The Faustian bargain

There’ve been snippets for a long time suggesting that not only is patronage involved in party selection, and the manner in which the way is paved for power to be assumed is intriguing, obstacles removed, the path smoothed, but that near the end of the designated run in power, the incumbent moves from a position of power to then doing very great wrong to the people – he cannot personally recover from it and his legacy is tarnished, he might even become Public Enemy N1 – Blair, Obama.

It’s a measure of Merkel, the Bruderheist girl in Germany, communist youth, the wrong side of the tracks, just as with the little corporal, that she saves up her worst, her least competent action for the end, once she’s too tired to do it much longer, once Them have no further use for her.

Look at the way she ran Germany for so long, with virtually no opposition, give or take, the way she had the political wisdom to come out on top so many times.  Yet a simple case where it was bleedin obvious that if you do this invasion thing to Germany, the people will be wrathful and seething – are we to buy that she has suddenly lost all competence in one fell swoop?

Or did her masters drop her in it, withdraw the whip in a sense?

She moves from efficient leader to incompetent, bumbling fool swiftly because those who rule feel the time has come to crank up this invasion of Europe and get the angst and conflagration going. Sitting in their drawing rooms, sipping their drinks, they deign when and how it will happen, by dint of a word in the ear of those in thrall.

Similar with Blair’s clone:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34651772

It’s the cynicism and the way the same old formula forever works.

Just like Blair, his clone Call Me Dave wishes to control the Lords.  He can do the shake-up as Blair did and stuff the Lords with his own people, make it elected to break the Tory stranglehold, carry half the people along – yay, elected Lords, must equal democracy, not unfettered power for the lower house leader – but what could Dave do to produce a mockery of the bicameral system?

His masters know precisely.  Create an incident, a piece of legislation certain to be rejected and it having been rejected, wax lyrical and apoplectic over how the people’s business is being stymied and “we’re going to do something over this iniquity”.  Make one’s offsider carry the can – that’s what he’s there for, to save the leader, the sacrificial lamb.

The only thing all this tells me is how morally bankrupt Cameron is, how weak and not in control, how dictated to by those who got him into power in the first place and which he revisited upon preselection votes, parachuting this or that place man or woman.

We had snippets of that with Brown at the Bilderberg in 1991, Blair in 1993, Cameron hiding his involvement, Davignon even having the gall to say they were good “talent spotters” at the Bilderberger [posts passim quoting the German press].

And similar goes over here – Tavistock, Chatham House, Royal Institute for International Affairs.  In America – CFR, JPM, GS, NYSE.  and the peripheral, more shady, less accepted side – C300, Round Table groups, Rhodes, Milner.

The sudden rise of Moses Mordecai Levi.  He produced a poorly written book, shoddy in its reasoning but full of things in line with subsequent events.  If one casts a non-devoted eye over him and his antecedents, an interesting picture emerges, a similar picture to the rise of the Royal Society and the momentous events following its interference, the whole paradigm shifting in western society, a new god now underpinning society – Big Dogmatic Science, e.g. NPCC and climate science.

Things do just arise, of course and advantage is taken, opportunity is not let slip. When your top people in western society are Masons, then where does Common Purpose come into it, for these are not Mason types.

And of course, having been on safe ground till now in this post, all of the above verifiable, what if the writer now drifts across that line and starts talking “conspiracy”? At the uttering of that emotionally charged word, all reason in the debate flies out the window.

So he’s not going down that path.  This time.

Here’s another take on it, which makes for an interesting read.

Another take, H/T Chuckles