Thinktanks

just another man 1There’s an ever-present danger that when words are thrown about such as Rothschilds, Bilderberg etc., those invoking them are instantly dismissed with a groan, that most people do not really know the interelationships between groups and in my case, when I use the word Them, it does not help my cause that the data below is not quoted each and every time.

The blog format does not help in this.

Whether innocuous or more sinister, things are always run in shipshape fashion on the surface.  So thinktanks will hold meetings at the RIIA, for example, where leading lights in various fields are invited to speak under Chatham House rules – all above board, yes?

And a policy statement will come out of that, such as:

Head of the Army says service must be overhauled to give women the chance of making it to the top 

The interrelationships, patronage, organization and the way different groups access other groups’ findings, the very guest list in fact for a meeting – none of that is by accident.  To get an understanding of the world of lobbying, one must go far beyond the financial lobbies, many mentioned in this spreadsheet.

Bottom line is that everyone wants his or her voice heard, from bloggers to ad hoc groups to professional manipulators whose work is accessed by business and other sectors.  Some do it better than others.  We could start anywhere but let’s start here.

Quick word – I’ve no intention of bogging this down with references and cross references.  This is only a quick reference.  Any of the groups or institutions mentioned you can do your own further research on – there being only so many minutes attention span on a blog post and the intention being merely to show some of the workings, to give an idea only of the extent of the lobbying and accessing.

Demos

Demos is a think tank based in the United Kingdom with a cross-party political viewpoint. It was founded in 1993 and specialises in social policy, developing evidence-based solutions in a range of areas, from education and skills to health and housing.

The current Chief Executive is Claudia Wood, who joined the think tank in 2009 and previously worked for Tony Blair’s strategy unit. David Goodhart is Chair of the Demos Advisory Board, which includes former Attorney General Lord Falconer, Baroness O’Neill and Sir Peter Bazalgette.

However, scratch the surface and voila:

Demos was founded in 1993 by former Marxism Today editor Martin Jacques, and Geoff Mulgan, who became its first director. It was formed in response to what Mulgan, Jacques and others saw as a crisis in politics in Britain, with voter engagement in decline and political institutions unable in their view to adapt to major social changes. Demos was conceived as a network of networks which could draw together different sources of ideas and expertise to improve public policy.[2]

In the run up to the 1997 general election it was seen as being close to the Labour Party, in particular its then leader Tony Blair. It defines itself, however, as independent of any political party.[3] Geoff Mulgan went on to work inside Downing Street in 1997. At that time Demos was seen as central to New Labour‘s vision for Britain.[4]

One of the founders was one Julia Middleton.

Alongside her role as CEO of Common Purpose, Middleton occupie[d] a number of non-executive roles, including Deputy Chair of the Media Standards Trust Board, a registered charity that runs Journalisted, a free online journalist portfolio designed to improve public accountability in journalism.[8][dead link]

She is also member of the Board of Trustees for Alfanar, a venture philanthropy fund set up by Tarek Ben Halim to assist organisations in the Arab region.[9][dead link]

She helped in the founding of DEMOS, an independent think tank, and Impetus Trust, developing venture philanthropy in the UK.[2]

And of course, there is the Hacked Off and Leveson connection:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Submission-by-Media-Standards-Trust.pdf

How is Demos funded?

Barclays Bank, Chartered Institute of Taxation, Corporation of London, Deloitte, Deutsche Bank, Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, Lloyds TSB, London Stock Exchange, Luther Pendragon, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Provident Financial, The Co-operative Group, Unum.

8% of their funding came from Fidelity Investments, Prudential, The Corporation of London and Unum.  Worth exploring in itself.

The three David Bells

There is Sir David Maurice Bell:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2233709/Sir-David-Bell-publics-right-know.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bell_(publisher)

He’s the one listed as part of the Committee of 300 and a key figure in Demos/Tavistock/Common Purpose – much has been written about him.

There’s also a psychiatrist:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/psychoanalysis/people/david-bell

http://www.psychoanalysis.org.uk/mediaroom.htm

Involved with The Institute of Psychoanalysis of which field I’ve written in posts passim.

David Bell

has a background in psychology, psychiatry and psychoanalysis. A practicing adult psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, and a Fellow of the Institute of Psychoanalysis, he is director of Fitzjohn’s Unit a specialist unit for serious psychological disorders at the Tavistock Clinic. He lectures and writes extensively on a variety of subjects including psychosis, personality disorder, suicide, trauma and psychoanalytic perspectives on culture and politics. He is a training and supervising analyst, and Chair of the Scientific Committee of the British Psychoanalytical Society; he also chairs a study group on philosophy and psychoanalysis.

Specialist areas: General psychoanalysis, mental illness, suicide, personality disorder, NHS and the public sector, the debate psychoanalysis vs cognitive behavioural therapy. The relationship between psychoanalysis and culture (film, literature, theatre), philosophy, Freud, psychoanalysis and politics, psychoanalysis and society, the work of Klein and Bion.

The 3rd bell is the educator:

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/feb/06/david-bell-interview

Just in passing – and it can be mentioned here as it shall not be further developed in this post – is the Church’s connection with all these thinktanks:

http://www.commonpurpose.org.uk/about/statement-from-chair-of-trustees-bishop-tim-stevens

Pause for one moment.  A Bishop of the Church of England a main player for the “leading beyond authority” Common Purpose?  Read his defence too – who exactly is his god?

Tavistock

Much of this is old, from the 80s, some new, the organization is still there, the names have in some cases changed.

The Institute owns and edits the monthly journal Human Relations (published by Plenum Press) which is now in its 48th year, and has recently launched (in conjunction with Sage Publications) a new journal Evaluation.

From its own blurb:

Three elements combine to make the Institute unusual, if not unique: it has the independence of being entirely self-financing, with no subsidies from the government or other sources; the action research orientation places it between, but not in, the worlds of academia and consultancy; and its range of disciplines include anthropology, economics, organisational behaviour, political science, psychoanalysis, psychology and sociology.

This is where it goes beyond honourable “thinktankery”:

Tavistock’s pioneer work in behavioral science along Freudian lines of “controlling” humans established it as the world center of foundation ideology.

Its network now extends from the University of Sussex to the U.S. through the Stanford Research Institute, Esalen, MIT, Hudson Institute, Heritage Foundation, Center of Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown, where State Dept. personal are trained, US Air Force Intelligence, and the Rand and Mitre corporations.

Yes, the American connection in expanded form but still only names and occasional details – you’d need to do your own research:

Flow Laboratories Merle Thomas Corporation

Walden Research

Planning Research Corporation

Brookings Institution The “national agenda.” Wrote President Hoover’s program, President Roosevelt’s “New Deal”, the Kennedy Administration’s “New Frontiers” program (deviation from it may have cost John F. Kennedy his life), and President Johnson’s “Great Society.”

Pause to note – governments themselves are as thick as pig excrement.  They are ambitious people wishing to wield power and shore up their own positions, kidding themselves they are helping “this great land” from time to time, usually around the rhetoric laden election time.

They must get policy from somewhere – where from?

Obviously from “experts” in the field, people at the ready, at the door, with their papers in their hands.  The government accesses this expertise at taxpayer expense, policy is written.  One of the network over here, to give you an example, Norman Geras, of academic fame, helped write Blair’s Euston Manifesto – Blair didn’t write it.

The aim of these “experts” is to be the only one at the door.  The Prez or PM turns to his advisor [a member] and asks whom to ask.  Advisor recommends his group/lobby.  There they are at the door, ready to advise.

Example – CFR through SPPNA, causing three heads of state to meet in an unspecified [at the time] location and one – Bush – undertaking to pursue their recommendations – control of the major sectors of public life, under the advice of the NAAC.  Check their members – all CFR.

Hudson Institute defense policy research U.S. Department of Defense which includes matters of civil defense, national security, military policy and arms control.Freedom From Religious Persecution Act, which became the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998.

That last one is plucked out from dozens.  These were plans to stop the Christian voice being heard in any matters of conduct and human relations.  Why would that be?  They, of course, did not word it that way.  They worded it in the way which would strike a chord with people, even our Julia – that the Church should not interfere with the State.

Antidisestablishmentarianism again.

But that is bollox, the cover story.  The real story, as you have seen, is for the Church not to speak at all, even within its own remit of human relations.  However, on politics, e.g. with Welby twice in the past two weeks – it’s perfectly acceptable.

National Training Laboratories – brainwashing of leaders of the government, educational institutions, and corporate bureaucracies in the Tavistock method.  Tavistock “group dynamics,” developed by German Tavistock operative Kurt Lewin, NLP etc., so beloved of Common Purpose.

Esalen Institute

NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Sciences

Western Training Laboratories in Group Development

National Education Association

International Institute for Applied Behavioral Sciences. This institute is a brainwashing center in artificial stress training.

University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School of Finance & Commerce of work than was reflected in USDL statistics. Wharton’s econometric modelling is used by every major C300 company in the United States, Western Europe, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and the World Bank.

Institute For The Future This is not a typical Tavistock institution in that it is funded by the Ford Foundation, yet it draws its long-range forecasting from the mother of all think tanks.

So called “Delphi panels” decide what is normal and what is not, and prepare position papers to “steer” government in the right direction to head off such groups as “people creating civil disorder.”

Delphi technique was widely used to manipulate workshops and panel discussions.  The Beeb is interested in such things.

Delphi and Oracle were also terms used to name groups who met in Bavaria – but that’s another story too long for here.

Institute for Policy Studies

Google them.  Innocuous, yes?

James P. Warburg [Google that name alone], Rothschild, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Irwin Suall of the ADL, Eugene Rostow, arms control negotiator, Lane Kirkland, Labor Leader, and Albert Shanker are some names.

IPS was incorporated in 1963 by Marcus Raskin and Richard Barnett, Tavistock Institute graduates. The objectives of IPS  to create the “New Left” as a grass roots movement, among other things.

Samuel Rubin

Armand Hammer

Philip Stern

David R. Hunter

The National Council and the World Council Of Churches

Stanford Research Institute

Charles A. Anderson, with emphasis on mind control research and “future sciences.” Included under the Stanford umbrella was Charles F. Kettering Foundation which developed the “Changing Images of Man” upon which the Aquarian Conspiracy rests.

Accessed by or controlling thinking in:

Applications of Behavioral Sciences to Research Management Office of Science and Technology

SRI Business Intelligence Program

U.S. Department of Defense Directorate of Defense Research and Engineering

U.S. Department of Defense Office of Aerospace Research

Wells Fargo Bank, Bechtel Corporation, Hewlett Packard, Bank of America, McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Blyth, Eastman Dillon and TRW Company.

One side area – bacteriological warfare (CAB) weapons.

Stanford Research is plugged into at least 200 smaller “think tanks” ARPA networking.

Connected to:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Alfred P. Sloan School of Management

Contemporary Technology Industrial Relations NASA-ERC Computer Research Laboratories Office of Naval Research Group, Psychology Systems Dynamics

Some of MIT’s clients are:

American Management Association
Committee for Economic Development
GTE
Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA)
NASA
National Academy of Sciences
National Council of Churches
Sylvania
TRW
U.S. Army
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Navy
U.S. Treasury
Volkswagen Company

Rand Research and Development Corporation

Work:

– ICBM program, analyses for U.S. foreign policy making, space programs, U.S. nuclear policies, corporate analyses, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in relation to the use of mind altering drugs like peyote, LSD (the covert MK-ULTRA operation which lasted for 20 years).

The founder of the Rand Corporation, Herman Kahn, also founded the Hudson Institute in 1961.

Some of RAND’s clients include:

American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T)
Chase Manhattan Bank
International Business Machines (IBM)
National Science Foundation
Republican Party
TRW
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Department of Health
U.S. Department of Energy

The Uniform Law Foundation, whose function is to ensure that the Uniform Commercial Code remains the instrument for conducting business in the United States.

Dr. William Sargent of the Tavistock Institute [MKULTRA] 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.”

Connected with the Mont Pelerin Society, Trilateral Commission, Ditchley Foundation, the Club of Rome, the latter a conduit for Tavistock.

Tavistock Institute developed the mass brain-washing techniques which were first used experimentally on American prisoners of war in Korea.

Was deeply involved with OSS, SOE and SIS.

Henry Kissinger was a German refugee and student of Sir John Rawlings-Reese at SHAEF. Dr. Peter Bourne, a Tavistock Institute psychologist, picked Jimmy Carter for President of the U.S. solely because Carter had undergone an intensive brainwashing program administered by Admiral Hyman Rickover at Annapolis.

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.

Through the Stanford Research Institute, Tavistock influences The National Education Association. The Institute of Social Research at the National Training Lab “trains” [see Common Purpose again] leading executives of business and government.

The hiatus in the space programme was demanded in an article written by Dr. Anatol Rapport, and acted on by government.

Many Tavistock programmes have backfired, especially in the field of their drug use. MK Ultra [CIA], in which unsuspecting CIA officials were given LSD, and their reaction studied like “guinea pigs”, resulted in several deaths.  There’ve been occasional lawsuits which have gone the distance.

The U.S. Government had to pay millions in damages to the families of the victims, but the culprits were never indicted. The program originated when Sandoz AG, a Swiss drug firm, owned by S.G. Warburg Co. of London, developed Lysergic Acid [LSD].

Roosevelt’s advisor, James Paul Warburg, son of Paul Warburg who wrote the Federal Reserve Act, and nephew of Max Warburg who had financed Hitler, set up the Institute for Policy Studies and it promoted the drug. This, through Leary and Phillips [Mamas and Papas] for example, resulted in the LSD “counter-culture” of the 1960s, and the “student revolution”, which was financed by $25 million from the CIA.

One part of MK Ultra was the Human Ecology Fund; the CIA also paid Dr. Herbert Kelman of Harvard to carry out further experiments on mind control. In the 1950s, the CIA financed extensive LSD experiments in Canada. Dr. D. Ewen Cameron, president of the Canadian Psychological Association, and director of Royal Victorian Hospital, Montreal, received large payments from the CIA to give 53 patients large doses of LSD and record their reactions; the patients were drugged into weeks of sleep and then given electric shock treatments.

Cameron was the first to be successfully prosecuted.

One victim, the wife of a member of the Canadian Parliament, sued the U.S. companies who provided the drug for the CIA. All the records of the CIA’s drug testing program were ordered destroyed by the head of MK Ultra.

Tavistock Institute are concerned with ensuring cyclical collapse.  R. Emmett Tyrell Jr., writing in the Washington Post August 20, 1984, cited the “squalid consequences of the 60s radicals in SDS” as resulting in “the growing rate of illegitimacy, petty lawlessness, drug addiction, welfare, VD, and mental illness”.

It goes on and on.  Whichever way one looks, whatever the acronym, these were the people involved.  They do not concern themselves with little matters but about policy at governmental level, having people in key places to “advise”, a legitimate pursuit in itself of course.

More on The Institute for Policy Studies – funded by James Paul Warburg; its co-founder was Marcus Raskin, protege of McGeorge Bundy, president of the Ford Foundation. Bundy had Raskin appointed to the post of President Kennedy’s personal representative on the National Security Council, and in 1963 funded Students for Democratic Society, through which the CIA operated the drug culture.

People, it’s just scratching the surface.  These are associated groups:

Chatham House
Bilderburg Group
Trilateral Commission
Council on Foreign Relations
Ditchley Foundation
Club of Rome
RAND Corporation
PNAC
Freemasonry

Club of Rome is the EU of course, which funded the C4 programme the other evening on UKIP.

Those at ground level include:

But you knew that already.  Two names heavily involved in running things, bringing out new ideologies, keeping the cauldron bubbling are Bundy and Astor, one across the pond and the other on both sides – two of the oft-quoted 13 families.

Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel reported to the Club of Rome on September 17th, 1973, about:

Presently the world system is represented BY TEN REGIONS:

NORTH AMERICA
WESTERN EUROPE
EASTERN EUROPE
JAPAN
REST OF DEVELOPED WORLD
LATIN AMERICA
MIDDLE EAST
REST OF AFRICA
SOUTH AND SOUTH EAST ASIA
CHINA

The model has been developed up to the stage where it can be used for policy analysis related to a number of critical issues, such as:

energy resources utilization and technology assessment
food demand and production
population growth and the affect of timing of birth control programs
reduction of inequities in regional economic developments
depletion dynamics of certain resources, particularly oil reserves
phosphorus use as fertilizer
regional unemployment
constraints on growth due to labor, energy or export limitation, etc.

These are the people at Chatham House who have just come out with this recommendation for women going into the “top jobs” in the military.  The issue is not women per se, the issue is WHICH women?

People like Cressida Dick, Joyce Thacker, Julia Middleton, Harriet Harman, Jacquie Smith?

We’re talking here about stacked decks.  The one I’ve oft quoted – the Scottish Arts Council.  They received moneys, therefore a meeting was held by Julia Middleton with “leaders” in the field of art – think about that one – to get art organized in Scotland.

This is not much different to getting families organized better, via “named persons” for every child from 2016.

This post, by its nature, could only be snippets about how Them work.  Business is business.  It’s just accessing human resources, no?  Banal.  Innocuous?

And we bloggers think we can alter this, without even understanding how it works?

5 comments for “Thinktanks

  1. Viscount Rectum
    February 18, 2015 at 9:33 am

    I am on your side, try a little serving at a time, many important points were left out, we are getting very close to General Election and I want to help UKIP, sometimes I feel insecure and dont want to be Fuddied, Yours Truly

    • February 18, 2015 at 11:14 am

      Try a little serving at a time, many important points were left out

      Agreed – way too much data in one hit, way too much left out. People’s reaction?

      – Switch off or don’t go in, the technique used by government to bury policy changes.

      – Doggedly read it but because it’s so fragmented, just become annoyed because it does not follow a smooth narrative with a beginning and end.

      – Note the author, see a rant, skip over.

      That in itself is a commentary on the difficulty in getting information across to the public, especially when the public has become used to small “bites” using familiar language, e.g. the usual blogpost.

      In Part 2, two small bits from this post and one from another post are looked at in a bit more detail. That’s coming up later.

      • Viscount Rectum
        February 18, 2015 at 12:31 pm

        Not leaving out that Obamas purported mother S A Dunham worked for the Ford Foundation, Cressida Dick heroine of 7/7 a major player in Common Purpose,, the atrocity in Tavistock Square, guess whats housed there? JFK took a hit because of an executive order banning the FED from printing money?. John Prescott gave Julia Middleton a office in the commons to organise CP, then ACPO the arm of CP ?. 911- Sandy Hook — Boston Marathon it goes on and on.

        • February 18, 2015 at 7:02 pm

          It does. ODPM, round table, psychiatric community in the States, alleged persons connected to Dolphin Square.

  2. Junican
    February 19, 2015 at 12:42 am

    It is not unlikely that such organisations will abound. What really matters is whether or not they have power, more specifically, political power. For example, how did Cameron come to be a candidate for leader of the Tories? Who decided that he was ‘one of the best’? Who decided that the Miliband brothers should be ‘the best’, and who decided that the boy Clegg should be the one? It really is very odd that no one has ever spilt the beans about how the ‘committees’ make these choices. Anyone who has ever been a member of a committee know that they are usually ‘organised’ by a few members of the committee who ‘lead’ and get their way. Out of a committee of twelve people, there need only be about three who ‘know’and are insistent. They are clever, and will let, nay encourage, others to speak, and then they will say, “Good point” but rapidly steer the meeting back their agenda, very cleverly.
    I was Treasurer of my golf club and saw this sort of manipulation at first hand. Just two member of Council knew each other very well and were well versed in the activities of company boards. They could wind the other members of Council around their little fingers. Via control of the other members, they tried to manipulate me, but I was having none of it. I had to remind members of Council that I had been elected Treasurer DIRECTLY by the members, and that I had duties as a result (being, essentially, to protect the funding of the club, which encompassed decisions which might effect membership, income, costs, etc).
    This sort of manipulation is one of the things which are seriously wrong with our democracy.

Comments are closed.