FOR MORE DETAILED INFORMATION OF CP IN SCHOOLS AND RECOGNISING INFILTRATION:
A Guide to Common Purpose & Infiltration in schools and communities:
LINK: Fragile Minds, Are Our Children Under Attack? by Olwyn Rhyddid
The following is a draft of the Common Sense V Common Purpose chapter in my book, Holistic Well-being: A Paradigm Shift. The above booklet has used some of the wording in this chapter with my permission. Dani x
WHAT IS COMMON PURPOSE?
Common Purpose (CP) is a government charity. Its mission states:
“to give people the skills, connections and inspiration they need to become better leaders both at work and in society.”
They do this through training courses and seminars.
These courses, while open to everyone (there is a waiting list!), are mainly aimed at the public services, politicians and decision-making personnel. We have all seen a change in the way things are run over some time now and it does appear that many services and people (particularly the ‘jobsworth’ types) have replaced their common sense approach with something that is not particularly inflexible, generalising (trying to fit everyone into the same box) and not the best for the people. To those of us who retain our common sense, these procedures, actions and motives simply do not make sense at all!
SO WHAT IS IT REALLY ABOUT?
After further research on my part, deliberation and intuitive guidance this is what I truly believe CP to really be about. I believe it is a form of brainwashing to get everyone who ‘matters’ (i.e. public services, decision makers, business directors, politicians, etc.) singing off the same song sheet, or in other words working towards a Common Purpose. That phrase has actually been thrown around a lot in politics so you may recognise it!
Take an example. Say you owned some land and wanted to start a small community of people. You would want those residents to be like-minded like you wouldn’t you? So if you liked to have peace and quiet you wouldn’t want someone thinking they can play heavy metal all night long, or you may want an organic garden and so need to forbid the use of pesticides. So rather than tell them “you can’t do this and that” laying down the law, an alternative way would be to get them to think like you. This is what I believe CP is all about at the grass roots level, which may sound fair enough – until we realise that corrupt corporations are setting the agenda and controlling our government!
Most CP graduates will have common beliefs (unless they were not susceptible to the techniques) such as being pro-EU, working towards an EU superstate, New World Order, do what’s best for the corporate agenda that government is pushing rather than for the people, etc. These ideals and beliefs are all working towards Agenda 21 which is a UN Nazi-communist agenda aimed at complete control of the human race. Under Agenda 21 we will have no possessions, our wages will come from the state, we will be told what work we are allowed to do for this pay (this is already being actioned under the work-for-benefits schemes), we will be told where to live, what to eat (mainly GM, processed) and how to look after our health (Pharma). It is a corporate agenda of monopolising control and it is being promoted under the guise of ‘sustainable community living’.
Brian Gerrish first uncovered something a bit more sinister relating to CP.
Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) and Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT).
He discovered with the help of other experts such as psychologists and psychiatrists that CP training used underhand techniques without the course attendants’ knowledge. He also discovered that people ‘changed’ not only their character but also their beliefs mostly for the worst after attending CP courses.
Please note that NLP, CBT, and other psychotherapy type techniques can be extremely powerful and effective therapies when used positively, but almost anything can be used, manipulated and infiltrated for negative gains!
The ‘Alinsky’ techniques which allow infiltration from within (so-called as they were detailed in a book called ‘Rules for Radicals’ by a ‘community organizer’ called Saul Alinsky – a complete list of the 12 rules is at the bottom of this article). These include:
1. Becoming part of a community project/s bringing about positive changes and new ideas to gain respect.
2. Blackening the name of anyone who suspects them, turning the other community members against anyone who hinders their plight, stirring up problems, setting them up, even accusing others of bullying or victimisation towards them, etc. to further strengthen their position and promote sympathy for them.
3. Once trust is gained, begin to infiltrate their agenda. This may be getting others to attend CP courses (often called something else), bringing in CP-type policies, setting the organisation up to fail (sabotage) which may be very subtly done, and more.
There is information on these ‘rules’ at the bottom of the page. Infiltrators are also known as ‘agitators’ or ‘change agents’ and operate on various levels, sometimes with no seeming link to the community, or the organisation being inflitrated. They will use at least some of the Alinsky teckniques below. The term ‘Change agents’ has often been used in the press.
Destablising, Demoralising and ‘Breaking the Spirit’
The techniques used are much more effective if people are made more vulnerable to them and this is done by various techniques which question the person’s beliefs and values and bringing dark and negative, depressing imagery and thoughts to them. CP techniques are all based upon logical fallacies. To learn more about logical fallacies, do a Google search or go to http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Here are just some of the ways in which this is done in my own personal experience. I am sure there are many others and once you have a true understanding of CP and the techniques you will recognise more and get a true feeling and intuitive detection of any involvement:
* assignments that encourage dark and negative thinking such as writing about things you hate, writing plays or stories with dramatic endings, moral dilemmas, etc. These assignments are not always given by regular teachers, but supply or specialist teachers.
*debating societies/groups, especially using topics relating to mortality like capital punishment or abortion (in particular the child is told to debate AGAINST their beliefs)
* acting, performing, creating with dark undertones (such as crying over a gravestone in a drama class)
* early sex education – it is proved that the earlier a child is subject to sex education, the more psychological damage there is.
* drug awareness campaigns – basically introducing these to the children as the courses are more biased upon information rather than warnings. They know where and how to get hold of them, their effects and this naturally can encourage their teenage curiosity.
* anti-bullying campaigns – there is evidence of bullying becoming a lot more prevalent AFTER anti-bullying campaigns are introduced, again introducing the idea to the curious child for new ideas of bullying like cyber bullying. Very often these methods were not even thought about until introduced at ‘awareness’ lessons.
* Show and tell, assignment encouraging giving private information – to desensitise them to giving up their privacy and destabilising the family unit.
Subjects where most of these techniques are prevalent:
Baccalaureate subjects (welsh bac, english bac), Drama/Performing Arts, Art & Design, Religious Studies, English, Geography/environmental studies, Social Studies / PSE, outside supply / specialist teachers.
Below are organisations that are often targeted, or even started up by CP graduates:
* outreach projects and youth projects particularly targeted are those in Communities First areas – whereas these are a fantastic idea for today’s youth who have personal issues, these are heavily targeted by CP as the children are vulnerable and susceptible.
* theatre & drama groups – there are many private groups which are fine, but funded groups could very well be a problem.
* community gardens and community projects – encouraging the surrender of personal possessions and personal responsibility into a more communist approach (this can appear to be a good thing however there is fine line between giving to your community and neglecting your own commitment to your family unit). It is not meant to be an accusation of neglect on a deliberate part, but if you are involved in community/charity work ask yourself does this impinge on family time and do you feel naturally that you are more inclined to give time to the project than to your family, feeling compelled to do certain duties etc., or even that no-one else will if you don’t do it thereby taking time away from your family? This is destabilising family values and the family unit, to further unsettle the children and create discord.
* parish halls & community centres. The halls may be used for events that provoke upset to neighbours such as noise pollution and/or impingment of privacy. They may start to show plays and productions with a dark message – encouraging dark emotions, especially when aimed at teens. They may refuse some bookings with regular ‘good’ energy such as Yoga classes (or allow only those with an involvement in their agenda).
IN PUBLIC SERVICES:
* more power to the services over the people – such as police brutality, increased legislation and legal laws, etc.
* non-common sense approaches to procedures, etc. – questioning the person’s own common sense and sense of reasoning/logical thinking
* one-size-fits-all approaches – encouraging people to feel they are not important or individual – part of the herd.
CP is found in all public services, that is the police, NHS, politics, civil service, councils, community groups (especially those that are funded), and education. More worryingly it appears that over the last few years at least, our children are being targeted with these techniques in their education and some youth groups, and this can be so damaging to their developing minds and values that there are most probable links to CP related charities and school work to the mass clusters of teenage suicides such as those that are still happening in Bridgend South Wales.
How to recognise CP infiltration
CP uses many keywords in the mission statements, approaches and I have listed the ones I am familiar with. Note that these are most telling of CP infiltration when they are used out of context and in particular when a statement is given and it is still not clear what it actually means! The following keywords are also red flags of Agenda 21 promotion.
Common Purpose (used in a sentence, e.g. a sense of common purpose, working towards a common purpose, etc.);
Change (especially when it is not stated what the change is or will be)
Well-being (when not related to health)
So anywhere that offers “An innovative approach towards sustainable diversity for a strategic outlook to change” – you want to run a mile!!
HOW TO OBTAIN ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF CP INVOLVEMENT
There are a few ways that you can obtain evidence. www.cpexposed.com has a search facility on their website whereby they have obtained a list of CP graduates under the Freedom of Information Act and categorised them into the various sectors. However this may not be completely up-to-date and is certainly not an exhaustive list.
The best approach to take is to obtain a list of CP graduates in your area through the Freedom of Information Act. There is more instruction and information about making a FOI request here:
For your local schools, you can look at their latest inspection report. These are accessed publicly on the internet or on your school website or by requesting from the school. You can search for the report or any hint of CP infiltration by using the search term: school name “Common Purpose” . I have seen in many Estyn (Wales) and Ofsted (England) school reports phrases such as “there is a strong sense of common purpose in the school”, or similar. I would suggest that at least one member of the inspection team will be a CP graduate and that using this phrase is acknowledging that there is already a Common Purpose presence in the school.
Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals
Here is the basic list of rules from Alinsky.
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)