saw was a steady trend to announce election “victories” earlier and earlier on ballot night, based in large part upon the consistent degree of accuracy of pre-election polling, and the tendency for those poll results to be reflected in the early hours of tabulating voting.
Then, a few years ago, suddenly everything changed. Popping up in different spots, across the Western world, we began to see an increase in what were more than mere, anomalous results (i.e. elections which “defied the polls”). We suddenly began to see significant numbers of outrageous anomalies. Here we are not talking about election results which were merely slightly outside the margin-of-error boundaries of the polling, but rather results which were virtually opposite to these scientific polls.
For those seeking specific examples, let’s start with the domicile of this writer: the Province of British Columbia. In the last provincial election here (May 2013), the election result was supposed to be a foregone conclusion: a victory for the New Democratic Party.
[Liberal victor, Christy] Clark started the campaign as the clear underdog in the poll, trailing by 20 points.
However, the final result was something much different:
Not only did Clark defy countless polls predicting her defeat , she increased her party’s majority in the legislature by five seats and became the first woman to be elected premier in a general election in B.C . [emphasis mine]
Countless polls predicting her defeat . Admittedly, the NDP lead in the polls shrank from the original, enormous 20-point margin. However, that was to be expected, as even among a polarized electorate we rarely ever see such an extreme margin of victory in the final result. What is of significance in this rigged election is that throughout the political campaign, “countless polls” from several, different polling agencies mathematically predicted Clark’s defeat. Not a single poll result, at any time in the election indicated even the possibility of a Liberal majority victory.
This was not merely an anomalous result, outside of the confidence interval of the polling. It is was an outrageous anomaly – i.e. an impossible anomaly. It was a rigged election. For Canadian readers unimpressed with this single example, how about our last federal election (October 2015)?
As the campaign began, political polls showed the election as “a three-horse race” , too close to call. Toward the end of the election, support for the NDP faded somewhat, leading to polling agencies calling ita two-horse race , but still too-close-to-call.
The NDP, historically Canada’s most socially progressive party, had looked federally electable for the first time ever, buoyed by the Alberta win and a shift away from the far-left policies that had previously alienated voters.
But it has failed to distinguish itself from fellow center-left party the Liberals as the best alternative to the nine-year government of Conservative Prime Minster Stephen Harper.
As all Canadians know, the actual result was a Liberal landslide majority. Once again, we are not dealing with a mere “anomaly” outside the confidence interval. We are dealing with another outrageous anomaly, an election result which according to all the polls, from all the polling agencies, over the entire duration of the campaign, was not even possible.
Are we to believe that (at least in Canada) polling agencies have suddenly abandoned their scientific methodology, or become too inept to follow that methodology? Or, has the Canadian voter (for no reason) turned into a politically capricious beast, whose electoral whims have suddenly become completely unpredictable?
We don’t have to even bother asking the mainstream media for its opinion. We see these sorts of suspicious anomalies across all facets of our lives. Whenever something makes absolutely no sense, and/or cannot be explained, we’re always told the same thing: it’s “the New Normal” – meaning there is no (legitimate) explanation.
There is no explanation for these Canadian political anomalies, in back-to-back election results (for all residents of this province). But this is far from being just a made-in-Canada form of Western corruption. For those readers who doubt that the Brexit vote can/will be rigged, just look at the UK’s last national election (May 2015). In that election, we saw a virtual carbon-copy of what occurred in Canada’s most-recent national election.
After months of election projections showing the main parties deadlocked in a neck-and-neck finish, the final poll said something utterly different: British voters [supposedly] want Conservative rule . [emphasis mine]
“Utterly different” than all of the campaign polling. Not just outside the margin of error. Not remotely close to the margin of error, of any of the polling, at any time in the campaign. The subtitle of the article containing the excerpt above summarizes yet another rigged election in the realm of Western politics:
Britain’s Conservatives win big, beating no one more than the pollsters and election experts.
In the real world, politicians can’t “beat” pollsters, because political polling agencies do not compete against politicians. They are impartial observers (at least, the respected ones). They get paid just as much for their work no matter who they announce as leading a political race, or how large or small the margin. There is no rational explanation for the sudden appearance of all these extreme political anomalies, where (in every case) an Establishment candidate has emerged victorious – and with a “majority” mandate.
Of course if the oligarchs continue rigging elections to such an extreme degree as to obviously “defy the polls”, reasonable people will begin to get suspicious. Thus, as Brexit nears, we see the oligarchs attempting a new tactic: falsifying political polls. Last week ; three, separate UK polls were released on the Brexit campaign. All three polls showed a statistically significant majority in favor of “leaving” (the European Union). Just one day later; the Corporate media came out with this headline.
Fresh polls show Brexit vote swinging back to ‘remain’
Imagine that! Just 24 hours after several independent polls showed a significant majority in favor of Brexit, we’re told that there are two “new polls” which show British voters flip-flopping in their support. Or are there?
A Daily Telegraph/ORB poll published late Monday put support for retaining EU membership at 48%, versus 47% for those wanting a Brexit, among those who intend to vote.
Meanwhile, a Times/YouGov poll out Monday found 43% of respondents planning to vote to stay, while 42% support a departure, and 11% are “don’t know.”
The first observation of note here is that neither of these political polls are statistically significant, in contrast to the three polls (showing the opposite result) the preceding day. For those readers unfamiliar with statistical terminology, a brief explanation is warranted.
As previously noted, all polling (of any kind) has a margin of error attached to it, typically somewhere around 3%. Thus any poll result which reports a difference which is less than the margin of error is not “statistically significant”. Instead, it is mere statistical noise, where the polling provides no clear indication of a leader.
The three polls released on June 6th all indicated majority support for Brexit, and all were statistically significant. With the two polls released on June 7 th, which supposedly showed support to “remain”, both were just razor-thin 1% margins, and thus neither result was statistically significant. Yet the Corporate media reported the “noise” on equal terms with the actual statistically decisive polls from the previous day. Note also that both of the polls which showed supposed support to remain in the EU were manufactured by known mouthpieces of the Establishment: the Daily Telegraph and the London Times.
Then there is the math. If only one poll had been released on June 6 th showing significant support for Brexit, the possibility of two polls coming out the next day where both (supposedly) indicated even an indecisive outcome would have been less than 25%. However, given that three polls from June 6 th all showed significant support for Brexit, the possibility of two polls coming out the next day supposedly showing an indecisive outcome is somewhere well below 10% .
In other words, the two polls from June 7th were extreme anomalies – poll results which were so improbable as to raise immediate suspicion in the minds of those with statistical inclinations. We know the oligarchs have rigged elections. We know they intend to rig the Brexit vote (just like they rigged the UK’s last, national election). Now they appear to be rigging the political polls, as well.
If our elections are now rigged, and the political polls involving these elections are now being rigged as well, then the phrase “Western democracy” has clearly descended to the level of an oxymoron.
|Jeff Nielson is co-founder and managing partner of Bullion Bulls Canada; a website which provides precious metals commentary, economic analysis, and mining information to readers and investors. Jeff originally came to the precious metals sector as an investor around the middle of last decade, but with a background in economics and law, he soon decided this was where he wanted to make the focus of his career. His website iswww.bullionbullscanada.com.|
The views and opinions expressed in this material are those of the author as of the publication date, are subject to change and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of WeAreChange.org
If you’re a proud voter, I know what you’re thinking: “I believe in voting because A.) we live in a democracy, and B.) we have the freedom to, so C.) why not try to change the system from the inside?”
But what if I told you that voting (and the entire notion of “authority” and “government”) is a type of cultural brainwashing based on nothing but lies to keep you distracted, enslaved, and consenting?
What if I told you that voting is pointless, political campaigns are a charade, politicians are all megalomaniacal authoritarians, government is completely controlled by international banking and corporate oligarchies, and a better way is possible.
And I’m going to prove it to you.
Voting has been repeatedly shown to be unreliable and easily manipulatable without any public knowledge.
going beyond the unreliability of large-scale voting, and underneath the fundamental futility of democratic government in an unhealthy and uneducated society, a deeper issue is that the entire fundamental premise of society being a “democratic government” or even a “republic” nowadays is a complete fallacy.
The fact is that government will never allow its core power structure to be challenged by fundamental change; it will only allow concessions like gay marriage or the decriminalization of marijuana. All candidates are pre-ordained and supported through mainstream media largely controlling public opinion. Sure, they allow puppets to be changed every few years and make concessions like gay marriage or decriminalizing marijuana. But what about the Central Banking system and the Federal Reserve that’s systematically devaluing the American currency? Why . I’m amazed that there are people who- after all the OBVIOUS corruption and perpetual global atrocities created and perpetuated by those in power- still can’t see the absolute illegitimacy of government.
I used to be a flag-loving Statist. I get it. The brainwashed authoritarian indoctrination to the religious faith of government runs deep.
But compared to pre-9/11, the corruption has become SO much more blatantly obvious, and information is far more readily available online that you literally have to CHOOSE to not be well informed. You have to CHOOSE to not give a shit. I’m astonished people remain silent about, much less continue to vote with the “hope” that it will fundamentally “change” anything substantial. How many times do billboards have to fall on your head before you start to see the signs?
“Once the election is over, and once the winner is declared, everybody forgets about it. […] Most attempts are caught by the system. But there are cases that do slip through. [Voter fraud] undermines public confidence in democracy.”
~ Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted
To assume that voting is a reliable method for determining public consensus in large-scale votes given everything we’ve covered is to not fully grasp the magnitude of corruption inherent in the current global political system. Furthermore,
History shows that the longer society continues to legitimize corrupt politics by voting and glorifying politicians, the more destructive it becomes. Through voting, it’s granted social permission to spread its “authority” through increasingly pervasive means. Government, being rooted in the principles of continually expanding domination, cannot fundamentally change to bring about true peace, and voting cannot change this inevitability. The myriad of contradictory laws are purposefully obfuscated with endless loopholes and speculative interpretations between elites with converging interests. The “Blue Wall of Silence” throughout many branches of government and big business act as fail-safes which maintain the power structure. The mainstream media which largely dictates public perception is controlled by the same corporate interests directing government, which manipulates the allowable spectrum of discussion and candidates in the political process. The old adage rings true- “You cannot disassemble the Master’s house using the Master’s tools”.
“Average American: “The system is horribly messed up! The politicians are all corrupt liars and crooks, and they’re ruining the country! Things are getting desperate! We need real change, right now!”
Me: “Maybe you need to reconsider your underlying assumptions.”
Average American: “Nonsense! That’s crazy! No, the way out of this despicable mess is for me to keep believing what I always have, and keep doing what I’ve always done, voting for the same crooks, playing along with the same game, cooperating with my own subjugation and ridiculing anyone who suggests anything fundamentally different!”
Me: “And you think THAT will change things?”
Average American: “Hey, our system ain’t perfect, but it’s the best one possible! And it’s better than all the others! If you don’t like it, get out! U.S.A.! Number one!”
^^^ THAT is what “Battered Citizen Syndrome” looks like. Most people would rather be stomped on by a familiar tyrant, than actually THINK about things. “If not for this jackboot on my throat, there would be chaos!”
Despite the evidence of this overwhelming corruption, the last vestige of hope for most statists is the belief in effecting change through local city government. Assuming that the aforementioned issues are not a influencing factor (which they usually are), in theory, local voting may have a greater chance of creating accommodations for the issues which are the byproduct of dysfunctional government, but do little if anything to fix the greater causal issues still remain heavily entrenched deep within the power structure. There are many overseeing agencies of government which can overturn local decisions for any number of reasons. Therefore, state legislators often complain about an overpowering federal government usurping the rights of the states, while themselves working to increase the power of state government at the expense of city and county governments. The issues of property rights and government regulation, even when legalized on the State level, are frequently subjected to persecution when not legalized by the Federal Government, as has been shown with the issues ofmarijuana, gay marriage, and immigration, to name a few. To place one’s hope in local government as a reliable bastion for justice and effective social transformation is to try to save a house consumed by flames by throwing cups of water in to the fire; while well meaning and perhaps marginally helpful for a moment, it is ultimately ineffectual against the greater governmental momentum corrupted beyond the wishful thinking of “hope” for “change”. Even those who think “limited government is the best option to strive for” need only take a brief walk through history. America, widely known as the best attempt to create a country with “limited government” which recognizes and respects unalienable individual rights, wound up becoming the most militarized, coercive, imperialist authoritarian empire the world has ever known. The founders of America knew that government was a beast that easily grew out of hand, which is why emphasized the necessity of a system of checks and balances. However, as the times change, those checks and balances become archaic, inefficient, convoluted, obfuscated, obsolete, and thereby no longer work to keep government efficient, virtuous, and honest on all levels. This is the inevitability for all governments.
“Never, in the history of the world, anywhere on the planet, has “government” only PROTECTED individual rights. Instead, it has been the primary VIOLATOR of individual rights. Nonetheless, there are still many [minimal government supporters] who insist that we cannot give up the institution of “government.” Why not? Because, they say, we NEED it to do something that it has NEVER DONE, in order to protect us from injustices that it has ALWAYS itself inflicted on the people. Then they complain when I say that statism is immoral, irrational and faith-based.”
~ Larken Rose
“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
~ Albert Einstein
Ultimately, when all things are considered, political parties have long been nothing more than an “illusion of choice” owned by the same converging interests, subject to a myriad of manipulation, and more interested in profit and prestige instead of true social uplift. Any governmentally sanctioned form of “change” will not, and cannot, by all evidence, bring anything more than marginal social accommodations, since anything more would undermine and illegitimate that very power structure.
“The biggest misconception Americans have is that Power will allow itself to be voted out of office.”
~ Emma Goldman
“Once a government resorts to terror against its own population to get what it wants, it must keep using terror against its own population to get what it wants. A government that terrorizes its own people can never stop. If such a government ever lets the fear subside and rational thought return to the populace, that government is finished.”
? Michael Rivero
Unable to grasp the situation, many nationalists will dismissively say, “If you don’t like it, then you can just get out!” If only it were so easy and just about one country…
Yet I, like many people living in a sick society, have thought to myself, “Maybe I should move to a different country to escape all this madness“, but let’s be realistic. Given the global control by the international cabal of corporate, banking, and political psychopaths, there really isn’t a place to go where people can be free without the inevitable encroachment and imposition by megalomaniacal institutions. However, some places may be more conducive to support, networking, and co-creating with likeminded individuals, which can be a great strategy! But if simple “avoidance” is the underlying purpose, consider that avoiding this increasingly destructive global situation is like hiding in a closet while your home burns down. You can try to shut it out, but it’s not going away. In most cases, you’ve just temporarily secluded yourself and stopped being able to positively contribute on a larger scale. Furthermore, getting caught up in “3D Survivalist” thinking instead of a more holistic, integral perspective is also a dead-end (as history has repeatedly shown).
But despite the non-stop bombardment of political drama on nearly every media outlet, when looking at the numbers of votes comparative to the total population of able-bodied voters, you’ll find an interesting trend: nearly half of the population DOES NOT VOTE. Of course, this isn’t discussed in the mainstream since it exposes the crumbling foothold of government. Analyze the data and you’ll see an overall trend indicating less voters, less care, and, despite the mainstream media’s propaganda, less and less confidence in government’s violence and lies. Conversely, it indicates a greater interest toward personal empowerment outside the regulations of “the system” and an awakening desire for individual liberty beyond the hollow, short-sighted rhetoric of authoritarianism.
^ California Voter Turnout (source)
Pretty indicative of government’s illegitimacy, and its disastrous relationship with society, right?
So, since willful ignorance or running away is selfishly futile, and trying to work within the system is completely useless and delusional, ultimately, we come to the question: What can we do instead of voting?
Since culture is a consensus reflection of many individuals, if we wish to have a more conscious, compassionate, educated, responsible, and healthy society, then we who are awake enough to see, and privileged enough to act, must fundamentally strive- with all our being, in every moment we can muster- to become the change we wish to see in the world.
So, how do we begin to do this?
Get ready for the fun part…