Cameron — A Morally Corrupt Politician
Cameron is just an example of how morally corrupt politicians are no matter what country we talk about. Cameron promised a referendum on exiting the EU because he never in his wildest imagination contemplated that the British would leave the EU. So what does a corrupt politician do when he fears losing an election? He rigs the game. Cameron is now looking to postpone the referendum because the British people want out as a majority. The sexual assaults by refugees in Germany are just the tip of it. With another 3 million coming in 2016, Merkel is destroying the very fabric of Europe. Cameron is trying to postpone any referendum until 2017 in hopes that something will happen so he can just forget about the whole thing.
The bankers, who are also corrupt, have tried to scare the British people by saying that if the Brits exit the EU, nobody will do business with them. Toyota, on the other hand, came out and bluntly stated the truth — they will, of course, continue to work with the UK. The British banks are in league with Cameron and are full of SHIT. This is the same scare tactic the banks played on the Scottish exit, and we saw similar nonsense in Greece when they told the people they would “starve” because most food is imported from Europe.
Cameron has revealed his untrustworthy character by trying to postpone any exit vote. This is exactly the same corruption that sparked the civil war in Rome and compelled Julius Caesar to cross the Rubicon. Why? Because politicians of the time manipulated the calendar to postpone elections if they knew they would lose. They took advantage of the fact that the high priest, Pontifex Maximus, would arbitrarily adjust the calendar by inserting the leap days at his discretion. Solution? Bribe the high priest. The Senate fled and Caesar assumed the position of Pontifex Maximus and created the fixed Julian calendar to end the arbitrary manipulation by priests thereafter. Cameron is following the same pattern by postponing a vote he knows he will lose.
God help Britain. Their choice is between a communist who thinks implementing a maximum wage solves something, or Cameron who sees himself as a European before being British.
What Would Goldman Sachs Do If It Lost Both Parties?
According to a New Hampshire poll released by Monmouth University Poll Institute on Tuesday, Bernie Sanders has 53% support compared to Clinton’s 39%, and Martin O’Malley is in third place at 5%. Meanwhile, Trump soars well ahead of everyone else and Bush collapsed to 4%. This begs the question: What will Goldman Sachs do if it does not own both candidates? Goldman has owned both the Republican and the Democratic candidates since the late 1980s. This could be the FIRST election where the New York bankers do not own either candidate. OMG! What will New York do? secede?
French Politics are Turning Ahead of 2017
Comment: [Here is] a poll that may be of some interest to you. It says that the National Front is now enjoying a massive support among police and armed forces in France. It reaches now 51.5%. Back in 2012, it was 30%.
The comments of the “insiders” show a growing concern within the ruling elite. Basically, they say that because of terrorism, the socialist government is now praising and supporting the same security forces who actually are shifting to their main political opponent: Marine Le Pen. Even worse: they’re giving them more and more power and credits to achieve the fight against the islamist threat.
Here is a common analysis shared by the hardcore socialist within the state, behind closed doors: Hollande is following the path of Guy Mollet, the socialist Prime minister who gave up the government powers to the French Army back in 1956 when the Algerian conflict was expanding. It ended in 1958 with De Gaulle successful coup d’état.
De Gaulle actually was supported by the army and generals had prepared an airbone operation on Paris back then. If the civilian government were to refuse to let De Gaulle take over, the army would have used force to achieve it. The then government gave up and De Gaulle took office quietly.
So basically, what is remaining of the “Left” is panicking as they think the Police and Armed Forces would support a National Front victory. Which could indeed happen in 2017, 2017 will be 224 years after 1793, the year of the “Reign of Terror” organised by the republican government. At the moment, all powers were given the acting police minister (Committe of Public Safety). They had basically the ability to arrest anyone without charge and many were put under house arrest (about 500 000). THis lasted until 1794 with Robespierre fall.
Interestingly enough, in 1958, De Gaulle come back was officially launched by the army and the police. They called themselves “Committe of Public Safety”. The idea was to achieve victory in Algeria. But De Gaulle was a cunning politician and gave up quickly :
I don’t know if your computers foresee a National Front victory in 2017, or an apparent victory followed by a quick collapse of Le Pen government. But it seems that, if necessary, the Armed Forces and the Police have made their choice in case of a “civil war.
Regards.
Reply: What is shaping up is very similar to the first presidential election in France in 1848. This was the sovereign debt crisis that first hit the USA at the state level when the first and only president of the Second Republic was elected in a surprise election that took place on December 10, 1848. The French constitution at that time only included a provision for one round of voting, and in the absence of a majority for any candidate, the National Assembly would decide the next president.
Louis-Eugène Cavaignac was seen to be the guaranteed winner. The establishment political elites were backing Cavaignac and it was presumed that they would install him as president even if he did not win a majority.
However, Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte won the election to everyone’s shock, taking 74% of the vote. Bonaparte was NOT a career politician so the elites explained his victory as if it were a fraud. They said he presented himself as “all things to some men.” However, he was the best of two bad choices between the Monarchist right supporters and the Legitimist/Orléanist royal households. Bonaparte was seen as a man who would restore order and put an end to the political instability that gripped France in the aftermath of the overthrown French monarchy in February 1848.
Bonaparte won a huge vote, which nobody in France has ever again matched. He is generally seen as the person who prevented a communist revolution, which was argued for by Marx’s friend Friedrich Engels back then. Bonaparte swept the votes from the non-politicized rural masses who saw the communist supporters in the cities as eager to take their land. The glory that had been Napoleon contributed greatly outside of the cities where the name of Bonaparte meant something.
Of course, Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte staged his own French coup d’état on December 5, 1851, when he refused to leave office. This ended in the successful dissolution of the French National Assembly and re-established the French empire in 1852 as a republic. Louis-Napoléon implemented his popular reform programs that included the restoration of the right to vote (universal suffrage) that the National Assembly abolished when they tried to retain their own power, much like Brussels today where there is no right to vote for any member of the Troika.
Louis-Napoléon’s political reforms were popularly endorsed by constitutional referendum. He then reclaimed the throne of France as emperor under the name Napoleon III (1852-1870).
No comments:
Post a Comment