PDA

View Full Version : Common Purpose. A secret society?



David Butler
03-07-2009, 09:49 AM
Story on the bbc I came across while having my morning cuppa....

By Ruth Alexander
Jonathan Maitland show, BBC Radio 5 Live

Its critics say it is a secret networking organisation at the heart of the establishment, with a hidden agenda and influence.

More than 20,000 people - identified as the next generation of leaders - have attended its courses, but if you are not one of them, you have probably never heard of it.

It is called Common Purpose and prominent supporters include BBC business editor Robert Peston, Assistant Deputy Commissioner Cressida Dick of the Metropolitan Police and numerous top public sector officials.

It's a not-for-profit organisation which organises training and networking events for high-fliers.

Connections
Its website says "Common Purpose gives leaders the inspiration, the knowledge and the connections they need to produce real change - in their workplaces and in their communities."

According to one Common Purpose "graduate" who spoke to the BBC, Common Purpose's activities seem innocent enough: delegates attend a week-long residential course, where the emphasis is on personal development and making new contacts.

She said delegates were encouraged to identify their strengths and weaknesses and were taken on outings to a mental hospital, a prison, a local tenants' association and the City.

But former naval officer Brian Gerrish, who leads a campaign against Common Purpose, says: "It's a secret society for careerists. The key point is that the networking is done out of sight of the general public.

Critics
"If you actually look at the documented evidence as to what Common Purpose is doing, they are clearly not just a training provider. They are operating a highly political agenda, which is to create new chosen leaders in society."

The conspiracy theorists think Common Purpose is trying take over the world. They believe it is shaping people to work to its hidden agenda of promoting a European super-state, forcing diversity on British society, and imposing political correctness.

It's who you know...
Common Purpose organisers do not deny trying to identify future leaders, but they say their agenda is merely to open up the potential for success to a more diverse range of people.

And the organisation's website says "we are always balanced and owe no historical or other allegiance to any other group."

People we have spoken to who have been on Common Purpose courses are frankly perplexed at the accusation that it is all about advancing a European super-state.

Helga Henry, an arts manager from Birmingham, has been on a course: "I'm sort of aware that there's some controversy and that there are people who believe Common Purpose is fuelled by a pro-EU agenda. But it certainly wasn't apparent in the course I was on."

Destined for the top?
But does she think she is part of an elite that will one day be future rulers of the world?

"That would be lovely, wouldn't it?" she laughs. "If all you had to do is to go on a course to do that, that would be great."

But there is a bigger question.
Should publically-funded institutions like the police, local authorities and the BBC pay money to a charity to host training courses which are essentially networking opportunities for staff?

Some of the courses cost as much as £5,750.

A Freedom of Information request by Conservative MP Philip Davies uncovered the fact that the Department for Work and Pensions had spent £238,000 sending its people on Common Purpose courses between 2002 and 2007.

Chatham House rules
And while there is no evidence that Common Purpose has anything to hide, it is not the most open organisation.

Its meetings are held under Chatham House rules, which means everything that is said in them is unattributable.

And although anyone can apply to go on a Common Purpose course, attendees are mainly graduate professionals - and those who are not assessed as having future leader potential will not be accepted.

One critic claims to have uncovered a memo which dismissed the idea of having a particular individual on a local advisory group in Suffolk because he was "too Ipswich".

There is no credible reason to think Common Purpose is about to take over the world.

But as the organisation's aim is to identify and train the next generation of leaders, the charges of elitism seem difficult to refute.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7929210.stm

Magda Hassan
03-07-2009, 10:05 AM
Thank you for this David.

Sound like the Youth League of the CFR. I'd love to know who are the observers and the names of who run the work shops. I'm sure they do have a common purpose as well. Run the young ones through their paces and see who performs best for their purposes. Select the best and abstract them from the society at large by involving them with other chosen elites to reinforce their learning.

David Guyatt
03-07-2009, 11:38 AM
Yes, very interesting. I liked this bit:


She said delegates were encouraged to identify their strengths and weaknesses and were taken on outings to a mental hospital, a prison, a local tenants' association and the City.

Oh okay, so a trip to a prison and a mental hospital and a tenants association is, obviously (silly me), rounded off by a trip to the City of London...

Jan Klimkowski
03-07-2009, 11:45 AM
Chatham House rules
And while there is no evidence that Common Purpose has anything to hide, it is not the most open organisation.

Its meetings are held under Chatham House rules, which means everything that is said in them is unattributable.


One footnote.

Chatham House rules are as follows:


The Chatham House Rule of Confidentiality was established by the Council of the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA) in June 1927. In order to bring the Rule into line with current practice at the RIIA, where many meetings are now held "on the record", in a resolution of the Council adopted in October 1992 the application of the Rule was clarified and its wording strengthened as follows:

Meetings of the Institute may be held "on the record" or under the Chatham House Rule. In the latter case, in accordance with the Chatham House tradition, it may be agreed with the speaker(s) that it would be conducive to free discussion that a given meeting, or part thereof, should be strictly private and thus held under the Chatham House Rule.

"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed".

The influence of the rule has been so considerable that it has become common parlance in other institutes where confidentiality is required for the Chairman to use an expression such as "We are holding this meeting under Chatham House Rules".

http://www.gcsp.ch/e/about/CHRule.htm

In my journalistic judgement, Chatham House rules are as much a disgrace as Westminster lobby rules.

The fact that this code originated with the Royal Institute for International Affairs, and is now used by numerous government and big business-aligned thinktanks is no surprize, as the primary purpose of Chatham House rules is to muzzle journalists....

David Guyatt
03-07-2009, 11:50 AM
Oddly enough, Bilderberg has a very similar rule.

Jan Klimkowski
03-07-2009, 12:31 PM
Oddly enough, Bilderberg has a very similar rule.

Yes, David. Very strange, isn't it... :thrasher:

David Guyatt
03-23-2009, 02:12 PM
I've never heard of them before. Interesting interview with Brian Gerrish:

http://www.ukcolumn.org/video/

Common Purpose Exposed website:

http://www.cpexposed.com/archive/index.php

Magda Hassan
03-24-2009, 12:43 AM
This is the same secretive group that David Butler brought to the forum a little while ago. I will merge this thread in to that one.

Damien Lloyd
03-24-2009, 01:08 AM
http://www.commonpurpose.org.uk/home.aspx

Heres their site. I'm going to ask my boss to send me on one of their courses as part of my personal development mwahahahahahaha

Magda Hassan
03-24-2009, 01:10 AM
This get more and more interesting.
Common Purpose talk about a 'Post-Democratic' society. Use of NLP in their 'training'. Secrecy is everywhere. Almost cult like.

Kate Story
03-24-2009, 05:32 AM
This get more and more interesting.
Common Purpose talk about a 'Post-Democratic' society. Use of NLP in their 'training'. Secrecy is everywhere. Almost cult like.

Common Purpose has it's roots in the UK since it's inception in 1988 but has since become Common Purpose International. I remember reading about it a couple of years ago but it faded in the wake of martial law fears and other sundry concerns at that time for me. In the US reports I seem to recall it was being hailed as the renewer of 'community awareness' or something along those lines. It looks good on paper but reading between the lines tells another story. Here is a very good link about the history and agenda of this program.

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/common-purpose-international-manufacturing-orwellian-consent/

Jan Klimkowski
03-24-2009, 07:57 PM
This get more and more interesting.
Common Purpose talk about a 'Post-Democratic' society. Use of NLP in their 'training'. Secrecy is everywhere. Almost cult like.

Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a very spooky science. A former British military (RAF) hypnotist once told me about how he had used it in his work, and then clammed up. Certain major British politicians seem to use NLP techniques routinely in their speeches.

The origins of NLP as an attempt to mine the deep "archetypal" language structures are crucial. It is an attempt to take over and control parts of the subconscious mind through the use of language, and therefore mould behaviour.

This is why there are such strong links between military NLP practioners and manipulative hypnosis.

Here's the wiki starter for 10:


NLP originated when Richard Bandler, a student at University of California, Santa Cruz, was transcribing taped therapy sessions of the Gestalt therapist Fritz Perls as a project for the psychiatrist Robert Spitzer.[14] Bandler believed he recognized particular word and sentence structures which facilitated the acceptance of Perls’ positive suggestions. Bandler took this idea to one of his university lecturers, John Grinder, a linguist, and together they produced what they termed the Meta Model, a model of what they believed to be influential word structures and how they work. They also 'modeled' the therapeutic sessions of the family therapist Virginia Satir.[15]

They published an account of their work in The Structure of Magic in 1975, when Bandler was 25. The main theme of the book was that it was possible to analyse and codify the therapeutic methods of Satir and Perls. Exceptional therapy, even when it appears 'magical', has a discernible structure which anyone could learn. Some of the book was based on previous work by Grinder on transformational grammar, the Chomskyan generative syntax that was current at the time.[16] Some considered the importation of transformational grammar to psychotherapy to be Bandler and Grinder's main contribution to the field of psychotherapy.[17] Bandler and Grinder also made use of ideas of Gregory Bateson, who was influenced by Alfred Korzybski, particularly his ideas about human modeling and that 'the map is not the territory'.[18][19]

Impressed by Bandler and Grinder's work with Fritz Perls and Virgina Satir, the British anthropologist Gregory Bateson agreed to write the preface to Bandler and Grinder's Structure of Magic series. Bateson also introduced them to Milton Erickson who was selected as the third model for NLP. Erickson, an American psychiatrist and founding member of the American Society for Clinical Hypnosis, was well known for his unconventional approach to therapy; for his ability to "utilize" anything about a patient to help him or her change, including his or her beliefs, favorite words, cultural background, personal history, or even neurotic habits, and for treating the unconscious mind as creative, solution-generating, and often positive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro_Linguistic_Programming

Myra Bronstein
03-25-2009, 01:24 AM
Chatham House rules
And while there is no evidence that Common Purpose has anything to hide, it is not the most open organisation.

Its meetings are held under Chatham House rules, which means everything that is said in them is unattributable.


One footnote.

Chatham House rules are as follows:


The Chatham House Rule of Confidentiality was established by the Council of the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA) in June 1927. In order to bring the Rule into line with current practice at the RIIA, where many meetings are now held "on the record", in a resolution of the Council adopted in October 1992 the application of the Rule was clarified and its wording strengthened as follows:

Meetings of the Institute may be held "on the record" or under the Chatham House Rule. In the latter case, in accordance with the Chatham House tradition, it may be agreed with the speaker(s) that it would be conducive to free discussion that a given meeting, or part thereof, should be strictly private and thus held under the Chatham House Rule.

"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed".

The influence of the rule has been so considerable that it has become common parlance in other institutes where confidentiality is required for the Chairman to use an expression such as "We are holding this meeting under Chatham House Rules". http://www.gcsp.ch/e/about/CHRule.htm

In my journalistic judgement, Chatham House rules are as much a disgrace as Westminster lobby rules.

The fact that this code originated with the Royal Institute for International Affairs, and is now used by numerous government and big business-aligned thinktanks is no surprize, as the primary purpose of Chatham House rules is to muzzle journalists....

Thanks Jan. Interesting. I knew nothing about it 'til now.