The quislings come in through the backdoor at local level

This vid below, sent by Trooper Thompson, is chilling. Even though we know about it happening, actually seeing it at work is … well, I found it sickening.

There are politics that are interesting – Obama, the election, Hillsborough, Boris and then there are things nobody’s much interested in. While the flim-flam of the Obama-Romney fest or the distractions from Hillsborough are going on, the real political changes – the ones affecting you at local level and eventually in climate change legislation and the like – are being undertaken by seeking legitimacy at local level, maybe in the community centre, maybe in the council offices.

It’s the counterpoint to the EU type decree from above presented as “directives”.

For it’s from these, under the hijacked name of “localism” or “communitarianism”, that the legitimacy which central planners want is sought.   After all, if no one objects to a predetermined set of choices to vote on at a local Saturday morning meeting, say a Bay area meeting in California on May 7th, 2011, the participants – all community minded people who “want to make a difference” or who “want to contribute somehow” [don’t forget our history over here of volunteering], turn up and are treated to slick Powerpoints in a “workshop” and “discuss” worthy things such as car parking space, climate change, local shopping malls and a range of other issues.

So, for a start, this assuages something in people who might not otherwise have a say in direct democracy. They feel they’re having a say here. They leave the husband and kids behind that morning and affirmatively participate in something higher which makes them feel better about themselves.

And quite innocently, participants are asked to vote on which factors have a higher priority for them.    So the moderator rearranges the order on the big board according to your vote and you go away feeling that you’ve contributed as a “change facilitator”.

Except that you haven’t.    Just to reiterate something you might even have unwittingly accepted that I wrote just now:

the participants – all community minded people

… that has to be examined in itself. Are they all just local people?

Well no.    In this particular case study in the vid, that of a local Silicon Valley community meeting, you see the process in operation at micro level.  That day, there were:

Every table had a facilitator, i.e. someone who was to help and “guide” the participants in an innocent way, to get the predetermined outcome.   You’ve seen the Yes Minister clip of the survey and how you get the answer you want:

And that is what is going on.

Professionals, dressed down, mingle with “real people” although they impress when they stand up and speak. For example, one speaker is “Vice-President of Community Leadership at Silicon Valley Community Foundation” and she speaks of introducing two “leaders” in the community. One is “representing the county on the Metropolitan Transport Commission” and so it goes on – all the important people in the community who make the decisions affecting you if you lived there.

Except that very few in the community would ever have heard of them. Most of the community are into other things, as determined by Sky News, CBS etc. Football and basketball are big concerns. Fox News for those right of centre.

So there is an immediate disconnect.   Douglas Adams referred to it a few times.   Firstly, the rezoning plans for the earth to make way for a hyperspace bypass or whatever it was, resulting in Arthur Dent’s planet being demolished and then a Ford Prefect aside later in the series, where he explained to Arthur that the ordinary people would always lose.

“They care, we don’t, they win.”

Is Edmund Burke saying something about when good men do nothing?

And when they can’t manipulate, they misrepresent by “rewording” conclusions and priority orders.  Here [in the top half] were the conclusions at one such meeting:

You’ll see the ones left out in the report version.   That’s sheer dishonesty.   And these are people we should place our trust in?

I look back, in the first meeting,  at that “Vice-President of Community Leadership at Silicon Valley Community Foundation” drawling on and wonder how the hell she got to be that, who appointed her, what does her brief cover and why she’s a speaker there.    I also ask just how important is that meeting?

On the surface, not very.     It’s just a local get together to discuss worthy causes, right?    A glance at the chart above shows it’s way more than that.    In fact it it is Local Agenda 21 in all its infamy, direct form the UN “system”.    And are the “leaders” aware of what they’re doing?    Of course they are.  Are they powerful?   Have a look:

One lady was interviewed [presumably by the filmmaker] after the first meeting in Silicon Valley  and she said that she didn’t feel she’d had much input, that they weren’t actually interested in her input.   Of course they weren’t – they are after legitimacy for their own ideas.   She mentioned that the choices were all predetermined.   Of course they were, otherwise someone might have brought up proposals which didn’t fit the agenda.

We have an organization over here doing just this but if I write its name, you might click out of this post.

Common Purpose.

“Leading beyond authority”.

Every time I read that I wonder how they could have been so upfront with their agenda.     And I would put money on many reading this saying it’s me off on another conspiracy theory rant. Isn’t it interesting, these words “conspiracy theory”?    What does it mean?    It means we don’t buy the official line, that we’re suggesting that there is something else going on here.

So how derogatory are those two words?    Very, according to what was told to a London meeting of Agenda 21:

Now you can disagree with the thrust of this post, you can support all these worthy individuals acting in common purpose and say they’re doing fine work, that this is just slurring them and that’s a question of debate.

What is not a question of debate is that this above is plain dishonest.   It is pulling the wool over people’s eyes just as much as any product in a supermarket which says it is doing something it is not doing.     There are supposedly consumer standards in supermarket products – there are none in this Local 21 process, nor is there the slightest intention to inform the wider community.

It’s not about that.   It is seeking legitimacy that this is all about, in an official way politicians can later quote from the publication it appears in – you’ll find that publication in the local library or on a bookshelf somewhere in a council office.

There is so much to say about all this.

James Barlow, in 2007, was Constituency Chairman for the Conservative Party in the three-way marginal Bristol-West seat and was writing about what you might take to be the ultra-boring subject of local recycling and landfill but it turned out to be anything but boring.

The moment he touched on Citizens Juries, danger signals abounded:

Now my party colleagues in the Conservative Group of the council have taken an active part in this process – John Goulandris as Chair of the OSM committee, and Richard Eddy as Chair of the Quality of Life Scrutiny committee.

But I’m concerned that the Jury process is misleading us all. I suspect that it removes the impetus for oversight of Council policy by the opposition party, and it creates an illusion of impartiality and “judicial” deliberation when it’s really just a rubber stamp on existing policy – i.e. it ain’t a Jury.

As another UK user of Citizens’ Juries comments on their website :

“[It c]an be difficult to ‘reject’ the Jury’s recommendations.”

In our city, a Citizens’ Jury is constructed as an off-shoot of the Citizens’ Panel (“Bristol’s Biggest Think Tank“) which consists of two thousand local residents, some randomly selected, some self-selected.

For the randomly selected, a London firm supplies the questionnaire:

The on-street recruitment questionnaire (Appendix 5 of the latest Jury’s report) is less intrusive than that of the Citizens’ Panel, but also fails to check whether the respondent is a Bristol Council Tax payer. It also mispells “Cotham” as “Cotam”, and indicates that Cabot is a ward in both Central West and Central East Bristol, but I suppose that’s to be expected from a London-based market research firm .

If you like, you can apply to join the Citizens’ Panel, for which you will be asked your ethnicity, sexual orientation and whether you consider yourself to be transgendered, but not whether you are a council tax payer in Bristol.


…half the jurors are recruited from the existing membership of the Citizens’ Panel, and the other half by on-street recruitment…

James comments on its purpose in giving feedback, which it certainly does, but then:

I’m slightly more sceptical of some of the other aspirations for the Panel –

“[to contribute] to democratic renewal and [to encourage] participation in democratic processes”

I thought that was achieved by voting, and doesn’t seem to be compatible with the stated utility of the panel “as a vehicle for developing public relations”.    You can petition the electorate, or persuade the electorate.    Doing both at exactly the same time seems a tricky proposition.

So, is this Citizens Jury a legitimate representative body?

The jurors are recruited to be a cross-section of the community: the Jury is said to ‘reflect’ the local population, rather than to ‘represent’ it.

In other words, recommending policy without being elected but with the virtual guarantee of recommendations being adopted – and leading this process are “facilitators”:

The role of the facilitators is to enable the jury to complete its task, not to lead the discussion in any particular direction.

Officially. But the facilitators are also charged with this task [taken from N10’s guidelines for the Nine Regional Focus Groups, i.e. the EU concept of regions]:

“Participants will be given facts and figures that are independently verified, they can look at real issues and solutions, just as a jury examines a case. And where these citizens juries are held the intention is to bring people together to explore where common ground exists.”

Independently verified by whom?    By “experts” approved by the ODPM from whence came Julia Middleton [there are various links halfway down this post on her organization].

That was an example in the UK and note the word “facilitators” again.   Here’s another:

A 4.8 MB pdf on CP in Bradford [in 2009, now inaccessible] had a Page 1 Google fragment which read:


You can find a partial list of CP controlled organizations here [read the article] .

Indimedia says the organisation [by late 2009] had training programmes in every major town and city in Britain and since 1989 more than 60,000 people had been involved with 20,000 ‘leaders’ completing one or more programmes. These are:

Leaders: Matrix and Focus
Emerging leaders: Navigator
Very young leaders: Your Turn
Leaders who need a local briefing: Profile
National leaders: 20:20


They themselves seemed quite proud of it [read the article]:

We run a Common Purpose programme in every major city and town in the UK and in an increasing number of European cities. 12,000 leaders from all sectors and backgrounds have become Common Purpose ‘graduates’.

As CP aren’t making their methods available or filing their curricula online, Indimedia believes it is to do with NLP:

NLP is a technique of using words to re-programme the body computer to accept another perception of reality – in this case the consensus agreed by the manipulators before their victims even register for the ‘course’. Apparently the CIA refers to these pre-agreed ‘opinions’ as ‘slides’.

Anyone who resists the programming is isolated and the group turned against them until they either conform or lose credibility to be a ‘leader’.

And this NLP or similar, with its “well-formed outcomes” gives these local “leaders” a sense of personal power in the community which they wouldn’t otherwise have had.   It empowers them and therefore they will never revolt against what they know they are actually doing, the subterfuge and all.

How does an ordinary citizen mutate into something like this?   They, of course, will say it is direct democracy, localism, taking power back to the community.   No, it isn’t.   It takes the power “back” to people infiltrated into positions of power who can manipulate willing locals to legitimize their agenda.

That is Local 21, that is Agenda 21 which they’re too shy to use the name of because they know there are people awake to them.

The new politics

So it seems to me that the old distinctions of left and right that I admittedly go on about, which turns off those libertarians of a [formerly] leftist disposition, are superceded by something altogether nastier:

1.  Those who want self-determination, freedom to do as we wish, to get jobs and just live life the way we want;
2.  Those who don’t.

This includes malcontents, politicians, community “leaders’ who want to “plan” for our community in 2020 or 2030 and they are at the centre of this process, those who wish to redistribute your income to their worthy cause, those who wish to ban smoking because it is more worthy to have a smoke-free environment, those who sign up to the global warming scam and support legislation designed to ruin the economy of nations and so on and so on.

That second group can’t leave well alone.   They include Google and Yahoo who simply have to change things for the sake of change.   Having a perfectly workable system in operation, they don’t wish to just tweak it, oh no.   They want to put a whole new system in because it’s theirs.

Twilight is a reader at my place and a blogger on the other side of traditional politics to me but she wrote yesterday:

There’s something odd going on – probably to do with all the flippin’ changes they all keep dreaming up – and which nobody really wants or needs.

Yes, so many of these flippin’ changes for the sake of change and/or the agenda.   Much of it coming from the EU as well.   I’m effing well sick of these self-appointed, incestuous people who see themselves as our “leaders”.   But how to stop them wrecking our lives?   How to put a spanner in the Silicon Valley Community Meeting works?

How to stop these quislings?   Or if you don’t like the term quislings, how to stop these termites?

1 comment for “The quislings come in through the backdoor at local level

  1. Chuckles
    September 20, 2012 at 11:28

    Elsewhere. Powerful.

    ‘Consume enough media and you come to understand that the people
    manufacturing it are not only hacks, they’re clueless hacks, who like
    their master in the White House, have absolutely no idea how to solve any
    of the country’s problems and no interest whatsoever in even bothering to
    try. They are mechanical men marching to an ideological beat and have no
    more interest in reality than do the denizens of a mental ward.’

    ‘Our version of the Soviet Union is a ceaseless application of ideology
    whose only purpose is its application. There is no purpose to any of the
    three pieces of insanity listed above except the grad school exercise of a
    senseless ideological program chasing its own tail. Unlike the Soviet
    Union, there is no goal beyond the application of increasingly stifling
    programs of ideological conformity. There is no purpose except for the
    smug left to get even smugger at the expense of everyone else.’

Comments are closed.