News - WHAT NEXT FOR BRITISH BRAINWASHING OFFE...http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:MwQOmv6jlR4J:www.wor...2 of 102/24/09 4:13 AM
Given the image of buffoonery that this John Prescott projects, observers have for some time beenasking themselves why on earth this figure has remained in his senior position for so long, unaffectedby Blair’s Cabinet reshuffles and other disturbances which have destabilised this revolutionaryFabian Government. The answer to this question has emerged in recent months thanks to diligentand persistent research by extremely competent analysts who have, as the British often say, ‘smelleda rat’ – believing John Prescott to be much more important than his crass image would suggest.It transpires that the ramshackle Office of the Deputy Prime Minister employs a certain femalerevolutionary operative as Head of Personnel Selection, named Mrs Julia Middleton. But that is justher cover job. Middleton’s real focus is as so-called Founder and Chief Executive of a vastnetworking organisation calling itself ‘Common Purpose’ – a responsibility that she somehowmanages to combine with her official rôle as a senior civil servant paid by the taxpayer.You will have noticed two features of this name: the use of the aesopian Communist/revolutionaryord ‘Common’ – which is to be found replicated many millions of times throughout all EuropeanUnion Collective documentation – and the initials CP, which double for Communist Party. They arealso, appropriately, the ‘Conservative’ Party’s initials (see below).Characteristic of revolutionary jargon is a deliberate failure ever to define any terms at all.Accordingly, the adjective ‘Common’ is not defined, and neither is the noun ‘Purpose’. This isbecause, if the true revolutionary ‘purpose’ were to be exposed, the 'Useful Idiots' who have allowedthemselves to be conned into supporting and financing this revolutionary putsch, would be appalled,and most of them would cancel their sponsorship.A partial list of the‘Useful Idiot’ sponsors is given at the end of this exposure article.NEUROLOGICAL LINGUISTIC CONTROL OFFENSIVEAn expert in psychological manipulative techniques used by corrupt intelligence agencies hasidentified the agenda of this subversive organisation as neurological linguistic control, which meansthat it specialises in mind control and brainwashing. The technique used is akin to that employed by aparallel, but older, offensive, named Moral Rearmament (or MRA). What that old, well-fundedoperation does is to seek to strip its targets of all loyalties, the established neuro-control technique,by indoctrinating them into confessing all past ‘sins’ to the collective. The consequence, of course, isthat many victims become blackmailable, and may therefore be less resistant to the next evil step – demands for money, which aim to deprive the victim of his or her independence and to strap thempermanently to the organisation. In other words, the standard Tavistock-originated cultindoctrination techniques are used.In the case of ‘Common Purpose’, its huge neurological linguistic control offensive is directed atsweeping all resident notions from the victim’s mind and psyche, and replacing them with ‘slides’ , orthe ‘politically correct’ notions that the control manipulators seek to impose. As a component of thebrainwashing that takes place at ‘Common Purpose’s’ fake ‘educational’ sessions, which are held allover Britain, the following cynical routine is employed in one way or another: first of all, apredetermined ‘consensus’ line is promulgated before the group; secondly, notions which conflictith the predetermined ‘consensus’ are dismissively, and perhaps rudely, debunked. In the event thatanyone voices ‘dissenting’ views, they are sharply and insultingly criticised, à la Cultural Revolution,and made to look foolish in front of their peers. This is standard practice.Thirdly, ‘lines’ are unveiled for all present to accept without question – preconceived ‘slides’ whichare always so reasonable that no-one could dare object to them; and anyone who does, is forthwithlabelled ('type-cast as') an ‘extremist’.The sophisticated revolutionaries concerned maintain a large vocabulary of prejorative epithetshich can be directed at ‘non-conformers’. For instance, your correspondent attended an event atthe International Monetary Fund/World Bank Annual Meetings held in Prague in 2000, which wasaddressed by the former President of Ireland, an unbelievably unpleasant woman called Mrs MaryRobinson. For some reason, she was sounding off all about the ‘Roma’ (gypsies) – listing theirproblems, how they were ostracised from society, and how society owed them a better deal. Your