Chapter One: The Study of Foundations

 

    Building upon my previous post, I will provide a chapter summary of all the chapters in the book Foundations: Their Power and Influence by Rene A. Wormser. Beginning with the first chapter: The Study of Foundations.

Congressional Investigation Is Not Enough

    Since 1950, there have been communist sympathizers and communist infiltrators in the American government and education that have subverted our beloved American traditions, culture, and way of life. As previously mentioned, the Cox Committee was originally appointed to investigate these foundations to find evidence of these subversive activities but was abandoned due in large part to the power these foundations wield. B. Carroll Reece picked up where the Cox Committee left off, and he was aware of the harassment he would be subjected to in an effort to find the truth, namely the use of these foundations' tax-free largesse to promote "un-American and subversive activities; for political purposes; [for] propaganda, or [for] attempts to influence legislation" (3). Studies and investigations of these foundations were necessary because these foundations play a large social role in society and now essentially form the structure of the American society. Despite the limited time, the lack of sufficient funding, the clash of personalities, and an atmosphere of political passion, the Reece Committee accomplished much. 

    Because the American foundation is a social invention meant to contribute to the improvement of the public welfare, it requires constant reevaluation; what may have been true yesterday of the foundation, may not be true today. Congressional committees can provide a great deal to that appraisal. But most importantly, because these institutions may exert political influence (which may not be in the interest or tradition of the United States) due to their enormous wealth, they "deserve the fullest attention of all who are concerned for the future of our Republic" (4). The Reece Committee in no way projected any kind of prejudice against these foundations, it merely recorded the possible dangers to the public; to ensure that these foundations served the best interest of the people. Being silent would not achieve this objective and Reece simply followed the footsteps of those who had gone before him. 

The Walsh Committee

    The study of foundations is not new. In fact, it has been under Congressional inquiry before. Under a Congressional Act of August 23, 1912, the Commission on Industrial Relations examined labor conditions by major industrial firms. Its focus was to examine labor conditions and the treatment of workers, "starting with a study of labor exploitation, it went on to investigate concentrations of economic power, interlocking directorates, and the role of the then relatively new large charitable foundations (especially of Carnegie and Rockefeller) as instruments of power concentration" (5). The only difference between then and today is that no one seems to care about the concentration of power that is being used to destroy this country. Consider what Abraham Lincoln said in a letter to Col. William F. Elkins on November 21, 1864:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.....corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

    Now compare and contrast to Louis D. Brandeis, a prominent lawyer and student of social problems who later became a Supreme Court justice, who testified on January 23, 1915:

"But when a great financial power has developed, when there exist these powerful organizations, which can successfully summon forces from all parts of the country, which can afford to use tremendous amounts of money in any conflict to carry what they deem to be their business principle, and can also afford to suffer losses--you have necessarily a conditions of inequality between the two contending forces. The result in the cases of these large corporations, may be to develop a benevolent absolutism, but it is an absolutism all the same; and it is that which makes the great corporation so dangerous. There develops within the State a state so powerful that the ordinary social and industrial forces existing are insufficient to cope with it" (6).

    Some may think that these two quotes are about Capitalism, but that is not the intent here. Any concentration of power can exist in another political, economic, and social structure (i.e., Communism, Socialism, Nazism), and it can exist in wealthy foundations too. Today it is true that only a few care about the corruption and concentration of power in corporations, banks, and foundations. This aggregation of power which leads to corruption is accepted by most as a normalization of globalization. The problem with this thinking, however, is that there are "checks and balances" in our Constitution for a reason and the United States is a democracy (well, technically a Republic because there does exist a difference between the two) governed by the people, for the people, and to the people. If only a few are allotted power where does that leave the democratic process? 

    Brandeis knew there was a strong possibility of an abuse of power; he defined the whole system "inconsistent with our democratic aspirations" (6). If we are to maintain our democratic experiment called the United States with our individual freedoms, then we have to care about the abuses of power and the corruption. And we cannot overlook or make excuses for some of these foundations, banks, and corporations because they offer "wonderful humanitarian aid." 

    There are many who see foundations such as Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford as being beneficial to humanity and causing no harm, but they feel that certain stipulations should be put in place. Samuel Untermyer who was counsel to the U.S. Steel Corporation did not share the fear and distrust that many others had with foundations, however, he did have some reservations. Despite his total trust in powerful, wealthy organizations, he argued that Foundations should be "organized under a uniform Federal law instead of under special state charters," and they should be "limited in their size," and they should "not be permitted to accumulate income" (7). Untermyer also felt that the government should be represented when these foundations appoint trustees. 

    Dr. John Haynes Holmes, a Protestant minister, also testified to his concern about foundation powers stating that an autocratic system of administration was in the midst of a society that is supposed to be democratic, "He contended that a democratic society did not need the services of outside agencies to study a community from its own standpoint and to apply remedies from funds at its disposal" (8). According to Wormser, Holmes would "rather see Democracy die of its own corruption than be favored by the autocratic benefaction or service of any one particular individual."

    Even John D. Rockefeller Jr. testified for the Commission stating on June 25, 1915, "These foundations, as is true of all modern corporations, are subject to the reserved power of legislative bodies which created them--to modify or repeal their charters whenever the public interests require" (8). This was Mr. Rockefeller's response to the question of whether "large foundations constituted a possible menace either to the general cause of education or to the industrial welfare of the people" (8). Rockefeller concurred that the public has a right to know and that the legislative body is needed to control foundation activities. Although Rockefeller did contend that "proper selection of directors would sufficiently protect the public interest and that the financial power of large foundations would be felt only in the realm of investment," who is to say that foundations are only interested in investment? 

    Rockefeller also said this in regard to higher education, "There is a possible danger, if the giver retains any kind of control; I think it unwise" (9). This should raise the alarm in the most astute individuals because even though Rockefeller was a businessman it would be naive to think that a powerful man like Rockefeller was only interested in business and not power and control. Who is to say that businessmen are only interested in investment? Is it not true that some seek investment with the sole purpose of power and control? Perhaps his statements reflect a public relations statement more than anything else and was a smokescreen to hide the real intent. 

    Either way, Mr. Rockefeller said that it was never contemplated that his father or his associates "could continue to have their influence felt; but at any time in any generation, when the board having the charge of such a foundation is not, in the judgment of the public, a proper board, the legislation can introduce an amendment, limiting, qualifying or modifying the method of electing directors and adding at that time any restriction which it may think desirable" (10). Rockefeller contended that a proper selection of directors would sufficiently protect the public interest, he continued to reiterate investment as the only motive, and he argued for academic freedom and the "complete independence in the use of grants by recipient educational institutions of higher learning" (9). Despite Rockefeller's "good intentions," academic freedom is not the case today. As Chairman Walsh expressed his deep concern that whoever bestowed the granting of funds to higher education, their opinion or views would be unconsciously or consciously taken by the persons being educated. 

    When these statements and opinions were made in 1915, no one could see the future and how today we see the vast emergence of "intermediate organizations serving foundations in the distribution of grants and their resulting power in the academic world" (9). In 1915, progressive education was in its infancy. Even if Mr. Rockefeller was sincere that if foundations did not serve the public's interest, then they should be reevaluated with each generation, we can see that that is not the case today. Mr. Basil M. Manly, the director of research of the Commission on Industrial Relations who was concerned with the concentration of wealth and influence, concluded in his final report on foundations that "a small number of wealthy and powerful financiers held in their hands the final control of American Industry; that control through actual stock ownership, in spite of the large number of stockholders, rested with a very small number of persons; and that in each great basic industry a single large corporation dominated the market" (10). As Reece states poignantly, "many of the conclusions of the foundation critics of 1915 have lost their cogency because of evolutions in the social structure" (11). Although Manly's statement refers to capitalism and its fear that foundations were being used as instruments of capitalism, due to the "evolution" in the social structure, today we now fear foundations as instruments and promoters of big government: foundations have changed, and they have essentially changed the social structure of the America. 

    For the majority of its conclusions, the Commission on Industrial Relations' report by Manly saw the domination of a few (foundations) in respects to not only American industry but also in education and the social services. The report continued to express concerns that the "policies of these foundations must be inevitably colored, if not controlled, to conform to the policies of the corporations in whose securities their endowment was invested" (12). And if these funds were the result of exploiting American workers or American consumers, then these funds do indeed belong to the American people. The report listed several examples of the alleged use of Rockefeller foundations as instruments for Rockefeller business interests, and it even reviewed the extent of influence of these foundations and private endowments on institutions of education and public service. Evidence in the Commission was supported by complaints that the Bureau of Municipal research of New York adopted a strict policy to meet the demands imposed by Mr. Rockefeller for the foundation's contributions, and that many colleges and universities abandoned their sectarian affiliations and charter clauses relating to religion in exchange for the securement of endowments from the Carnegie Corporation (13). The report commented: "it would seem conclusive that if an institution will willingly abandon its religious affiliations through influence of these foundations, it will even more easily conform to their will any other part of its organization or teaching" (13). Therefore, it was recommended that legislation should be enacted to limit the amount of funds and the amount of power that these foundation managers should have. 

The Textron Investigation and Business Abuses

    Another committee (subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce) investigated the operations of the Textron Corporation which in several tax-exempt foundations had used the funds in complex business manipulations. This committee expressed concern over the number of "family" foundations, and quoted Fortune magazine, which had described the practices of these organizations as "excessively secretive" (14). The committee chastised this secretiveness as unjustifiable and indefensible because such foundations received their tax-exempt status from society and therefore had an obligation to satisfy their public sanction. These Textron disclosures, however, did lead to a strengthening of the Internal Revenue Code, but Reece was more concerned with the cultural and intellectual aspects of foundation activity because he felt that it is in the "field of ideas that foundations exert the greatest influence of our country" (15). And since the federal government can only withhold the privilege of tax-exempt status, it cannot regulate foundation activity. The Cox and Reece Committees, however, were able to touch on some of the major cultural and intellectual aspects of foundation operation. 

The Social Significance of Tax-Exempt Institutions

    A number of religious organizations had been challenged in the past by sovereign governments due to the conflicts with the public interests as religion was used as a cloak to hide the real intent. Clement V diminished the potent order of the Knights Templar on May 6, 1312. The Templars had become a significant symbol of culture, charity, and social order. Their influence was known far and wide throughout the western world. By the 12th century, their wealth had grown in excess and like some of our modern-day foundations, the Knights Templar had gone into politics (17). Then, in 1773, Pope Clement XIV dissolved the Jesuit order which had already been removed from Spain, France, and Portugal. Many had grown to resent their concentration of wealth and power due in large part to the political activity of some of the guiding managers of the Order. One historian commented, "Their perpetual meddling in politics and even in speculation and finance, stank in the nostrils of every government in Europe; while their high-handedness and corrupt greed in the matters of ecclesiastical privileges and patronage alienated the clergy" (18). Several other historians have made such comments and a generation of critics had concluded from the study of foundations that they had become the "breeding ground for socialist and related political movements and actions" (22). Some men have written books on the very matter.

    Frederick P. Keppel who wrote the book The Foundation, Its Place in American Life made note that foundations must be always on guard against the use of propaganda, even virtuous propaganda. Edward C. Lindeman, who was a socialist and believed in foundation power to contribute to social change, condemned trustees in his book Wealth and Culture, "repugnant arrogance of those who presume to impose cultural norms upon a society on no basis of warrant other than their pecuniary success under the dispensation of a competitive economy...In a decent society creative persons should not be expected to debase themselves as persons in order to gain the economic security which permits them to work. When they do so their true creativeness evaporates with tragic suddenness" (21-22). In the book Prejudice and the Press, Frank Hughes argues that foundations "exhibit the progovernment bias prevalent in university circles" (23). As such, Hughes sees a real danger to the Republic from little incentive towards independent thought and research. Hughes came to these conclusions because many of the foundation trustees were former trustees of universities and many of the professional managers of foundations were former university teachers. This bias threatens American freedoms because this concentration of wealth and power favors certain political ideas and demands a conformity to it.

    William H. Whyte, Jr. who died in 1999 and who was a former editor of Fortune magazine wrote several articles on the Ford Foundation, so he was well informed on foundation practices. Whyte wrote a book in 1956 titled The Organization Man and in it he outlines the disastrous impact of organization techniques on the life of America. He attributes them to a "growing force for conformism, threatening in the end to destroy all vestiges of genius, individual responsibility and initiative, and with them the concepts of individual independence and liberty so dear to earlier generations" (24). Because foundations are controlled by organizational bureaucrats, the flow of great ideas and scientific achievement is being hindered rather than advanced by the behemoth corporation-or foundation -supported research projects. Instead of independent research, preference for group performance is pushed and accepted. In scientific study, we see an increasing number of peer-reviewed articles being published by two or more authors rather than one demonstrating that scientists now depend on others in the early stage in determining what problems to investigate. This is because grant funding by these foundations generally only supports group projects. Whyte believes that the lure of these funds for organization-favored projects impedes the creative potential of our scientists (25). This increasing dependence on grant money for research forces scientists into a vicious circle, and what once only needed one or two sentences to apply for grant money, now needs six to eight single-spaced pages. And even that is subjected to numerous members of committees to be approved. 

    Reece comments on this to which I agree, "The control imposed on a scientist by the requirement that his research designs be approved by the members of numerous giant committees will bring his ideas down to the lowest intellectual common denominator. It will impose on him the most powerful pressure to conform to a pattern of mediocrity" (26). Whyte also ridicules the idea of scientific teamwork by stating, "the group, even in the realm of thought, is superior to the individual." I agree with Whyte because this sounds like Marxism in which the individual is anathema. Marx was all about the collective. In terms of foundations revisiting and supporting individual research, Whyte states, "Instead of countering the bureaucratization of research they are intensifying it" (26). It is not surprising then that many creative individuals have been conditioned to leave individual projects because the foundation culture is not favorable to individual projects; they simply are not funded. There is only generous foundation subsidy for large projects with multiple team members. As a result, this leaves any new scientific discovery locked in a chest hidden under the ground as the barren and sterile fields of conformity remain. New scientific discovery will remain a desolate wasteland with buried treasures just below the surface. 

    Ultimately, foundation giving has a significant impact on education, political action, and social thinking, "this influence reaches the public through the schools and academies, through publicity, and through educational and other associations dedicated to public and international affairs" (28). Only a reform of the law can ensure the proper use of tax-free funds, and only a moral account of the foundation managers who make the decisions on the use of funds will enable intellectual freedom and protect the public from abuses of power. 

Foundation Responsibility

    According to the Association of Fund-Raising Counsel, Inc., it is estimated that out of 40,000 organizations listed by the IRS as tax-exempt, only about 6,000 actually engage in giving (1954 when this book was written). Foundations must give an account via public reports specifically because of their public sanction. They owe it to the public. Even more so, if they are promoting political ideologies or social change, since some of these foundations have promoted seductive ideas that have promised a better society or a utopia on earth as Karl Marx would. When the managers of these funds promote particular brands of social philosophy their influence determines how much they tamper with the public welfare. For example, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. This is a large foundation but is dwarfed by the likes of Rockefeller, Ford, and the Carnegie Corporation, yet the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has its ubiquitous tentacles in the Department of State, many law schools where international law is taught, foreign offices of other nations, and even the United Nations. As Reece says, "it is no longer a mere clearing house for ideas; it has become a proponent of the particular ideas of its trustees, its staff, and an entourage sympathetic to certain special concepts of international relations promoted by the foundation itself" (31). If these foundations are promoting a particular political philosophy, they need to be held accountable and they need to be responsible in a fiduciary manner to the public. 

What is "Propaganda" and What is "Education"

    As mentioned earlier, the only thing the IRS can do is withdraw its tax-exempt status when a foundation engages in political activity. It cannot regulate what these foundations do. Because the tax laws have been weak and ambiguous and because the term propaganda was not clearly defined in 1954, so much propaganda was coming out of these foundations all the while they were enjoying tax-free status, "numerous foundations pursue their political ways free of interference by the Internal Revenue Service because of the ambiguity and weakness of the statue referred to" (33). It is interesting to note that the IRS has taken the word propaganda out of its 501c (3). In the IRS code 501c (3) of 1954, the word propaganda is mentioned:

"No substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation, and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office."

Today in 2022, the word propaganda is not mentioned. But back in 1954, because the term was not clearly defined many foundations promoted propaganda while enjoying tax-free status. An example of this is the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation of New York who was in 1954 and still is dedicated to the promotion of Henry George's single tax idea. More than likely, it has indoctrinated thousands of unsuspecting citizens, yet the "foundation would undoubtedly claim its efforts to be "educational" ' (34). Another example of a foundation promoting propaganda under the guise of "education" is The League of Industrial Democracy, formerly The Intercollegiate Socialist Society. Some of its promotions include a booklet called "Revolt," and it states the following: 

"The League for Industrial Democracy is a militant educational movement which challenges those who would think and act for a "new social order based on production for use not for profit." That is a revolutionary slogan. It means that members of the LID thank and work for the elimination of capitalism, and the substitution for it or a new order, in whose building the purposeful and passionate thinking of the student and worker today will play an important role" 

This sounds just like Marxism with the raised fist, and it is revolutionary with seditious undercurrents. Because of the IRS code in 1954, this foundation went about promoting socialism without any harassment from the IRS. The worst part is that some of these pamphlets and books published by the LID were used in some college courses. Dr. Laidler of the LID submitted a letter to the Reece Committee stating that their books and pamphlets were indeed used in college courses. He used this as a major premise and because colleges are educational, he used this as a minor premise resulting in a syllogism with the conclusion that their work was "educational" (36). Semantic difficulties have always been a problem in the courts, and today they have a problem distinguishing between education in a legitimate sense and "education" which is used primarily for political propaganda that is intended to influence legislation. As Reece points out, "An interpretation of the venture capital theory permitting the use of tax-exempt funds for partisan purposes would be a palpable absurdity...The managers of tax-exempt endowments act as trustees not only for the donors to such foundations but also for the public. They have as little right to use their trust funds for partisan ends as they have to put them into their own pockets" (37). Fortunately, there have been some foundations that have lost their tax-exempt status through the years for promoting partisan literature, but many foundations still enjoy tax-free largesse while promoting partisan ideology. 

Foundation Responsibility in Supporting Social Change 

    In statements to the Reece Committee, some foundation managers maintained their innocence. They claimed they were not responsible for the amount of grants being used for the destruction of capitalism through social change. This has led to a bias and discrimination against conservative programs, "If foundations have favored quasi-socialist "liberal" causes and discriminated against "conservative" programs it may well be due to some extent, to the fact that the preference had already existed in the academic world...[and] there may have been a penetration of foundation boards and administrative ranks by anticonservative professionals (academicians, scholars, and administrators)" (39). This inclination was quickened by the use of intermediary agencies and individual "expert" consultants who were merely advisors that were chosen because of their standing in the academic world. Consider this astute quote by Reece:

"The politically minded manipulator often is rewarded with eminent status, whether he is a true scholar or not. The symbol of academic prestige is not necessarily evidence of learning or of sound social judgment. Once an academician is selected to act as an "expert," he becomes one in the public eye because he has been chosen. He may have succeeded in coming into office chiefly because he had developed good "public relations." If that was the case, he is likely to support whatever fads and foibles enabled him to succeed, rather than the thought of truly creative minds. These "experts" have almost invariably followed the current fashion which grew up among teachers and political scientists under a barrage of communist and socialist propaganda and under the impact made by the depression of 1930. This fashion is one of confidence in the power of man to create heaven on earth by manipulating the structure of government." 

    Reece goes on to express his deep concern, particularly of the cumulative effect, in these foundations and their impact on the minds of Americans. This promotion of propaganda and the push for social change warrants a questioning as to "whether these foundations are truly performing their trust duty to the public" (40). He believes, to which I agree, that many of these foundation managers have given preference to the "political ideas held by cliques of academicians and to the proponents of the ideas who are generally identifiable as leftist" (40). Because of this one-sided preference, political bias, and change just for social change, the normal checks and balances in our Constitution have been rendered null and void. Why should the public pay the bulk of the taxes when these foundations enjoy tax-exempt status so they can promote their propaganda and political bias? Where is the foundations' responsibility to the public trust? 

In chapter 2, Reece discusses the power of the individual foundation. As mentioned previously, I will write a post on each chapter because there are far too many important points that cannot be left unsaid!

The Reece Committee: Examining the Philanthropic Actions of Foundations, Not their Mission Statements

    This is a picture of the 1958 first edition of the book Foundations: Their Power and Influence by Rene A. Wormser. The man in the picture is Rene A. Wormser (It's the only I could find). Wormser was a lawyer who specialized in estate planning during his 38 years of law practice. He was a senior member of the New York law firm of Myles, Wormser & Koch. In his book he details the accounts, testimonies, and work of both himself and Congressman Brazilla Carroll Reece of the Reece Committee that scrutinized the actions and intellectual activities of the large Foundations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, and the Ford Foundation. Wormser was the general counsel to the committee and Reece was the chairman of the committee. This committee examined the outcomes of these foundations to see if their statements to the public corroborated their actions. This scrutiny was necessary because these foundations achieved their enormous wealth because they were tax-exempt. This committee was originally called The Cox Committee but was abandoned by the previous Congress due in large part to the power that these foundations wield; the names of Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford are highly respected. B. Carroll Reece knew that he would face many obstacles when he led the new committee with a new Congress calling his investigation The Reece Committee. In the preface to Wormser's book, Reece states these obstacles, "We knew that the influential 'liberal' press, characterized by The New York Times, the New York Herald Tribune, and the Washington Post-Times Herald, would throw its editorial power against the Committee." Reece also knew that this investigation would be the most difficult assignment of his 30 years in the Congress. 

Brazilla Carroll Reece of Tennessee served in the House of Representatives for all but six years from 1921 to 1961, and he served as the Chair of the Republican National Committee from 1946 to 1948.  

    The main reason Reece wanted to continue what the Cox Committee had previously abandoned is that he felt the Cox Committee left several very important questions unanswered, one of which was: to what extent, if any, are the funds of the large foundations aiding and abetting Marxist tendencies in the United States and weakening the love which every American should have for his way of life? (Preface of the book). While he admits that the committee was not blind to all the Foundation's worth-while causes, his main objective was to preserve their constructive functions and to use "administrative action against the use of foundation power for political ends." Tax-exempt status means that the organization has to be non-partisan. It cannot be partisan. In other words, a foundation cannot promote a bias that leans towards a specific political ideology, otherwise you lose your tax-exempt status. 

    In the introduction to the book, a man named John O'Donnell, a New York Daily News columnist, wrote that the Reece Committee had the "almost impossible task" of telling "the taxpayers that the incredible was, in fact, the truth." On December 21, 1954 he wrote: 

           "This incredible fact was the huge fortunes piled up by such industrial giants as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and Henry Ford were today being used to destroy or discredit the free-enterprise system which gave them birth." (7)

As Wormser is noted as saying, "it is not easy to investigate foundations, not even for Congress to attempt it," the same can be said about the Federal Reserve which to this day has never been audited despite former Republican Congressman Ron Paul's effort to pass a bill, "Audit the Federal Reserve" H.R. 1207, in 2009 which Democrats in the Senate later denied. The bill was proposed to enable transparency of the Fed's balance sheet that had ballooned from the 2007 Banking Crisis (which today would sink the Titanic). Where there is a concentration of power, there are even more powerful "friends," and need I say, corruption. As such, the House of Representative of the 83rd Congress created this special committee to investigate these tax-exempt organizations, and became "perhaps the most hazardous career of any committee in the history of Congress"(7). It did survive and complete its objective, however, and the main theme discovered was that these large Foundations were using the largesse for political ends:

"These dangers relate chiefly to the use of foundation funds for political ends; they arise out of the accumulation of substantial economic power and cultural influence in the hands of a class of administrators of tax-exempt funds established in perpetuity. An 'elite' has thus emerged, in control of gigantic processes, which is willing and able to shape the future of this nation and of mankind in the image of its own value concepts." (7, 8)

Part of the problem is that these large Foundations are unchecked by the people. In other words, there is no accountability like a "checks and balance" system that ensures the proper use of funds. And several of these large Foundations have delegated other smaller entities as beneficiaries such as "intermediaries," "clearing houses," and "retailers" which allow them the same tax-exempt status as the large Foundations, yet some with no endowment. In addition, the Reece Committee also examined secondary distributors of grant moneys which are supported by these Foundations and are used to select who ultimately receives the bulk of grant money; for example, The Social Science Research Council, The Institute of Pacific Relations, and the American Council on Education. Wormser continues in the Introduction with a quote from Mr. F. Emerson Andrews who wrote the book, Philanthropic Foundations, and who was an executive of The Russel Sage Foundation:

"Although the foundations that can now be classified as 'general research' probably do not exceed 150 in number, they control more than half the assets of all foundations and are the ones most in the public eye. To a large degree they are the leaders and standard setters for the foundation movement" (9)

    It is not surprising that the IRS receives up to 100,000 applications a year for tax-exempt status. This has sprung from the increasing tax burdens on incomes and estates as a way to retain control over capital that would otherwise be lost. With that said, the primary motivation for starting a foundation is tax avoidance, not philanthropy. When you consider the capital gains tax, it would make more sense for a rich person to gift an asset like land, stocks, or other property than for him/her to liquidate his/her assets and pay a capital gains tax and have nothing left to give. The reason Henry Ford and his son Edsel created the Ford Foundation is because if they had paid estate taxes (death taxes) on their enormous fortune, they would not have had enough capital to liquidate to cover those taxes leaving control of their company to public sale. By creating their Foundation, not only did they retain control of their capital but they also maintained control over how that money would be used in philanthropy. Unfortunately, when these fabulously wealthy individuals create a foundation and receive tax-free status to promote partisan ideology, the bulk of the taxes collected from the IRS falls on the middle class.

    Another motivation for starting a Foundation, although not necessarily relative to this post, is simply public relations. In an effort to redeem a despised public persona, a Foundation in that person's name can assuage public opinion to some degree. Long before our time, however, the big three Foundations, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford, were also created to "glamorize" their names because these individuals were not particularly charitable.

    At the end of these endeavors of creating Foundations, however, is a concentration of power much like a society similar to socialism, and as Wormser states rhetorically, "to protect ourselves against the strictures which such concentrations of power can effect, that we might have to enact legislation analogous to the Statutes of Mortmain which, centuries ago, were deemed necessary in order to prevent all England's wealth from passing into the hands of the church" (13). These dangers of a concentration of wealth and power make necessary the criticisms that such an organization may be involved in a breach of fiduciary trust despite some obvious commendable achievements; for example, the Rockefeller Foundation. There is no doubt the American people can thank the foundation for their support in medicine, science, and public health, however, this alone should not negate further scrutiny of foundation money and its purposes, namely in the fields of education, international affairs, and what is now called the "social sciences." (I elaborated on this new "discipline" of social sciences in my post on the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. The social sciences are really about behavior science, psychology, and socially engineering the masses, and it truly is not science in the strictest sense of the word because no scientist can observe how the mind influence the body; no scientist can observe our feelings, our thoughts, and why we behave the way we do. And yet, it is in this field where the most damage to our society can be observed). If foundations are pledging their money to the public for the public's benefit in a concept called public dedication (public trusts), isn't is reasonable then that the public has a right to expect these foundations to operate with the highest degree of fiduciary responsibility, especially when the public has to pick up the slack of tax relief these Foundations and their donors enjoy?

    In the Reece committee's investigation through discovery and other findings, it's main objective was to prove and expose the political activity, bias, and partisan promotion through a smokescreen of charity, "Its main contribution was to expose instances in which the promotion of political ends, favored perhaps by foundation managers, had been disguised as charitable or educational activity" (14). And their findings were numerous: In several more posts I will highlight the most important points from each chapter because the book is too large and the findings too great and important to include in just one post. 

Work Cited:

Wormser, Rene A.,  Foundations: Their Power and influence, Devin-Adair Company, New York, NY, 1958. 

Do you see a Communist/Marxist Agenda forming all around the world?

    If you cannot see the destruction of liberties guaranteed to you by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights then I don't know what will wake you up from your stupor. In my 50 years on the earth, I have never seen such a destruction of liberties like I did in 2020; freedom of the the press and free speech canceled, freedom of religion and church canceled, freedom of movement canceled. What? How did this happen and why did this happen? Did this happen overnight or has this systematic destruction of liberties been going on for a while like slowing boiling a frog in water? These are questions you have to consider if you give a damn about your freedoms and the future of this country and the world for that matter. 

    Since 2020, I have been on a quest to answer these questions for myself because my intuition tells me something is not right. Something is very seriously wrong. And some of those answers I am beginning to find with the current books I am reading as you can read from my previous posts. These books have given me an understanding of how the world really works, not how I want it to be idealistically because I refuse to live in denial. To those who believe in the conspiracy theory of reality, they can see what is happening to our world, and it is not for the betterment of humanity. And a word about the word conspiracy. Conspiracy does not mean a myth, a lie, a rumor, something made-up for political means. The word conspiracy actually means hidden. Something, whether it be a truth or a plan, is hidden from the public's view; it is clandestine, surreptitious, covert, stealthy, secret, deceitful, etc.

    In all communist, fascist, dictatorial, totalitarian countries, rights and freedoms are suppressed and the people enslaved, many of which sadly don't even know because they have been brainwashed by endless propaganda and lies (from my previous post on the Tavistock Institute), but most importantly, gun confiscation came before the full political repression of these evil governments. According to Mises Institute, a "trip down memory lane will give us a refresher of how gun confiscation helped consolidate government power." Here we can see the full outcome of freedoms taken away from the citizens. 

    On December 10th, 1918, the Council of People's Commissar mandated that Soviet citizens give up their firearms with failure to do so leading to criminal prosecution. Several Eastern Europe countries followed suit: Bulgaria, East Germany, and Hungary, two of which were Communist Party dictatorships. After the Soviet government confiscated the private guns of the citizens, under Lenin and Stalin, approximately 15 million people died, including many children who were starved to death. In 1938 Nazi Germany, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act taking away the Jews' rights to own firearms. Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned. Because of this, the Jewish population had no way of defending themselves against the severe persecution and genocide of Hitler's Nazi Germany which eventually killed 6 million. In Cuba, one of the most prosperous countries in Latin America, the people "succumbed to the siren song of socialism when Fidel Castro took power in 1958" (Jose Nino). Keep in mind that the end goal of socialism is communism. Consider what Castro said, 

"Guns, for what? To fight against whom? Against the Revolutionary government that has the support of the people?"

    After this statement, guns were confiscated and approximately 144,000 Cubans were murdered under the Castro regime, many of which in desperation fled from the oppression to the United States. Also tempted by the siren call of socialism, Venezuela began confiscating guns leading to the 2012 outright banning of gun sales and ammunition in an effort to fight crime. Despite this, crime rates continued to rise so this had no effect in reducing crime statistics. Instead of looking at the corruption at the top and addressing that corruption which eventually will trickle down leading to many pursuing corrupt means as well, crime will continue and get worse. And we don't even have to mention Pol Pot, the Communist Party dictator in Cambodia and especially Mao in China who slaughtered roughly 45 million after taking away the citizens rights to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. 

    Sadly, the same thing is happening here in America, the last bastion of hope for freedom. Public officials and political parties, including the executive branch, are pouncing on the chance to confiscate guns under the banner of "safety for our children" in lieu of the recent Texas school shooting which tragically killed 19 children and 2 adults. As the "president" is quoted as saying, "the second amendment is not an absolute," then all the amendments must not be an absolute, including his own constitutional rights. If we as a nation, especially coming from the top, are outraged by this school shooting tragedy, where is the moral outcry and tighter legislation and fines for drunk drivers who use their cars as weapons of mass destruction to slaughter innocent children and adults, and where is the moral outcry for all the millions of unborn babies slaughtered in the womb? Are they not given the right to life and dignity as much as all the little children who died in the school shooting tragedy? Are they not considered human beings just because they have not been born yet despite being fully developed? And if we are going to arbitrarily decide what constitutes a human being, then why aren't we arbitrarily deciding what constitutes freedom? Do I have the freedom to rob a bank because someone screwed me over? Do I have the right to kill my neighbor because he/she pissed me off? Do I have the right to steal because the rich steal from me? The Constitution does not guarantee your right or anyone's right to murder, whether that is another human being or an unborn child, and it does not give you or anyone else the right to burn down cities, loot businesses, rob, and steal. But it does guarantee your right to own a firearm with the sole purpose of that right to protect yourself against lunatics, an angry mob threatening to harm you, or an intruder threatening to terrorize you, and a tyrannical government who wants to take away your fundamental rights to liberty and freedom.

    This movement to ban gun sales and take away the citizens' fundamental right to bear arms is growing and now has reached Canada with Justin Trudeau announcing a law to ban gun and ammo sales. Most people saw what happened in Canada over the winter with the Trucker Protests and how their rights and their bank accounts were seized just because they dared to defy Trudeau's draconian Covid lockdowns. Interestingly, it was those in opposition to Trudeau whose rights were taken away, certainly not those who were in agreement with Trudeau more than likely because they were afraid. This dictatorial power has gone overboard and many citizens in Canada could not even worship in their churches and were even arrested for keeping their doors open. These similar events happened in previous dictatorial political powers, including Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. Churches were burned and many people were slaughtered through eventual death and starvation. When your connect the dots you can see the bigger picture: Trudeau is a member of the World Economic Forum that is pushing its agenda The 4th Industrial Revolution headed by Klaus Schwab on the world. Who voted for this joker Klaus Schwab who looks more like the character Darth Vader and the Dark Sith? Who asked him to "guide us into a better future" where you will "own nothing and be happy?" One of the planks of the Marxist ideology is the confiscation of not only guns but private property too. Trudeau is a sycophant who has ingratiated himself with the elite who care little for the common people and has jumped on board the bandwagon of a more "peaceful" future which really will turn into the worst nightmare on earth, "And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many" (Daniel 8:25). The Anti-Christ, who sets himself up against all that is God and Jesus Christ, will usher in an age of peace, yet this will done deceitfully through subterfuge. 

                                   

      In front of the United Nations building in New York is a sculpture with a .357 magnum with its barrel knotted supposedly symbolic of non-violence. The irony, of course (which most liberals have no awareness of), is that this desired peace will result in annihilation down a road of death and destruction. This agenda is coming from the Anti-Christ who will deceive the world promising peace to the nations, "And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer" (Revelation 6:2, KJV). This will be the first time in the history of mankind that a conqueror or a world leader will come without an arrow or a sword. In other words, he will not conquer through war. Rather, he will claim to be a man of peace, but that will NOT be his intention, hence the deception. In this scripture the bow without an arrow represents or is symbolic of peace and the crown is symbolic of this rider's ability to conquer the world. And how will this be achieved? By taking away and confiscating all guns and promising peace to the world. The most deceitful part of the United Nations is how they use scripture in the Bible as a mission statement for their agenda. Incised into its wall of the building is the scripture, "And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore" (Isaiah 2:4). They left out the first part of that scripture which says, "And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people." They left this out because this first part of this scripture is talking about Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, who is God, and will ultimately rule the nations in the end, but not before the Anti-Christ sets up his kingdom as we see Babylon rising. They purposely left out the first part of the scripture because their agenda does not include Jesus Christ because they want to do it their way, and they will pay for their rebellion against God. It is the United Nations that is leading this agenda of peace to the nations through their solution of a world government, which clearly is pushing a socialist/communist Satanic agenda to achieve its ends. 

    When the governments of the world shape the future and not the people, that is what you call communism. There is no democracy. And in the aforementioned facts, Communist citizens, or the "useful idiots" as Lenin said, allowed their countries to be destroyed morally, politically, and economically. The communist dictators slaughtered their people despite the people's allegiance to them. It is clear based on the repeated evidence from history that these dictators were not looking out for the betterment of humanity; quite the contrary. 

    Just recently in my state of Pennsylvania, the democratic Governor, Tom Wolf, closed down all churches, non-essential businesses, and many state parks in 2020 in the name of safety. He arbitrarily decided what was essential based on his liberal values and his party's liberal values even though he represents all the people, including republicans and conservatives in the state of Pennsylvania. Unaware of his own irony, he kept open abortion clinics, marijuana clinics, and strip clubs calling or deeming them "life-sustaining" while shutting down churches, many small business, and state parks. The irony, of course, is that abortion clinics are not life-sustaining; it is where you go to murder your child. Marijuana clinics just encourage more drug use which destroys the mind. Exercise actually prevents disease and sickness so why on earth would you close hiking trails and exercise paths? It's one thing as a Governor to represent your party's values. That's actually expected. But it's a whole different ballgame when you deny the Constitutional Rights, such the freedom of religion, to the opposite party. Here is the classic case of a dictator who upholds the rights of the constituents of his party while simultaneously denying the rights of those who oppose his party. To reiterate: It's expected that an individual elected will represent his/her party's values. What is not right is when this elected individual takes away the constitutional rights of the opposing party. In general, most Liberals are atheists (not all, of course), so why would they care if a church wasn't open? Their rights were not violated or infringed upon because most Liberals do not value the constitutional right of the freedom of religion. They believe the government is the final authority, certainly not God. In fact, I'm not sure many liberals/democrats/progressives have ever even read the Constitution of the United States because they certainly don't have a constitutional mind-set, yet, "every major public official takes an oath of office pledging to uphold the Constitution and therefore is required to interpret it in the performance of his or her duties" (Feinman 30). I wonder if the Wolf forgot about Pennsylvania's State Constitution and the Pennsylvania Bill of Rights even though he was the Governor? It looks more and smells more like a communist or fascist agenda here and all around the world, and it is not looking good for the future of humanity. Wasn't it Hillary Clinton who said (I'm paraphrasing here) that we need a new Constitution-a World Constitution because the United States Constitution is archaic? And wasn't it Joe Biden who said, "The second amendment is not absolute" while tripping over his feet? And wasn't it George H. Bush who said, "A New World Order" in his State of the Union address? And wasn't it his son George W. Bush who wished the Republican Party would just surrender to a world government which shows that the Republican Party has been infiltrated? Of course they would say these things: They get their marching orders from the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) whose aim is a new International Order (World Order) and who controls the executive branch and the state department that conducts our foreign affairs. 

                                                      

     The one person and thing I'm loyal to is God and my constitutional freedoms, but with freedom comes responsibility. Freedom never came naturally. Men and women had to fight for it. And we still do. 

In my next post, I will explain how this communist agenda has been emerging in education through the schools and universities with Foundation money and support based on the book, Foundations: Their Power and Influence. It is a report from the Reece Committee which investigated Tax-Exempt Foundations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, and the Ford Foundation to name a few. We will look at how these Foundations have used their largesse to promote Marxist ideology and research to only a few elite universities maintaining a monopoly over education. 

Citation:

Feinman, Jay M. "Law 101: Everything You Need to Know About American Law." 3rd Ed., Oxford University Press. 2010

My Father's Legacy; A Tribute

                                                                         

                       My father, Dr. Philip Holwick, in Valley Forge, PA in 1990.

    So here is a screen shot of a scanned document of the Peoria, Illinois Astronomical Society. In this article, my father's name is mentioned (Dr. Philip Holwick) as a member of the society who "donate[d] his 12-inch Cave reflecting telescope to the Society on the condition that a suitable 'dark-site' could be found for it." The Society found an "abandoned farmyard complete with several out buildings and a large concrete feedlot." Use was granted to PAS members from the Forest Park Foundation to develop an observatory. The "Jubilee" observatory "was built on the grounds of Jubilee State Park in an effort to escape the Peoria city lights." The observatory has 2 domes, one of which houses a 24-inch Newtonian Reflector. You can read the rest of the article here by clicking on the link.

    I remember this gigantic telescope. I remember a picture of it with my brother Tim when he was a baby standing next to it. It was as big as a car. My father had other large telescopes as well and I also remember him taking us kids to the planetarium. My oldest brother Tim developed his love for astronomy from our dad and he had a telescope when we were all in high school. I remember looking at Saturn and seeing the rings. It truly was amazing and beautiful. 

    It was obvious my father loved astronomy. He loved photography too. When I was a child, I remember he had a dark-room where he would develop his film, and he had a slide projector where he would frequently gather up us kids to dish up his delightful slide presentation of a myriad of photos he took. He was also a doctor, a Dermatologist to be exact, although he practiced basic internal medicine. I remember all to well the times he would line up us children and give us a subcutaneous injection in our fannies when we got into poison oak or poison ivy, and I remember vividly the many times he would give me a Phenergan suppository when I was vomiting and sick, and the times he would throw a blanket over me when I was coughing in my bed at night. I also remember the time when I was in 3rd grade and it was show-and-tell week. I asked my dad to bring in his slide projector and present pictures of skin diseases to the classroom. He gladly accepted and was pleased to do so despite the unpleasant and grossed out responses from my classmates. Of course, I was intrigued by the photos. I thought they were cool and frankly, I am no different today at 50, still intrigued by things I don't know, always on a endless quest of knowledge and learning. I gravitated towards my father because I always found him very interesting. He was never dull or boring, and he was remarkably and refreshingly original. He was always himself, no pretense, which is what I loved most about him. 

                            

   

    Here is another screen shot of my father's license to perform medicine and surgery in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He received this license of the 27th day of June, 1968.

                                 

    Here is a picture of his diploma from the University of Kansas where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts on the 1st of June, 1959. He then went on to get his Doctor of Medicine, also at the University of Kansas, School of Medicine on the 1st of June, 1964.

                                            

    After graduating from the School of Medicine from the University of Kansas, he joined the United States Air Force and did his Medical Internship at Carswell Air force base hospital in Fort Worth, Texas in 1965. He had earned the title, Captain, to which he served for a total of 2 years in the Air Force, 

    including the Strategic Air Command from the 13th of August, 1966 to the 6th of July, 1967.

    After duty in the Strategic Air Command, he went on to do his residency in Dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia from the 1st of July, 1968 to the 30th of June, 1970 where he met my mother who was a R.N., and later, married.

                                                                              

    I learned a lot from my father and I do miss him a great deal. He passed away on July 26, 2013. To this day, I still have all his diplomas, achievements, and certificates hanging up the wall in my office. I just completed my Bachelor of Arts/English this spring. It took me 5 years to finish but I did it and now I am considering an accelerated B.S. in nursing. I have been working in healthcare for over 20 years now, but I also love to read and have a passion to write. I do have plans to get some writing work published, but unfortunately, there is only so much time in one day to do all the things floating in my mind. I know one day I will publish a book about the many anecdotes I have from working in healthcare. That's for dang sure!

The Applied Psychological and Psychiatric Methods of The Tavistock Institute for Social Control, Rockefeller, MK-Ultra, and the C.I.A.

                                                   

               Seeks to empty the brain of reasoned truth......Unlike the stomach, the brain does not alert you when it is empty.                 

    

    Most people have not heard of the Tavistock Institute. The MSM certainly does not mention it, neither do the myriad of colleges and universities that inundate the landscape like fireflies at dusk on a warm summer evening. Yet this institute plays such a significant role in mass psychosis that it must be recognized as the epicenter of global manipulation of human consciousness. In a word, it is responsible for socially engineering the masses. 

    Since our attitudes, beliefs, and values are shaped largely by culture, mass media (in the form of newspapers, magazines, television and the MSM, literature, art, and music) is the conduit by which the Tavistock Institute changes human behavior and thus, controls it. It is a known fact that human beings are influenced largely by the process of sensory perception. Through our eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and skin, we perceive the outer world. This process is immediate and rarely filters through an objective lens, and so, when mass media bombards our sensory, if affects our emotions, our thinking, our decisions, our mental life, and worse, our physical bodies. The result is instant perception of what is believed to be true. Thus, images, sounds, tastes, words, and data can be interpreted as real which in turn shapes how we think, what we believe, and what our values are. Adding to all this sensory perception the concept of "behavior science," the Tavistock Institute has essentially gained a foothold into our minds. 

    The Tavistock Institute has applied the psychological and psychiatric concepts of Ivan Pavlov, B.F. Skinner, Sigmund Freud, Kurt Lewin, and John Rawlings Rees to the masses to manipulate their behavior for the outcome they desire. These "behavior scientists" believe that human behavior can be controlled simply because they believe that human beings are merely animals. For example, Pavlov's dogs. Anyone who has taken a PSY 101 course knows this: give a stimulus and get a knee-jerk reaction; create a crisis and get a global reaction! Hence, the training of the masses. Since Tavistock believes that human beings are animals, well, they should respond just like Pavlov's dogs. However, human beings are not animals. They are created in the image of God and therefore, capable of an intelligent response devoid of a knee-jerk reaction. Animals are not capable of this which is why human beings are above the animals; humans are capable of reason, knowledge, and logic, and therefore, capable of rational thought minus all the emotion. If human beings are not animals, then why do we see most humans responding to a crisis with supercharged emotions that fill up the night air like fireworks? And why are human beings' critical thinking skills mere bits of driftwood in an open surf? 

    The answer is simple really: The Tavistock Institute. With the use of behavior science, propaganda and mass media, the narrative is controlled, and the masses follow. The result is a massive stampede of emotions like the Spanish bulls at the Pamplona Bull Run. Consider what Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud who used psychoanalysis on individuals and groups, said in his book Propaganda:

    "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized...Whatever attitude one chooses toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons-a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million-who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world" (pg. 37-38).

    Although I do not agree in manipulating the masses to think and behave a certain way as being an important part of a democratic society, I do believe that only a psychopath would desire to do such a thing. It's similar to Nero who had his cronies torch the city of Rome while he sat up in his elaborate palace playing his harp laughing his perfidious butt off while total chaos ensued, and the "heroic" elite who remain strangely cool and calm, keeping it all together, while rousing the population to a fanatical assent. This is called "organized chaos" because there is an intention behind it all, namely, a "solution" that they always present to the crisis. All these psychological concepts are applied to the masses by a small group of rational manipulators because they understand that the masses are incapable of lucid thought and are largely driven by the herd instinct and their own prejudices, not to mention the frequent vertigo (disorientation) caused by external stimuli. As a result, this rational elite look down on the masses viewing the population of incapable of making their own decisions, like infantilized children who need a "supra-governmental body of detached professionals to sift the data, think things through, and keep the national enterprise from blowing up or crashing to a halt" (Propaganda, Introduction, pg. 16). And this rational elite really believe the masses are not only animals but little children who need them to lead them out of the crises that they had planned, "Political control is thus to be left in the hands of the 'elite,' the 'social engineers.' What the people want is not necessarily good for them; they are not competent to decide. The Führers must decide it for them, so that we can have a scientifically based and intelligent society" (Wormser 95). Just like Huxley's Brave New World where scientism was the order of the day and humans were merely cogs, or little children, in a collective machine following the dictates of the "elite," so too is the order of our day.

                                               

    Most people realize that children are easy to manipulate because their brains are underdeveloped. Children tend to react first rather than respond with logic and critical thinking, so when you see the masses reacting to a stimulus like hungry piranhas eating flesh off a carcass, it can only be assumed that the masses lack maturity or self-control; their brains must be underdeveloped and so, they lack the potential of intellectual prowess. This is the only reason you can observe humans reacting rather than responding to a crisis. It is not because humans are merely animals as this supra-governmental body of detached professionals want you to believe. While they have the effrontery to deny they are responsible for such psychological manipulation resulting in madness, even though the evidence of organized chaos is in plain sight, only proves that human beings are not animals and are quite capable of high levels of intelligence. This is precisely why an individual must think deeper and must know what they believe so they are not manipulated like an animal or child.  

    How an individual thinks and what an individual believes are of utmost importance because how you think and what you believe determines your behavior, your decisions, and your values and principles which should guide your life. When you consider the psychological use of fear porn on a society, it is amazing what can be achieved by this method on the masses who do not know what they believe or who do not know how to critically think in an emergency situation. Imagine being kidnapped by a person who is threatening you with a knife or a gun. Most people would react in fear and do whatever the kidnapper wants to escape with their life still intact. Such is the same in a global crisis; people will do anything, including repudiating their liberties even unto the acceptance of their own slavery, to avoid this very uncomfortable, scary feeling of fear in an effort to "feel" safe. Thus, fear is a powerful psychological manipulator. 

                                                  

    You can see this same concept playing out in Plato's The Cave. The allegory that Plato uses in The Cave represents a larger point about society and human nature; man is controlled by shadows which are not even real and thus, they stay enslaved by lies. And worse, they would rather stay enslaved by the lies because they feel "safe." Plato's The Cave also represents the idea of reality that can be applied to society at large. Have those people in the cave seeing shadows on the cave wall accepted an alternate reality? And do they know what is real verse what is not? Sensory perception can be wrong and images or what you see and what you read may not always be true. Remember that Plato was a student of Socrates who asked logical, sensible questions, and it was Socrates who said, "An unexamined life is not worth living." Consider what Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda said,

     "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State" ........Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda.

    Unfortunately for the masses who truly believed in Hitler's propaganda, they were led down a broad road of destruction and death. Why? Because they believed the lies and refused to believe the truth. But to be fair, they were also brainwashed and manipulated to a large extent by constant propaganda and continual lies that bombarded their sensory. If you give people enough stimulus and get enough knee-jerk reactions, you will eventually get a conditioned response, one that is automatic or reflexive, as in Pavlov's dogs. The effects of Pavlov's classical conditional are automatic; they do not require attention. B.F. Skinner's operant conditioning, however, is also applied to the masses to "train" them. For example, behavior that the global elite want is rewarded while dissenting behavior is punished. Thus, an individual is manipulated by rewards and punishments. Hitler used these psychological concepts and propaganda on the masses to instill fear and control their behavior in his totalitarian regime. So why do we see this field in behavior science widening more and more? 

    Because science still does not know how the mind influences the body, these behavioral "scientists" and "psychiatrists" have found that observing behavior is easier than observing phenomena that is not seen and not fully understood. In addition, they also know it works which is precisely why they continue to use these psychological techniques on the masses to brainwash or control them. They also know, and they have learned based on repeated observable behavior that human beings want to be lied to. They hate those who try to tell them the truth. 

                  "The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars: the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."   H.L. Mencken                                                                                                                                                           

    From my previous post on the round table groups that former professor of history at Georgetown University speaks of in his book Tragedy and Hope, it was the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), also known as Chatham House, that created the Tavistock clinic in 1921 at Oxford. It is important to note that the institute was not created to assist the traumatized soldiers of WW I which is what they claimed it was for. Rather, it was designed to assess and observe the "breaking point" of men under stress. After WW I, the British military started to use it as their psychological warfare arm. Sigmund Freud, who believed men had no minds, worked closely with Tavistock applying his psychoanalytical methods to the individuals and groups, and brainwashing methods were applied as well. Tavistock eventually dictated policy to the U.S. Armed Forces in the matters of psychological warfare. 

                                                                    

    All the kooks and psychopaths of the world are coming out of this most impressive sorcery many of which, either wittingly or unwittingly, have tapped into the occult. This so-called "sophisticated" organization has actually opened pandora's box of demonic activity and has unleashed it on the world and has succeeded in changing the paradigm of modern society. You can observe the changes: broken families, fracturing of cultures, crime and violence, war, moral breakdown, disintegrations of economies, etc. 

                       "The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations uses the application of psychological principles at the individual, group, organizational, and cultural level, the institute has pioneered the application of psychological manipulation as a tool of social influence that aims to change the behavior or perception of others through indirect, deceptive, or underhanded methods, through instilling in victims a set of habits and beliefs that align with a selected ideology or political agenda"......Abdun Nur

    To sum it up: "Tavistock brainwashes the masses to the will of a small group of owners" (Abdun Nur). And how do they do this? Through a crisis they have planned, using organized chaos. Through this method, they have changed the ideological, political, economic, and moral landscape starting with the New Left to Watergate to Vietnam to the Pentagon Papers to the insane hippies to the Anti-war movements to the drug-induced counterculture to the heavy-rock music promoting drugs and nirvana. All these preplanned, socially engineered projects have not only assaulted our minds but our nation as well and our individual human rights. Ultimately, the apex is to destroy individual identity, to tear out the deepest, innermost soul of man, and to put in place a zombified or vacant space of an artificial, synthetic pseudo-soul that follows and obeys without question so that they can move us into the new Dark Age of transcendental consciousness, or the Aquarian Conspiracy: Changing the Image of Man which was what Stalinist Russia, and the cult of personality, was all about.

    "Psychological terror is not only the essence but the punctuation mark of the totalitarianism's meaning.....To keep the majority in a continual state of inner anxiety works because people are made too busy securing or competing for their own survival to co-operate in mounting an effective response....entire population[s] of the globe [have] been kept permanently off-balance with one financial meltdown and transnational trade fiat after another emptying national coffers and overriding rights of domestic self-determination. Populations have been so overwhelmed by the moving juggernaut of economic and environmental crises that a rule of universal insecurity has rendered social majorities paralysed (sic) by a low-intensity terror- the necessary condition for any totalitarian movement to continue its advance, because keeping its subjects perpetually off balance is its modus operandi".....Daniel Estulin, Tavistock Institute, pg. 4

    Mass brainwashing depends completely on the ignorance of the victims; divide and conquer techniques and counterinsurgency benefits the ruling classes of oligarchs. The less the masses understand what is going on and how the world really works, the more they can be manipulated like mindless sheep. The more the oligarchs use psychology and psychiatry techniques to divide and conquer and counterinsurgency, the more power they amass over the people. Counterinsurgency, or "the totality of actions aimed at defeated irregular forces," requires a mindful, conscious, and continuous effort by the ruling class and what better way to achieve their objectives than to use psychology and psychiatry through brainwashing and propaganda. Little do the masses understand this, hence their ignorance, and their ignorance is dangerous because a little bit of deception can undermine truth and morality and lead a nation or world down a very dark path of destruction and death, just like we saw in Nazi Germany or Stalin's Communist Russia. And one of those very dark corridors led to eugenics.

     Fully implemented for a global scale in Nazi Germany, eugenics originally came from psychiatry in the 1930s which eventually led to the slaughter of 6 million Jews and other "unacceptable" members of society: the gypsies, the drunks, the gays, and the mentally ill. The Fabian socialists, another British organization whose purpose was and is to advance the principles of democratic socialism (which is really communism with a pretty face) through a gradual and reformist effort, also promoted eugenics. The Frankfurt School, where we get critical race theory that inundates just about every school, college, and university curriculum, also promoted eugenics. Just look at the effects of psychology and psychiatry which have caused more mental health issues ("diseases of the mind") than it claims to have cured and have created more nomenclature of psychological and psychiatric disorders "requiring" pharmacological intervention. Eugenics is murder and critical race theory is divisive because it has caused more division than unification. The ruling class has used this for their divide and conquer tactics; pit the people against one another so that can't unite together to fight the real enemy. The so-called "science of the mind" in the form of psychology and psychiatry has ultimately been used to destroy the mind, and Tavistock considers the mind as something to be manipulated and destroyed. By destroying the mind, they eventually destroy truth and morality, and we can see that many today do not think there is anything wrong with eugenics or the slaughter of millions of unborn babies, which is essentially genocide. 

    "Reesian methods rely, completely and consciously, on the destruction of the mental life of world society and a forced march into universal sadism".........L. Marcus, The Campaigner, 1974

    Reesian methods come from John Rawlings Rees who was a British psychiatrist and a commander of the British Empire. Also, a fellow at the Royal College of Physicians, he became the Director in Tavistock before WW II. He eventually became the chief psychiatrist for the British Army, and he founded the International Federation of Mental Health. Under John Rawlings Rees, Tavistock grew to become the main center of psychoanalytic psychiatry in the United Kingdom. Rees wrote a book titled The Shaping of Psychiatry by War. In this book Rees calls for "the development of psychiatric shock troops in order to develop 'methods of political control based upon driving the majority of the human population towards psychosis' through procedures of so-called programmed behavioral modification. He proposed this to render the population submissive under the post-World War II economic world order" (Estulin 8). Just like a stun gun zapped on an individual to subdue him or her, the shock methods were used by Rees and his cohorts. Rees saw psychiatry as the only arbiter of sanity in a world full of "neurotics," (Estulin) and Rees had a clear understanding of power structures and how specific, organized people can influence and change perceptions to control the social behavior of the masses. 

    Perception is key to influencing the masses and so is a world view. And world views are shaped by culture in the form of music, literature, art, film, and the media which we perceive through our sensory. These psychiatrists and psychologists know that by promoting their techniques through these mediums, they can socially engineer the masses and change their perceptions of reality. Although originally these techniques were developed precisely for war time, eventually the temptation to test these new theories on the masses became overwhelming for these devious workers of iniquity. The Campaigner magazine, which you can download for free by clicking here, is all about the Tavistock Grin, "The Tavistock Grin is a term coined to connote the knowing grin-the smile of John Rawlings Rees. This is a grin of men  [like the Cheshire Cat] who engage in the most vicious forms of psychological warfare [and it never bodes well for the people who are being grinned at]. These men with that same grin commit crimes against humanity which make Hitler look like an amateur" (Introduction to this specific issue). In this volume #7, Number 6, they "exhume the corpse of John Rawlings Rees, tracing the living trail of his followers and financiers. The Reesian method of fascist control is analyzed in the The Real CIA--The Rockefellers' Fascist Establishment, a polemic by L. Marcus (which will be discussed later in the post). This polemic precedes Low Intensity Operations: The Reesian Theory of War by M. Minnicino. It is worth your time to peruse this particular issue because you will be able to get inside the mind of Rees and understand his deception objectives, "Wars are not won by killing one's opponents but by undermining or destroying his morale whilst maintaining one's own" (Estulin 9). Out of Rees came a cadre of followers who implemented his theories, one of which was Kurt Lewin who began his career at Cornell and spread his cancerous, deranged theories to America.

                                                          

     Lewin was a social psychologist who was known for his field theory on social behavior which holds that human behavior is a function of an individual's psychological environment. He also focused largely on Gestalt theories or "laws" that govern our perception. Lewin "often associated with the early Frankfurt School [from which came Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse], originated by an influential group of largely Jewish Marxists at the Institute for Social Research (ISR) in Germany" (Wikipedia). As you can see, the connections (Frankfurt School and Lewin) are usually there. The ISR eventually moved to New York City where it became affiliated with Columbia University. Today, the ISR has posts in just about every university around the world and as such, pushes a Marxist (Communist) agenda on the masses, particularly the young, impressionable, and naïve. 

    After Hitler came to power the Institute for Social Research members scattered all around, some in England and others in America. In 1933, Lewin met Eric Trist who was a member at Tavistock which at that time was called Tavistock clinic. Trist was impressed with Lewin's theories and used them in his studies on soldiers during the war. After the war, Trist changed the name of the Tavistock Clinic to Tavistock Institute, and he also proposed a journal to Lewin called Human Relations and Lewin agreed. So today, the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations is massive in scope like a giant iceberg that covers the continent, and it even has their own magazine to make them appear credible, just like The Council on Foreign Relations (which was also founded in 1921).

    As Estulin points out in his book Tavistock Institute, Lewin also wrote a book titled Time Perspective and Morale. In his book, Lewin proposes, "One of the main techniques for breaking morale through a strategy of terror consists in exactly this tactic-keep the person hazy as to where he stands and just what he may expect" (10). In other words, keep an individual off balance to create anxiety so their confidence is chipped away slowly. This is achieved through constant crises. The terrible irony of all this work proposed by Lewin is that he also laid the foundation for what is now known as "sensitivity training" throughout many colleges, universities, and corporations. He proposed sensitivity training at MIT in 1946 which led to the establishment of the National Training Laboratories at Bethel, Maine.

     Estulin also points out that Lewin's most significant proposal was his conception of fascism with a democratic face, "Lewin proposed that through a use of 'small group' self-brainwashing techniques, a more efficient form of fascist dictatorship could be established" (11). In other words, people in your own community that have been brainwashed will work against you; the ruling class (invisible government) does not have to do anything except continue to use the psychological techniques and the brainwashing through mass media (Rees was also involved in this concept: The fascist principle of "local community control"). You could see evidence of this in your own community. Those little Nazis dictators running around demanding that you do as your told or the community snitches on you. We saw that during the recent corona virus: if you didn't wear a mask, or if you didn't want to take the risk of known side effects from the new mRNA vaccine, you are a traitor and will be denied basic human rights. All this fascism in a so-called democratic society! Any sane and moral individual would have considered Rees and Lewin kooks and psychopaths (you know, not running on all 4 cylinders) and placed in a section 8 ward with lockdown. Instead, both were given credibility, and Lewin was given U.S. citizenship and plenty of money from the Rockefeller foundation to implement social engineering projects. Of course, this is not surprising because the Rockefeller family has long been involved in global government strategy using whatever methods needed. 

                                                        

    David Rockefeller, who recently died in 2017, was in the C.I.A. As such, it became his psychological warfare arm and his "baby." Most do not know the enormous power and wealth that the Rockefeller family wields over the governments of the world and their intelligence agencies. With any imagination and an understanding of "whoever has the most money rules the world," you can see that this invisible government does indeed exist. And this invisible government controls the C.I.A. Only the credulous and the naive would believe the Hollywood narrative of the British MI6 and the infamous character James Bond or the C.I.A and its apparent operations, "only children and otherwise uniformed or hysterical persons believe such fables" (L. Marcus, The Campaigner 8). According to L. Marcus, the C.I.A. is "merely the legal cover for vast encroachments on every branch of government and enormous sectors of private institutions" (8). Yes, its tentacles are everywhere, but before we go into that we need to first learn how the C.I.A. got started and what it has done.

    The C.I.A. started as the OSS, or the Office of Strategic Services, during WW II and eventually became known as the C.I.A., or the Central Intelligence Agency. Little do people know of the psychological torture and terror that is used on potential agents and little do people know of the depraved and wanton methods used by the C.I.A. to experiment on unwitting individuals in effort to brainwash them, one of which was MK-Ultra. It has been said that nobody ever leaves the C.I.A. except six feet under the ground. How could this type of control be exerted on an individual? Only through the brainwashing methods of Rees and his Nazis predecessors (Estulin 14). There is a deep and long connection between the psychological and psychiatric "methods" of Rees, Lewin, and others, and the C.I.A. 

    Peter Cuskie who also wrote an article in The Campaigner in May of 1974 titled The Shaping of the Anglo-American SS by War said, "Before a potential agent has ever been accepted for training by the C.I.A. he has already been effectively brainwashed during the selection." (14). This is done through a process of insidious methods in order to destroy whatever ego strength is left in the potential agent.  Rees's "stress tests" were exactly the same thing: once the ego strength is destroyed, the individual is now ready to be manipulated and brainwashed. John Gardner, who was at the OSS, also used these stress tests that were designed to leave the candidate dazed, broken, and utterly confused so as to open up about their childhood and other vulnerabilities that could be exploited, "By this time OSS not only had its desired psychological profile-it also had crushed the last vestiges of genuine ego strength in its victimized potential agent and was now in a position to manipulate and program him almost at will to co-operate" (Estulin 16). If you think this is ridiculous, the Sunday Times of London revealed this either wittingly or unwittingly: 

        The four-stage brainwashing program starts with testing for sensitivity of the nervous system through flashing words or symbols on a screen for fractions of a second - in order to find if physical torture or isolation in solitary confinement would better 'break' him; phase two is the breakdown of troops' identity by teaching him how to develop a 'plausible alter ego' (alibi); the third phase involved brutal group attack or self-criticism sessions used to further destroy ego strength to supposedly 'simulate' enemy interrogation; and the final phase instruction in beating lie detector involved amongst other things pairing strong electric shocks with ordinary everyday words" (From The Campaigner, Peter Cuskie, May 1974, pg. 29-30).

    All these insane, evil, screwy psychological techniques were implemented in the C.I.A. and Tavistock. Both continued to develop even more sophisticated methods to brainwash, including hypnosis, coercion, mind-altering drugs, electric shock, and even literature! A more recent technique developed included inducing massive psychological stress and then relieving it, "Through repeated vacillations between stress and relief, the subjects, be they army recruits, intelligence agents, or general population eventually became intensely suggestible" (Estulin 17). Eventually these methods were used on recruits for the British MI6 (the house of horrors) and of course, the rest of the world. So, understanding these psychological methods are important to understanding Tavistock, the C.I.A., and its use on ordinary people who are not recruits for the C.I.A. or any other intelligence agency. By far, the most disturbing method used for brainwashing is in the use of literature which many colleges and universities use in their curriculum. 

                                                

    The unclassified document, PROJECT BLUEBIRD of the C.I.A., pertains to the use of literature in mind control, especially in the domain of memory. Older people may have heard of the phrase "the blue bird of happiness." This phrase was used in the early 20th century, but we do not hear about it now. The phrase has its origins in the 1909 play The Blue Bird from the Belgian author and Nobel prize winner, Maurice Maeterlinck. In the play, two children go on a quest for the blue bird of happiness and to visit their dead grandparents. They get help from a fairy who tells them that in order to visit their dead grandparents, they have to go through the Land of Memory which is before the blue bird of happiness. To Tavistock, this play is full of the esoteric and the occult which they used in PROJECT BLUEBIRD to enter the memories of another person's mind. Ultimately, they wanted to unlock the mysteries of human consciousness and so mind control programming or brainwashing began. 

    "Once the Korean War started, and American POWs began making bizarre, pro-Communist statements after a mysterious sojourn in Manchuria, the world was introduced to the concept of 'brainwashing,' and the BlueBird took on enormous importance. If the Communists could alter the consciousness of American soldiers, then the War took on a completely different nature: it became a war of culture against culture, of atheism against religion, of race against race, of Darkness against Light" (Peter Levenda, Sinister Forces).

    That familiar name we have all heard, The Manchurian Candidate, was made into a movie in 1962. A Manchurian candidate is a person who is so brainwashed that they can be completely controlled to do anything, including high-level assassins, hence mind control programming. This same concept of brainwashing can work in "small groups" that Rees and Lewin proposed, "An individual is made to transfer his or her identity to the group, wherein they become subjected to the most intense forms of suggestion. Provided the individual's inner sense of real identity is destroyed, he can be manipulated like a child" (Estulin 27). There is a psychological concept called enmeshment where an individual loses their own identity to that of the group or family. This individual has allowed ambiguous and permeable boundaries, and so, they start to take on the feelings of the group or family at the expense of their own. An overconcern for others in the group or family destroys the individual's autonomy and distinctiveness, and thus, their own self-direction. If this behavior continues, eventually this individual may become the scapegoat. It's similar to co-dependency where the individual carries the burden of the other person(s) feelings. As such, they can be completely controlled by another. 

    But just how much can a person be controlled by brainwashing? In 1953, Allen Dulles, the director of the C.I.A., initiated a classified program called MK-Ultra. Allen Dulles was the former director of Rockefeller's Standard Oil Corportation and OSS Chief of Secret Intelligence for Europe, once again, noting the connections. Dulles was also head of C.I.A. under PROJECT BLUEBIRD and had extensive ties to the Nazi underground. The idea for MK-Ultra came from the brainwashed prisoners of the Korean War. The agency conducted this program for 20 years without the public's knowledge. This clandestine mind-control operation was done to assess the potential use of psychedelic drugs, paralytics, and electroshock therapy on information gathering and psychological torture. Many of the participants had no knowledge of what was being used on them when hundreds of these experiments were conducted at universities, hospitals, and prisons. The agency's chemist and poison expert, Sidney Gottlieb (who had shady connections to Project Paperclip and the Kennedy assassination), directed the use of LSD (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide), MDMA (ecstasy), mescaline, heroin, barbiturates, methamphetamines, and psilocybin (magic mushrooms) on hundreds of unwitting participants. Electroshock treatments, solitary confinement, and repeated messages played on tapes for 24-48 hours on the individuals was also done to "reprogram memories" and create a new consciousness, one that could be controlled like a Manchurian candidate. Ken Kesey who wrote the novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest volunteered and participated in these experiments with LSD when he was a student at Stanford University. Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, also participated, more than likely at Harvard where he was a student. These were a few of the participants that had knowledge of what the experiments were about. Based on their behavior after the experiments, it is true to say that they were effectively brainwashed: Kesey went on to promote LSD at drug-fueled parties (with heavy metal music like the Grateful Dead) called "Acid Tests" which spawned the hippie counterculture revolution and the 1960s psychedelic drug scene. Kaczynski went on to arbitrarily bomb university professors which led him to prison completely wasting his I.Q. of 160. So, not only were these men brainwashed but their entire generation was too.

    In 1974 Seymore Hearsh of the New York Times broke the story after a congressional investigation into the widespread illegal C.I.A. activities within the U.S. and around the world was done. Despite the Church Committee that was led by Democratic Senator Frank Church which investigated the abuses of the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. the damage was already done: Tavistock and the C.I.A. had effectively implemented their socially engineering project on the world and destroyed many peoples' beloved traditions and their culture. All these psychological and psychiatric methods employed by both Lewin and Rees (and Skinner, Pavlov, and Freud) and mind-altering drugs have been used by Tavistock and the CIA in an effort to socially engineer the masses. The importance of understanding the psychological and psychiatric methods used will give the reader a better understanding of the dangers associated with The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, and especially the CIA with its infiltration in so many organizations.

     "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."   William Casey, CIA Director (1981). Is this a Freudian slip?

    The C.I.A. (and its psychological and psychiatric techniques) has its tentacles in just about every organization. The C.I.A. is Tavistock's and Rockefeller's psychological warfare arm and infiltration is key to achieving that objective. It is important to note that the Labor Institutions were created at the same time as the C.I.A., the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the National Security Council. All point to evidence of the network that Rockefeller has constructed to rule the world from top down (Estulin 30). Most military branches are "virtually mere appendages of the C.I.A." (L. Marcus 8), and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare is "one of the several principal bastions of C.I.A. operations within the U.S. itself" (ibid). The F.B.I. has been taken over by the C.I.A. at the top and the recent establishment of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) is "nothing but the principal domestic 'covert operations' arm of the C.I.A." (ibid). Henry Kissinger, whom most have heard of, is Rockefeller's C.I.A. operative and who "heads up a State Department undergoing 'reorganization' along lines agreeable to Langley" (ibid). The State Department which conducts our foreign affairs is controlled by The Council on Foreign Relations that originally came from the round table groups (RIIA) in the U.K. which was funded by the banking dynasty Rothchild. And just recently, Rockefeller merged with Rothchild in 2012 to consolidate their power (noting the connections because they are always there). The Committee for Economic Development (CED) is also Rockefeller controlled. The CED "devised some of the essential work for the Marshall Plan to loot Europe" (Estulin 36). In 1946, Tavistock and Rockefeller allied to "take over the labor unions around the world" (34), and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) funded Tavistock which eventually created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO in 1949. The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Psychological Association (APA) are also controlled by Rockefeller and these entities in addition to the C.I.A. infiltrate many prestigious colleges and universities, one of which is Harvard University where key positions are filled by their proteges like B.F. Skinner.  

    "Most major universities are either entirely or substantially branches of the C.I.A.  At the University of Michigan, we have the most notorious example of the Institute for Social Research (ISR), which is merely the focus for general C.I.A. infiltration and control of many departments of the university at large. Harvard's "Russian" institute is obviously C.I.A., like Columbia's, but also Harvard's so-called psychology department is a nest of such covert operates as the pigeon-brained B.F. Skinner and Reesian racist Richard Herrnstein, while the Harvard Sociology Department's counterinsurgency work merely updates overt fascist traditions dating back to the 1920's. Massachusetts Institute of Technology continues its flourishing C.I.A. activities as extension of its earlier role as a base of OSS activities. In addition to its specializations as an anti-Soviet 'think-tank,' it possesses an assortment of the most reactionary, C.I.A.-linked social sciences in the nation. Its RLE division has been a nesting place for specialized counterinsurgency studies since the late 1940's, while also including those studies in so-called 'Artificial Intelligence' which are nothing but the development of the use of computers for brainwashing. The University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School houses Eric Trist, a veteran Rockefeller-sponsored Reesian fascist, who directs a vast network of fascist social work projects (and actual brainwashing activities) from his offices at that location. Cornell, Berkeley, and Stanford are notorious C.I.A. conduits" (L. Marcus, The Campaigner 8).

    So, as you can see, the C.I.A. has essentially infiltrated just about every organization from the top in order to control the bottom, and with control comes placing obsequious individuals in key positions to influence the minds of many. The sycophants, or the psychophants as I would like to call them, are moved into these controlling positions while honest academicians are weeded out. 

                                                 

    The C.I.A. also controls the private foundations like the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and more. These tax-free foundations where the super-rich hide their wealth are not only controlled by the C.I.A. but they are also being used to mold and shape the consciousness of humanity into a collective body obedient to the state and make no mistake, there is no philanthropy behind it, "the statement of purpose cynically read, 'To promote the well-being of mankind throughout the world' " (Estulin 55). You need only connect the names and the evidence speaks for itself. The C.I.A. operative, McGeorge Bundy was head of the Ford Foundation and a Rockefeller stooge. Richard Bissel later became a Ford Foundation director and was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Bundy's older brother, William, was not just the most powerful man in the C.I.A. but he also was a member of the Rockefeller-controlled Council on Foreign Relations and an editor of CFR's Foreign Affairs magazine (Estulin 56). There is much to say about this topic on the Foundations which I will discuss in a later post (after I complete the book Foundations: Their Power and Influence by Rene Wormser). And there is so much more to discuss on this particular topic of the Tavistock Institute but for brevity there is only so much I can put into a post. It is up to you now to do your research and investigate it on your own. My only hope is that I have piqued your interest and have opened your mind a little to become a diligent researcher.

Work Cited:

Bernays, Edward. Propaganda, Ig Publishing, New York, NY, 1928.

Wormser, Rene. Foundations: Their Power and Influence, Devin-Adair Company, New York, NY, 1958

Estulin, Daniel. Tavistock Institute: Social Engineering the Masses, Trine Day, Walterville, OR, 2015.

Nur, Abdun. Mass Brainwashing Depends Completely on the Ignorance of the Victims, www.earthcoinage.com                         

Marcus, L. The Real CIA--The Rockefellers' Fascist Establishment, April 1974, The Campaigner, Vol. 7, No. 6

Cuskie, Peter. The Shaping of the Anglo-American SS by War. The Campaigner, May 1974

Levenda, Peter. Sinister Forces--The Nine, Book 1, Trine Day Press, May 2011

"And be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, acceptable, and perfect, will of God"............Romans 12:2 (KJV).