To understand how we have reached the beginnings of a trans-humanist era we must follow the roots of modern day social engineering. Such a practice has been applied for thousands of years, but it could be said that only in the last few centuries has modern man wrestled with, and understood, the finer subtleties of group manipulation on a social scale.
If we follow the thickest branch of social engineering we will find ourselves in the year 1875 in a German town called Leipzig. During this time a relatively unheard of professor, Wilhelm Wundt, was putting together some ides and practices of psychology that would, unbeknown to him, shape the world in a way he may never have imagined. When professor Wundt created the worlds first psychological laboratory, psychology — and its study —- was not taken seriously by any reputable scientific community and was mainly the concern of philosophers who debated psychology and consciousness based upon theories and religious ideals. However, Wundt believed that the conscious mind could be broken down into constituent parts and studied, just like any other organ, and so, using a few simple practices, he set about studying the human mind by recording his subjects’ responses to basic stimuli.
Wundt is considered by many to be the father of Psychology. Whilst he did not make any ground breaking discoveries of his own, he was able to bring together many thoughts and ideas that could be studied and demonstrated in a way that he considered practical and tangible. Wundt concerned himself with the breaking down of human psyche by studying elements of it in isolation to the complexities of the mind as a whole. As a result his work led him to conclude that Man’s will was a direct result of the stimuli he experienced, and not the result of conscious intent or collections of philosophy as was classically thought.
Wundt was clear that he believed that Man was void of spirit and was merely the summation of his experiences and stimuli. Much like an animal, Man could be persuaded to do just about anything, given the right type of stimulation and experience(s).
Wundt wrote ‘The Principals of Physiological Psychology’, which inspired many teachers and academics around the world, the most notable being G. Stanley Hall, who briefly spent time in the Leipzig Laboratory before becoming the first president of the Psychological Association and a prominent influence in child development; and James McKeen Cattell, the first professor of Psychology in the United States.
These are but two names that were highly influential in bringing Wundt’s work to the States, influencing an education system which would later influence the British syllabus as well as the Russian syllabus during the Cold War.
Wundt’s methods and conclusions have had a dramatic effect on the world, most notably in education where his ideas on training and development have been taught through almost every academic institution, in one form or another, in the western world. Modern education no longer relies upon teaching children how to think critically and independently, it now concentrates its efforts on training children to behave and react in a prescribed manner.
B.F. Skinner, an American psychologist inspired by such works, developed educational methods in order to train children using a reward system, which can be seen in schools today in the form of rewards such as gold stars. Skinner coined the term ‘Operant Conditioning’, a process whereby desired behaviors can be reinforced through reward whilst undesired behaviors are punished to prevent their repeating. Such methods may seem obvious, since that is how we train animals to behave in a prescribed fashion, however such methods of education do not create free thinking, critical individuals which is a requisite for a free thinking, critical society, instead they produce more compliant, accepting members of a society more readily to comforming to a prescribed order, such as government rule. Unsurprisingly, Skinner believed that children should be reared by the state, to be trained from birth in order to behave in a unified manner, which was echoed in his novel ‘Walden Two’, published in 1948.
It is through this method of ‘training’ that human behavior has been changed over time, simply though reward and punishment. Those that follow the prescribed path and ideals, as laid out by governments and high ranking think tanks, are successful in life, and those that go against the grain are ridiculed, alienated and often punished —- such as described in last weeks article concerning the Christian B&B owners who were fined for not allowing an un-married homosexual couple to stay in the same bed together.
It was during this period in the 50‘s that another professor, Alfred Kinsey, published his book ‘Sexual Behavior in the Human Male’ which sought to wrestle human sexuality from its traditional principals of love and marriage. Kinsey’s book is just one example that demonstrates the initial beginnings of an agenda to undermine traditional family values. It cannot be stressed just how important the family unit is. A stable, loving, balanced family unit, sexually or otherwise, that is not tainted with violence or animosity but founded on love and compassion, is the principal foundation in any stable society. As children, we draw our identity, morality and strength from our parents; should this be imbalanced or absent in any way, then society will be unbalanced and lacking in compassion proportionate to the abuse that we, as individuals, suffered as children. Sexuality is no different.
At roughly the same time that Kinsey was publishing his works designed to lay the foundations for sexual unions outside of traditional hetro-sexual marriage, one of the most infamous and far reaching social engineering organisations of our time was created.
The origins of the Tavistock Institute can be found in the run up to the first World War in another early ‘human relations’ organisation called Wellington House, which was set up in order to manipulate the British public into supporting the war against Germany. Decades later, after the second world war, following its success in changing public opinion — as well as considerable funding from the Rockefeller Foundation —- Wellington House spawned the Tavistock Institute where the likes of Elliott Jacques, John Rawlings Rees and Wilfred Bion employed more sophisticated techniques.
Undoubtedly one of the biggest contributors to the methodologies and techniques applied upon the unsuspecting public of the 20th and 21st Century was the father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud. Despite being deceased upon the official creation of the Tavistock Institute, Freud’s psychoanalysis of 20th century Man has been used at great length to create some of the most potent social engineering techniques of modern times.
When Germany annexed Austria in 1938, Freud fled to London where he began work with a prominent neurosurgeon by the name of Wilfred Trotter. Although not a founding member, Trotter would become a key part in the spawning of the Tavistock Institute; it was Trotter who introduced Wilfred Bion to Freud’s ideas. Bion would later become a prominent member of the Freudian psychoanalysis movement in England, and play a large part in developing ‘Group Dynamics’, drawing upon the works of Freud and another world famous socialist: Gustave Le Bon (most famous for his 1895 work: The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind).
Gustave Le Bon served as a great inspiration to the nephew of Sigmud Freud, Edward Bernays, as did Wilfred Trotter who wrote the book: Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War. We can see from the previous description above that these prominent characters knew each other directly and were indeed in lengthy conversations regarding psychoanalysis and herd mentality. We can only imagine the types of conversation that were had between these men, conversations which would ultimately help create and shape the methods of the Tavistock Institute, and thus the world.
Bernays is perhaps the most renowned for developing techniques in order to control large groups of people and was the most prominent promoter of such methods in the United States of America, to such an extent that he has often been referred to as the father of Public Relations.
Commenting on such techniques, Bernays once said, “If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.”
He called this method ‘engineering consent’ and he did this by manipulating political personalities and organisations, once admitting, “If you can influence the leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway.”
This particular technique he called “opinion making,” and, despite it appearing to be contrary to an open and democratic system, this socially acceptable and legal practice is more commonly known today as lobbying.
Lobbying in the 19th century was known as petitioning, and just about anyone could petition HM Government for a particular cause. Today, the Lobbying industry is worth billions and, to influence political decisions, one must be prepared to pay a considerable sum of money. Whilst Edward Bernays cannot be held responsible for this type of practice becoming so popular, it can be said that his technique of ‘opinion making’ is the hallmark in the practice of lobbying, for, if one can buy political ideologies in order to create statutes, one can ultimately profit from shaping society, its practices and culture.
The Tavistock Institute has grown bigger and even more ambitious, following its success in applying herd manipulation techniques created by those named above. Through the application of propaganda, drugs, popular culture, media, film studios, music labels and educational programs and lobbying, the Tavistock Institute has shaped society, our culture and the way we respond to politics, wars and changes in behavior and practices; one of which has been to shape our society’s views on sexuality as discussed in the previous article.
Sexuality has been a considerable target for these sorts of conspirators. Whilst such groups have sought to change our opinions on homosexuality and trans-genders with one arm, they have sought to turn man against woman with the other — most notably in the form of the ‘Women’s liberation movement’, which is a contradiction in terms since the movement has done more to degrade women than it has to liberate them.
Following women’s liberation, we havemore cases of harassment and rape, as well as sexually aggravated assault. Women work harder for a lower quality in life, and, whilst the media champion’s their independence, there aremore single parent familiesthan there has been recorded previously. Is it merely a coincidence that in a world of ‘girl power’ we have more lonely, broken families than we have ever had before? This fact is not due to women being inferior without men, or even to blame in any part, but simply that man and woman, through the guise of ‘women’s liberation, have been set apart by highly sophisticated, psychological techniques.
The media has constantly reminded us of thedifferences between men and women, in order to maintain that division and to ultimately divide the family union, often trying to illustrate that one sex is better at something than the other, when by experience most of us would agree that the ability to execute something well is not gender specific.
Cleverly placed ‘celebrities and personalities’throughout media, popular culture, the entertainment industry and politics have been used to propagate opinions designed to disrupt the family unit. Often unknowingly, these pawns, acting on the promise of fame and wealth, work for institutions such as Tavistock in order to encourage naive and impressionable minds to alter their perceptions to what is packaged as a popular or fashionable opinion in order to slowly change traditional culture. In less than a century this technique has been used to change our opinions and perceptions of premarital sex and pregnancy, drugs, promiscuity, marriage, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, morality and the constitution. To oppose such ‘new ideologies’ is to be branded archaic or face ostracisation from friends and relatives.
Most prominently these perversions have been arrived to under the guise of liberation and the support of the rights of a marginalised few. For those that argue that society is not being broken apart, but that we are being liberated from an archaic dogma that somehow holds humanity back, it might be suggested that we look at the symptoms of this ‘modern’ society that now pervade our societal vista in every direction we turn. One only has to look at thePornography that litters our high streets in shops and windows; children that are playingviolent video gamesthat bring violence into the home;music artists that flaunt themselves like prostitutes, aimed at children and toddlers; and a court service which operates in secret to remove children from their families.
These are but a few symptoms of a system that is not only failing society, it is contributing to its slow erosion by targeting the sanctity of the family. If we choose to believe that this is all happening by chance and that it is the result of a few happenstance actions carried out by a group of corporations acting independently, then we should perhaps consider that the people connected to the world’s most prominent think tanks such as the Committee 300, Chatham House, The Bilderberg Group, Commission on Foreign Relations, Tri-lateral commission and Tavistock Institute are advisors, directors, members and shareholders of the largest corporations in the world, all of which shape the world and culture we live in. Is it really such a stretch of the mind that these people might have private conversations between themselves in regards to how they can manipulate and control societies in order to benefit themselves? If the answer to that question is no, then perhaps we might consider what exactly it is that we are buying into when we use their products and services.