ANSWER: Yes. This is because government is a single entity.

They will fight

against the people to retain power. Make no mistake about it, government
will always massacre the people to retain power. All such events in history
unfold when the people seek to overturn tyranny. However, there are
rebellions even during a Public Wave but these tend to be continuations of a
grievance from the previous wave. There were 69 years between the two big
English tax rebellions of 1381 and 1450. They do tend to be more intense
during Private Waves. You will notice that in a Private Wave then tend to
come early whereas in a Public wave then come late and typically spill over.
This is because the rebellion aspect is really a separate function of the War
Cycle. Therefore, it is an overlap that produces the intensity. Currently, that
turned up in 2014.

Political wisdom over the centuries was purchased with the blood and bitter
experience of generations upon generations. In England when the King had
no right to tax the people. They had to consent and that was the reason to
call Parliament to consent to taxation. The first tax revolt was the Wat
Tylers Rebellion, also known as the Peasants Revolt, was a tax
rebellion following the Black Death as a result of high taxes to fund the war
against France (Hundred Years War). This took place beginning in May and
ended in a massacre by November, 1381. Then there was William (Jack)
Cade (? 7/12/1450) who led a tax rebellion which took place in May 1450
which was the subject of Shakespeares play of Henry VI in which he wrote
his famous passage: The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers.
(King Henry VI, part II, Act IV, Scene 2, Line 72). The lawyers were not
lawyers as we see them today. The king was the only person allowed to
have a lawyer, so they were really prosecutors taking peoples property and
imprisoning them for profit.
In France, there was the French Revolution in 1792 over taxation, but there
was also a rebellion in 1851. But the first tax rebellion in France was when
King John was captured by the English in September 1356. King John was
transported to London in April 1357. He was compelled to surrender most of
southern France to the English. On October 9th, 1360, John was released to
raise the balance of the ransom, while hostages took his place that included
his own son. When Johns son escaped, John had little choice and returned to
England as a prisoner on his own volition where he died.
In 1358, we find the first tax uprising known as Jacquerie because the
nobility had called all peasants Jacque and the demands for taxes were
now outrageous. Taxes were even demanded to rebuild castles of the nobility.
The English had plundered the country and these demands led finally to a

uprising on May 21st, 1358. The peasants destroyed numerous castles in

response and indeed massacred all inhabitants. With the King captured,
confusion reigned and the nation was plunged into civil war. The peasants
were eventually defeated and they were themselves massacred.
Even in China, the minister Chao Cuo (? 154BC) under the previous
emperor Ching-ti (Liu Chi)(157-141BC), earned the hatred of other ministers
after he introduced 30 new laws. The outrage was so intense; he was
dragged out and executed in his judicial robes in the town marketplace. The
abuse of the rule of law knows no bounds. When Edward I (1272-1307)
returned to England in 1289, he was confronted by corrupt judges who had
been bribed by special interests and dismissed them summarily. Then in
1290, Edward I seized all the property of the Jews and expelled them from
England. Kings, dictators, and professional political classes, have always
exploited the rule of law for their personal gain.
Massacres of the people in a revolt against government exist throughout
history. We should expect our modern governments will act in the very same
manner. They are right now arming themselves and they have converted the
police forces into military domestic units.

Most people have never heard of the real man behind the curtain who
inspired the whole idea of the European Union, probably because his books
are only in German. They certainly do not realize that his idea was to stop
the inbreeding within Europe by mixing people and races to create the

United States of Europe. The idea was to intermarry all Europeans to end
nationality.
Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi (1894-1972), was of noble birth and was very
much an elitist. His father, Heinrich, was an anti-Semite who attributed
religious intolerance to the Jews and said they were a separate race. His
views perhaps influenced Hitler. Richard is the real father of the European
Union, for his efforts go back to 1922 when he founded in Vienna the Pan
Europe movement.
Indeed, his idea was partially supported by the fact that the people of Europe
migrated to the United States and intermarried to create America. He
believed the same thing was necessary for Europe. This is the idea
behind German Finance Minister Schubles outrageous statement that
Europe needs more refugee to immigrate, otherwise Europe will degenerate
into [an] inbred continent.
This is right out of Coudenhove-Kalergi whose argument captured many
elitists and spread from Austria to most other countries within Europe. You
have to keep in mind that the royal families were engaged in such a policy
for themselves. The English monarch was related to the German, Russian,
Dutch, and Spanish monarchs where they were all intermarried under the
theory of creating political stability, which failed to work.
In 1938, Coudenhove-Kalergi fled from the Nazi regime and sought asylum in
Switzerland before moving to the United States. Many people have heard of
Hitler and his idea of a master race of pure blood. What they do not realize is
that this idea was the opposite of Coudenhove-Kalergis proposal, which is
why he had to flee. Coudenhove-Kalergi marketed his vision to breed
Europeans into a single race and managed to gain political support for his

idea based, in part, on the melting pot of America. However, he would take it
even further.
On his return to Europe, Coudenhove-Kalergi was no doubt the initiator of the
Parliamentary Union, the concept behind the Treaty of Rome, and the
evolution of the euro to attempt to merge Europe into the federalization
process. Finally, during 1966, Coudenhove-Kalergi submitted before the X.
Vienna Paneuropean Congress a memorandum for the future of Europe,
which is still regarded as an important guideline to this day. CoudenhoveKalergi managed to become an adviser to Charles de Gaulle, Georges
Pompidou, Konrad Adenauer, and Bruno Kreisky.
The sudden advocacy of Schuble for German women to marry refugees to mix the races
has a rather disturbing link to Coudenhove-Kalergi. In his book Praktischer
Idealismus (Practical Idealism), he wrote:
The man of the future will be of mixed race. Todays races and classes will
gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice.
The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the
Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of
individuals.
Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined
and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial
selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison,
developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence
provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit. This
happened at the moment when Europes feudal aristocracy became
dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation.
id/Coudenhove-Kalergi 1925, pp. 20, 23, 50

There is a lot more going on behind the curtain than people realize. The PanEuropean idea will fail. They are missing the very element that made it work
in the United States a single language. You will not see Scottish men
marrying Italian women, generally because of language. Without a single
language, Coudenhove-Kalergis idea of simply breeding all the races
together to end war is rather absurd.
There have always been those who see themselves as playing the role of
God. Those people should ask Australians who tried to play God by bringing
in one species to combat another, thereby wiping out some of their
indigenous life and replacing it with things with no natural predator. It is hard
to play God when you lack the quality of being all-knowing.

The familiar phrase We the People no longer means what it used to. The
majority of Americans do not understand how the law is made and assume
Congress proposes all legislation and therefore makes law. That is not the
case. The president can refuse to enforce any law or impose it arbitrarily

under the claim of discretion, and the Judiciary is responsible for altering law
every day. Judges create the majority of laws to impress their particular
brand of bias in a very undemocratic manner by using their interpretation of
the words written by Congress in any Act or the Constitution. So all you need
is a judge to twist the words around to make new law, which is why fights
erupt over appointing Supreme Court justices who can become legal
unelected dictators.
Money laundering was intended for the war on drugs. Today, hiding your
money from the government, which includes placing cash in a safe deposit
facility, is money laundering thanks to judicial law. Judges twist the same
statutes around so that the words mean whatever they want it to mean. It is
your burden to appeal and prove that the judge is wrong. Good luck. Cops
protect cops, and so do judges.
On March 18, 2008, the Supreme Court heard the case of District of
Columbia v. Heller (07-290), regarding the Second Amendment, which
reads:
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed.
The ACLU argued in that the term We the People should have its definition
changed to mean We the State Militia. Changing that definition can
effectively prevent individuals from having the right to own a gun. The
Constitution would become complete trash if the term was found to have
different meanings, but lawyers have become wordsmiths and use this ability
to create laws.

Supreme Court Cases

The Supreme Court overlooked this question of who the people are for 200
years (17891989). Since then, the Supreme Court has twice commented on
the meaning of this phrase, but these two cases are in somewhat conflict
with each other.
In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the court said that the
people refers to those persons who are part of a national
community, or who have substantial connections to the United States. In
delivering this interpretation, they were consistent with the problem that
faced the question of jurisdiction at the founding of the nation.
If you were English and committed a crime in France, the French king could
not punish you for you were the property or subject of the English king. He

would send you back in chains to England with an explanation of what you
did. Since the American Revolution was against the monarchy, why would
they comply with international law and send someone back to England for a
crime committed in America to be punished by a king they did not
recognize? The American Constitution established territorial jurisdiction for
the first time. So someone convicted of a crime would be punished in
America for his crime in America. Now the problem became a question of
rights under the Constitution. Did a foreign citizen have a right to a fair trial?
The definition had to extend to any person tried in America regardless of
their citizenship.
The touchstone in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez was correct,
constitutionally speaking, for it extended to ones connection to this
country in compliance with territorial jurisdiction. The court declared that this
definition of the people applied consistently throughout the Bill of Rights
and did not limit rights to citizens.
In U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (494 U.S. 247, 288, 1990), Justice William J.
Brennan Jr. argued: The term the people is better understood as a
rhetorical counterpoint to the government that rights that were reserved
to the people were to protect all those subject to the government. He
continued: The Bill of Rights did not purport to create rights. Rather, they
designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our government from infringing rights
and liberties presumed to be pre-existing.
In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the Supreme Court wrote: The
people protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second
Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and
Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national
community The Fourth Amendments drafting history shows that its

purpose was to protect the people of the United States against arbitrary
action by their own government.
However, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the court
approvingly quoted Verdugo-Urquidezs definition and similarly suggested
that the term the people had a consistent meaning throughout the
Constitution. This must be correct or the Constitution becomes chaotic.
Yet, Heller also said that the term refers to all members of the political
community, which actually changes the definition.
Hellers interpretation contains a confusing three-part analysis: (1) it
approved of Verdugo-Urquidezs interpretation; (2) it substituted members
of the political community for persons who are part of a national
community; and (3) it suggested that the people means the same
thing throughout the Constitution.
Hellers analysis has created a conflict that has largely gone unnoticed but is
already changing law. Heller could now be viewed as changing the meaning
of the people throughout the Bill of Rights by limiting the
people to members of the political community, which might be
interpreted to mean, inter alia, eligible voters. This interpretation could
have a profound consequence for individuals who have been denied the right
to vote and non-American citizens. In this manner, the entire principle of
territorial jurisdiction can be overturned.
Hellers interpretation is already being applied. The Fifth Circuit previously
held, Once aliens become subject to liability under United States law, they
also have the right to benefit from [Fourth Amendment] protection. (United
States v. Cortes, 588 F.2d 106, 110 (5th Cir. 1979) (citing United States v.
Cadena, 585 F.2d 1252, 1262 (5th Cir. 1978))

In a recent case, US v Armando Portillo-Munoz, it was ruled that a ranch

hand who lived and worked in the United States for more than 18 months,
paid rent, and helped to support a family, but who committed the
misdemeanor of illegally crossing the border is not part of the people.
Circuit Judge Dennis in his dissenting opinion warned, The majoritys
interpretation of the the people has far-reaching consequences.
We the People no longer means what people have always assumed: We
the People.

Claude Frdric Bastiat (b. 1801-1850) was a French, classical liberal

theorist, political economist, Freemason, and member of the French National
Assembly whose fundamental ideas have provided a foundation for
libertarianism. In economics, Bastiat is remembered for his concept of
opportunity cost and for introducing the parable of the broken window or the
glaziers fallacy. Essentially, a boy breaks a pane of glass in a shopkeepers
store. The owner gets angry for it will cost him six francs. The argument is
that this is good for the economy, for now the glazier profits by installing a
new pane of glass, thereby increasing the flow of money within the system.
Thus, the linear conclusion is to go around and break all the windows in town

to stimulate the economy. But what if the glazier paid the boy to go break
windows in town? Then it becomes fraud.

Bastiat argued that there was an opportunity cost that was not being viewed.
The six francs the shopkeeper must spend on the pane of glass may have
been spent in a completely different sector to stimulate that part of the
economy. Some have taken the glaziers fallacy and applied it to war.
Granted, war is seen as good for the economy for it reduces unemployment
(and population) and compels defense spending.
The Invisible Hand entered and compelled developments in weaponry, such
as the creation of nuclear weapons. True, nuclear blasts ended the war in the
Pacific. However, it is also true that further development led to nuclear
energy for power. The opportunity cost cannot be determined so easily
because the question of nuclear energy could have taken perhaps 10 to 20
more years to develop, yet it would have been possible to do so without war.

Bastiat proposition of the glaziers fallacy showed that we could create all
sorts of innovation, reduce population excess, and create full employment by
just going to war with everyone, everywhere, just like the glazier who hires
the boy to break all the windows in town. Does this really produce economic
stimulus or is it merely diverting resources and destroying opportunity in
other areas?

Governments create public works as their first move to stimulate the

economy, but that is the mirror image of destroying everything. Fine, we can
create bridges and roads few people travel on, but this comes at the price of
diverting resources that would have created better economic stimulus
through other, more permanent economic areas. Once the building, bridge,
or road is finished, the workers have no permanent job. Such stimulation
rarely stimulates the economy.
Roosevelts WPA worked, not for stimulation reasons, but because there was
a shift in employment with the combustion engine displacing people from
jobs in agriculture. Moving from horses to tractors in 1925 set in motion a
major decline in employment, which the dust bowl took to a whole new level.

What will technology shifts do today? Unemployment is rising in the lower

job markets where robots can replace such tasks. With robots, there are no
pensions, health benefits, or people like Hillary yelling to raise the minimum
wage to $15, which would only hasten the shift by raising unemployment
sharply. As for war, government is already working hard to replace soldiers
with robots.
The danger of this advancement to robots is that governments will use them
as police and they need not worry about the loyalty of the troops. Revolution
typically unfolds when the military turns against their master. The best way
to prevent that is to eliminate humanity in the police force.
Bastiats glaziers fallacy is still relevant today. The reason why is rather
simple. We live and function according to a bell curve. Anything to excess
destroys the host. Yes, breaking one pane of glass does not alter the entire
economy. However, if the glazier paid the boy to go break all the windows in
town, all other segments within the economy would suffer.

Everything within reason, yet government is never reasonable.

CAPITALISM
People who claim that capitalism has failed are seriously burdened with
propaganda. Capitalism is freedom, and socialism is effectively the lack of
freedom. True, we have done nothing but interfere with the economy since
the theories of Marx and Keynes were adopted. Yet, Paul Volcker admitted
that this New Economics has failed. This whole theory was based on the
idea that government could manipulate society to produce utopia, but they
have never been able to achieve that. Larry Summers has admitted that
publicly, but the socialists do not listen because they want to rob their
neighbors.
Innovation comes in waves and technological advancements always displace
jobs. The problem has been that people do not improve their worth, yet they
demand pay hikes just because they want more money. If you go to Miami,
the number one language is Spanish. They want to raise the minimum wage
to $15 instead of encouraging people to learn English to broaden their worth.
Anyone who has computer skills starts at $15+. So why should people
without employable skills earn the same as a person with technology skills?
I had a friend who was a pilot during the Korean War. He told me that many
of the old pilots could not make the transition when the new jets came in
because they were unable to respond as quickly to the increased speed.
Every field moves through the same advancement curve. Unions attempt to
freeze skills by demanding more money rather than teaching people to adapt
and move with the cycle.

The system will always correct itself as it has done throughout history, long
before Marx/Keynes. It is always subject to the business cycle, which is
influenced by many factors including weather. Capitalism began with the
Black Death. Before then, it was a highly socialistic world or serfs. You
worked the land and kept 20% of the food in return for a house to live in, and
you could run into the castle when danger came. The Black Death killed
about 50% of the workforce and the scarcity of labor resulted in landlords
being willing to pay wages. The shortage of labor gave birth to capitalism.
So, there will always be cycles to the economy.
Romans invented corporations. They bought and sold shares in
the marketplace, and that freedom of capital created Rome (not centralized
planning). The system has always been self-correcting. Technology will
advance, which will displace jobs and cause unemployment to rise. In turn,
corporate profits will be brought down and war will typically emerge to thin
the herd. Eventually, the next generation becomes better equipped to ride
the next wave of innovation.