Britney Spears & How Society Drives Us Crazy

Britney Spears begs the authorities to free her from the controlling conservatorship of her father.
In her court hearing she spoke of forced sterilization, punishments for disobedience and loneliness. The whole world, left and right, wonders now how a woman that has left substance abuse and erratic behavior behind herself long ago and is now a tee-total dry (non-)alcoholic can be deprived of all her basic freedoms in the name of care.

It begs the question how a society that does not intervene in mental illness in the sprawling homeless camps across California and other Liberal places and that turns a blind eye to the BLM rioters, can put a high-functioning, hard-working American into a state of slavery. She is an extreme example of what we see at large: The by-and-large most stable folks are exploited and made feel bonkers by people who are actually crazy and far more dangerous.

Secret Service Verfassungsschutz Set To Intensify Observation of The AfD

Correction: I say in the video that BND does the external spy control business of a normal secret service. It is actually also a duty of Verfassungsschutz. However, their focus is clearly on thought crimes.
The secret service Verfassungsschutz is a thought-crime-oriented intelligence agency which officially fights extremist thinking. It currently monitors the conservative party AfD as a “Prüffall”; that means based on publicly available information. It is expected that the party will be classified as a ‘Verdachtsfall’ in the coming week, which means that Verfassungsschutz can use secret spies and false identities to obtain information. It makes it also easier to get a warrant from a court to tap their post or telecommunication.

The party’s youth organisation ‘Junge Alternative’ is already a ‘Verdachtsfall.’ The patriotism caucus “Flügel” is even classified as a “Beobachtungsfall.” That means that warrants for intrusive measures are easier to obtain. At the end of this classification ladder a party can be banned as ‘hostile to the constitution.’ But that would require the consent of the Supreme Court and it is very unlikely to be the fate of the AfD anytime soon.

One criteria for such a ban based on ‘hostility against the constitution’ is ‘activities against the idea of an understanding between peoples’ (Art 9 GG (2)). In theory this means that a group or party can be banned if it objects to any foreign ideology and thus destroys the constitution-mandated Kumbaya. Even though a legal ban of the AfD is highly unlikely, an intensified monitoring creates propaganda fodder for people who see the AfD as hostile to the constitution because of their dislike of jihad.

on Youtube on Bitchute