Friday 3 March 2006 00:16

Since the following analysis was published [see below] and posted here, John Prescott, the so-called British Deputy Prime Minister, has disgraced the country, his Party and his high office by the exposure of his predatory sexual misdemeanours while supposedly performing his official duties. On 7th May 2006, it was reported that the Metropolitan Police may be looking into this and into the wanton behaviour of his former diary secretary. The fate of the brainwashing operation run out of Prescott's former office, which is the subject of this posting, was therefore uncertain; but it can be taken for granted that this dangerous revolutionary operation, the purpose of which is to develop a core nationwide cadre of brainwashed revolutionary 'implementers', will not have been affected.

To confuse matters, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has, all of a sudden, metamorphosed into the Department of Communities and Local Government (ensuring some print contractor yet another avalanche of taxpayer-funded bonanza orders). Note the use of the word 'Community' in the new title, which of course connects with the 'Common'/Community/Communist agenda here.

The following analysis appears in the current issue of GLOBAL ANALYST [Volume 2, #3]:

The British Fabian Government, which carries the misleading label ‘New Labour’, is in fact the cover for a ‘gradualist’ revolution – the pace of which is perpetually accelerating.

Presiding over the actual revolutionary content of this very dangerous Government is its leading in-house Bolshevik, John Prescott. One of his top, taxpayer-funded civil servants runs, from Mr Prescott’s own office, a nationwide neurological linguistic control brainwashing programme.

Many BBC, ITV and other media personnel are graduates of this operation.

The British Deputy Prime Minister is a former ship’s steward and long-term Bolshevik who, like his ‘ex’-Soviet counterparts, lives in luxury (in his Hull constituency, in a well-appointed official flat in Admiralty Arch, Central London, and at Dorneywood, an official UK Government residence in the countryside). The image that this fellow projects is one of contrived working-class buffoonery, reinforced by the occasional violent outburst of uncontrolled violence, as when he punched a member of the public in the face on-camera. In January, Prescott was compelled to ‘apologise’ to the House of Commons for having failed to remit his Council Tax – which his own Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (OPDM) sets and imposes on the rest of us. A never-ending catalogue of botches, failures, aborted schemes and other loony fiascos is his speciality. He has been in place ever since the so-called New Labour clique led by the deeply compromised Tony Blair – allegedly financed by funds originally derived from the Trinity Mirror newspaper group’s old pension fund stolen by the late Mossad operative, Robert Maxwell – swept to power in a landslide following a carefully orchestrated operation to highlight ‘sleaze’ (corrupt or sexual misbehaviour) within the Conservative Party. There were 19 such sleaze ‘exposures’, and the consequence was that ‘New Labour’ took office in 1997 amid expectations that it would remain in power for a generation.

Given the image of buffoonery that this John Prescott projects, observers have for some time been asking themselves why on earth this figure has remained in his senior position for so long, unaffected by Blair’s Cabinet reshuffles and other disturbances which have destabilised this revolutionary Fabian Government. The answer to this question has emerged in recent months thanks to diligent and persistent research by extremely competent analysts who have, as the British often say, ‘smelled a 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 female revolutionary operative as Head of Personnel Selection, named Mrs Julia Middleton. But that is just her cover job. Middleton’s real focus is as so-called Founder and Chief Executive of a vast networking organisation calling itself ‘Common Purpose’ – a responsibility that she somehow manages 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/revolutionary word ‘Common’ – which is to be found replicated many millions of times throughout all European Union Collective documentation – and the initials CP, which double for Communist Party. They are also, 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 is because, if the true revolutionary ‘purpose’ were to be exposed, the 'Useful Idiots' who have allowed themselves 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.

An expert in psychological manipulative techniques used by corrupt intelligence agencies has identified the agenda of this subversive organisation as neurological linguistic control, which means that it specialises in mind control and brainwashing. The technique used is akin to that employed by a parallel, but older, offensive, named Moral Rearmament (or MRA). What that old, well-funded operation 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, is that 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 them permanently to the organisation. In other words, the standard Tavistock-originated cult indoctrination techniques are used.

In the case of ‘Common Purpose’, its huge neurological linguistic control offensive is directed at sweeping all resident notions from the victim’s mind and psyche, and replacing them with ‘slides’ , or the ‘politically correct’ notions that the control manipulators seek to impose. As a component of the brainwashing that takes place at ‘Common Purpose’s’ fake ‘educational’ sessions, which are held all over Britain, the following cynical routine is employed in one way or another: first of all, a predetermined ‘consensus’ line is promulgated before the group; secondly, notions which conflict with the predetermined ‘consensus’ are dismissively, and perhaps rudely, debunked. In the event that anyone 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’ which are always so reasonable that no-one could dare object to them; and anyone who does, is forthwith labelled ('type-cast as') an ‘extremist’.

The sophisticated revolutionaries concerned maintain a large vocabulary of prejorative epithets which can be directed at ‘non-conformers’. For instance, your correspondent attended an event at the International Monetary Fund/World Bank Annual Meetings held in Prague in 2000, which was addressed by the former President of Ireland, an unbelievably unpleasant woman called Mrs Mary Robinson. For some reason, she was sounding off all about the ‘Roma’ (gypsies) – listing their problems, how they were ostracised from society, and how society owed them a better deal. Your correspondent pointed out that experience in Britain with these people was that no matter what services were provided for them, they invariably failed to ‘clean up their act’. If a field gate is left open, they are liable to enter the field and to squat there indefinitely: so field gates have to be padlocked against that eventuality.

Mrs Robinson, whose politics seemed so far to the Left that she was ‘off the chart’, failed to answer the question put to her and resorted instead to clichéd verbal abuse, saying that the Editor was ‘finger-pointing’, ‘demonising’ and ‘type-casting’.

Let us now step away from ‘Common Purpose’ for a moment, and consider what has happened to the Conservative Party in Britain in recent weeks.

Just as the Labour Party was taken over in the 1990s by a small, well-funded, ruthless0