Blog: infidelANKHhumanoid on LiveVideo.com

Gender: Male
Status: Single
Age: 100
Sign: Pisces
City: Bondage
Country:

United Kingdom

Email Blog to a Friend

	Today	Week	Total
Posts	0	0	1
Comments	0	0	0
Views	0	1	31
Thumbs Up	0	0	0

Blog Archive

2008

May

Common Purpose / Tavistock Institute

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2008 (11:51 AM)

Return to infidelANKHhumanoid's blog

Common Purpose / Tavistock Institute

(I'm feeling anxious)

video.google.com/videoplay

Must see lecture on the real power behind the NWO in the UK. If u have never heard of the ominous Common Purpose, time to find out who is pulling your strings. Brian Gerrish proves - beyond doubt - who is controlling the break up of the UK as we know it. Know your enemy.

---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.911archive.info/flash/commonpurpose.html

I came across this video, for which we must thank our good friends Common Purpose, while trawling the Internet yesterday. And what a little gem it is! Business leaders and senior police and army figures are shown appreciating the values of Sikh temples, contemporary dance groups, children’s rescue centres and sundry other ‘diverse’ environments and cultures.

But for what purpose, beyond the common purpose that Common Purpose itself seems remarkably reluctant to reveal? Does anybody seriously believe that this nonsense actually contributes to the effectiveness of the organisations that swallow it, or that the organisations in question operate on a basis that actually permits the appreciation of ‘diverse’ cultural and religious backgrounds?

One of the most notable features of all organisations, be they businesses or the police and armed services, is that they are hierarchical and specialised. Although it may be true that in some contexts, such as Customer Services, it is desirable to have an appreciation of the values of one’s customer base, more often than not one’s cultural and religious background is irrelevant in the modern workplace.

Many companies certainly wish to give the impression that they listen to the views of their employees, but in practice employees know only too well that what is expected of them, and what will bring them promotion and praise, is adherence to the line laid down by their superiors. Real diversity, in the form of individualism, is positively frowned upon.

The small number of companies that do actually listen to their employees do so only on the basis of their employees technical expertise, or to meet requests for improvements to amenities and so on.

For example, certain car manufacturers may require their employees to submit two proposals per year, but they do so in the expectation that the proposals will aid efficiency and increase productivity. As such, they are singularly uninterested in their employees’ cultural or religious prejudices, which when overtly paraded are more hindrance than help. One might argue that this is an area in which an appreciation of diversity could be of use, although the real point is that organisations operate – or at least should operate - on an impersonal basis. In other words, we should be required to leave our beliefs and prejudices at the factory gate.

In this sense, an organisation’s effectiveness breaks down as soon as these personal considerations are allowed to become part and parcel of its employees’ work-life. The rules of the business game are best represented by the Latin phrase sine ira et studio, meaning “without ill will or favour”. Once this principle is abandoned the rules of the game break down, because the organisation’s employees can no longer be relied upon to act impartially, either amongst themselves or towards the people they serve.

In fact, all organisations tend to have their own esprit de corp, which - traditionally at least - employees have been expected to adopt and make their own. It is this uniformity and obligation to follow a single set of values and rules that provides an organisation with its strength and cohesiveness, not a mishmash of individual cultural and religious assumptions that have no direct bearing on the tasks at hand.

It is a fact that ‘diversity training’ is based on the assumption that organisations can benefit internally from the diverse cultural backgrounds of their employees. But is this really the case? Does the Sikh engineer help his company succeed on the basis of his own cultural and religious background or his knowledge of engineering? Is there some uniquely gay value that enables the homosexual computer programmer to write better code than his heterosexual counterpart? Is the civil servant more or less likely to act impartially on the basis of sine ira et studio or by feeling obliged, by virtue of his diversity training, to apply different criteria to those who do not share his cultural background*?

Would accommodating the diverse cultural values of police officers and soldiers bolster or undermine the operational effectiveness, morale and chain of command of the police and armed services?

*And this is exactly what happens. Prior to receiving diversity training Civil Servants have no personal interest in the identity or background of those they serve, and this impartiality ensures that all are treated alike. By contrast, diversity training attunes Civil Servants to differences and virtually guarantees that certain groups will be afforded special treatment.

The answers to these questions are more than obvious, and the claim that most organisations need or indeed want their employees to bring their diverse cultural and religious views into the workplace is as false as the fact that the vast majority of companies deliver diversity training only because government legislation requires them to do so is true.

Diversity training has had to be forced on companies because there are no actual benefits to be derived from it. Were this not the case organisations would already have recognised the competitive benefits and implemented their own diversity programs, without the need for government legislation.

This should make us aware that politics, rather than good business acumen, is the motive force behind the current obsession with diversity training.

Once we accept that the vast majority of organisations are simply fulfilling their legal obligations rather than actively ‘embracing’ diversity, we’re obliged to recognise the fact that diversity brings no organisational or economic benefits.

Having recognised this, we’re obliged to ask why this legislation targets organisations rather than individuals. Here, we must recognise that employees are accustomed to mandatory training, team-building and workshop exercises and are likely to view diversity training in the same light. Accordingly, very few will ever question why they are required to undergo diversity training, let alone question the legislation and assumptions behind it. If we accept that diversity training brings no direct benefit to the organisation then the only possible conclusion is that the legislation is really intended to target the individual, the organisation being simply the medium through which the message is delivered.

The point is this: were government to pass legislation requiring every private citizen to attend mandatory diversity training then every private citizen would see this for what it is: communist-style political re-education.

By targeting the organisation rather than the individual the government performs a sleight-of-hand trick, because employees will regard the training as ‘just part of the job’ and never question its true purpose. And what is its true purpose?

Well, when was the last time you attended, or indeed heard of, diversity training predicated on encouraging ethnic minorities to accept, embrace and appreciate British culture and its Judaeo-Christian heritage? Why is diversity training very often geared towards subtly shaming white Anglo-Saxons for being members of the ‘dominant’ – and by implication ‘oppressive’ – culture? Why do facilitators of diversity training attempt to induce cognitive dissonance and encourage participants to ‘confess’ (i.e. by providing examples of occasions on which they may have inadvertently practised discrimination), such methods being the basic tools of the brain-washer?

The real question, however, is this: if undermining British culture and society is the purpose then what is the reason?

This question cannot be divorced from the wider context of the on-going onslaught against the nation-state, family, heterosexuality, masculinity and femininity, and the core values of our Judaeo-Christian heritage. This in turn must be viewed in the context of globalisation and the insidious match towards regional and global governance and its totalitarian creed of tolerance.

The aforementioned values stand as impediments to this New World Order, in which we must accept every ‘way of being human’ (as sociologists like to put it) or be branded hate criminals, racists, bigots and fanatics.

The intended aim is to produce a mishmash of cultures and values amenable to a system of global governance and a standardised set of rules acceptable to a homogenised populace*. This is the real purpose behind the diversity drive: not to produce actual diversity but uniformity, an environment in which those with real principles and values can be readily identified and targeted, shamed and corrected.

*Its homogeneity lies in the fact that it will be required to accept everything and conditioned to hold no strong convictions other than the single overarching conviction that every lifestyle choice and value system is equally relative and thus equally valid. Paradoxically, the only non-relative value system is that of the globalisers and their tolerance agenda.

Diversity training is just one element of a plan to mimic at the global level what the individual organisation achieves at the micro-social level: a uniform set of rules and esprit de corp enforced by rewards for those who wag their tails and disciplinary procedures for those who don’t.

Just don't expect to be able to walk away from it at evenings and weekends.

Category: News and Politics

31 Views | 0 Thumbs Up | 0 Comments

Add Comment | Email

Comments & Responses

Post Comment

There are no comments yet.
Click Post Comments to add a comment!