If we could define this thing, we’d be halfway there to stopping it

shopaholic

In the ongoing war against PCism, perhaps we’re setting our definitions too narrowly. It’s not only PCism, the end result but the constant war of attrition you might even call fabianism or left-liberalism or do-goodism or right-brainism, even leftism.

But none of these really defines it comprehensively. One of the ladies who had it wrong on the gay mafia did mention it was evil we’re against. Yes that’s so but evil is too broad a word and can be in a toddler’s eye when he spies something another child has he wants. What we need to nail here is the recent – meaning since about 1770 and then again since the turn of the century last century – developments which have stemmed from conscious policy of certain people in high places.

I’ve tried to nail it with Ephesians 6:12 but even that is too broad and broadness tends to let many off the hook. What we need to oppose is in every Common Purpose “lesson” initiates are taught, obviously in the illuminati and high echelons of masonry, in sections of the Catholic Church, certainly in the champagne socialists and neo-Marxist academics worldwide.

Libertarians define the enemy as Statism and that’s especially in there to oppose. It’s like electricity in that we see its effect without actually being able to fully explain or observe it itself. It’s hidden in a billion tiny moves – an appointment of a tainted person here, a tainted person there to a key role, in every council, in state legislatures in the States, it’s what you encounter whenever there’s an incident – it’s in A&E when someone’s rushed there and is mistreated, when things are bungled.

It’s in the idiocy of painting 13 inch double yellow lines, in the expenses scandal, in jobsworthery, in prosecuting someone for having a bin a foot out of place, it’s in the promise without delivery, the cheating in food packaging and in the big issues such as gay marriage which should be such a minor footnote but has assumed the proportions of civil war. It’s in the zombie seeds which are replacing legit seeds, for commercial gain.

It’s how, when the UN moves into a trouble spot, things get worse, e.g. Darfur. It’s the way radical Islam blights our land and many others, in the flood of immigration from eastern Europe, in the breakdown of the NHS, in Obamacare, Fast and Furious, in sheer incompetence.

You can ascribe to incompetence what many would ascribe to conspiracy but in the end, those incompetents were appointed to those positions, no? Someone deliberately employed a non-comp, then another, then another.

If it were only a top down phenomenon, it might be opposed but the tainted are its main apologists and they mingle among us, maybe even agreeing on some issues but on the key ones – the disintegration of society, they’re blind to it, as Yuri Bezmenov, in his comments on demoralization in society, pointed out.

It’s the way women have dropped into sex and shopping as their gods [see pic above], instead of sound values, the way men and even boys are raping far more, in domestic violence by both partners. It’s the insanity of societal disintegration as it’s not been since, perhaps, the 1920s and 30s.

We have, on one side, a model of an ordered society within the rule of law where people work and earn, keep what they’ve earned, bank it, have family, home and car they can afford, pay off and a loose loyalty to their Maker, where freedom of speech and the right to privacy still exist … as opposed to what we have now – utter madness out there, people running around after irrelevancies, no direction, no security, skewed moral compasses, children debauched, good parenting a rarer and rarer thing frayed tempers and dismay.

Whatever transformed society from the one – and we can pinpoint this to the 50s – to the state of affairs today, whatever transformed things within three generations – that is the thing we need to oppose.

Some might posit a different model – that humans always tend towards disintegration and it’s when they cease caring or being loyal that it deteriorates but that is to give less weight to deliberate policy. On the mass eastern European immigration, that was most certainly a result of a combination of deliberate policy, removing normal checks and balances and employing non-comps.

Much of the damage has been subtle like this, hard to pin down. If it is deliberate, then why are these people doing this? Why would Adorno and Marcuse want a breakdown, a dystopia, unless they were evil-hearted muvvers? What is it with Common Purpose? We know they want to ruin society and create leadership by the unelected but why? For what ultimate purpose?

5 comments for “If we could define this thing, we’d be halfway there to stopping it

  1. Radical Rodent
    December 5, 2013 at 12:35 pm

    What is it with Common Purpose? We know they want to ruin society and create leadership by the unelected but why? For what ultimate purpose?

    There is the possibility that they have no idea, themselves; their only desire is control – the what, the why, the where and the who are just not relevant :roll:. You are presuming that those who are actively engaged in this activity are intelligent, despite few of them showing any real signs of intelligence; they are, perhaps, akin to termites building a mound – an engineering marvel that none of the builders will have any idea about the total of its structure.

    • Viscount Rectum
      December 5, 2013 at 4:20 pm

      Talking of intelligence, Common Purpose first found a home at the office in Westminster of the well known political idiot former Deputy Prime-minister John Prescot, etc, run by its founder the Brick faced Julia Middleton, the notorious social services industry is infested with them, Cameron is a prize example of one of their graduates as slimy as one could get

  2. Voice of Reason
    December 5, 2013 at 2:15 pm

    Bad news for one of your arguments – the rate of violent crime, including rape, has been going down for 2 centuries (with the exception of the large wars).

    • December 5, 2013 at 6:05 pm

      Tell that to Leicester or New Cross on a Saturday night.

  3. Errol
    December 5, 2013 at 8:31 pm

    The reason is obvious: control. Once you control isntitutions you control what people are taught. Then what people believe, then you change words to suit yourself. Cameron did so with ‘gay marriage’. There is no such thing. It is a travesty.

    What then? Well, they’ll seek to keep that control. They’ll say it is all for our own good, that they know best as we all suffer under an invisible yoke. Then, people star to disappear – those they don’t like, then those who speak out eventually we get a secret police and we are monitored constantly.

    It is then that you realise we are already there and we are. They have won because we were too busy looking the other way when the battles were fought, fighting against ignorance, stupidity and each other.

Comments are closed.