Googling this term, one gets (a) lots of stuff by Common Purpose and/or a Julia Middleton, (b) lots of favourable stuff about either or both, and (c) a handful of snarling "stop-them" sites. I shouldn't bother asking any more, except it seems that this organisation does have connexions with many influential people and organizations.
What is the "Common Purpose" of the eponymous outfit? Who exactly is this Julia Middleton, and why has she become so apparently prominent? Is it a McKinsey-type thing, or a McCarthy-type thing? Can anyone who isn't obviously a nutter tell me, in cool and rational terms?
11 comments:
James at Nourishing Obscurity has posted a fair bit. A Google search for "Common Purpose" "nourishing Obscurity" lists James' posts plus some other interesting posts. Their is also a video by Brian Gerrish but I haven't quickly found the link.
You can find a list of interesting pages here http://politeia-dbase.blogspot.com/2007/10/dossier-common-purpose.html. Long time ago I saved lots of papes on CP and this was among them.
Hope this helps.
It's really interesting you asked this, S. It keeps cropping up in the oddest places and, as you say, surrounded by conspiratorialist embellishment. I do hope someone gives a potted version/explanation.
Than you, Calum. I suppose I have now attracted the attention of the Lizard People.
HG: there are so many cranks that one forgets that some conspiracies have existed. I guess that if this one does, it doesn't think of itself as such.
I've come to the conclusion that there is something dark to Common Purpose.
I think it's the Fabian embodiment of the Gramscian stealth revolution.
There is something strange about Common purpose.
Look at the bit here: www.stopcp.com/cppolice.php where they say that Common Purpose has been giving instructions to police.
Things like that shouldn't happen.
Wonkotsane also posts about CP too.
http://www.wonkosworld.co.uk/wordpress/
Thank you, CP!
I think that Common Purpose may just get a bad press, and this has happened for two reasons: Firstly because "Common Purpose" sounds like something from Orwell, although to be frank it is far too obvious to have any darker meaning. Like calling your organisation "Meglomaniacs for Global Domination" or similar. The second reason is that CEO Julia Middleton was a former member of left-wing think-tank DEMOS, run by Marxist Martin Jaques. However, if she was spilling out Marxist clap-trap someone would have spilt the beans for sure.
I think the problem with Common Purpose is that it creates networks of people with power and influence. So does the Masons and people have their concerns about them too. The fact is that the British constitution was carefully set up to provide checks and balances to ensure democracy and "common purposes" over-rides these checks and balances when you set about getting police chiefs to talk to army chiefs and politicians and civil servants. It may be more efficient and effective to work that way but democracy is put in peril by such action.
However, I doubt that CPs approach, if taken to extremes, could lead to a Marxist takeover, more likely it would lead to some sort of right-wing takeover.
Thank you, Anon, a meaty contribution. I agree that there's a more general concern about cliques. But I don't agree that the UK is susceptible to a right-wing takeover; I rather suspect this is what the Marxists say to keep their fellow conspirators onside. What maddens them (and gladdens me) is British apathy.
What I meant was, that by Common Purpose getting various people that already have power, influence (and of course large sums of money) that such people will use such meetings to conspire against the best interest of the people - in much the same way as predicted by Adam Smith. Once such people have sufficient power that they have totally undermined democracy (and some would say they have achieved this already, by buying influence within NuLabour) then in effect we would have a take-over by the super-rich - i.e. a "right-wing" takeover. In other words Common Purpose may actually provide a route towards an accidental right-wing take-over of the UK - rather than a deliberate left-wing takeover.
In this sense I mean "right-wing" in the strict historical sense of "the political power-block of the rich", rather than the modern sense meaning "left-wingers that don't like black people that must somehow be lumped in with the Tories to give the Tories a bad name whilst making socialism look more palatable than it would be if everyone realised that Hitler was a socialist".
Thaks for the clarification, though maybe it's the cliquery that helps them get rich, rather than a matter of rich people forming cliques. Look at the Kinnocks and Blairs. I've said many times that I think we're watching the re-formation of the European aristocracy, under the guise of the EU superstate. Over here, even some positions at the BBC seem semi-hereditary.
Post a Comment