[paradigm shift] from the macro to the interpersonal

There's little doubt we're running into a dire period in the world [see any number of blogs] and there seem to be three schools of thought:

1. ruthlessly expose the bstds, rise up against them, endlessly blog about how terrible Brown and Bush are;

2. pretend it's not happening;

3. change the whole paradigm and focus on interpersonal relations as the key to sustainable resistance.

Forget macro-politics - micro-politics is the new resistance. The more people who:

1. clean up their minds, observe a moral code and teach their children to do the same;

2. learn to be satisfied and take only that which they need;

3. adopt the business principle that you're always going to have to give far more than you'll get back, that a filtration process takes place to weed out "takers" and that sufficient investment into other people will inevitably pay off ...

... and a strong foundation is built which can resist the new age of Self Gratification and Moral Ambiguity. To put it simply, a well brought up person will always win through and if the majority are well brought up [too late for many in this generation but they can start with the next] then the horrors of today's society can be resisted and circumvented.

If people are giving to one another, they can't act against each other. I think Susanna Hoffs [see last posting] is a great example. The Bangles broke up in 1989 due to internal pressures:

It's often focused on, perhaps unfairly, that the feeling of unease over Susanna Hoffs being seen as the centre of attention was the catalyst for the break-up. Different band members had different opinions, and the stresses of recording and touring took their toll.

Combined with an alleged plot by management to break up the band to ring-fence Susanna as a solo artist, the lawyers were called and the band split up ... Susanna was initially the most keen to reunite the Bangles, and eventually the other band members were persuaded.

I think one needs to go deeper. I ran some of the Youtubes past my mate and a French woman friend of mine today and certain things came out clearly. Hoffs is a honey. Why are men so hot for her and not for the equally facially beautiful Michael Steele?

Easy, says the Frenchwoman.

Hoffs is not afraid of being feminine, she doesn't feel "oppressed" by playing up to men which is a big feminist no-no, she comes on to men using innuendo, those sloe-eyes, sultry voice and every trick of personal appearance she can dream up. She stands with knees together and hands demurely in front of her, she smiles [another feminist no-no], she wants those men to want her and doesn't apologize.

She's a giver. Result - we want her badly. Not all but many, judging from the Youtube comments. Facial beauty is one thing and sure it's a big factor with her but it's how she uses it which is everything. With the greatest respect, Michael Steele could have done that but she didn't. Where in those clips was there evidence that the other three were interrelating with the audience as Hoffs always does? So one or two got all jealous.

I'm no expert but it seems it's first of all about acting sensually but not sleazily, about looking after yourself physically and perhaps dressing nicely but far more importantly - walking into any interpersonal situation with a mindset of giving to that other person. That takes some adjustment.

Yet it will always win in the end.

Example - we have three wall mirrors down in the foyer at uni, always with 12 or so girls trying to use them. You only need to walk up to one of the mirrors and they'll step out of the way to give you space. But if you indicate no - she should continue and you'll just look over her shoulder at the mirror, there'll be no result but days later, on the 3rd floor, she'll remember it and come up and talk.

Coming back to the original dilemma in this post - the dark era we're now entering. If every husband never demanded conjugal rights, if she phoned him at work and detailed in just under a minute the disgraceful things she was planning for his anatomy that evening, if she was weary and he took care of things then came and lay with her, just chatting about this and that, if they were to continually seek common ground rather than sticking to entrenched positions - it goes on and on - then nobody could divide them, the kids would pick up on it and outside attempts to divide and rule would ultimately fail.

Goody Two Shoes? Don't think so.

The new politics should have a micro-focus - each one of us should take care of the interpersonal and put it on an altruistic footing rather than a hedonistic. Pleasure and power will then come back at us like a wave or else if it won't - we move on and try again.

It's a war of attrition [note the Fabian roots].

[micro-control 6] regional government proceeds apace

This map can be seen more clearly by either clicking on the pic or on this link.

There's just too much material.

Rather than present one mega-post, it's best to do it this way in bite sized pieces. I really want to present all the quotes on the Surveillance Society but this piece on regions had to be looked at first.

Before getting to the main article, this piece by Ellee Seymour [follow link] on Mandelson’s reneging on ACP trade agreements in favour of regional agreements sets the thrust of the EU.

Now. Simon [one of the Anons] said on 07 November 2007 and I've slightly abridged where some points have been made before and left out interpretations – you can make those yourself:

Treaty of Rome and in the acquis commaunitaire.

The Preamble of the 1957 treaty includes this: ‘to strengthen the unity of their economies and ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and backwardness of the less favoured regions’. The treaty clauses are peppered with references to regions.

The 1960s was a decade of advance for the EEC’s regional policy. In 1961 the European Commission held its first conference and set up three committees to look at running regional policy across the EEC.

These reports formed the basis of the 1965 First Commission Communication on Regional Policy. The Commission emphasised that its authority on regions came from the treaty of Rome and said every country must draw up regional economic policies.

The First Community Economic Programme of 1966 to 1970 emphasised integrating regional with national policies.

Working parties of senior civil servants from member states met regularly to advise on regional policy.

In 1969 in a second more substantial statement, the Commission said that all economic and social policy had to be determined at the European level or the region but NOT by nation states…and I quote ‘if member states were to remain responsible for regional policy then development of the Community would be jeopardised’.

The EEC began to give grants on a regional basis ensuring that the member countries would eventually change their systems of local government to receive crumbs from the Brussels’ table. That has a name – it is bribery.

So when we signed the treaty of Rome we signed up to that EU statement ‘if member states were to remain responsible for regional policy then development of the Community would be jeopardised.’

Do you remember a debate about it in the Commons? No - there wasn’t one. But there is no doubt that both Wilson’s, Callaghan’s and Heath’s govefrnments all knew.

Now fast-forward 30 years. We are in what Brussels calls the Post Democratic Era.

The London Assembly is an example of the extreme centralisation of power that is taking place in all 12 British regions. I was going to stand for the Conservatives for the London Assembly, but when I investigated what I would actually do should I be elected, I realised the best I could achieve would be to write to Ken Livingstone and he could then throw my paper in the bin.

Ken appoints all 15 members of Transport for London; all 16 members of the London Development Agency; nearly half of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority; the board of the Cultural Strategy Group; the London Health Commission executive and just over half of the Metropolitan Police Authority. He has a role in the appointment, discipline and removal of senior police officers.

Let me concentrate on the lobbyists. Because there are not enough seats for all of them [in the regions], new organisations represent a mish mash of lobby groups simply to produce a single member to ‘represent’ them in the assemblies.

For example, every region now has a Council of Faiths to represent Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Bahais, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Druids and Pagans. That produces one man to sit in the assembly. In the South West Assembly it happens to be a Quaker from North Somerset.

A new network of Economic Partnerships represents councils, health trusts, universities, and government quangos. Again one person represents these different groups inside the Assembly.

Add in the CBI, the TUC, ethnic minorities, Help the Aged the UK Youth Parliament for those aged between 11 and 18 and too young to vote but not too young for the Assemblies. And on and on.

Even more bizarre, an organisation or council can be represented in the Assembly through several different stakeholders, so diffuse is the structure. It’s a veritable cats’ cradle.

But it isn’t democracy. It isn’t transparent. What happened to one man, one vote?

So far the Assemblies have limited powers. And to lobby for money the regions have permanent offices in Brussels. So too do the county councils. There are over 150 such offices in Brussels representing regions across the European Union.

For what is happening in this country is also happening across the EU. Every country is divided into regions, sub regions, and sub sub regions, interlinked by roads, railways, electricity cables and gas pipelines to ensure dependency on neighbouring regions and to cut across national borders, all induced by grants from Brussels.

Who defines a region? The answer is Eurostat, the EU’s statistical service in Luxembourg. These boundaries have been used since at least 1961 in Community legislation. And it’s all done by population.

[An interesting sidelight is the nomenclature used, as the first commenter on this post indicated.]

Last year this system was enforced throughout EU by regulation - every local authority has to use it. The excuse was the enlargement of EU. Her are the populations for the regions:

Region 3 million 7 million
Sub region 800,000 3 million
Sub sub region 150,000 800,000

Every county council will be abolished. Devon County Council is now a sub sub region of the EU, UKK43, pending its abolition.

England, of course, if ths goes ahead, ceases to be.

Elsewhere in the EU:

President Mitterand in 1982 created 22 regions with limited powers. But President Chirac campaigned in 2002 on decentralisation assuring electors that the first article of the French constitution, France is ‘a single and indivisible republic’, was sacrosanct. If it succeeds the map of France will revert to the way it looked in mediaeval times.

Portugal voted ‘no’ to regions in a 1998 referendum. But the next year regional development agencies were imposed on the Portuguese: Unelected partnerships of local vested interests or stakeholders.

Poland had to change to join EU, applicant countries now have to. In 1998 its 49 provinces were abolished and 16 regions introduced.

The only ones not to change are the 16 German Lander.

Notes

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

[micro-control 5] time will confirm or deny

Alas, still not the collation some were hoping for but please give this post a chance, nonetheless, a post with absolutely no hyperlinks.

At what point does a fearless investigator become a weirdo?

Answer – when those he is investigating turn the tables on him with popular catch-cry mockery which, unfortunately, sticks in the common mind.

A case in point was in the 70s, when I was so young it's hard to credit and there was a certain urban warrior girl, elder sister of my best mate and she was right into the union of students, communism and so on.

In those early days we were in Australia and it was 1975, days of the November coup d'etat when Governor General Kerr assumed his royal prerogative and sacked an elected government. As it turned out, it was in line with the popular mood anyway because Malcolm Fraser subsequently won a landslide election.

However, I digress. This girl, Margaret by name, was right into it and the current war was between the Trots and the Stalinists for who was going to run Australia. I had a look at one of their pamphlets and it was a series of long diatribes employing all the catch-cries about imperialist dogs of war and the rest of it.

Repeatedly punctuated by the one hard fact that had actually come to light, they'd constructed an elaborate conspiracy, egged on by resident academics from the universities but their failing was that they'd consistently misread the average person who was basically apolitical and didn't want to be bullied and cajoled into joining “the cause”, much less spending hours in a street with a couple of hundred other chanting, placard waving militants.

Came the night following the midday of the coup and the streets were alive with a largely rudderless mass of angry people, not all young and I went along to have a look. There were some faces I recognized whom Margaret had brought to my friend's home once or twice and one of these now jumped up on a soapbox and started making a speech through a megaphone.

Then, shock, horror, he was pulled down from there and a different one got up and started haranguing the masses, a la Adolph and it soon became apparent that these people actually did believe a revolution was possible in Australia. We left early, the entertainment largely a fizzer, just as the recent 2007 pro-referendum rally was in London.

But I venture to say that there is a different kind of political animal, of which Unity is a fine example, who really does have his facts at the ready, though his interpretation is necessarily coloured by his leanings. DK describes him as having 'one of the finest analytical brains' and it's hard to argue with that.

I'd further venture to say that he has such wide appeal because he doesn't go outside the box and keeps a narrow political focus which goes no further. In other words, he argues within his facts.

Recently, I referred to the words of an 'escapee of the cabals' and included only the plausible part of what she'd said about our gallant leaders but I admit that that portion was only one small part of the whole. An astute reader noted that I'd 'only just scratched the surface' and it certainly looked that way to those who'd read the whole thing.

The thing is, there are some allegations which people are just not going to stomach. I don't mean I don't accept them as possible, certainly they're in line with what is already known but without hard proof, with only personal testimony, even seemingly bona fide testimony, it's hard to quote these things.

One of the easier ones to accept is Cheney's 'A Most Dangerous Game', as it is in line with his personality as observed by others. Cheney and mentor Rumsfeld are generalists, men of little talent but with a 'good ole boy' persuasive manner of speaking who get into positions of responsibility, then develop their ability after that.

"Cheney's manner and authority of voice far outstrip his true abilities," says Chas Freeman, who served under Bush's father as ambassador to Saudi Arabia. "It was clear from the start that Bush required adult supervision -- but it turns out Cheney has even worse instincts. He does not understand that when you act recklessly, your mistakes will come back and bite you on the ass."

"Dick always had this very calm way of talking," recalls his roommate at college, Jacob Plotkin, now a retired math professor at Michigan State University. "His thoughtful manner impressed people. He passed one psych course without attending class or studying, and he was proud of that. But there are some things you can't bluff, and Dick reached a point where you couldn't recover."

Rumsfeld's gung-ho final visit to the troops as their 'leader' was another case in point, at odds with the generals who came out and called him out for what he had – no military aptitude at all.

I know this type because, to a point, I am one. I write on anything and when I write a post on gold and silver, I'm using other people's expertise, such as Sackerson's and just collating it.

This sort of thing finds some support in T.D. Allman's The Curse of Dick Cheney, when he observes:

Appointed to another powerful position, Cheney promptly went about screwing it up. He pushed to turn many military duties over to private companies and began moving "defense intellectuals" with no military experience into key posts at the Pentagon.

Most notable among them was Paul Wolfowitz, who later masterminded much of the disastrous strategy that George W. Bush has pursued in Iraq.

In 1992, as undersecretary of defense, Wolfowitz turned out a forty-page report titled "Defense Planning Guidance," arguing that historic allies should be demoted to the status of U.S. satellites, and that the modernization of India and China should be treated as a threat, as should the democratization of Russia.

"We must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role," the report declared. It was nothing less than a blueprint for worldwide domination, and Cheney loved it.

He maneuvered to have the president adopt it as doctrine, but the elder Bush, recognizing that the proposals were not only foolish but dangerous, immediately rejected them.

So when abused women come out and make unbelievable allegations about what these and the whole bunch of them got up to, either they're fantasizing and creating an elaborately detailed story from somewhere, possibly based on existing elements of fact ... or else they're telling the truth.

Problem is, this 'truth' is so far-fetched – trauma conditioning, military bases such as Point Magoo or UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute in California, the CIA [always a good one as a villain], child prostitution rings, high governmental 'cocktail parties' where the cocaine flows and anything's on the menu – such things could only ever be accepted by those already unimpressed with these gallant leaders as human beings.

Slightly easier to accept in 2007 are the red, blue and yellow lists of wrong thinking people for either 'disappearing' or rounding up for 'retraining' through regional administrations at the point of the emergency powers being invoked [a la WW2].

I quote here, not from a political writer but from an allegedly abused woman who was privy to such talk in the late 60s:

What I understood was that they were planning a complete and utter economic collapse of the nations that would make the Depression of 1929 look like child's play and through that, bringing people financially to their knees, they would then come in and control them, and bring in whatever other measures they would want to in the guise of rescue - when it certainly wouldn't be that at all.

That's a little easier to accept for the general populace in the light of the financial uneasiness, Northern Rock and so on. Well, maybe it's still a year to early. However, you'd realize that if this quote had come to light in the boom times of the late 60s, before they turned sour, she would have been laughed out of town for saying it. Today the evidence is building.

I'm living in what was the SSSR, which until 1990 was well known [and nobody I know denies it] for the elimination of dissent, especially around the time of WW2. How do you think they actually went about that? The midnight car which came to collect you was known here as 'chornaya voron', black raven.

Brits and Yanks readily accept it could be so here. Why not in the west? Because everyone wishes to believe, wills it to be so, that the leaders are all for G-d, Queen or beloved President and country and couldn't possibly be Profumos, Lord Lucans, Lord Levys or Dick Cheneys.

Until now. Now it is slowly dawning on the good people in society that the writers writing all this, the Andrei Sakharovs, the Daniel Ellsbergs [who is a bit strange, admittedly] and some of the lesser known lights may not be so weird after all in their ideas and might just be investigators or victim/observers who blew the whistle on things which really, really were weird.

So people are starting to accept [and in Gordon Brown they have a fine example] that the leadership is less than pristine and not exactly looking out for the common folk.

The more forward thinking are starting to accept the internment camps of which Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are just the tip [you might like to investigate Nottinghamshire too] and a brave few are speculating that the common man is not immune from all this [look at the investigatory and detention powers in Britain alone – search for the RIP Act as a starter] and it is reasonably clear that the elected leadership is in fact putting measures in place to turn on the average citizens who won't shut up and stay out of matters which don't concern them.

This is an inversion and deception – an inversion of sovereignty and a deception through the MSM.

However, this is minor stuff compared to the real game plan which brings in the metaphysical. Why on earth do people pass over GHW Bush's references to 1000 points of light and his labelling of the gulf war on service certificates as his New World Order. I didn't invent this – he did. And the semi-religious tone of the language in a speech to the nation:

David С Whitney & Robin Vaughn Whitney, The American Presidents, 9th ed., Nelson Doubleday Inc, Guild America, NY, 2001, pp 433-459, wrote of GHW Bush at the Republican Convention, August, 1988:

He celebrated the nation's complexity with a captivating poetic image, calling it "a brilliant diversity spread like stars, like a thousand points of light in a broad and peaceful sky."

… but contrasted this appeal to the celestial elements with:

The campaign was criticized by many as being the most negative in recent memory with campaign commercials showing convicted murderers and sewer sludge.

His inaugural address included:

"A new breeze is blowing, and a world refreshed by freedom seems reborn. The totalitarian era is passing, its old ideas blown away like leaves from an ancient, lifeless tree."

Contrast this pure ancient mystery religion terminology with the peace and harmony he brought through laser-guided weaponry, televised for all the world to enjoy and marvel at.

Why do the European authorities, late at night, not raid the house in the photo above and publish the names of all those inside at the time? Where is a European Elliot Ness now?

Why does the characterization of the old money families in films such as Brotherhood of the Wolf, as distinct from its hotch-potch story, not ring bells in people's minds as to what they really do in the darkness?

The first thesis in this post is that people cannot be presented with too much reality because the mind just closes up and turns savagely or mockingly on he who has presented the idea and that effectively kills debate.

The second thesis is that the 'ten second grab' mentality of the average punter kills serious investigation. When I questioned why serious allegations about CP were not being taken up by the blogosphere, one answered that if we took two weeks in full time collation of every link, every scrap of data and worked it into a rational, plausible whole and presented it for his esteemed perusal, he might just deign to take a look at it.

That, with all due respect, is not what this thing is about. I've been lucky enough to have been fed fragments over the past few weeks [and before that I was going it alone] but it takes huge amounts of time to work all that into plausible arguments to lay before the unbelieving sceptic and I have, quite frankly, neither the time nor the inclination to convince he who will not see.

It's all there – one just has to get off the butt and do a bit of ferreting. That's why this post has no links, no spoon feeding. One has to go out and look at it oneself, just as I had to. That would be far more effective anyway.

If I present a fait accompli, then the only thing left for you to do is to give the thumbs up or down like an emperor. If you discover all this for yourself, on the other hand, then no one can gainsay you.

But you have neither the time not the inclination, in most cases. There are more important things like what Gordon or Hillary said today.

Time will win out in this situation. Even as I delay presenting the post on the tightening of the screws in British society, so many other bloggers are writing about it and so much more is coming out anyway, day by day, that my post will be largely surplus to requirements by the time it's collated and presented.

We only have to wait for 2009-12 for the macro-picture to be revealed. All the other things like corruption, wastage, internment camps and really weird things will be lost in the information blackout for national security reasons – and the blogosphere wil be one of the first casualties.

That's why we must do all this now and though people sigh and click out, it can only be hoped that some vestige of what went on in the blogosphere will remain with people during the troubles.

The most rudimentary investigation shows the overall direction of where Europe and the U.S. are headed. The justification is terrorism. Most intelligent people know there is a terrorist threat and an Islamic incursion into Europe but don't know what to do.

I don't either. People who have been rebuffed in referenda and are terrified to put it to the people still bring in the new laws in Lisbon, riding over public opinion. And they're certain they're going to get away with it.

Probably ordained by the ancient scribes, in their eyes.

Notes

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

[micro-control 4] some eu plans for england and beyond

The disintegration of privacy within the sphere of the EU comes next post. This post just restates many things already known vis a vis England and might disappoint, in that it presents not a lot new.

So, first up, we're all agreed, aren't we, that the EU has England broken into nine administrative divisions, as seen on the map above? The only question is, post-Lisbon, when precisely this starts.

These nine regions, along with the Scottish and Welsh regions, have already entered the educational field both at senior level and junior as the current situation.

Further information is available here, here, here, and here, just to post a few. [Some government site links might not now work as they have been progressively deleted.]

Each region is a discreet adminstrative area with its own assembly already in situ, ready to activate. This much is easily accessible from government docs on the web. Winston Leonard commented, on October 15th, at my site:

You have to remember that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will disappear under the EU Constitution, with Brussels dealing with Foreign affairs, policy, and overseas embassies. In all probability, the Senior official concerned will be the one relocating to Brussels in 2010.
Same rule would apply to International Development, another area that will lose out to Brussels. So who will relocate? Malloch-Brown, or Milliband, or both?

The move to regionalization needs to be pretty well completed by post 2009 and it can be better observed in local issues, rather than at the national level, for example, on roads:

The new plan will be to let local governments price or otherwise regulate their bits of the road network as they see fit. So far the main example of this is the London congestion charge, which is enforced by using controversial Automatic Numberplate Recognition (ANPR) technology to track vehicle movements.

Predictably, in the wake of recent clownish "carbomb" attempts, the government has granted terror police routine access to the London tracking system. This has confirmed the widely-held view that no matter the initial purpose of any vehicle-tracking technology, it will swiftly become an automated surveillance tool.

Naturally, once the populace is aware of what is happening, there will be a great deal of unrest - the blogosphere transferred to the general community but this has been factored in. An example is Lisbon itself:

Poland also wants to make sure that the charter of fundamental rights, which guarantees the right to strike among other measures, cannot apply in domestic courts. This is an opt-out already secured by the UK. Some in Brussels have questioned its legality but David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, termed it “silicon-sealed”.

The aim is to have the reform treaty ratified by all 27 member states ahead of elections to the European parliament in 2009.

To enforce both it's "entity" as a continental bloc and to snuff out local dissent, the Merkel initiated pan-EU militsia is already in training. And translated from the original here:

It will be the opening day of the command of Central European Gendarmerie (Eurogendfor), intranazionale new force established by the European Union in order to carry out "police missions in operations of crisis."

They'll naturally need some operational theatre of war for training so:

The EU is to examine the possibility of deploying a 3,000-strong force to Chad to contain spill-over from the Darfur conflict in neighbouring Sudan, foreign ministers agreed on Monday.

All of which is fine, of course, if the EU is a philanthropic and trustworthy body which looks after the best interests of its citizens. If that's the case, then the administrative infrastructure being rushed into place, with Common Purpose leadership, is in the best interests of all.

The litmus test, it seems to me, is whether you can believe the word of the EU. Ellee Seymour throws some light on that here, referring to Mandelson’s reneging on ACP trade agreements in favour of regional agreements.

Do read the whole piece to get some sort of idea how you feel about EU transparency and honesty.

Those whio have not already sighed and clicked out might be interested in one take on what the eventual plan entails. I don't mean the EU-ization of what was once Britain but the overall plan.

This is as good an article as any but the heading summary below does not do justice to the full explanation given at the site. Again, do read the whole thing. The process goes something like this:

1st Signpost: The Registration of Populations

2nd Signpost: The Creation of a Global Identification System

3rd Signpost: The Creation of an Infrastructure for the Global Surveillance of Movement

4th Signpost: The Creation of an Infrastructure for the Global Surveillance of Electronic Communications and Financial Transactions

5th Signpost: The Convergence of National and International Databases

6th Signpost: The Spread of the "Risk Assessment" Model

7th Signpost: Security-Force Integration and the Loss of Sovereign Checks and Balances

8th Signpost: The Corporate Security Complex

9th Signpost: The Erosion of Democratic Values

10th Signpost: Rendition, Torture, Death

Do you think this has gone off the deep end? Well, let me go further. The type of incompetence revealed by Dizzie in the losing of 15 000 personal records by courier I simply do not accept as accidental. Please see part 2 of this series.

Notes

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

[micro-control 3] pinning the bstds down

Étienne Davignon

This follows the second article in the series here. It needs to be read in conjunction with its links - at times the short quotes themselves don't give the required continuity.

By virtue of their only partial-transparency, organizations like the CFR, SPPNA, TLC and the European Round Table groups are only going to allow sanitized snippets to become available.

So when Viscount Étienne Davignon [read the article] gives an interview [read the article] to the press and says that conspiracies will always exist, that the Bilderbergers are just multinational business people chatting about the future of the world and that there is no global elite, that things are far more fragmented than that, he speaks no more than the truth, as far as it goes.

And it doesn't go far. There may be no unity to them but there is definitely a common mindset and purpose. It's just the details they get bogged down in.

Pascal Lamy discovered, with DOHA, how difficult it was to find common ground and I myself can attest to that in my proximity to the trade world. The desire to find common ground and to reconcile the localized resistance to common policy is one of the greatest tasks of global trade.

When a journalist notes, to Davignon, "all the recent presidents of the European Commission attended Bilderberg meetings before they were appointed." Davignon's response [is that] he and his colleagues are "excellent talent spotters."

So the anti-globalists are left clutching at straws and the thing is, there is an innocent construction which can be placed on all of it.

When Ian Parker produces a map of the sub-regions Common Purpose will administer in the South-West, post 2009, CP can say “and what?” When he says that CP is no more than an offshoot of the ODPM, they can ask “yes and what?”

What’s nefarious in this?

It’s so non-nefarious that Asha [read the article] can run a piece on Julia Middleton [view the video] which heads up the Google page under her name and is full of her achievements. She’s a leadership developer at low management level, a talent spotter, looking to place the best people in the best positions.

Young hopefuls see that this is a semi-governmental offshoot and a one way ticket to prosperity and security in the next few years so why not?

End of story so let’s all go home.

Except for pesky snippets and little errors they sometimes make, such as Blair’s outright lies when questioned over attending the Bilderberg Conference here and here, which don’t accord with Davignon’s transparency over the group’s above board status.

Or Common Purpose’s failure to explain “what common purpose?”, only to say it is “beyond authority” and when pressed as to what that means, answers that it’s to open up leadership opportunities to those not actually in positions of authority. Again, for what common purpose? They are silent.

The new DTI website now has Regulation in the title and deals with regional administration. CP lists these, concerning all their programmes:

• develop outward-facing leadership, as people who can lead beyond their authority can produce change beyond their direct circle of control
• are highly interactive and experiential, through their real-life settings
• are committed to diversity as working with new and different groups of people delivers greater insight, problem-solving and creativity
• operate under a set of international conventions that create an environment in which real challenge can thrive
• are demanding and fun.

Set of international conventions? In an English region? Change beyond their direct circle of control?

So the investigator either becomes a conspiracy theorist and joins the dots himself or else he is left with a fragmented database, no one snippet actually proving anything but tantalizing nonetheless.

Such as Ben Shepherd’s CP recruiting drive page [read the article] showing a young man in isolation and a blurb inviting young people to join. Notice it's supported by supported by Deutsche Bank and you can check out their history. H/T Cassandra

Again, not particularly nefarious although I thought it was British money supporting CP, not Euro.

And check the Julia Middleton video op. cit.: How To Lead When you haven't any authority and her explanation of recruiting procedure [read the article]:

Participants are selected by a local Common Purpose advisory group, consisting of senior leaders in the area covered by the programme.

But leadership for what? Well, clearly for local and regional CP graduates to occupy top places in government, semi-governmental and industry instrumentalities.

But for what and with what common purpose?

That question has been much on MPs’ minds too as they’ve asked many questions in parliament [read the article].

John Trenchard mentions [read the article], for example, Phil Woolas, Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government replied to one question about the PEU or riot police:

Since the formation of the Preventing Extremism Unit in October 2006, the unit has made grants of less than £100,000 to: Common Purpose - Muslim Leadership Development Project.

Pardon?

Or what of the 4.8 MB pdf on CP in Bradford, whose Page 1 Google fragment says:

THIS WILL TRANSFORM THE TOWN OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS. THE FACILITY WILL ... YORKSHIRE FORWARD EXISTS TO CREATE A POWERFUL AND POSITIVE EFFECT ON THE ...... Leeds Common Purpose. Board member. January 2002. Leeds Initiative ...

You can find a partial list of CP controlled organizations here [read the article] .

Indimedia says the organisation now has training programmes in every major town and city in Britain and since 1989 more than 60,000 people have been involved with 20,000 'leaders' completing one or more programmes. These are:

Leaders: Matrix and Focus
Emerging leaders: Navigator
Very young leaders: Your Turn
Leaders who need a local briefing: Profile
National leaders: 20:20

Matrix?

They themselves seem quite proud of it [read the article]:

We run a Common Purpose programme in every major city and town in the UK and in an increasing number of European cities. 12,000 leaders from all sectors and backgrounds have become Common Purpose 'graduates'.

As CP aren’t making their methods available or filing their curricula online, Indimedia believes it is to do with NLP:

NLP is a technique of using words to re-programme the body computer to accept another perception of reality - in this case the consensus agreed by the manipulators before their victims even register for the 'course'. Apparently the CIA refers to these pre-agreed 'opinions' as 'slides'.

Anyone who resists the programming is isolated and the group turned against them until they either conform or lose credibility to be a 'leader'.

Well there’s not a lot new in that – it was the basis of much of our military leadership training – the need to have all think as one.

Winston Leonard got down to it on 15 October 2007, at my site, when he cited Derek Twigg, [Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Veterans), Ministry of Defence) Hansard source] in answer to parliamentary questions:

Sums paid to Common Purpose UK in each of the last complete five financial years, inclusive of VAT, are as follows:

Amount (£)
2002-03 56,576.25
2003-04 66,716.50
2004-05 42,958.00
2005-06 58,456.27
2006-07 83,817.89

"These payments covered the cost of participation by MOD staff in Common Purpose UK's training and education programmes. Programmes of this nature help to develop leadership skills, to gain understanding about broader aspects of government and to share experience with and learn from participants from both the private and public sectors."

One moment please. CP are connected with MOD training? Winston Leonard adds that, with that in mind, consider these two links:

SWRDA who bought delisted MOD territory [read the article]:

The site is being redeveloped by the South West Regional Development Agency and English Partnerships, who purchased it for £10m. Some form of mixed commercial, retail and housing development is planned, but no details are yet concrete.

Norfolk Action Plan [read the article]:

6.2 It was noted that the Unit would be using the services of a Graduate Placement to help drive the Action Plan forward. Members welcomed the report and emphasised the need for a sound regeneration policy and for this to be high priority particularly in the light of recent closures e.g. Crane Fruehauf, Heinz Foods, RAF Coltishall and RAF Neatishead.

It was also highlighted that regeneration could not take place without partnership working across the county including District Councils. Furthermore it was important to remember that the county contained many areas of hidden deprivation.

As to what action plan, read the article. And as for English Partnerships, Wiki is sketchy:

English Partnerships (EP) is the national regeneration agency for England, performing a similar role on a national level to that fulfilled by Regional Development Agencies on a regional level. It is responsible for land acquisition and assembly and major development projects, alone or in joint partnership with private sector developers.

Do you know anything about them? I didn’t before this week.

It’s often difficult to see the forest for the trees. What we have so far is a lot of acitivity on leadership training programmes for vaguely stated purposes, the buying up of property and some connection with the security forces [along with similar moves to EU militias in Europe].

Meanwhile, headquartered in London, a similar organization to CP in its modus operandi is the Tavistock Institute which is now registered as a charity [read a hostile article here and a a negative overview here]:

… the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London which was funded into existence in 1946 with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation.

One of the Tavistock founders, Dr. John Rawlings Rees, who also became co-founder of the World Federation for Mental Health, talked of infiltrating all professions and areas of society - 'Public life, politics and industry should all ... be within our sphere of influence ... If we are to infiltrate the professional and social activities of other people I think we must imitate the Totalitarians and organize some kind of fifth column activity!'

'We must aim to make it permeate every educational activity in our national life ... We have made a useful attack upon a number of professions. The two easiest of them naturally are the teaching profession and the Church: the two most difficult are law and medicine.'

In the end, it is the militaristic organizational structure, the dealings with the military itself at semi-governmental level, the vacuum sealed non-statements of their purpose, the spin-off authorities and other qangos such as English Partnerships, the presence of groups like Tavistock who are clearly more than think tanks, the rhetoric used and the degree of funding available to these organizations which do sound alarm bells.

All of this can’t be seen in isolation. Accompanying the rise of CP and the like, in Part 4 we look at the plethora of legislation which has hit us in the last twelve years or so.

Late note - have just had a visit from Common-purpose-net IP 217.150.113.250

Notes

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

[micro-control 2] how to recognize it when you see it

This follows the first article in the series here.

I’d like to make it clear that this second article is not intended as “evidence” of any kind and doesn’t touch on that supplied by Anonymous. That comes from the third article onwards.

One needs to be patient.

This here deals, in large part, with one woman’s testimony and stands or falls by that. It excludes all she said which I can’t corroborate from other sources or else is too early to bring in at this point.

It deals, essentially, with the type we’re up against

There is a mentality, a way of operating, of treating others, which characterizes those who are hauling us to a destiny we would not choose for ourselves.

If I use the reference labels “them” and “they”, it’s because theirs is a nebulous way of thinking, shared by many people of a certain societal level, rather than specific individuals – the individual is subordinate in this thing.

Nevertheless, there are certain key characteristics which are always present and permeate everything which they do.

One of my sources for an overview of the mindset is a woman who supposedly escaped the clutches of these people and it’s hardly relevant who she actually is, whether she’s someone’s stooge, an imaginative author or what – she certainly chimes in with what we can see in subsequent articles.

My co-author Anonymous might not be happy that I begin with this, when he is solely concerned with “irrefutable evidence”. I am too but this overview is useful as well to know what to look out for. Plus two more things.

I’ve searched for definitive debunkings of this woman’s words and have yet to find any.

Also, bear in mind that she wrote these things in the mid to late 90s, before what we see today had begun to fully appear to the public eye. The time frame is quite vital because it can be, in no way, 20/20 vision.

Many researchers knew her as Svali. When asked who she was in RL, as distinct from as one of their trainers, she replied:

I am a professional writer in the medical field, was a registered nurse for 18+ years, and currently work as an ESL teacher, health educator, and freelance author.

Interviewed by HJ Springer, Chief Editor CentrExNews.com. 2000, here are some of the things which came from that interview:

Who are they?

The leadership levels include businessmen, bankers, and local community leaders. They are intelligent, well educated, and active in their local churches.

Above local leadership councils are the regional councils, who dictate to the groups below them, help form the policies and agendas for each region, and who interact with the local leadership councils.

At the national level, there are extremely wealthy people who finance these goals and interact with the leaders of other countries.

They have divided the United States up into 7 major regions, and each has a regional council over it, with the heads of the local councils reporting to them. They meet once every two months, and on special occasions.

[They] believe in controlling an area through its:

1. Banks and financial institutions (guess how many sit on banking boards?)
2. Local government: guess how many get elected to local city councils?
3. Law: children are encouraged to go to law school and medical school.
4. Media: others are encouraged to go to journalism school, and members help fund local papers.

People know their status in the group by how far ahead of time they know a meeting date. The lower in the group, the less they are trusted with information, and the less "lag time" before meetings.

These are NOT nice people and they use and manipulate others viciously. They cut their eye teeth on status, power, and money.

An example: my mother was friends with Sid Gottlieb, who was part of the CIA. The farm I grew up on was only about a half hour away from his home in Culpeper, Va. She also knew the Dulles family. A lot of the researchers in the CIA were part of it, and I visited Langley, Va. at intervals growing up.

They are very duplicitous people.

They believe that basically, they are GOOD and doing a good work, even if the means are tough to endure at the time. They are weeding out the weak and unfit, and developing a supreme human being. I know it sounds like hog wash, but they truly, honestly believe this at a core level.

[They] believe that their children are the brightest and best and will be the intellectual elite who will rule over the unintelligent, or "less fit".

They are full of pride, believe they are invulnerable … and that any press about them is the equivalent of a gnat to be swatted. Arrogant people make mistakes, and they are becoming more blatant and open in recent years.

There is a lot of discontent in the ranks, and there would be a mass exodus if the members believed it were really possible to get out (and live).

On world affairs, again remembering that she was taught this in the 80s and wrote of it in the 90s

Russia was never really a threat to us. Marxism was funded by [them], and espoused as a counterbalance to capitalism. [They] believe strongly in balancing opposing forces, in the pull between opposites. They see history as a complex chess game, and they will fund one side, then another, while ultimately out of the chaos and division, they are laughing because they are ultimately beyond political parties.

China will be ranked after the USSR, then the U.S. But a lot of the current U.S. leadership will be in Europe when the change occurs, and many have homes there. They will be "changing nationalities" overnight, as it were. This is the little that I do remember.

I believe it is impossible to win a presidential election in our country today without their backing. The Kennedy family were punished because they tried to disobey them. They were free thinkers, and too hard to "control".

Want to hear the end of the world scenario [as I was taught]?

There will be continued conflict in the Middle East … an economic collapse that will devastate the economy of the US and Europe, much like the great depression.

One reason that our economy continues limping along is the artificial support that the Federal Reserve had given it, manipulating interest rates, etc. But one day, this won't work (or this leverage will be withdrawn on purpose) and the next great depression will hit.

The government will call in its bonds and loans, and credit card debts will be called in. There will be massive bankruptcies nationwide. Europe will stabilize first and then Germany, France and England will have the strongest economies, and will institute, through the UN, an international currency.

Japan will also pull out, although their economy will be weakened.

Peacekeeping forces will be sent out by the UN and local bases to prevent riots. The … people will be asked to make a pledge of loyalty during a time of chaos and financial devastation.

The good news is that if a person is debt-free, owes nothing to the government or credit debt, and can live self sufficiently, they may do better than others. I would invest in gold, not stocks, if I had the income. Gold will once again be the world standard, and dollars will be pretty useless.

On the metaphysical side, they believe

…that their roots go back to the ancient mystery religions of Babylon, Egypt, and Celtic druidism. They have taken what they consider the "best" of each, the foundational practices, and joined them together into a strongly occult discipline…

Hence temples, grand lodges and the like. Hence the giant stone owl at the world leaders’ summer camp in California [see pic here, for example].

There are 12 steps to this [way of operating], also known as "the 12 steps of discipline'.

I don't care if this steps on any toes, it's a fact. The Masonic temple at Alexandria, Virginia (the city itself was named after Alexandria, Egypt, and is a hotbed of … activity) is a center in the Washington, DC area for [their] scholarship and teaching. I was taken there at intervals for testing, to step up a level, for scholarship, and high ceremonies.

[They] also believe their bloodlines have come down from the ancient kings of Egypt.

On symbols

The phoenix is one of their highest, the eagle, red on black, or the reverse, butterflies and rainbow signs, gem stones, the Star of David, believe it or not, earth, water, and fire, a tremendous amount of Greek and Roman mythology, lightning bolts, a head with a computer inside, pyramids …

On why people either don’t know about this or reject it out of hand:

The evidence is there, but in my opinion, the average person does NOT want to know, and even when confronted with it, will look the other way … the MK-Ultra documents that have been declassified, shown as real, and people still ignore it.

But I believe that the media that downplays [it] is feeding into a deep need in the average person to NOT know the reality. In fact, how can a person face the fact of great evil in mankind, unless they have either a strong faith in G-d, or are faced with insurmountable evidence? We as human beings want to believe the BEST of our race, not the worst.

How to stop them:

1. Their arrogance (I think I mentioned this before) is their weakness. These people think they are untouchable, and this could make them careless.

2. If by a miracle, enough people took this SERIOUSLY … and God's guidance, perhaps they could be stopped. I hope so, with all of my heart.

3. Stopping pornography and child prostitution and drug smuggling and gun running would take a huge chunk out of their profits.

4. To be honest, I don't know what could really stop them. I have written about this group to try and expose them, I have gone to the police … I guess each person has to do his best in fighting these people, in the way they feel led to. My skills tend to be in writing, so I am using them.

Anything else?

From my own sources and without attempting to prove any of it at this stage, I’d add:

1. They favour hierarchical structures – though they operate in teams at lower echelons, the hierarchy is still much in evidence in terms of promotional opportunities and “carrots”. To employ Svali’s own words, they:

…are a very political and back stabbing group, a "dog eat dog" mentality; everyone wants to move up…

A person’s natural desire to do well creates an “invitation” scenario. One is invited to write [in our case as authors] for certain publications, one attends the little get-togethers with those above us, the waters are tested as to what a person is prepared to do to move up.

A person who draws the line is applauded outwardly but is actually then marginalized and windows of opportunity now cease to open up as they’d begun to do.

There’s a very “clubby” atmosphere to it all - the “hush power” I’ve referred to before – and it is nice to be recognized, courted, to earn vastly more, to sit in the first class lounge rather than with the plebs. I suppose I felt it most in my times in Frankfurt.

2. They do like symbolism, e.g. the XX in ExxonMobil. Plus some other things:

Look out for muted blues, yellows and pinky reds on their webheaders and in their literature, diffuse colours in a sort of watercolour swirl, accompanied with high sounding bureaucrat-speak which actually comes down to nothing specific, such as “Preparing for Tomorrow Today” and so on.

Look out for colour coding, especially people who colour code their sections or folders [or even blogrolls].

Look out for images which are happy and loving up front, show men, women and sometimes infants in happy poses but then in the text are quite relativist and morally equivalent, devoid of specific aims.

There was a cogent example of this with one of our own Blogpowerers in a post last week – beautiful rhetoric, punctuated with photo-images to reinforce it but hollow in substance when analysed and in its values, equivalent and relative in the extreme.

Tied in with this is the absolutely naff banner or logo design which a schoolkid could have come up with here [now relegated to the bottom of the page after severe criticism]. Here is another example. Think for one moment about the mindset which both came up with and approved those logos - that's quite some mind to entrust your future to.

PCism [an example is here and another particularly egregious example is here] is also part of this – with vague ideas of tolerance and love for oppressed minorities but moving down channels proponents often don’t foresee and with ways of legislating what they want into existence, whilst firmly believing it’s all for the benefit of society.

Look out for poor navigation on sites and in publications and things left unexplained, e.g. just what Common Purpose really means. When you follow the links in what initially seems good navigation, they always end up curtailed, speaking of “graduates” without actually specifying the nature of the training, the curriculum or from whence the teaching staff is derived.

There is never any explicit statement of purpose except, say, “beyond authority”. It’s biz-speak in its worst form and it’s not designed for such as me or maybe you – it’s designed for the young hopeful who wants to move up in the world and is happy to accept the slick presentation, elegant colours and platitudes without seriously questioning their source nor where they lead.

There is a certain type of punter who laps that type of thing up because it appeals to something deep inside.

Horses for courses – what appeals to young women in a woman’s magazine is stated differently with, say, Second Life. There it is the “power of cyber-possibility” which appeals, young avatars and slick graphics, the “wow” factor.

There is absolutely nothing new in this. Agatha Christie’s Inspector Grant said, in N or M [1941]:

It appeals to something in man, some desire or lust for power.

The next part of that quote is relevant to the next point.

3. Loyalty is a fluid concept with them, [what I call the “Sutherland mndset”, especially in respect to nationalism and patriotism. These are people without nations, loyal to a higher good. Christie’s quote continues:

These people were ready to betray their country, not for money but in some sort of megalomaniacal pride in what they, they themselves, were going to achieve for that country. In every land it has been the same.

4. They’re quite militaristic, favouring quasi-military solutions for perceived problems in the public sphere. It’s very much part of their persona to favour checkpoints, surveillance, armed paramilitary police instead of the friendly neighbourhood bobby and always that hierarchical model, as distinct from an occupation and task oriented structure.

5. Their propaganda is both soft and hard, the hard following the tried and tested pseudo-Hegelian derivative - here are some instructions:

a. over decades, by means of stacking positions of power in every field with like-minded people - undermine the ability of the organs of state to respond;
b. create a crisis when the time’s right;
c. identify the enemy who caused this outrage and his hangers on and apologists [lumping in one’s own opponents here];
d. allow the undermined and atrophied organs of state to fail to respond adequately;
e. await the public rumblings then outcry, the flames of which you yourself have fanned with occasional well-timed statements;
f. step up with a pre-groomed messiah, e.g. Tony Blair in ‘92, who speaks vague words of great sense and is possessed of a great sense of energy and enthusiasm;
g. mission complete.

Why?

Meaning why is it all going on? Why can’t people just enjoy the pleasure of a productive working week, repartee, the conviviality of the pub and a quiet smoke, the Sunday lunch and drive, holidays and so on? Where is the necessity for crisis?

Ask the ghost of Nietzsche. Ask Ian Hay, who in The First Hundred Thousand, in 1915, wrote:

War is hell, and all that, but it has a good deal to recommend it. It wipes out all the small nuisances of peace-time.

Such as not having your son’s body riddled with bullets as he lies face down in the mud, I suppose, Mr. Hay. Like not having to live on rations and in a state of constant fear. To which Hay might reply:

Well, at least it’s better than living in debt as a virtual pauper, as the government lurches from crisis to crisis.

But this is that old Inversion and Deception again, Mr. Hay, that old chestnut. There would be no recession and depression in the first place if people’s greed and ambition had not caused them to eat of the Deadly Nightshade and be poisoned by its hallucinogens.

The whole purpose of those societal ills in the first place was to set the scene for the real money-spinner – war.

And to sentient beings who think and feel and have a moral framework? They go the way of all things, like the entire intelligentsia in Stalin’s USSR.

Like the blogosphere.

In part 3, we get down to the nitty gritty of 2007 and beyond.

Notes

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7