Thinktanks [2]

just another man 1The aim in Part 1 was to overwhelm with data, to replicate, in a blogpost, that which is happening in RL out there but as was noted by a commenter, much was left out even then and I also wrote that it hardly scratched the surface.

Add to that all the research done by many, many bloggers around the sphere and what we have is not so much a dastardly, chuckling global cabal but rather people of limited vision and high ambition accessing and implementing papers from thinktanks in key places, e.g. the RIIA.

And these papers give not only strategic direction but also the language to use [the buzzwords, the bizspeak], courses to send staff on and within them, ways to ensure a desired result, e.g. NLP, Delphi technique. Not only that but govt, with no mind of its own, adopts these things because they look professional enough and it adds them to its forms, it begins to speak in the way these thinktanks do.

And what we end up with is massive “thinktankery” around the world, with no one, at any stage, stopping and questioning it, questioning the lexicon, questioning the value set, the ideology.

No one questions it?

Well some do – bloggers. And how marginalized are political bloggers? Particularly by comparison to the mass of organizations barely touched on in Part 1, ALL adopting the Newspeak, the Newthink. For goodness ske, there is even an Orwell Prize being given by these people.

So I’m going to take three cases only – two from Part 1 and one from author haiku at my site, as they’re interesting in the context of recent events.

1.

Dr. William Sargent of the Tavistock Institute in his 1957 book Battle for the Mind— A Physiology of Conversion and Brain-Washing elaborated on Lewin’s theories by stating:

“Various beliefs can be implanted in many people after brain function has been sufficiently disturbed by accidentally or deliberately induced fear, anger, or excitement.

Of the results caused by such disturbances, the most common one is temporarily impaired judgement and heightened suggestibility.

Its various group manifestations are sometimes classed under the heading of ‘herd instinct,’ and appear most spectacularly in wartime, during severe epidemics, and in all similar periods of common danger, which increase anxiety and so individual and mass suggestibility.”

Think about the recent atrocities and the videos of them lovingly brought to your home, your computer, your television screens, by our media, in conjunction with ISIS, which is an offshoot of the CIA [Operation Cyclone [Google that].  Again:

after brain function has been sufficiently disturbed by accidentally or deliberately induced fear, anger

People are made scared, kept scared, whether of paedos or of Muslims killing them in supermarkets or in their sleep.  The Mail ran one on a man who asked passers-by if they were Muslim and if not, he stabbed them.

This is creating an atmosphere of anger in most of us against this excrescence of a religion and fear in the rest of the population.

Its various group manifestations are sometimes classed under the heading of ‘herd instinct,’ and appear most spectacularly in wartime, during severe epidemics, and in all similar periods of common danger

There it is.  The same technique used on the individual by MKUltra used on a macro scale on populations.  1957.  2015.

2.

The “experiment” in compulsory racial integration in the U.S. was organized by Ronald Lippert, of the OSS and the American Jewish Congress, and director of child training at the Commission on Community Relations.

The program was designed to break down the individual’s sense of personal knowledge in his identity, his racial heritage.

That referred to the race riots in the US in the 60s, King, Malcolm X, black power at the Olympics, bussing.

designed to break down the individual’s sense of personal knowledge in his identity

An analogy for today, the open slather immigration policy of Labour, the results today in societal discord, in combination with the welfare society, victimhood and self-entitlement.

Who brought all those in, in organized form?  Tavistock connected thinktanks.

3.

More subtle was the case of the librarian mentioned in one of my own posts via haiku, who loved her job and saw that job as steering people to books she approved of:

Because she was adamant Social Justice OUGHT to police what [is] published. And books should have social justice themes. And of course readers would enjoy books by authors with [left wing] political viewpoints other than their own, and such books would ‘expand’ their views. She chose books for them to ‘help’ with this.

She also didn’t believe Traditional Publishing was in trouble. Her ‘remedies’ to re-invigorate what to any other eye is a seriously un-well sector consisted of more books for left out minorities (suitable minorities of course) and teen girls – the two most over-served areas in fiction, in terms of their demographics.

And no, she had no answer to my question about the possibility of readers also enjoying (and being ‘expanded’) books by authors of other political viewpoints than her own. No, she plainly hadn’t read such trash, wasn’t going to.

This was a librarian, not just responding to a reader’s question about what was a good book to read but actively putting about, in that library, her ideas of what books they should be reading.

Multiply that by the number of ideological Kool Aid drinking librarians and library assistants and you see a vast core of left-establishment biased people in low-key but nevertheless core roles.

And how did she get like that?  It was a marriage of her own life outlook – be kind to little birds and love one another – with the formalization of the notion in an ideology, courtesy of a Tavistock linked thinktank somewhere.

4 comments for “Thinktanks [2]

  1. Greg Tingey
    February 18, 2015 at 12:12 pm

    Then there’s the IEA – a n other think tank
    Utterly totally barking mad
    And liars to boot.

    BTW, in your precious post, be careful … MIT & Stanford University are of course, entirely respectable research institutions that do a lot of very valuable & important proper scientific work.
    Please do not confuse the whole “establishment” with certain sections of it that one might not approve of.
    It’s like the difference between the Cavendish Laboratory & the Cambridge spies … deeply profound.
    Do not confuse

    • February 18, 2015 at 7:05 pm

      MIT & Stanford University are of course, entirely respectable research institutions

      Very much so – world leaders, as well as Walter Reed. Problem with WR was the drug work on blacks in mind control in one corner. Same with Masons – vast majority not only above board but philanthropic.

  2. February 18, 2015 at 7:32 pm

    “And what we end up with is massive “thinktankery” around the world, with no one, at any stage, stopping and questioning it, questioning the lexicon, questioning the value set, the ideology. No one questions it. Well some do – bloggers…”

    I find that an odd thing to say James. I don’t think I have ever read of any think tank report without seeing its conclusions and its very legitimacy being promptly (often vigorously) questioned and contested in the mainstream media and elsewhere. That many reports may be misguided and even nefarious, I don’t contest, but I see plenty of evidence of questioning all over the place.

    • February 18, 2015 at 7:59 pm

      Read up on SPPNA – accepted without quibbling. Euston Manifesto another.

Comments are closed.