"Captured" Academics/Thinkers - Working for social engineering and manipulation

[Cara]

I've been researching manipulation of the narrative by various actors and players and came across this insightful analysis of how a clique of "thinkers", working to a programme, are able to manipulate opinion.

It's not exactly media manipulation, but some of the drama takes place in the media. It's more a kind of "captured" academic/thinker strategy....

This is Carroll Quigley (author of Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, The Evolution of Civilizations and The Anglo American Establishment and former lecturer at Georgetown University, USA) on how "consensus" is manufactured:

By the interaction of these various branches on one another, under the pretense that each branch was an autonomous power, the influence of each branch was an autonomous power, the influence of each branch was increased through a process of mutual reinforcement. The unanimity among the various branches was believed by the outside world to be the result of the influence of a single Truth, while really it was the result of the existence of a single group. Thus a statesman (a member of the Group) announces a policy. About the same time, the Royal Institute of International Affairs publishes a study on the subject, and an Oxford don, a Fellow of All Souls (and a member of the Group) also publishes a volume on the subject (probably through a publishing house, like G. Bell and Sons or Faber and Faber, allied to the Group). The statesman’s policy is subjected to critical analysis and final approval in a “leader” in The Times, while the two books are reviewed (in a single review) in The Times Literary Supplement. Both the “leader” and the review are anonymous but are written by the members of the Group. And finally, at about the same time, an anonymous article in The Round Table strongly advocates the same policy. The cumulative effect of such tactics as this, even if each tactical move influences only a small number of important people, is bound to be great.
~ Carroll Quigley, The Anglo American Establishment, New York: Books in Focus, 1981, pp. 114 (or 96-pdf)

I was wondering how many policies and initiatives were created and "sold" in this way... my guess would be upwards of 75% of them.

I am sure there are many examples this strategy or playbook in use.... GMO "science", the CDC's vaccine danger obfuscation, are ones that I think have not succeeded.

What are the ones that have succeeded?

[Satori]

Posted by Searcher (here)
I've been researching manipulation of the narrative by various actors and players and came across this insightful analysis of how a clique of "thinkers", working to a programme, are able to manipulate opinion.

It's not exactly media manipulation, but some of the drama takes place in the media. It's more a kind of "captured" academic/thinker strategy....

This is Carroll Quigley (author of Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, The Evolution of Civilizations and The Anglo American Establishment and former lecturer at Georgetown University, USA) on how "consensus" is manufactured:

By the interaction of these various branches on one another, under the pretense that each branch was an autonomous power, the influence of each branch was an autonomous power, the influence of each branch was increased through a process of mutual reinforcement. The unanimity among the various branches was believed by the outside world to be the result of the influence of a single Truth, while really it was the result of the existence of a single group. Thus a statesman (a member of the Group) announces a policy. About the same time, the Royal Institute of International Affairs publishes a study on the subject, and an Oxford don, a Fellow of All Souls (and a member of the Group) also publishes a volume on the subject (probably through a publishing house, like G. Bell and Sons or Faber and Faber, allied to the Group). The statesman’s policy is subjected to critical analysis and final approval in a “leader” in The Times, while the two books are reviewed (in a single review) in The Times Literary Supplement. Both the “leader” and the review are anonymous but are written by the members of the Group. And finally, at about the same time, an anonymous article in The Round Table strongly advocates the same policy. The cumulative effect of such tactics as this, even if each tactical move influences only a small number of important people, is bound to be great.
~ Carroll Quigley, The Anglo American Establishment, New York: Books in Focus, 1981, pp. 114 (or 96-pdf)

I was wondering how many policies and initiatives were created and "sold" in this way... my guess would be upwards of 75% of them.

I am sure there are many examples this strategy or playbook in use.... GMO "science", the CDC's vaccine danger obfuscation, are ones that I think have not succeeded.

What are the ones that have succeeded?

Consistent with the foregoing quote, Quigley also wrote this:

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence co-operative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

Carroll Quigley, Tragedy & Hope, A History of the World in Our Time. (1966, Third reprint 1998) (The quote first appears prior to the Table of Contends)

Central banking and determining by that means who succeeds and who fails is the " 'captured' academic/thinker [politician] strategy" Searcher references.

[Cara]

Posted by Satori (here)
Consistent with the foregoing quote, Quigley also wrote this:

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences..."

Carroll Quigley, Tragedy & Hope, A History of the World in Our Time. (1966, Third reprint 1998) (The quote first appears prior to the Table of Contends)

Central banking and determining by that means who succeeds and who fails is the " 'captured' academic/thinker [politician] strategy" Searcher references.

Thank you @Satori for the broader context.

My reading/interpretation of the quote and its implication commented in your post is:

• Essentially, the power players' vision of worldwide financial capitalist feudalism creates the context in which controlling the social narrative and policy is necessary, even required.
• And instead of outright dictatorship or propaganda, they mask their moves using this "Captured" Academic technique (among several others they use, including false flags, constant war/uncertainty, NLP and "politically correct" language, social division through identity politics, etc.).
• This ("Captured" Academic technique) lulls people into a false sense that they live in a world where freedom of speech and scientific debate ensure progress and freedom...
• Which is not the case at all, (as we know).

Is that an accurate reflection of your post?

More questions, for everyone, (not only @Satori whose post is a catalyst for this thinking - thank you):

• Do you think they have created a new or updated "Captured" Academic strategy given the growing awareness of people that the "system" is not to be trusted? And recent revelations of the flaws in the scientific process? (lots of reports out now about how studies can't be replicated, data is fudged, etc.)
• If so, do we have any indications of what the update / new might be?

[Satori]

Posted by Searcher (here)

Posted by Satori (here)
Consistent with the foregoing quote, Quigley also wrote this:

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences..."

Carroll Quigley, Tragedy & Hope, A History of the World in Our Time. (1966, Third reprint 1998) (The quote first appears prior to the Table of Contends)

Central banking and determining by that means who succeeds and who fails is the " 'captured' academic/thinker [politician] strategy" Searcher references.

Thank you @Satori for the broader context.

My reading/interpretation of the quote and its implication commented in your post is:

• Essentially, the power players' vision of worldwide financial capitalist feudalism creates the context in which controlling the social narrative and policy is necessary, even required.
• And instead of outright dictatorship or propaganda, they mask their moves using this "Captured" Academic technique (among several others they use, including false flags, constant war/uncertainty, NLP and "politically correct" language, social division through identity politics, etc.).
• This ("Captured" Academic technique) lulls people into a false sense that they live in a world where freedom of speech and scientific debate ensure progress and freedom...
• Which is not the case at all, (as we know).

Is that an accurate reflection of your post?

[Satori writes: Yes. Nice summary.]

More questions, for everyone, (not only @Satori whose post is a catalyst for this thinking - thank you):

• Do you think they have created a new or updated "Captured" Academic strategy given the growing awareness of people that the "system" is not to be trusted? And recent revelations of the flaws in the scientific process? (lots of reports out now about how studies can't be replicated, data is fudged, etc.)
• If so, do we have any indications of what the update / new might be?

These are good questions, which I will leave for the moment for minds greater than mine.

PS I embedded an answer to your question to me in the text of your post, quoted above.

[Cara]

Thanks @Satori for your reply.

No takers on the questions yet? Well, while we wait for those with greater minds to provide thoughts... Here is an example of a captured academic - Bernard Berelson (who I discovered through a document called the "Jaffe Memo" - see this thread for more)

Bernard Berelson:

"Bernard Berelson, PhD, was a professor at the University of Chicago and director of the Ford Foundation’s Behavioral Sciences Program. In 1962 he moved on to the Population Council, where he became president in 1968. At the Pop Council, he initially worked on communication research, and one of his innovations was an audiovisual kit for delivering family planning messages to nonliterate communities. Dr. Berelson was the originator of the first periodical to disseminate results of family planning studies to the international community; the prime force in organizing an international conference on family planning programs; and the creator of a cooperative international postpartum hospital program to provide family planning information and services. He was a scholar who combined research and academic careers with the pursuit of practical solutions to family planning concerns." [1]

"Bernard Bereleson was a specialist in communication and public opinion... At Chicago he became dean of the Graduate Library School and chairman of the committee on Communications in 1947. He served at the Ford Foundation from 1951 until 1957 when he returned to Chicago for two years while preparing this book under a grant from the Carnegie Corporation. He next went to Columbia University as director of the Bureau of Applied Social Research and then moved to the directorship of the communication research program and ultimately the presidency of the Population Council (1968-1974).”

From Sourcewatch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bernard_Berelson

The links to Ford Foundation and Carnegie Corporation are red flags for me... It seems fairly clear that he was the channel through which these foundations and family trusts created the public policies and programmes that they wanted in place.

[Cara]

Some indications in this thread about Meteors, Comets and Bollides that Dr Robert Schoch is perhaps a captured academic...

Posted by Searcher (here)

Posted by Hervé (here)
Comet Research Group replies to Robert Schoch's theory on the end of the last ice age

Dr. Robert M. Schoch, Ph.D., of Boston University, is a thought provoking scientist with an open-minded approach to new ideas....

His objection to the published science and data of the Comet Research Group is curious, since our work validates much of his unpublished speculation... Unfortunately, Schoch has never reached out to our researchers in order to work through and address his criticisms.
...
It is clear from Dr. Schoch's comments that he simply accepted some of the results from Thy et al. uncritically, but also that he over-interpreted them...

Unfortunately, Dr. Schoch, as well as others, simply accepted the negative conclusions from some of these critics without adequately questioning them.
...

This is off topic for bolides, meteors and comets but concerns Dr Robert Schoch.

Several months ago, on his now seemingly off-air radio show (The Other Side of Midnight) Richard Hoagland interviewed Dr Sam Osmanagich about the Bosnian pyramids. Richard said something to the effect of:

My friend Dr Robert Schoch told me the Bosnian pyramids were a hoax/not there and I (Richard) knew he was lying to me.

Maybe Dr Robert Schoch is controlled opposition and/or a "captured academic"?

[shaberon]

I would tend to agree this is a massive part of thought control.

Again, something that has old European roots, where the scientific dialogue was appropriated and steered centuries ago. Towards the East/USSR, it operated via the simple hard kill method--disagree and we shoot you. Towards the West/US, it developed into a soft kill system--spend your life dying and pay us for the privilege.

I believe it flows mostly in 20-year cycles--long enough for people to forget and simmer down about whatever happened, and then a modification or advancement steps in, and younger people are more detached from the original conditions each generation. More willing to accept something objectionable because it has become normal.

I am not sure if there is much of a "new" method involved with it, since these same hands have grasped the counterculture and attempted to steer that as well, ever since there was such a thing. There are new applications, or attempts at it (such as some of the global trade treaties), but it's just a big, elaborate version of a child asking why, and the adult says, because I said so.

Once awareness reaches a critical mass, it will spread like wildfire. Coupled with the dying off of an older generation who bought it hook, line, and sinker, no one will support these methods any longer.

The only example I can think of, where a big chunk of these actions were prevented, was in the early 90s when Big Pharma and the like attempted to ban nutritional supplements. Around then, the word "organic" came into use, which is silly--things that are not in that condition should be labeled "Contaminated". But they came pretty close to removing herbal medicines completely, and a compromise was reached over more silly wording; "cure" disappeared; and we could keep these products on the shelf as long as no claim unsupported by the FDA was on the package. Now, of course, if you attempt to sell cherries as having a health benefit, you have to submit it as a "new drug", or marshals show up with their machine guns to steal your operation.

Pre-Federal Reserve, it was not like this. To promote something, you had to go out and directly disagree with opponents until you were red in the face. Perhaps a new technique is that after having amalgamated the federal government to the "think tank" circuit, some companies now find it's more lucrative to do it to state governments. The "foot in the door" for this was probably the 14th amendment, never really used to protect human beings, but allowing corporations to be treated as people.

So, yes: almost everything has been foisted upon us by "experts", but no, there isn't really a new way to lie or try to trick me--only increasing totalitarian behaviors to control me.

[Cara]

Thanks @Shaberon.

Your observations about the 20 year cycle are interesting.... Wait a generation and then you can have another go at something. I wonder if we could track key fascist initiatives with this lens? Something like in the 50s they tried to pass "X" into legislation, did not manage and it came back in a "modified" form in the 70s?

One example of this I can think of is "climate"... The panic about the coming ice age in the 1970s, followed by the ideas of greenhouse gases in the 1990s, and then this global warming into climate change meme of the 2010s...

Also agree that the manipulation of the public by "experts" is nothing new - an old propaganda/advertising technique, "appeal to authority"... What is insidious to me is how pervasive it is, to the point where the ethics and intent of scientific method have been diverted and corrupted. But I guess where there is money and power in the same hands, there will always be those who spend both to further their own ends... And sadly there always seem to be those who can be corrupted to work knowingly or unknowingly for a fascist agenda.

[shaberon]

Hrm. I hadn't thought about it in terms of rebounding legislation. Was thinking more in terms of a steady increase.

1913/Federal Reserve to 1933/Emergency Banking powers is the chief example.

1792/First Bank of US to 1812/British attack for not renewing it. In those days, all corporations were limited to a 20 year term, they were routinely dissolved before hand, and were generally only used for public works like canals and bridges.

1992/Earth Summit to 2012/next Earth Summit, where kids who weren't even born for the previous one, knew that, instead of progress, we went backwards. The "important" people at the 1992 one were, perhaps, a little insincere.

20 years prior to now, cell phones were just becoming available to people--now people stay nose down in them everywhere. I don't like that, but people like me will fade away and no one will question it any more.

Not that 20 is a cast in stone thing, but something in that range is just a little too big for the ordinary working person to track, and yet small enough to be achieved by planners within their own lifetimes. I may have even gotten that idea from Quigley, if not, it was someone like that. I forget the guy's name who spilled the beans on globalism in the early 60s, but it was definitely all about some planning.

1980 if the police needed something, they would knock on the door with a warrant. Post-2000ish, full on SWAT raids everywhere. Old cops that might have cared about stuff like that are mostly retired. It wasn't something with a fixed date that went off like a timer, but a gradual increase in incidents until now, every department has a load of military equipment.

Have you heard that at schools now, you may not bring a peanut butter sandwich for lunch? The increased rules on childhood, alone, are to the point where I would not recognize it. I was probably one of the last kids to enjoy freedom, no locked doors, play outside or in the street, pretty much do whatever you want, no one cared. Yes, we got injured falling off our bicycles at least once a day, due to the lack of full body armor. Divorce rate then was nearly nothing. Now, having normally married parents is kind of rare. You could be getting dropped off at the fascist indoctrination center by both of your fathers. Everyone will be wearing seat belts, no alcohol is involved, and the car has $5,000 worth of safety features to keep you locked in and operate the headlights for you, while checking the tire pressure. Of course, if you had told the early Americans to ask for the government's permission to travel on a public road, they would have shot you. Boys still took rifles to school in the 20th century. That's before girls were converted into athletes and business women, since all that domestic and nurturing stuff was feminine, and I guess we needed some feminists to send that into the dust bin.

Well, that was kind of incoherent, but those changes are probably less from the exercise of enlightened free will, and more from things yesteryear's experts approved to keep your future nice and shiny.

[Cara]

Yes, I think you are spot on with this insight - 20 years is a "manageable" interval for these planners of social control.

Life...
The context you paint around changing life through different aspects is interesting. I grew up in South Africa and now live in the UAE (been here for five years) - the changes both in SA and here have been less gradual social engineering and more dramatic shifts that pretty much anyone could notice... perhaps that is one of the unacknowledged benefits of living in a 3rd world or emerging economy: you get to see dramatic, non-ignorable change. This also has a cost though - people are so focussed on the large scale changes that they may not see the subtle, insidious ones.

Television...
To me the most effective tool of change is the media and particularly television. When I was a child (about 7) I had a terrible nightmare where the television snow - the kind that you get when the old sets were not in tune - came out of the TV and chased me down in some kind of hunt. It was appallingly frightening. The weird thing is how the initial setting for the nightmare was a kind of wild west bar - which I could only have encountered on television (there being no such thing in my Johannesburg life at 7 years old). This dream is still strong and true in my mind all these years (at least 30!) later. Interesting how prescient I was.

Self-Perpetuation...
Your thoughts about laws and rules have me thinking of a theory I am entertaining... I have been thinking lately how organisations and groups seek to self-perpetuate. For example, in my corporate life, if we set up any kind of team, group, or project, it's almost as if those things became animate and then strove to ensure their own longevity. It was extremely difficult to "kill off" a project or initiative after a couple of years, even if times had changed and it was no longer needed or effective. The other thing about these organisational entities is that they mostly sought expansion - rather than steady state or contraction. So each year's plans were about how they could become more, better, larger, etc.

This to me explains some of why bureaucracies tend to keep piling on all these laws and rules. They are interested in self-perpetuation and growth. The organisational entity itself, through the people in it, seems to want to continue and develop, like a living being. From my vantage point now, this seems a kind of magic - animating a "structure" or "process set" with life and setting it on its course.

It might be that the organisational entity taps into and draws on the life force of the people who are part of it. In this way, it is perhaps "alive". I wonder if it then could become inhabited / occupied by a spiritual being or group of spiritual beings of some kind?

Thank you for your posts, which allow me to explore these ideas....

[shaberon]

Well, part of my interest here in the forum is to gather international perspectives. I'm not that familiar with Africa, and I imagine its evolution is more by dramatic shifts as you describe. On a continental basis, I understand the majority of its countries have told the IMF to buzz off and they prefer development aided by China for two reasons: better interest rates, and they don't try to tell you how to run your affairs. I am certainly not in favor of Gulf monarchies and have a fairly strong sense KSA is on its last legs; not sure about the rest of them--and it probably will be a dramatic shift with terrible repercussions.

I would say there is nothing which isn't alive.

Some places simply run out of cash and kill some programs, which is what happened to a potential job I was approved for with our Environmental Protection Agency. Most businesses run on credit, and every level of the government in the U. S. runs on bonds, which gains some breathing room compared to cash funds and definitely gives them more leeway to keep expanding. However, the entities propelling them are generally anything but spiritual.

It leads to things like inspectors inspecting inspectors who inspect inspectors. Or insurance, such as our mandatory driver's liability insurance. I never hurt anyone, but that does not make me eligible for a refund. In ancient China, you paid the doctor as long as you were healthy--when sick, it was a failure on his part and he had to fix you to get paid again. This is the only developed country where healthcare is backed by a for-profit insurance, which, fundamentally, seems quite wrong, but then almost anyone who gains employment with anything related to that field earns enough income that they would oppose any change.

So for instance, the fraudulent American Cancer Society, well you know cancer is usually quite rare in nature. Working in tandem with those who poison the food supply brings in plenty of patients. Then they can deny the basic methods that prevent or possibly remiss the cancer while charging the insurance a fortune for those various treatments. Through the years the artifice is perpetuated, and they can keep issuing public statements along the lines of "we're almost there, we just need to keep working". Take your private donations, print a few Christmas cards or something, and then, yep, expand some facilities.

The entity living in the "Cancer" scare is not what I would call spiritual, although it is highly animated and millions of times more powerful than me personally. I bet there are laws in place which would prevent me from placing anything on television that would gainsay the ACS, and if not outright laws, then the broadcasters' own policy. So plenty of things "grow with our partners" while trying to cover each others' backs.

It is magic and it is wielded by intent. It's actually pretty weak once you peer behind the curtain, but one can only do that for one's self--and prior to that point it's totally domineering. Like a gob of flying tv snow that never sleeps...