Tuesday, March 31, 2009

A Common Purpose?

In a recent Edge TV exposé, retired naval commander, Brian Gerrish spoke of the insidious infiltration of Common Purpose (CP) into nearly all avenues of government and industry. I reported on CP some time ago and since then its tentacles of power have been extending. Cloaked in the altruistic clothing of a charity ‘empowering people and communities’, it is really anything but. In reality CP is an elitist pro-EU political organisation which is usurping the democratic framework and sovereignty of this country while at the same time threatening personal free will.

To save you time digging back through my archives, I have brought my original 2007 blog forward and included some further comments on this secretive 'charity', which are ever more relevant to current political trends in this country.

I was originally alerted to Common Purpose, back in 2007, by an article written by David Icke, but before reading his article in full, I first went to Common Purposes' website to get my own first impression on what it was all about. I was confronted by a lot of convoluted prose, but the best I could ascertain from their mission statement was that they run courses for various age groups and people of varying degrees of managerial responsibilty to help them understand the world in which they live and help make society and/or their organisation more efficient. Good aims you might suppose on the surface of it, but very light on specifics the way most advertising is. That begs the question - just how do they intend participants to achieve these goals and ultimately, whose goals are they?

The title ‘Common Purpose’ may sound altruistic - conjuring up a structured way of bettering society, working together as communities or within organisations with more transparency, honesty and accountability all for a common good. And it is this altruistic message that will appeal to many ambitious younger people in junior management with their lifetime stretching in front of them. They feel they can be part of a team that can improve our lot in a world distraught with famine, war, duplicity and evil. So far so good, or is it?

But dig deeper, as Icke did, and you will find out something that is not stated on their website. Common Purpose’s Chief Executive is Julia Middleton who just happens to be Head of Personnel Selection in the office of the Deputy Prime Minister! We are also told that DEMOS, the political think tank that strongly influenced Tony Blair during his administration and is now advising parties across the political spectrum, is closely involved with Common Purpose. This then provides an immediate link between political direction and the appointing and grooming of those who are considered to be specially selected and 'politically correct' future leaders, hardly the work of a 'charity' I would have thought! Given this no small coincidence that a direct conduit runs from central government to CP and the real nature of the beast comes sharply into focus. Any altruism must surely be heavily tainted by government and the puppeteers that run it.

It is clear that CP is aimed at people in senior positions in politics, education, policing, local government, business, health and the media - it is estimated that possibly 1,000 senior employees in the BBC are members - and because of this it immediately becomes apparent that any 'common purpose' is the reserve of those in these senior decision-making positions. All members of CP, the 'Inner Party' members to take an Orwellian parallel, are given a politically-charged set of values which they must adhere to in the execution of their work and those values and directives are then passed down to us, the 'Outer Party' members who are clearly meant to comply.

Given this government’s long legacy of depriving us of our liberties, building up the police state and control grid, then CP appears to be just another part of that armoury but with its connections to government policy covertly hidden as a semi-secretive 'charity', it is not immediately obvious that this is intended as another tool in achieving a state-sponsored control down through the ranks. Indeed, according to DEMOS, charities in future, are to become politicised and act as maid servants to government doctrine.

Common Purpose seems to adopting all of the hallmarks of Illuminati's Tavistock Institute modus operandi that other manipulator of social behaviour.

Consider this. John Rawlings Rees, one of Tavistock's founders once said this: 'Public life, politics and industry should all ... be within our sphere of influence (the Institute's and the Illuminati they represent)... 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.'

As if to underline CP's hidden agenda, here's one experience (with acknowledgement to David Icke's newsletter.

Brian Gerrish at http://www.eutruth.org.uk discovered Common Purpose when he was involved with a group in Plymouth in the west of England helping people find jobs and one of their projects was repairing wooden boats. He said they had lots of public support and backing from the local authorities and everything was going fine. But then it suddenly changed and the council support was withdrawn. When they tried to continue alone, he said that within a short time key people were being threatened:

'When we started to explore why we were being threatened we were absolutely staggered to find a very strange organisation called Common Purpose operating in the city. And we were absolutely amazed that there were so many people involved but they were not declaring themselves ...

'[Common Purpose] was operating throughout the structure of the city, in the city council, in the government offices, in the police, in the judiciary. Essentially we discovered what is effectively, at best, a quasi secret society which doesn't declare itself to ordinary people.'

Further research has led Gerrish to establish that Common Purpose is recruiting and training leaders to be loyal to the objectives of the organisation and the European Union and preparing the governing structure for what it calls the 'post-democratic society' after nations are replaced by regions in the European Union. 'They are learning to rule without regard to democracy, and will bring the EU police state home to every one of us', Gerrish says. Common Purpose 'graduates' are increasingly everywhere.

When the organisation was given an award in 2005 by one of it clients, Newcastle University in the North East of England, it was revealed that among its graduates in that area were: Michael Craik, Northumbria Police Chief Constable; Andrew Dixon, Executive Director of the Arts Council England, North East; Glyn Evans, City Centre Chaplain; Chris Francis, Centre Manager of the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust; Anne Marshall, Chief Officer of Age Concern; Anthony Sargent, General Director of The Sage Gateshead; Miriam Harte, Director of Beamish Museum; and Sue Underwood, Chief Executive of NEMLAC (the North East Museums, Libraries and Archives Council). Brian Gerrish has found them to be throughout the government structure with more than £100 million of taxpayers money spent on Common Purpose courses for state employees. It has members in the National Health Service, BBC, police, legal profession, religion, local councils, the Civil Service, government ministries,! Parliament and Regional Development Agencies.'

With a network of CP members occupying a large cross section of senior positions in every town and city in Britain, we now see, in place, a control grid of un-elected intermediaries who are acting as a conduit for the flow of state dictat to we, the common people, while our role, at the bottom of the pile, is to snoop on our fellow citizens' dustbins or pry on them to see if they acting suspiciously and not in accordance with that received dictat.

To view Edge TV's Interview with Gerrish go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtzhMvutuvU

Monday, March 30, 2009

Not the old CCTV blackout MO again?

The first demonstrations, in what will be a week of demonstrating against the G20 summit, passed off without any significant incident last Saturday, although one policeman did say that this ‘was a dry run’ and that the real action would take place this week. Just shows the way their mindset is being programmed!

Supporting the contention that all will not be so peaceful this week, comes the news that many of the City of Westminster’s CCTV cameras will be out of action this during the summit due to a newly installed CCTV network “not fully meeting the resolution standards required". Well, well, how strangely co-incidental on a crucial week when thousands are going to be parading within the very areas that those dysfunctional cameras patrol! I smell a rat.

CCTV cameras weren’t working when Lady Di was assassinated in the Pont d’Alma tunnel in Paris. CCTV cameras weren’t supposed to be working at Stockwell tube station when Charles de Menenzes was assassinated and likewise when the No 30 bus blew up on 7/7. Are the authorities afraid of the danger that footage might be released of police officers behaving in an over-zealous or provocative manner during the G20 demos that would prove state harrassment of what should be peaceful protests? Or might it be something more sinister?

Westminster City Council delivered an urgent note to Geoff Hoon strongly stating that on a week when the streets would be filled with protestors and traffic management would be paramount, the DfT should waive the shutdown for the duration of the talks. Their unavailability will prevent officials from being able to have full visibility on the motorcades to the summit. Might there be a covert assassination attempt planned by the cabal on one or more of the summit attendees that subsequent analysis of CCTV footage might betray?

A source at the council said "Frankly, it couldn't have come at a worse time,". These are not just parking enforcement cameras, they're for public order and we've got the G20 world leaders coming. This is a complete disaster."

It might well be!

Monday, March 23, 2009

Latest from NO2ID

First some encouraging news. After a great deal of outcry, the controversial clause 152 has been removed from the Coroner’s and Justice Bill. As reported in my last NO2ID blog, its retention would have allowed the unmitigated sharing of all of our personal data, not only among government departments and agencies, but also by the private sector and across national boundaries. Many MPs were overwhelmed with letters and emails from their constituents and it became the most briefed-against clause in the whole bill.

But there is no room for complacency. The next few weeks will see the presentation of the Borders, Citizenship & Immigration Bill with its measures for further data sharing; The Policing & Crime Bill involving the garnering of DNA and biometric data and Phase II of NHS Summary Care Records - the sharing of medical records without our consent. And then there's the initial roll-out of ContactPoint, the gathering and sharing on a whole range of personal details about your children. This is an ongoing battle requiring constant vigilance and challenges. But trying to be vigilant is being made difficult by a government intent on avoiding disclosure of what is actually in commissioned reports on their datasharing initiatives.

Just to demonstrate the arrogant way in which the government views public consultation on ID cards a public ‘debate’ was held at Westminster Hall on 11th March, attended by Meg Hillier, the ID Cards minister and MP Mark Todd who, at the outset of the ‘debate’ made it clear that there would be none on the principles of ID Cards or their effect on civil liberties. Hillier then went on to disingenuously say that 70% of the cost “will be the cost of implementing secure passports with fingerprints, something that we are doing to meet international requirements.” The truth of the matter is that there are no international requirements!

The database frenzy continues with bee-keepers being asked to enrol onto a national database. If the take up is not adequate, then it will become compulsory. This accompanies the National Equine Database and a forthcoming database for sheep and I don't just mean us!

In addition to the above, today’s Guardian newspaper published the findings of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust sponsored review, ‘Database State’ prepared by the Foundation for Information Policy Research, into the plethora of databases that our government is rolling out. In the report's estimation, only 6 out of 46 data-gathering systems that the government is currently engaged in should be given a ‘green light’, on the grounds of being effective, proportionate, necessary and established - with a legal basis to guarantee against privacy intrusions. A further 29 were given an amber light, meaning that they pose problems and could be illegal, while 11 schemes should be scrapped altogether or significantly re-designed, these including the DNA database and ContactPoint.

The report estimates that £19bn a year is being spent on database IT with a further £105bn earmarked for the next five years. This is a colossal sum and money, which it appears, is being wasted on intrusive systems that, more often than not, don’t work. Even Whitehall admits that only 30% of public-sector IT projects are successful, a shocking admission.

Crime prevention and improved public sector services are usually cited as the main advantages of this personal information matrix, which judging by their intrusiveness, unreliability and sheer cost, completely destroys that argument. What is evident, in my view, is that the pressure to roll out these schemes is supra-governmental - that it is the controlling élite that are calling the shots - while our niaive, gullible and bought-and-paid-for politicians - under orders - are stumbling about, blindly rolling out this electronic surveillance control grid, without any oversight, accountability or consultation with the general public. No-one in power has the guts to question or oppose these wholly outrageous public surveillance, big brother initiatives. There needs to be an all-party concensus in government to put a halt to any further measures and assess the whole paraphenalia for the useful bits and cast aside the rest of it, while in the process making real steps to ensure individuals' rights to privacy and confidentiality.

Ross Anderson, a Cambridge University professor said that Britain is now the most invasive surveillance state and the worst at protecting privacy in the whole western democracy. Anderson went on the say "Britain's database state has become a financial, ethical and administrative disaster, which is penalising some of the most vulnerable [in] society. It also wastes billions of pounds a year and often damages service delivery rather than improving it." He went on to say that "There must be urgent and radical change in the public-sector database culture so that the state remains our servant, not our master ... we have to develop systems that put people first."

I fear that in the scheme of things, Britain has been earmarked as the beta test ground for the 'model' police state that will eventually become the blue print for other countries worldwide, which will be made to follow this Orwellian example.

Below is my response from local Conservative MP Andrew Turner to my email regarding my concern over Clause 152 of the Coroner's and Justice Bill.

His comments concur with mine over the clause and the way in which it was surreptitiously hidden away in the bill, hoping that it would get overlooked by prying eyes. But, of course, once wearing the cloak of power, the Tories will be put up to similar tricks by their controlling masters, so his missive cuts little ice with me, unless his sentiments are from the heart and not just Tory rhetoric.

Friday, March 20, 2009

Still being deceived by Obama?

For those of you who are still in the midst of a messianic orgasm over the appointment of Barak Obama as US president, you might like to start thinking again. As I stated on the eve of his election, his office would bring none of the promises he made and indeed would see be a continuation and indeed, an acceleration of the Bush regime. As documented in ‘The Obama Deception’ the latest in-depth documentary to come out of the Prison Planet stable, Alex Jones and others clearly catalogue the plethora of ‘U’-turns he has made on his pre-presidential rhetoric.

WorldNetDaily lists Obama’s pre-election promises which have already been broken during the nine weeks or so he has been in power.

Promise: 'Sunlight Before Signing' "When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as the president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it" he promised in his Manchester, New Hampshire speech in 2007.

Reality: His first bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, was signed into power just two days after its passage. Bill No2, expanding State Children's Health Insurance Program got just three days. Next, on February 17 he signed a 1,000-page $787 billion stimulus with just one day’s grace - hardly democratic for such a giant package!

Promise: Capital gains tax elimination for small businesses Only weeks before his election Obama advisers Austan Goolsbee and Jason Furman told the Wall Street Journal that Obama planned tax cuts that included "the elimination of capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups."

Reality: People who invest in small businesses have only been allowed to exclude 50 percent of that gain from capital gains taxes. While Obama's $787 billion economic-stimulus package reduces that tax liability – raising the exclusion to 75 percent – it does not eliminate it.

Promise: No jobs for lobbyists “I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president” he declared in a speech given in Des Moines, Iowa in November 2007.

Reality: His nominees for office since coming to power have included William J Lynn, under secretary at the Department of Defense and lobbyist for Raytheon, William Corr deputy secretary for the Department of Health and Human Services and anti-tobacco lobbyist for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury who immediately appointed a fist full of lobbyists, like his chief of staff, Mark Patterson a top lobbyist at Goldman Sachs; George Mitchell, Middle East Envoy, top lobbyist for the Saudi royal family; Leon Panetta, head of the CIA, king of Wall Street lobbyists; Tom Daschle, head of Health and Human Services, lobbyist for healthcare firms.

Promise: Bring home troops in 16 months His campaign website proclaimed that he would "remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." by May 20, 2010 - giving him a decisive edge over Hillary Clinton.

Reality: On February 27 this had become "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By Aug. 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end." Then it was declared that as part of a "new era of American leadership," he also said he would leave behind a residual force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops and remove all U.S. soldiers from Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011 – the same deadline the Bush administration negotiated with the Iraqi government last year in its Status of Forces Agreement. But some combat units would remain in Iraq beyond his declared August 2010 withdrawal. Rather than returning home, they would simply face reassignment as "advisory training brigades."

Promise; Transparency On January 21 his administration released a memo “My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government. Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing.”

Reality: The 1,027-page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was hurried through, not allowing lawmakers enough time to read the weighty document and the online version could not be keyword searched. It had not been made clear that many of his nominees had defaulted on tax payments and journalists in briefings have been carefully picked in a system that is clearly eluding transparency. And then there’s the opaqueness over Obama’s citizenship.

Promise: Executive Signing Statements During his campaign, Obama criticised Bush for the habit of attaching ‘signing statements’ to bills that had been passed by congress in order to add further interpretation to them. Obama even went so far as to issue a memorandum negating those that had been issued by Bush and not to follow them without consultation with the Justice Department first.

Reality: Then shortly after the issuance of that memo, Obama attached a signing statement to the $410 billion government spending bill which effectively modified and by-passed dozens of statutes in the bill.

Like Bush, Obama is not in control and is merely a front man for a wicked and grossly outrageous cabal, headed by the banking ‘Illuminati’ who are intent on using the US as the battering ram for world domination while destroying the republic in the process.

On Wednesday the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act was passed and heralds the establishment of mandatory national service - serving the state - with the altruistic overlays of strengthening the ‘social fabric’ of the nation. Section 120 of the bill also discusses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that “service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.” In addition the Senate is also considering a further piece of legislation known as the ‘Serve America Act’, all highly socialistic initiatives that could easily have come from the Nazi party in the 1930s.

Taken in tandem with the unmitigated bowing of congress to the banking cartel who are ripping off the nation and tax payers to the tune of trillions and who are clearly running Obama and the US government and you have the perfect definition of a fascist state.

With recent news bringing with it further examples of what could easily parallel Germany in the 30’s - New York considering implementing martial law to clean up policing on the streets - the demonisation and imprisonment of citizens who show allegiance to libertarians such as congressman Ron Paul, people who carry copies of, or who cite, the US constitution or fly the US flag upside down in recognition of the country’s fallen status, the surveillance and arrest of news reporters and the wholesale evesdropping on US citizens emails and phone calls - the list goes on and on - and it’s no wonder that over two dozen state sovereignty bills are now in the process of making the rounds in their respective state legislatures to distance themselves from the Feds!

It seems ironic that after a decades-long fight for the coloured population of America to emerge from slavery and gain acceptance and equality with whites, that it should be on the watch of the first coloured US president that the enslavement of the entire US population is being enacted!

I thoroughly recommend that you view ‘The Obama Deception’ and come to your own conclusions visit http://www.prisonplanet.com/

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

A eugenics programme in all but name

If the financial meltdown in the US - as well as the rest of the globe - wasn’t bad enough, that other arm of the ‘cabal’s’ enslavement juggernaut, the covert eugenics programme, is well under way with the Feds now intent on criminalising organic farming and denying Americans a healthy diet.

Using the same MO as Codex Alimentarius, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 is being introduced for ‘safety reasons’. The bill’s preface reads: “To establish the Food Safety Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services to protect the public health by preventing food-borne illness, ensuring the safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional contamination, and for other purposes”. Total deceit!

This is a major step forward in having the ‘cabal’ control what US citizens eat, namely mass produced, lifeless, irradiated, GM-infested crap. The absence of essential minerals and vitamins in the mass-produced, irradiated rubbish being lined up as the legal diet for Americans, will further denigrate their largely less than healthy state of being, by not providing people with the essential ingredients they require to maintain a robust immune system. The inevitable increase (not decrease as the bill would posit) of resulting illnesses will only lead to everyone being drawn onboard the drug cartel’s allopathic ‘remedies’ band-wagon which in turn will only hasten degenerative health, increasing the mortality rate among younger people and fulfilling the covert eugenics programme.

The essence of the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 (HR875, S425) which is massive in content (they’re always big and convoluted so that no-one gets time to read them, but will, like the bailout bill, be forced through congress under the duress), is as follows.


- Legally binds state agriculture depts to enforcing federal guidelines effectively taking away the states power to do anything other than being food police for the federal dept.

- Effectively criminalizes organic farming but doesn’t actually use the word organic.

- Effects anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but consuming it.

- Effects anyone producing meat of any kind including wild game.

- Legislation is so broad based that every aspect of growing or producing food can be made illegal. There are no specifics which is bizarre considering how long the legislation is.

- Section 103 is almost entirely about the administrative aspect of the legislation. It will allow the appointing of officials from the factory farming corporations and lobbyists and classify them as experts and allow them to determine and interpret the legislation. Who do you think they are going to side with?

- Section 206 defines what will be considered a food production facility and what will be enforced up all food production facilities. The wording is so broad based that a backyard gardener could be fined and more.

- Section 207 requires that the state’s agriculture dept act as the food police and enforce the federal requirements. This takes away the states power and is in violation of the 10th amendment.

Non-compliance in this murderous plot is essential!

Friday, March 06, 2009

Latest from NO2ID

Commentary on each of these news items is my own and not that of the NO2ID group’s latest newsletter.

With the Coroners and Justice Bill currently being debated in Parliament, one of the greatest threats to our personal privacy is at stake and is embodied in Clause 152 which, if passed, would allow the unmitigated sharing of all of our personal data, not only among government departments and agencies, but also by the private sector and across national boundaries. This proposed legislation will completely destroy the Data Protection Act and must be stopped. The prospect is appalling and I urge everyone reading this to contact their MP and/or write to their newspaper alerting others to this nightmarish prospect. Such proposed legislation, rarely, if ever, gets reported on mainstream TV news channels and by the time you eventually hear of it yet another loss to your personal rights and freedoms has been enacted and it’s too late!

Privacy International have communicated their concerns over Clause 152 to Jack Straw saying that “This new power is wothout precedent and carries significant implications for data protection and for the rights of individuals”.

The Convention on Modern Liberty held a conference in London at the end of last month which brought together civil liberties groups and others concerned over the abuse to our personal rights in the UK. Among the speakers were author Philip Pullman who said "A nation whose laws express fear and suspicion cannot sustain delight for very long; joy does not flourish in the garden of anxiety". Also present was the eminent lawyer Lord Bingham summed up the conference proceedings by saying "A candle may today be lit or re-lit in Britain, which we may fervently hope shall never be put out."

We stand at a very dangerous crossroads. To allow any further inroads into our liberties will herald our incarceration into a dark Orwellian police state. I would urge readers to watch Michael Radford’s film ‘Nineteen Eighty Four’ and try to imagine a future like the one portrayed in the movie, adjusting the setting to that of the first decade of the 21st century. That prospect is a lot nearer that you think and will become reality if we don’t try to stop it!

More local councils pass anti-ID motions. Worcester County Council and Wyre Forest Council have joined the ranks of local government opposed to co-operating with the national identity card scheme - but only if such opposition wasn't unlawful. The sentiments are good, but non-compliance will be regarded unlawful if the government has its way, I suspect. That leaves it to us to become non-compliant which would no doubt face us with a jail sentence. But, if like the opposition to Thatcher’s council tax, we all made a sufficiently large enough stink, government would have a problem.

In another privacy-busting ploy, suggestion is being made to parents of independent schools to have their child ‘shielded’. ‘Sheilding’, which is part of government’s new ContactPoint database is viewed by many to be more of an endangerment to children than a protecting measure which is its officially stated aim. Containing a whole range of a child’s personal details, the system could easily be abused and allow those details to be accessed by the wrong type of people. Again, security is being touted as the driving reason for parents to engage their children into the scheme, whereas the complete opposite is more likely. It’s all about having us all fully accounted for in every aspect of our lives by state and corporate interests from cradle to grave.

Monday, March 02, 2009

Disregard can work both ways

In today’s Guardian, Charlie Brooker, in a rightfully pissed-off mood, bares his dismay over our politicians and their seeming dismissal of us, their electorate. Following last week’s declaration by Man-of-Straw Jack, that no release would be made of records pertaining to cabinet discussions over the decision to send our troops into Iraq, Brooker says he reached his snapping point declaring “Straw and his pals figured they knew best, even though it turned out they didn't and - oops! - hundreds of thousands of lives were lost as a result. Remember the footage of that screaming little boy with his limbs blown off? Maybe not. Maybe you felt a shiver of guilt when you saw that; guilt that you hadn't personally done enough to prevent it; should've shouted louder, marched further. Or maybe it stunned you into numbness. Because what was the point in protesting any more? These people do what they want.

“They do what they want, these people, and you and I are cut out of the conversation. I'm sure they're dimly aware we still exist. They must spot us occasionally, through the window, jumping up and down in the cold with our funny placards . . . although come to think of it, they can't even see us through the window, since they banned peaceful protest within a mile of Parliament.”

Very true. The words from the lips of cabinet ministers, more often than not, are laced with double-speak, spin and complete disingenuity. What they promise today, they make a ‘U’-turn on tomorrow and then feebly attempt to appease us, amidst the financial turmoil, with postures like the mock disgust from Brown and Prescott last week that ‘Fred the Shred’ Goodwin should not retain his grossly obscene pension in light of the devastation he brought upon RBS, when the top echelons of government have been privy to this banking scam all the time.

But as Brooker suggests in the title of his piece “To politicians, we're little more than meaningless blobs on a monitor”, the same could be said of our politicians - when viewed from the next tier up in the grand control pyramid - by the controlling élite.

Politicians come and go, they’re dispensible, just another level of pawns in the game, so in a way Brown et al are just passing on that total lack of regard that is endemic in the higher orders of the grand pile. The contempt and indifference originates with that controlling cabal and permeates downwards, eventually dehumanising us all. Their preferred interface with us mere mortals is via CCTV cameras and electronic databases, we are little more than chips on a circuit board, a means to an end and when that end is achieved, also dispensible.

This cold and total disregard, treating us little better than tagged sheep, while leading us into total financial collapse, dispossession of our rights and our property in many cases, will inevitably lead to backlash. That final straw is only around the corner and with its arrival the wrath of UK and that of many other nations worldwide will erupt and that’s precisely what the controlling élite want and something their dutiful law-enforcement agencies have been preparing for, the ability to incarcerate us all, locking us into a global police state then allowing those at the top of the pile to practice their disregard for us all on a grand scale.

However, our most effective response to that final straw must not be through violence, but through peaceful non-compliance. In that way we are not playing into their hands but forming a cordon of co-ordinated resistance and a determination not to be treated like trash. Non-violent ingenuity and resourcefulness are what is needed - not brute force - in the coming crisis and that Dunkirk spirit of human interdependence, sharing and co-ordinated mutual support and the adoption of a higher spiritually, will deny them their game plan.

If our politicians and their masters regard us all as little more than blobs on a monitor, we too can quite rightly adopt a similar attitude in reverse and quietly resist their attempts to deny us our rights as human beings and treating us like cattle to the slaughter.