The Mastermind

February 8, 2013 25 Comments
By
Master-doctor-villainsThe Master from Dr Who

Quite dismayed to get the following by email:

The great ‘Elite’, the Illuminati, the Bilderburg Group et al. Blame the Pope or some Marxist, anyone or few will do just as long as we overlook the Prime Suspect – ordinary office-holders out to cling to their particular greasy pole.

That is an amazing statement, dissing the work of many people who’ve bothered doing the digging and have come up with the facts and figures. An example is Ken Craggs, another is Graham Roberts, another is Witterings from Witney. Ian Parker-Joseph brings today’s.

This is no theory, no wild speculation, it is a slowly built case which joins no dots without evidence. In the case of CP itself, there were questions in parliament about the public moneys given to it. If you follow those links and bother reading the articles, you’ll see the connections.

Now here’s another. At the beginning of OoL, I put up a post about the World Core Curriculum. Now, as an educator of several decades, you’d think I might know a teensy bit about education. There is a WCC and it has resulted in the setting up of International Schools all over the world – I should know because I’ve been applying to some of them, going to interview and thus need to know the curriculum, yes?

Part of that curriculum is sex for children. It should never ever have been on the curriculum, except in special sessions by arrangement with participating parents but we’ll let that go.

All right, let’s come back to this issue of the global agenda. Here is a UN pdf on the very topic of child sex:

Special_Report_CSE_Revised_1_12 [pdf]

Here is the front page and the summary:

un sex education programme 1

un sex education programme 2

If you don’t think that is one of the most disgusting things you’ve seen, then we’re clearly not even on the same page.

OK, let’s go to Agenda 21. Have any of you met David of Witterings from Witney? The last thing he is is a conspiracy theorist but what else can he do when he’s faced with this:

“….after Agenda 21 was adopted, an international organization known as the “International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives” (ICLEI) was established to help implement the goals of Agenda 21 in local communities.”

If that is not interference by an outside body, then I don’t know what it is. And this:

And of course, they have their summits and check that the agenda is being implemented:

The upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development will aim to answer the following questions, among others:

What has been accomplished since 1992?

What have the participating countries done so far to implement Agenda 21?

Have they adopted the National Sustainable Development Strategies as they agreed they would by 2002?

Have they ratified the conventions that aim to prevent loss of biodiversity or ensure women’s rights as they agreed to do in 1992?

But this is the bit which gets me – Millennium Papers – Issue 2 (page 5):

Participating in a UN-advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of Congress.

This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21.

So, we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management, or smart growth.

That is the UN’s own paper saying that. Now I ask anyone who reads that and still continues to say “conspiracy theory” – just how much evidence do you need?

Now, I remember mentioning Common Purpose to David one day some years back and he just smiled. Like the one who sent that email, he had not gone into it in detail, he didn’t know, except at a distance and yet he took a point of view based on that. As it became painfully apparent what Common Purpose were really up to and who they were, whence they came, he started looking at it and finally did a post around them.

The Bilderbergers are another thing. Blair was asked if he’d attended the 1997 and he lied. He was asked about 1993 and lied. Why would he feel he had to lie? And yet subsequently, all the Bilderberg is is a sideshow for the leaders, when they could just as well meet under any other banner, e.g. World Economic Forum. It was just something for the anti-globalists to get their teeth into.

There’s this feeling amongst those who don’t know because they haven’t bothered exploring in depth that those who do explore must, by definition, be loons. What this confuses is that what they come up with is loonery all right but it’s not the loonery of the investigators but of the investigated themselves.

An example. I looked into the climate thing, as did many and came up with an oft-quoted set of data. One thing quite significant was that one of the main global players was Maurice Strong, of Green infamy and he had henchmen in Davidson and McLaughlin who devised the Valdez Principles which defined the global climate lunacy we’ve been fighting ever since.

Now, this is what they’re into:

The Shamballa force is in reality Life itself; and Life is a loving synthesis in action. We also used the Six Laws and Principles of the New Age to lead us towards creating a vision of how these principles might create patterns for the New Civilization humanity will be constructing over the next 2500 years.

There’s the loonery – in their heads. Yet we are the ones accused of loonery because we speak of it. Going back to the Bilderberg. Yes, it did exist, it was devised by Prince Whatsit, one of the set many have written of before – nasty piece of work – and it was his attempt to have a say in the global agenda, just as the CFR tries to, as the TLC tries to, as the BIS actually does, as Tavistock/Chatham House does.

Everyone wants to be the chief.

Here’s the instigator of the EU, the Club of Rome. Look at the list – these are not just greasy pole climbers although it includes them, naturally, in the same way the EU issues a recommendation and Cameron takes it as a directive, as did Brown and Blair before him.

This is short-and-curlies stuff.

If you don’t like my take, then try Edward Spalton’s or Christopher Booker’s or the ABC’s.

Now, let’s go back to that original statement at the top: “the Prime Suspect – ordinary office-holders“. That’s a bit like saying that the Member for Thames is the Prime Suspect, even though she was parachuted in by the PM under the directive of the EU. Sure she’s corrupt and wants to “cling to [her] particular greasy pole” but in the name of all that is good, why would you look only at this person, the marionette and not at the puppetmaster, particularly when there is so much evidence that the puppetmaster is the active agent in it all?

In a similar way, why would you say that Penny Mordor, who voted for gay”marriage” is the Prime Suspect when everyone knows it was Cameron behind it and fewer know it was the globalist brethren Clarke and Co, in thrall to Brussels and the agenda? Sure Penny Mordor was culpable. In a similar way, the Chipmunk was caught with her snout in the trough:

But they’re not the prime movers. I mean, seriously, just look at the “quality” of her mind – could she organize a global movement?

These ordinary office holders do damage, for sure but who is employing them and on what basis? And who devised that basis? There is always cause and effect.

Is there a Mastermind?

What was being mocked by the emailer was that there is some Mastermind behind it all. Well, that depends on your worldview. Any Christian immediately quotes Ephesians 6:12 and there’s your mastermind. Now if you’re of the opinion that Christianity is loonery and Jesus of Nazareth is a nutcase, then you’re not going to accept that mastermind behind the troubles.

You’re more likely to see different groups of likeminded individuals dedicated to oppressing a humanity they despise and fighting to be the most influential among them. So it’s a constant, bubbling struggle among the Triads, CIA, European Black Nobility etc. to see who can out-atrocity the other.

The individuals can be identified readily – Trichet, Davignon, Bernard, Blair etc. etc. The issue is not who they are but whom they’re in thrall to. Cameron is most certainly in thrall, if only to the gay lobby but indications are it is the European globalist mafia he is in thrall to and homosexuality is one of the characterizing features of that lot. And Boris has exactly the same masters, although he covers it better with a cloak of humour and buffoonery.

In practical terms, you can see it in the way the net is being drawn in – CCTV everywhere, loss of freedoms all over the place, disarming the population to leave them vulnerable to government/crims and in all of that, there is certainly the element of sheer incompetence of the people entrusted in carrying it out. But clever men [the minority] can use that incompetence to soak up guilt.

If I were to overload my council employees whom I’ve selected as compliant deadheads in the first place, so that they could not apply due diligence and at the same time, implement new procedures which have people’s personal records readily available on the system and if I overload the working days of those people in pointless bureaucratic paperwork, on pain of losing their jobs, then if I sit back after that, sooner or later, one of those is going to leave a disc on a bus seat on the way home. Law of averages.

A clever person, by definition, is not going to leave a trail leading to him or her. The question of One Mastermind will not be resolved by those of differing worldviews. What can be agreed is that the political moves in the past few decades have been steadily more nasty and they particularly deteriorated from the second half of the 90s, perhaps completing the job begun by Maggie. Are the trains any better today for their privatization?

25 Responses to The Mastermind

  1. February 8, 2013 at 11:59 am

    Are you aware of this Blog, which is going deep into the implementation of Common Core education philosophy in the USA?

    link to invisibleserfscollar.com

  2. February 8, 2013 at 12:05 pm

    Um. Confused. The “Family Watch International” document displayed and linked to seems to be in total conflict with their stated aims here.

    link to familywatchinternational.org

    “By signing this petition you will also be joining FWI’s growing Internet coalition of family advocates and help us in our efforts to protect the family against such threats as same-sex marriage, abortion, autonomous “rights” for children that undermine parental rights, the promotion of radical “sexual rights,” the denigration of religion, motherhood and other fundamental family values.”

    What am I missing?

    • IanPJ
      February 8, 2013 at 12:26 pm

      Jeremy,
      It is little different to MPs voting in the House of Commons for closure of Post Offices because it is an EU directive, then going out in their constituencies and campaigning to stop the closures.

      There is a public and private agenda, what you see is not always what you get.

      • February 8, 2013 at 2:56 pm

        Sorry, the chasm between the two statements I contrast is too too huge for what you suggest. I need sourcing for the document displayed here. Don’t get me wrong – I think anything the UN runs is by definition way out of kilter – but I need more than say so; anyone could have put together what is on show here.

        • P T Barnum
          February 8, 2013 at 3:21 pm

          Indeed, as in polar opposites. For IanPJ to do the written equivalent of tapping the side of his nose and say ‘ Trust me’ does nothing to convince anyone who might prefer something more akin to evidence. In fact, it does much to discredit the claims of the original post and JH’s ongoing campaign.

          • February 8, 2013 at 3:38 pm

            See below. It hardly needs noses to be tapped. As for the sex education, what’s the issue? It’s been in the MSM what is being introduced and at what age – there’ve been many mainstream articles on it.

            I don’t quite know what your point is – that it is not happening?

            • IanPJ
              February 8, 2013 at 4:02 pm

              The pdf document was produced by Lynn Allred, Communications Director at Family Watch International on Sunday 22nd Jan 2012.
              Its in the document properties if you wish to look for yourselves.

              • February 8, 2013 at 5:50 pm

                Well, I’ve written the following to FWI. Lets see what comes back

                Are you the authors (you are quoted as such) of a document entitled

                Comprehensive Sexuality Education:
                Sexual Rights vs. Sexual Health

                which promotes the following

                Promote masturbation as healthy and normal
                 Encourage acceptance and exploration of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities
                 Promote condoms as ―safe‖ without disclosing failure rates
                 Promote abortion as safe and without consequences
                 Encourage youth to advocate for sexual rights
                 Teach youth without parental knowledge or consent under the guise of ―confidentiality‖ or ―privacy rights‖
                 Promote sexual pleasure as a right and an important component of sexual health
                 Claim access to ―comprehensive sexuality education‖ is a human right
                 Teach children and youth they are sexual from birth
                 Encourage anal and oral sex
                 Encourage ―peer to peer‖ sexuality education

                I’m curious, as a number of the bullet points above seem to contradict totally what is stated here on your website.

                link to familywatchinternational.org

                By signing this petition you will also be joining FWI’s growing Internet coalition of family advocates and help us in our efforts to protect the family against such threats as same-sex marriage, abortion, autonomous “rights” for children that undermine parental rights, the promotion of radical “sexual rights,” the denigration of religion, motherhood and other fundamental family values.

              • February 8, 2013 at 5:54 pm

                Had to manually put you in, Jeremy – you weren’t even in spam. Don’t know what’s going on.

                OK, as for what you wrote to them – why would your write the opposite of what they said? They’re clearly opposed to the UN agenda and I linked to Planned Parenthood below, the example they cited. Why would you ask them if they support what they are arguing against?

                The point is – it doesn’t matter a damn who they are or what else we don’t like about them, they pointed to nasty PCishness re children which I’ve been following the links of and … it is nasty. That is surely the only issue here.

                Signed Puzzled of OoL

  3. Jack Savage
    February 8, 2013 at 12:16 pm

    “Here is a UN pdf on the very topic of child sex:”

    Is it? It looks like it was produced by another organisation entirely, one critical of peceived UN aims.

  4. February 8, 2013 at 12:21 pm

    Where can I find the white on black pictures in this post?

    link to 4liberty.org.uk

  5. February 8, 2013 at 3:31 pm

    This is what I came up with:

    link to familywatchinternational.org

    link to familywatchinternational.org

    link to familywatchinternational.org

    And the PCist detractors:

    link to exmormon.org

    “While the right-wing rhetoric is perhaps unsurprising, what’s most fascinating and unsettling about Slater is her access to international leaders who have key roles in African countries such as Uganda – relationships that were originally fueled by the American push to export religious zealotry as the HIV/AIDS epidemic spread across the continent.”

    Seems legit to me. Could well be some dodgy connections but she’s certainly in there and the UN.

    In turn, I’d like to know what the basis is on which the cliams in here are substantiated:

    link to plannedparenthood.org

  6. IanPJ
    February 8, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    I am wondering whether Jeremy is basing his comments upon the small segment reproduced by James or whether he actually read the full document (pdf), in particular the last section:

    VIII. Conclusions and Recommendations
    The comprehensive sexuality education programs promoted by UN agencies and UN-accredited NGOs such as IPPF, SIECUS, the Population Council and others are sexualizing children throughout the world, fueling the very outcomes they claim to prevent.

    Increasingly, these UN entities have been slipping wording into official UN documents such as CPD resolutions calling on governments to implement and fund ―comprehensive education on human sexuality in order to ensure the flow of funding to these programs. This must stop and be reversed.

    Read document for rest..

  7. February 9, 2013 at 4:47 am

    Hi Jeremy,

    Thank you for your email.

    We are the authors of the report titled Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Sexual Rights vs. Sexual Health. In the report we outline the components of comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) programs and explain why we are against this type of education. The bulleted list in your email is a list of the elements included in most CSE programs, not what we or the report promote. Family Watch International is against promoting these kinds of things to children through comprehensive sexuality education.

    Does this answer your question?

    Lynn
    FWI

    —–Original Message—–
    From: [email protected]
    Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 10:42 AM
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: FWI Contact Form: Query

    Are you the authors (you are quoted as such) of a document entitled

    Comprehensive Sexuality Education:
    Sexual Rights vs. Sexual Health

    which promotes the following

    Promote masturbation as healthy and normal
     Encourage acceptance and exploration of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities
     Promote condoms as ―safe‖ without disclosing failure rates
     Promote abortion as safe and without consequences
     Encourage youth to advocate for sexual rights
     Teach youth without parental knowledge or consent under the guise of ―confidentiality‖ or ―privacy rights‖
     Promote sexual pleasure as a right and an important component of sexual health
     Claim access to ―comprehensive sexuality education‖ is a human right
     Teach children and youth they are sexual from birth
     Encourage anal and oral sex
     Encourage ―peer to peer‖ sexuality education

    I’m curious, as a number of the bullet points above seem to contradict totally what is stated here on your website.

    link to familywatchinternational.org

    By signing this petition you will also be joining FWI’s growing Internet coalition of family advocates and help us in our efforts to protect the family against such threats as same-sex marriage, abortion, autonomous “rights” for children that undermine parental rights, the promotion of radical “sexual rights,” the denigration of religion, motherhood and other fundamental family values.

    Kind regards

    Jeremy Poynton

    • February 9, 2013 at 4:53 am

      I think that says it all. Why not go straight to the horse’s mouth, rather than making assumptions?

      • February 9, 2013 at 5:50 am

        What assumptions? The comments thread has had some belligerent overtones, for example James Higham’s agenda he’s apparently pushing etc. but when it comes to the final wash up, what has been said other than what was originally said in the post?

        They are a body working with the UN, as you saw in the links, they were obviously, from the get-go, arguing against the UN approved curricula around the world and I showed you the Planned Parenthood version of it.

        Everything as stated on the label. All Jeremy’s done is write to them to confirm this. Well done, Jeremy. Now let’s get back to the thrust of the post which is that these things are being promoted with the knowledge and approval of the UN via UN approved bodies and as I originally stated:

        If you don’t think that is one of the most disgusting things you’ve seen, then we’re clearly not even on the same page.

        [That's not "you" referring to Jeremy or anyone else on the thread but in general.]

        And as for me having an agenda, what an amazing statement – show me one blogger who doesn’t? I don’t call what you write an agenda you’re pushing. It’s the facts of a situation others might not have seen, isn’t it? What is political blogging after all? What is OoL but a blog pursuing an agenda of freedom, which includes freedom from the type of thing we see happening in education?

        Now, if you don’t like the facts, then that’s your issue so I welcome you to write a post here putting your point of view. Comment is free. :)

        • P T Barnum
          February 9, 2013 at 10:30 am

          The problem is that the original post extrapolated from what, thanks to Jeremy’s clarification, transpires is a text from an organisation battling CES, to being the ostensible/covert aims of the pro-CES crew. The characterisation of the CES by FWI cannot be taken as a neutral, accurate or objective statement of truth. It is a set of conclusions based upon their analysis of the evils of CES.

          The actual ‘smoking gun’ would consist of a UN/UN-associate internal document which explicitly stated the same aims as outlined as the FWI document. When that can be produced the argument stands. At the moment the case made is one of interpretation, inference and critique, none of which are wrong per se, but the contention over-reaches the evidence.

          NB I am not defending CES, the UN, FWI or any other acronym. I am simply trying to point out that the case has been based on less than perfect evidence and thus not proven.

          • February 9, 2013 at 2:04 pm

            Thanks PTB. I was simply try to get straight in my tiny little brain, WHICH organisation is doing WHAT. I am in total agreement with you, James, this perversion of sex education needs to be run out of town, and all that comes with it and all that has brought it about.

            I think we are all in agreement about that?

            • P T Barnum
              February 10, 2013 at 12:31 pm

              Possibly thanks to Greg Tingey’s monomania, neither of us has received a response to our questions.

              I enjoy a good conspiracy theory as much as anyone else, but offering slippery pseudo-evidence to make a serious challenge to a covert agenda only serves to discredit the challenger. This does not stand up to scrutiny. It does not mean the fundamental case is without merit, but this kind of jiggery-pokery will make anyone approach the on-going argument with suspicion and reservation, rather than an open mind or sympathetic ear.

  8. Greg Tingey
    February 9, 2013 at 8:28 am

    As opposed to the Common Core of christianity & islam which boils down to …
    “Do what the priests & the self-selected elite tell you”

    ????

    • February 9, 2013 at 2:06 pm

      Tingey, you come out with some twaddle, but that takes the fucking biscuit in the utter dumb stupidity stakes. You are confusing Christianity with the Christian Church. As for Islam, it is a bent and nasty barbaric mediaeval death cult. End of.

      • February 9, 2013 at 6:53 pm

        Jeremy, actually, that was right on the edge of ad hominem. You were referring to the ideas expressed, I presume?

        Actually, a word for Greg – I’ve never known him bleat. He leaves nothing to the imagination but I’ve never seen him cry foul.

        Bit of rough and tumble is good for the soul.

  9. Greg Tingey
    February 10, 2013 at 9:55 am

    The churches are christianity, made up of individuals who do what they do ….
    The sects of islam are that religion, made up of individuals, who do what they do.
    The forest is made up of trees, no?

    ON sex education.
    What tosh.
    Lets go back to the days when young girls killed themselves at their first period, because they thought they had been “sinful”.
    Yes, it happened!

    • Tatty
      February 11, 2013 at 9:23 am

      Lets go back to the days when young girls killed themselves at their first period, because they thought they had been “sinful”.

      With “peer to peer sexuality education”…and the Terrence Higgins Trust reported in my local paper as offering £1,000 rewards to teens who can come up with the best ideas as to how they can teach each other about sex…yes really…then we’re now a point that just about stops short of grown adults gettings getting two kids to fuck in public so we can all make sure they’re doing it properly.

      Something, somewhere between the ridiculous and the sublime would be acceptable to the majority. How hard can this be, really ? :|

  10. February 10, 2013 at 12:50 pm

    :)

United Kingdom Time

Subscribe

Email us for now via either James' or Julia's sites until we set up a new email here or follow us on Twitter

Comments policy

No to press regulation

Please sign the petition - click pic: blogoff

Contributors

For more about these renegades, click on the name to go to a short profile:

AK Haart
Angry Exile
Bucko
Chuckles
Churchmouse
James Higham
JuliaM
Sackerson
The Quiet Man
Witterings from Witney

Orphans logo

Feel free to take this for your sidebar.
WordPress Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux