Employers throughout the world, including Disney, American Express, Wells Fargo, and thousands more, have begun to battle their employees. Unionized shops, the battle has been waged for 50 years and shows no sign of relenting. Only recently have other employers joined the fray, not to help employees but to rid themselves of employees. These businesses are fighting employees against their employees for the company’s culture and soul. Couched in many a buzzword, political stance, and archaic practices, the employers want to rid their workforces of those they despise, and the battle is legal!
Make no mistake, what the employers are doing is immoral, unethical, and disastrous to those employees unfavored, but the actions remain perfectly legal, and this is the point we must understand. Laws have been changed against the majority for the selectivization and advancement of the minority. The fight is important because you might be next and never know your termination has been affected, but not enforced until it is too late. This article intends to raise awareness, not cover every particle in the fight or catalog every avenue an employer might take to attack an employee. Imperative to know and remember, as long as the actions are against individuals, no laws are being broken, and the employer wins when they can make the situation untenable, and the employee on the out quits or is forced out under a miasma of quasi-legal terms, so it appears that employee was treated fairly.
Never forget, a lawyer’s job is to make the illegal appear legal, and the legal appear illegal, so a judge must decide. Add in judicial activism and legislation from the judicial bench, and the trouble becomes apparent quickly. Unfortunately, the lawyers’ training has shifted, and the legal mind’s quality has slipped under the weight of many of the topics discussed herein. The vicious cycle can only be broken when the collective beliefs of the majority are re-established, not to the demise of the minority but the growth of the entire society.
Culture and Politics
As long as people have banded together into organizations, societies, governments, etc., there has been the push and pull of politics. All of recorded history bears truth to this fact. People have beliefs. They express these beliefs through representatives who rise and fall in different leadership positions, and societies change according to the expressed beliefs through which a society is governed (law). Pick a governing style (Communism, Socialism, Representative, Direct or Indirect Representation, Monarchy, Theocracy, etc.), and you will find the collective beliefs of the people expressed in how long a leader remains in power or the stability of the society so governed. Politics happens and is best described as the push/pull of collective beliefs expressed by populations. Economies rise and fall based upon the collective beliefs, expressed in the stability of the society and the government leader’s length of time as leader.
History has shown when a governing leader is short-lived, it is generally because they refused to follow the collective beliefs of the population, giving rise to the credit ratings of stable governments and societies being higher than for those who are changing leadership every couple of weeks or months. Those leaders who can tread the waters of public opinion maintain their jobs and, many times in history, their heads by following the collective beliefs in the morals of the people. The US Dollar’s stability is one of the strongest reasons this currency is one of the world’s benchmark currencies. Politics did that, and politics are the push/pull collective beliefs expressed by the citizens to their government leaders. The process is messy and needs to be messy for a reason; only in the expression of two divergent points can a healthy middle ground be established, and society can grow.
Culture is not politics, but politics and politically minded people can influence it. If politics is a society’s expressed beliefs, then culture is the expressed moral convictions as lived by a community. For example, many institutions have been built on the law that coveting (envy) is wrong, but the practices of the people living build a culture that accepts graft, bribes, and other incentives that, while violating the law, are accepted. Make sense? The closer the culture is to following both the letter of the law and the living of the law provides for a stable and influential culture to invest resources into.
How does one change the collective beliefs of a society and the living practices of that society; first, you capture the children. Bad ideas do not go away, they are either replaced with good ideas, or the bad ideas go into hiding, awaiting the time they can make a new appearance. Everything modern society is facing has been faced previously, and the difference is that the seeds for the current dilemmas were planted more than 100-years ago, but the bad ideas first captured the children. Why have these bad ideas advanced so rapidly? The education of children in social customs, collectively shared beliefs, and individual duty, has been eroded and attacked mercilessly since “progressive education” (the refusal to teach children to read, write, and perform math) began in the late 1800s with Dewey, who called functional illiteracy “Progress!”
One of the first words plasticized, twisted, ripped apart, and then put together to fuel tyranny through modular language was the term progress. Unfortunately, language has continued to suffer relentless attacks since the late 1800s, and more words have suffered the same fate in the modularization of language. Consider with me the history of Tea. Tea plantations in India were ruled by the iron fist of laws drafted in America and marketed with women in distress to the consuming nations geographically distant to where the crops were grown. The tyranny of slavery is the same tyranny we face with modular language. Nobody realizes this because to mention this connection is frowned upon by those making money off the tyranny of language. The tyranny of modular language fueled the oppression of entire populations to fuel an empire. The language led to actions (afternoon tea) and a host of other practices, words, and social customs to fuel the demand for Tea. Unfortunately, the tyranny of modular language also fueled hot wars in China, more geographically distant suffering from the population consuming Tea.
Language – Plastic Terms
Diversity, what is it; what does it mean in practice versus meaning from a dictionary; what value does it have for a business? Equity, same problem, fewer answers, more confusion. Inclusion, same problem, confusion, chaos, and eventual destruction. These are, but a small sample of current buzzwords strung together and causing problems in businesses. There are entire word classes set apart for plasticization, which sound good to the ear, and that people love to rally behind, but these terms cover a hidden agenda. They have been weaponized to destroy, not lift and build—tyranny through modular language, plastic words.
American Express is a perfect example of how DE&I efforts (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) have been weaponized to pick away, through politics, the non-politically affiliated, those who show up to their employment and merely want to work their job. The University of Phoenix is another company long captured by, and suffering from, DE&I tyrants. Both American Express and the University of Phoenix began their DE&I journeys with the best of intentions. Still, the result remains the same, the minority classes bring politics anathema to good order and discipline into the company, initiating change cloaked in DE&I. The result has been the discouragement and disenfranchisement of employees. The DE&I champions crow and cheer for these people leaving as it injects more DE&I hiring, and the new employees realize that unless they are politically affiliated, read that as aligned to a militant tyrant in DE&I, they too will be out of work very shortly.
Language matters, and when terms are plasticized, the only result is destruction and tyranny. Consider the teachers in the Albuquerque Public Schools System or the employees of the State of New Mexico; both populations stress DE&I initiatives under various names but with the same purpose. Who are the enemies of DE&I; those who do not wear their politics on their sleeves, acting as emotionally charged smart bombs of the media. Even if a person holds some of the DE&I beliefs, if they are not militant in their beliefs, they are ostracized by their language, judged, and removed from employment.
When the patients rule the asylum, the problems for all patients in the asylum double and triple, not improve. The same result occurs when the vocal minorities of a population gain power that is not theirs, and they make no concerted efforts to rule fairly and justly. One of the truths about any revolution is that those who initiated the revolution rarely (if ever) get to enjoy the fruits of their rebellion as they are so focused on fixing what they perceive as injustices, they miss that they have become worse in action than those they deposed.
80-20 Rule
The 80/20 Rule is known by many monikers, but always it is the same rule, in different wrapping – 80% of a population will be controlled by 20%. In standard terms, the minority is setting the culture for the 80% to follow, and they hope you will never realize you are stronger without the vocal minority than with them. Take the recent changes at Disney. There is a vocal minority demanding change, couching the changes in diversity, equity, and inclusion, and the Disney business model is about to self-destruct. The same is true of American Express, where if you are male and white, you are not welcome. But, if you are one of the members of any number of protected classes, you are welcome. When politics interferes in professional pursuits, 80% will always suffer under the tyranny of the 20%. What happens when the vocal minority becomes the majority, they fang themselves to death, and nobody is left to care because that 80% majority has left them to their own devices.
It should go without saying, but I will make plain, I am not against diversity. I do believe that diversity for diversity’s sake is wrong, immoral, unethical, and anathema to good order in a society. Diversity of thought should be preeminent as the diversity of thought transcends skin color and lifestyle choices. Diversity of thinking includes the desire to see all succeed on merit, character, and individual action. I abhor in the strongest terms picking a person solely based on their gender, skin color, religious preferences, disability status, culture, or any variable that supersedes accomplishment, education, and learned skill set. The same is valid for inclusion and equity; when people cannot compete solely upon achievement, education, and intellectual skill sets, this creates an imbalance in the population.
Hence roadblocks to education must be removed, character-defining and building experiences should be shared and taught, and achievement recognized. What is missing from schools from K-12 and up; is accomplishment, education, and learned skill sets. What has replaced these; is DE&I, where the vocal minority is destroying with no thought for what replaces the institutions, societies, corporations, and more. Iconoclasm in its most destructive form has taken over employers, and these companies are committing suicide to pacify, tranquilize, and placate a small population at the expense of all.
Inherently, change is not bad but growing, productive, and useful change requires inputs from a diverse population. Inclusion is not inherently a bad thing, but the current demands for inclusion, only for the sake of inclusion, make the activities of the vocal minority lethal to the entire social body. Equity is a prerequisite for society to grow, develop, and be stable long-term. This is why societies built on slavery, or those muzzling 50% of the population, are inherently ripe for hostile takeovers.
The actions of the vocal minority in employment right now are precarious at best, suicidal at worst, and permanently immoral and unethical. The models they promote have no substance and enable unfair, unjust, and unequal systems. Worse, companies that flout their customer base, which is the largest stakeholder in any business, will find smaller profit margins and higher expenses as employee churn increases.
One truth that should give hope to the employees affected is that when the minority becomes the majority in a body and does not have any substance, they destroy themselves. C-Leaders, are you sure you want to take the company you have been placed in control over down this dangerous path? On my first day at American Express, new hires were introduced to the rich, proud, and stable company history and core values. How sad it is to witness how fast this company has fallen! Who will replace these companies? Will their replacements learn from the failures of the past?
© Copyright 2022 – M. Dave Salisbury
The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the images. Quoted materials remain the property of the original author.
Consider with me the actions of Fauci and the liquid definitions of “Gain of Function” research. Before Fauci started getting hammered by Senator Rand Paul for funding “Gain of Function” research, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) changed the definition to protect Fauci from the crime of “lying to Congress.” Consider the other lies, language tricks, and tyrannical actions of Fauci throughout COVID from Feb 2020 to the present (Feb 2022). Fauci regularly claims he is “consistent” in his approach, even when claiming he lies with noble purposes.
Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is employing these exact tactics right now in Ottawa, where the #FreedomConvoy is concerned. Listen carefully to the words and tone used. Someone in the media should have asked about the prime minister’s intent when calling peaceful protestors racists, fascists, and other derogatory terms. Merely uttering those words should have been a warning to every Canadian citizen and media representative that the prime minister has left the reservation and needs to be questioned more thoroughly about his intentions, reasons, and legal footing for taking action and uttering the words he has used.
Since the fall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), democracy has experienced the same fate as the term sexuality, as discussed by Uwe Poerksen (1995, p. 12). Democracy has “made its appearance as a fixed element, which the reader cannot comprehend.” Political Science degree holders, media representatives, and tyrannical influencers have twisted the term democracy, plasticizing the term and then stretching it until confusion reigns, chaos flourishes, and the result is theft of thought. Unfortunately, democracy is but one of a list of thousands of terms regularly plasticized for political gain and the expansion of tyranny.
Consider the following from Uwe Poerksen (1995, p 88-89), where the author speaks of experts acting as functionaries who shape reality through their words. Compare this to Biden, Trudeau, or any number of other politicians, media talking heads, and so-called “influencers,” and a cold shiver should creep up your spine.
After discussing 
A particular political party is trying to force the lexicon of America to adopt that all humans pledged to a cause are to be considered “human infrastructure.” Sure, what they are trying to communicate is the value of humans in a particular endeavor. No one will know what human infrastructure means until the term is adopted and Americans are reduced to mindless pieces in a machine controlled by the government, paid for by the human infrastructure.
On Friday, an email crossed my inbox regarding how to write better and weasel words. The term “
Believe it or not, on social media, I have witnessed people advocating for Carbon Taxes for the United States and Canada in more than one or two posts. Mentally shocked, stunned, and intrigued, but not wholly surprised by this turn of events, I have been reading some of the literature, the websites, and the emotional pleas. May I congratulate the producers of this literature on the masterful job of marketing ideas anathema to liberty as espoused by these materials?
Is the distinction clear? A right cannot be stripped from you by anyone, ever unless you choose to deny your inalienable rights to that particular right. For example, the 
In most societies, you can purchase and legally become the owner of an item due to the purchase. Thus, liberty allows you to become free to use that purchase however you desire. Until the use of that purchase interferes with someone else’s inalienable rights. For example purchase of a baseball bat is legal, mostly around the world. Use that baseball bat for its intended purposes, i.e., to play baseball or softball, and the government does not infringe upon your liberties. Use that baseball bat outside its intended purposes, to break windows, cause injuries or property damage, and you can lose your liberty and your property.
Thus the confusion and complication in defining and detailing liberties. Liberties can be taken and refused; liberties can be eliminated by government force and social changes. Liberties are not inalienable rights or even a right. You do not have a right to liberty. You may pursue happiness, but achieving happiness is not a right, freedom, or liberty.
Civil liberties are freedoms you pay the government to enjoy. For example, driving a car requires a license. By issuing licenses, the government can control the population, even though driving is considered a privilege, a right, and is often confused with “freedom of the open road,” which is two lies for the price one. Another example is 
Freedoms are often defined as political independence, which is fine insofar as civil liberties are concerned. Freedoms entail several other qualities that the government cannot give, take, invent, or delete. True freedoms do not need legal support from case law to be enjoyed. True freedoms include living without restraints, acting without control or interference, and not being bound by conventions, rules, and authorities. It cannot be stressed enough, even though liberties and freedoms share some components, they are merely similar, not identical. In trying to push liberty and freedom as equivalent, the tyranny of language is discovered to sunshine disinfectant. A right, especially those inalienable rights, are not freedoms or liberties to be granted and removed at the power of authority, and the distinction should be clear.
It has been said that my freedom of speech ends where your nose begins. Thus, I cannot exercise my freedom of speech through physical violence, or I lose my right to speak and, more likely, some freedom and property as well. Thus, the role of responsibility begins with knowing the extent of and limitations formed around rights, freedoms, liberties, and privileges, for ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Our responsibility of living in society is to know the rules that form the laws and the social constraints of that society.
Rights, especially inalienable rights, are yours as provided by a higher power than the government. Liberties are the power to act without constraint, provided your exercise of liberty does not infringe upon the inalienable rights of another. Freedoms rest upon political independence, something feared by every bureaucrat and power-mad politician in history. Privileges are permissions granted by a higher authority to conduct business or fulfill a purpose. Civil liberties are not liberties, but privileges can be taken away by authorities and social changes. Regardless, the role of responsibility is inseparably connected to rights, liberties, freedoms, and privileges. One day, accountability will be demanded for the responsibilities connected to how a person used their liberties, freedoms, rights, and privileges.
Plasticized words make the most trouble. Unfortunately, public education in America does not appear to care; public educators are some of the worst abusers of words, disconnecting words from meanings to achieve an agenda, which is practicing mental terrorism. Poerksen (1995) discusses this phenomenon in some detail, and the need to be more cognizant of the problem is a small part of the solution. For example, Poerksen (1995) brings up the term ‘strategy’; the context might not be clear. Without specifying the intention and meaning, the audience becomes lost quickly but lost with confidence and lost doing what they understand.
Poerksen (2010) provided sage counsel regarding how language plasticity leads to tyranny. Unfortunately, when discussing criticism, the tyranny of “constructive criticism” is displayed, and it is time for this lie to end, permanently! Let me state, for the record and unequivocally, criticism never constructs positive behaviors! Criticism doesn’t change simply because an adjective attempts to make criticism less harmful.
The remaining definitions in the term criticism expand nicely upon the point that criticism and being critical can never be “constructive.” “The analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of work.” “A person who expresses an unfavorable opinion of something.” The etymology of critic, which is the root of criticism, comes to us from Latin criticus, from Greek Kritikos, from kritēs ‘a judge’, from krinein ‘judge, decide.’ Never forget criticism, or the act of being critical originates from personal perception, a choice to be judgmental and critical. The intent is to pass judgment upon something, someone, or someplace with the intent to cause personal harm or sway the opinions of others.
From the DEI email, we find something very interesting in the Constructive vs. Destructive questions; the lack of the term “criticism” in the constructive criticism questions. Instead, criticism has been subtly changed to “feedback” in every place the term criticism should reside. So, for example, the first item under constructive is stated, “Feedback and advice from others are essential for growth and success. Look at criticism as a learning opportunity.” Better still, the third item in the constructive list states, “Detach yourself from criticism.”
DNC-Consulting 