by Dave Christie

Is it conceivable that the millions of youth who are now addicted to social networking sites like facebook.com and myspace.com, have undergone collective amnesia? When Rupert Murdoch bought myspace.com, why wasn't there a massive boycott of the site? Perhaps these youth forgot that Rupert" "Joseph Goebbels” Murdoch's media empire has been the main propaganda outlet for the perpetual war of Dick Cheney and his Nazi minions. Maybe they have never read the Wall Street "Urinal,” as it propagandizes for the parasitical bankers of London and Wall Street. Or, perhaps they have never watched Fox TV, as it holds its daily Nuremberg rallies for couch potatoes.

Then, there is the case of Bill Gates, who through his costume of "uber-nerd," has duped many Americans into forgetting that his software empire is so huge that it can't even be called a monopoly.

Yet, millions of zombified youth continue to be spied on by these billionaire voyeurs, giving them and the empire they represent a “psychological peep show" never before dreamed of by even the most psychotic “social engineers."

The subject of this report is an overview of the history of "social engineering," as it evolved from old-fashioned electroshock therapy, to the modern “groupie-shock therapy." These social networking sites are simply a rehash of projects out of places like London's Tavistock Institute and the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), whose “social scientists" have attempted to herd the population into consensus through group dynamics. These same bodies have then convinced the population that the real term for consensus is “democracy."

Yet, as we shall see, this attempt at creating a truly “democratic society," has always been funded by foundations linked to the British empire, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Russell Sage Foundation, and Josiah Macy Foundation, to name a few. These oligarchical foundations have engineered both sides of the “left-right" coin, enforcing the democracy of consensus on one side, promoting fascist movements on the other. Their hoax has convinced people that there actually is a difference between the two sides, while setting the left against the right, thereby ensuring their mutually assured destruction. Through these divide et impera tactics, these foundations have become the tertius gaudens--the “third who benefits."

Today's social engineering project in group dynamics comes from a relatively small grouping of “social engineers" called the International Network of Social Network Analysis (INSNA). INSNA, like its “social scientist" forefathers, continues the tradition of acting as lackeys for international finance. Its members reside at such nasty places as the Olin Foundation and the Irwin Foundation. INSNA boasts that four of its members are knights in royal orders, such as the Order of Orange Nassau, which was headed by the Nazi Prince Bernhard, until he returned to Hell in 2004.

One thing Nazis like Prince Bernhard and Joseph Goebbels know: Persuasion is key to setting up fascist movements. That is why oligarchical foundations are dumping billions of dollars into social-networking technologies:

“The Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab creates insight into how computing products--from websites to mobile phone software--can be designed to change what people believe and what they do. For that reason, we're studying Facebook--it's highly persuasive"[1] (emphasis added).

INSNA comes from a long line of “intellectuals" who have all been intellectually sodomized by Bertrand Russell. “Dirty Bertie's" life-long mission was to reduce the human mind to a binary processor. This reductionism was the basis for “experiments" carried out by facilities such as the Tavistock Institute in London and the Rhodes Livingston Institute in Zambia. The reductionists in Russell's positivist stable continue, to this day, to have silly discussions on topics such as: “Is the human mind more like a monkey, or more like a machine?"

You are invited to join the real discussion, which begins with the question, “How is your mind actually different from monkeys' and from machines?" Joining that discussion means that you will join a debate that is intertwined with the history of mankind. If you are truly serious, the discussion comes to the highest point around the writings of Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche pointed out the obvious insanity of Bertrand Russell and his followers, by defending the method of Gottfried Leibniz against their cybernetic hoax. In refuting Russell's dogma, LaRouche developed the most advanced conceptions of physical economy to date.

But, to really join the discussion means you must act. If you choose to defend the human mind, or soul, as something existing within every individual on the planet, then you must wage the fight against the British empire and its “globalization." You must defend the sanctity of creativity from these imperial agencies and their brainwashing operations. That means you must get off MySpace. Get off Facebook, too. Put your joystick of mental masturbation away and actually engage your mind. Defend the principles that are the core of the U.S. Constitution: the General Welfare, Posterity, and Sovereignty. Get off the Blogosphere and join the Noo@ausphere.

Our brief overview of social engineering begins at London's Tavistock Clinic. The “doctors" of Tavistock adopted Bertrand Russell's view that the human mind is simply a binary processor of stimuli, which avoids pain and seeks pleasure. It was from this standpoint that the Tavistock Institute developed its peculiar techniques for creating a “mass psychology."

According to the official history of the Tavistock Clinic: “In 1920, under its founder Dr. Hugh Crichton-Miller's leadership, the Clinic made a significant contribution to the understanding of the traumatic effects of `shell shock.'..."[2]

What began as an exploration of “shell shock," and its effects on individuals, was to evolve into explorations of how to induce the state of shell shock on entire populations. John Rawlings Rees[3] and his cohorts at Tavistock became key figures in developing techniques of mass psychology, which they then shared with their counterparts in Europe and the United States.

Tavistock's founder, Dr. Crichton-Miller, was not willing to be as “maverick" in psychological manipulation techniques as John Rawlings Rees, so Rees began a campaign to manipulate his way into the leadership of the clinic. He ran a psychological terror campaign, using rumors, to force the elderly Dr. Crichton-Miller to resign after he nearly suffered a mental breakdown. Eric Trist, who would later become the director of Tavistock, describes the event differently, giving an insight into the nature of those associated with the clinic:

“Since `authoritarian' government of the medical kind in a path-finding organization such as the Tavistock Clinic proved dysfunctional, a transition to a collegiate professional democracy took place in the early 1930s, when problems arising from the Depression shook many cherished beliefs and raised new questions concerning the role of social factors in psychological illness. This organizational revolution brought to the front a younger generation of clinicians with a level of ability and a maverick quality that would otherwise have been lost."[4]

Rees, Trist, and their Tavistock associates used various techniques of coercion, all of which applied the same basic format: Induce massive physical or psychological stress in an individual, and then relieve that stress. Through repeated vacillations between stress and relief, the “patient" eventually becomes intensely suggestible. The Tavistockians attempted to perfect techniques of coercion, such as electroshock therapy, hypnosis, and the use of mind-altering drugs to achieve brainwashing or “reprogramming" for their victims.

As they explored these techniques, Rees realized that the more “maverick" approach involved the “role of social factors in psychological illness." In other words, individual brainwashing tactics, such as electroshock therapy or the use of drugs, though powerful, were no match for the power of the group in enforcing behavior. So Rees and his partners explored “group dynamics," adopting the object-relations approach of Melanie Klein, which “emphasized relationships, rather than instinctual drives and psychic energy."[5]

The idea was to re-create a family dynamic, or a dynamic of peer pressure, in group therapy, where predetermined objectives were forced onto the group through consensus, or “democracy," in the language of these social engineers. The idea was that by attacking someone's sovereign identity in the group, that individual would forfeit his or her sovereignty to the group and become suggestible to the predetermined objectives.

The Tavistock techniques were so effective that the British empire eventually gave Tavistock “guinea pigs": They were given responsibility for selecting the officers of the British Army, and the British government allowed Tavistock to craft the training programs for those officers. Tavistock then took their group brainwashing techniques onto the battlefield, calling the practice “command psychiatry." The field “clinicians" were described by Rees as “psychiatric shock troops."

“The group who entered the Directorate of Army Psychiatry took a novel approach to the human resource problems facing the army. Rather than remain in base hospitals they went out into the field to find out from commanding officers what they saw as their most pressing problems.... The concept thence arose of `command' psychiatry, in which a psychiatrist with a roving commission was attached to each of the five Army Commanders in Home Forces."[6]

Kurt Lewin, a pioneer in “group dynamics," was part of the early Frankfurt School and fled Germany when Hitler took power. He came to the United States in 1933, with his “ticket" bought by the Rockefellers. On his way, he stopped at Cambridge, England, to visit Tavistock's Eric Trist.

Lewin set up shop at the University of Iowa, where he was a professor of child psychology. He eventually went to the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), and, like his Tavistock counterparts in the British military, explored group dynamics concerning troop morale, the psychology of food rationing, and other elements of psychological warfare. This passage from his book Time Perspective and Morale, illustrates his grasp of psychological warfare:

“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. If in addition frequent vacillations between severe disciplinary measures and promises of good treatment together with spreading of contradictory news, make the `cognitive structure' of this situation utterly unclear, then the individual may cease to even know when a particular plan would lead toward or away from his goal. Under these conditions even those who have definite goals and are ready to take risks, will be paralyzed by severe inner conflicts in regard to what to do."[7]

In a sane society, Lewin's books would have been used for toilet paper, or filed near the Nazi paraphernalia. Instead, he was given a lot of money to craft social engineering projects.

Lewin and his followers developed techniques for modelling group dynamics that were based on the degree of attraction between individuals. Lewin used the language of electromagnetism to describe the relationships, borrowing from Maxwell's “field theory" for electromagnetism. Since Maxwell had decided that causality in science was irrelevant, his “field theory" wasn't actually science. Maxwell simply described the “field" as an aggregate of the observable degree of cohesion between the point masses in that field. Through circular logic, the characteristics of the “field" simply became a statement that reflected Maxwell's assumed axioms about the nature of the relationships between the objects. And, as a closed system, the field was subject to the arbitrary laws of entropy.

Like Maxwell, Lewin's “field theory" applied the same circular logic to human relations. Lewin assumed that humans were like monkeys, whose relationships were determined through a calculus of hedonism. Where Maxwell assigned a “one" for a strong degree of cohesion and a “zero" for weak attraction in an electromagnetic grid, Lewin would do the same: “one" for the level of attraction between a monkey and its mother, “zero" for a predator monkey. The “field" became an aggregate of the relations among the hedonistic monkeys, which merely reflected Lewin's axioms about the nature of humanity. Universal principles, such as agape, were reduced to “game theory" by Lewin and his acolytes. As a closed system, devoid of principle, Lewin's field was also subject to entropy, or what a zoologist would call “ecology."

Entropy applied to magnets and monkeys is one thing, but what happens when these rules are applied to humanity? Is a human economy subject to the same rules as a monkey ecology? For Lewin, Maxwell, the Tavistockians, and all the intellectually retarded children of Bertrand Russell, the answer is “yes!" It is here that our big problem arises, and it is here also, that these social engineers pulled off their masks to reveal their “fascism with a democratic face."[8]

Humans are creative. We can discover principles beyond sense perception, and create technologies that allow our fellow humans to rise above the limits of our previous resource base. That is a simple refutation of the bogus entropy of Russell's positivists. We humans can also develop our mastery of social principles, like agape, in the domain of Classical artistic composition. The ability to communicate these principles from one generation to the next, enables a culture to elaborate its own continuing transformation. Modern nations can only achieve this progress by promoting the development of the sovereign minds of their citizens. Cultural development of this type, is the true mission of a republic.

Dirty Bertie's children needed to eliminate those sovereign minds, otherwise their creativity would upset the equilibrium of the predetermined “ecology." In Lewin's electromagnetic grid, those “nodes" that attracted other “nodes" through their ability to share ideas and create new capabilities for the survival of mankind, would need to be neutralized. This required the work of “change agents," to bring the field back to the drab uniformity of consensus, and to maintain the equilibrium of ecology. Enforcing this idea, the great advocate of “democracy," Kurt Lewin, would sound like a real Nazi:

“To instigate changes toward democracy, a situation has to be created for a certain period where the leader is sufficiently in control to rule out influences he does not want and to manipulate the situation to a sufficient degree. The goal of the democratic leader in this transition period will have to be the same as any good teacher, namely to make himself superfluous...."[9]

Of course, for Lewin and the other social engineers, that “transition period" was never over. Lewin and his “change agents" would go out to the “field" every day looking for the so-called “authoritarian personalities." And like J.R. Rees of Tavistock, they would attempt to corral the herd by erecting electric fences of the mind.

Paul Lazarsfeld also fled fascism in Europe to come to the United States to promote the fascism of consensus. In 1942, Lazarsfeld and Lewin helped set up a conference for the American Society for Cybernetics, financed by the Josiah Macy Foundation. This conference was a “who's who" of Bertrand Russell's “Unity of Sciences" project. Lazarsfeld worked with Lewin on various group dynamics projects, only Lazarsfeld took his work into larger spheres, especially into exploring the role of media in creating a mass psychology. Like Lewin, he utilized mathematical modelling[10] to deal with large data sets related to marketing products, and later, to marketing politics and culture itself.

One of Lazarsfeld's first projects in the United States was at Princeton's Radio Project, where he and others studied the sociological effects of the radio broadcast “War of the Worlds," by the British Fabian Society's H.G. Wells. Theodor Adorno of the Frankfurt School, later one of the authors of The Authoritarian Personality,[11] also worked with Lazarsfeld at the Radio Project. Some of Adorno's work there focussed on the psychological effect of modern music, as he investigated that music's ability to induce psychosis in the population.

Academia subsequently brainwashed the Baby Boomers to believe that figures such as Lazarsfeld and Adorno were merely critics of the big, bad state, or “Big Brother," in the words of George Orwell. In reality, Lazarsfeld and Adorno were lackeys for the foundations of the British empire--Rockefeller, Josiah Macy, and Russell Sage. They were financed to the hilt by these foundations, in order to tear down the cultural legacy of the republican cause, for their masters. The social engineers whipped up the Baby-Boomer generation through the Orwellian “two minute hate" against the nation-state of Lincoln and FDR, and by a sleight of hand, they became the eyes and ears of “Big Brother," servicing their oligarchic financers.

“It seems obvious, that the modification of the potentially fascist structure cannot be achieved by psychological means alone. The task is comparable to that of eliminating neurosis, or delinquency, or nationalism from the world. These are products of the total organization of society and are to be changed only as that society is changed. It is not for the psychologist to say how such changes are to be brought about. The problem is one which requires the efforts of all social scientists. All that we would insist upon is that in the councils or round tables where the problem is considered and action planned the psychologist should have a voice. We believe that the scientific understanding of society must include an understanding of what it does to people, and that it is possible to have social reforms, even broad and sweeping ones, which though desirable in their own right would not necessarily change the structure of the prejudiced personality. For the fascist potential to change, or even to be held in check, there must be an increase in people's capacity to see themselves and to be themselves. This cannot be achieved by the manipulation of people, however well grounded in modern psychology the devices of manipulation might be.... It is here that psychology may play its most important role. Techniques for overcoming resistance, developed mainly in the field of individual psychotherapy, can be improved and adapted for use with groups and even for use on a mass scale" (emphasis added).[12]

Erkenntnis (Cognition). Together with Bertrand Russell and others who would later float around in the orbit of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, such as Sydney Hook and Albert Wohlstetter, they organized the International Congresses of the Unity of Sciences.

Ernst Mach was famous for his “suspicion of anything metaphysical," and he essentially argued that the sciences must be regarded as solely descriptive, devoid of cause. The “Unity of Sciences" attempted to destroy metaphysics and the existence of universal principles, by arguing that any divisions in science, e.g., any divisions between life, non-life, and cognition, were non-existent. They applied this extreme reductionism to physics and the social sciences alike, thereby claiming to unify them. Society was reduced to individual psychologies; individual psychologies were reduced to biological processes; biological processes were reduced to chemical processes. And so, human cognition was reduced to the electro-chemical processes of the brain: neurons firing or turning off, like a binary system. Finally, even the electro-chemical processes of the brain were reduced to Newtonian mechanics.

In other words, cognition was viewed simply as a reaction to external stimuli. Since bodies at rest stay at rest until acted upon by another body, the internal process of cognition was eliminated. Thus there was no “divine spark," or soul. These conceptions would provide the basis for the discussions at the Cybernetics conference years later.

“Sooner or later we shall die," wrote Norbert Wiener, “and it is highly probable that the whole universe around us will die the heat death, in which the world shall be reduced to one vast temperature equilibrium in which nothing new ever happens. There will be nothing left but a drab uniformity out of which we can expect only minor and insignificant local fluctuations."[13]

Norbert Wiener coined the term cybernetics from the Greek word kubernetes, which means “helmsman." The helmsman was the one who directed the rowing, and of course, he had to have feedback, in order to give feed-forward (orders) to his crew. If the helmsman went too fast or slow, then the equilibrium was thrown off, which is true for any closed system. For example, without a thermostat capable of registering feed-forward and feedback, an engine block would overheat and explode. Since the reductionists saw no difference between an engine block and society, they imagined, with infantile senility, that the same principles held true for both.

Wiener and the cyberneticians thought the creative method was just a random by-product of access to “information." Therefore, they would monitor the amount of information released into the “field," acting as the information thermostat for society. In order to control the flow of information, the “helmsmen" nested themselves inside major media outlets and opinion-shaping centers.

Later, the heirs of the cyberneticians were involved in creating the “information superhighway." They created software that monitored the flow of “information" on the Internet like a massive electrical circuit board, setting up the circuit-breakers and monitoring the voltage. This concept was at the core of “social networking," the establishment of sets of game theory matrices[14] aimed at enforcing consensus. The mechanization of societal relations was based on Wiener's idea that it were possible to mechanize thought. To bolster this absurd view of the human mind, Norbert Wiener lied by saying that Leibniz would have signed off on a “reasoning machine."

“Now just as the calculus of arithmetic lends itself to a mechanization progressing through the abacus and the desk computing machine to the ultra-rapid computing machines of the present day, so the `calculus ratiocinator' of Leibniz contains the germs of the `machina ratiocinatrix,' the reasoning machine. Indeed, Leibniz himself, like his predecessor Pascal, was interested in the construction of computing machines in metal. It is therefore not in the least surprising that the same intellectual impulse which has led to the development of mathematical logic has at the same time led to the ideal or actual mechanization of processes of thought."[15]

In reality, Leibniz and his followers refuted absurdities such as this over and over again, culminating in LaRouche's refutation of the cybernetics dogma.

Margaret Mead and her husband, Gregory Bateson attempted to “unify the sciences" by introducing a bogus “anthropology" at the 1942 Cybernetics conference. For them, anthropology was merely zoology with mental cages. Mead and Bateson thought that a romanticized tribal structure was closer to a cybernetic design for society than the complexities of modern urban life. So, while the British Empire's Josiah Macy poured money into the Cybernetics conference, across the Atlantic, money from the Rockefellers streamed into venues of social engineering in mineral-rich Africa, using these anthropologists to destabilize emerging nations. The anthropologists began by profiling the tribal structures through “sociograms" and genealogy charts, giving the Empire a view of colonial Africa where, as if observing the “natives" from a helicopter, they could map tribal activity like a pattern of ants on an anthill. Then the “anthill" was disturbed through civil wars, intrigues, and assassinations.

One of the main profiling agencies of the British Colonial Social Science Research Council was the Rhodes Livingston Institute (RLI,) whose first director was Godfrey Wilson. Wilson eventually committed suicide and was replaced by Max Gluckman. Gluckman had “positivist" roots, was known for his “Utility of the Equilibrium Model in the Study of Social Change," and later headed the Manchester School. He was also well known for his relation to the Mau-Mau tribe in Kenya and its uprising, which was among the many rebellions occurring throughout Africa against the colonial powers. Many anthropologists were used as “Third Force" operatives, destabilizing developing nation-states in the interests of Anglo-Dutch mining cartels.[16]

Lord Hailey, who had oversight of the RLI, was also part of Lord Milner's Roundtable, was governor of Punjab from 1924 to 1928, and then became governor of the United Provinces from 1928 to 1930. John C.M. MacBeth's introduction of Lord Hailey to the Empire Club of Canada gives a good sense of who Hailey was: “[W]e are to be addressed by the Chairman of the Colonial Research Advisory Committee, the very head and front of the modern colonial and dominion policy of unity of purpose by independence of action, if I may so express it."[17]

Franklin Roosevelt had blasted the British Empire's colonial policies over and over again. Lord Hailey, among others, was tasked to put a kinder, gentler mask on the Empire, calling it the “Commonwealth." Hailey used the RLI to explore techniques of “indirect rule," which was much more efficient and inexpensive than the often awkward policy of having regional governors maintain the British or Dutch colonial power. “Indirect rule" was similar to the techniques employed at Lewin's Research Center for Group Dynamics, or Eric Trist's “self-regulating work groups" at the Calico Mines in India.

Acting on behalf of the Anglo-Dutch cartels, Hailey had his anthropologists profile the members of the tribal structure, in order to isolate the “authoritarian personalities" or “ego networks" who were against the slave system of the Empire. Once the leadership was eliminated, the consensus was forced upon the “natives" that globalization was inevitable, and that the choices in the game theory matrix had been reduced to two: Work as a slave in the copper mines, or starve.

However, as consolation, these “democratic" social engineers of the Commonwealth, did game the debate to allow for a limited range of discussion about “human rights" issues, like women's rights or racial equality. Henrika Kuklick criticized the British Social Science Research Council for being “handmaidens of colonialism." She attacked RLI's one-time director Bronislaw Malinowski, for taking funds from the Rockefellers and using anthropology for ill purposes: “Malinowski assured the foundation that its funds would be put to constructive use, supporting the application of anthropology as `social engineering' into areas which western capitalism was pressing."[18]

After the death of Franklin Roosevelt in 1945, the British used the techniques developed by the social engineers in the military domain, to engineer a paradigm shift in the Baby-Boomer generation. The foundations of this new paradigm promoted varieties of existentialism, and succeeded in shifting the orientation of society from the productivity and progress of FDR's era, to the notions of “green ecology," so popular today. Thus, they helped the United States to destroy its own industrial power.

According to one source, institutions like those of the Rockefellers were “interested in finding out if there was a group committed to undertaking, under conditions of peace, the kind of social psychiatry that had developed in the army under conditions of war. So began a process that led the Rockefeller Foundation in 1946 to make a grant of untied funds without which the IPCO's [Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization] post-war plan could not have been carried out."[19]

As the Tavistock Clinic made the transition from being a British governmental entity to becoming an almost wholly privately funded enterprise, the newly named Tavistock Institute of Human Relations formally merged its tentacles with the tentacles of its American counterpart, through a journal called Human Relations.

Again, from Eric Trist's account of the founding of Tavistock: “A new journal was needed that would manifest the connection between field theory and object-relations psychoanalysis. With Lewin's group in the U.S., the Research Center for Group Dynamics, now at the University of Michigan, the Institute created a new international journal, Human Relations, whose purpose was to further the integration of psychology and the social sciences and relate theory to practice."[20]

Later, in 1954, the helmsmen at the Cybernetics Society would change their name to the Society for General Systems Research and set up shop at Stanford, at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences (CASBS). The group included Ludwig von Bertalanffy and Anatol Rappaport. Margaret Mead, a good friend of Kurt Lewin, would later become one of its presidents, as would Karl Deutsch, who later founded the political science department at MIT. Alex Bavelas would lead a group at the University of Michigan, which also became a Tavistock outpost.

As Lazarsfeld focussed on the paradigm shift via the media, Lewin's “change agents" were sent into the labor unions to wage psychological warfare and destroy industry. One of Lewin's proteges at MIT, George P. Shultz[21], as the head of the U.S. Department of Labor, took Lewin's conceptions in the field of group dynamics and applied them to destroy the labor unions.

In a manner reminiscent of techniques used in the mines of Africa, the labor arbiters would act as the “Third Force" operatives in service to the cartels. At the arbitration table, with a “wink wink" and a “nod nod," the cartel official would act through the Third Force arbiter and convince the labor union president that consensus was essential. “A strike wouldn't be good now, would it? Besides, globalization is here to stay. It is inevitable. We must work together to achieve consensus, even though it may not be good for us." And in the same way that the “Commonwealth" allowed a limited range of debate about social improvements, the unions would be allowed to fight over the breadcrumbs, but not to fight globalization itself.

INSNA was founded in 1976, the year of Paul Lazarsfeld's death, assembling various social engineers from institutions like the Tavistock Institute, the Cybernetics grouping, and the Rhodes Livingston Institute. Harrison White took Lazarsfeld's place at the Bureau of Applied Social Research, formerly the Radio Project at Princeton, which today is known as the Institute for Social and Economic Research Policy (ISERP.)[22] Barry Wellman, a student of Harrison White, was the nominal founder of INSNA. Wellman dedicated an account of the founding of INSNA to J. Clyde Mitchell, who under Gluckman was a research officer at the Rhodes Livingston Institute. Mitchell welcomed Wellman to British network analysis in 1974, and continued as an enthusiastic member of INSNA and as a frequent contributor to Connections, until his death in 1995. Wellman later developed the concept of “networking the global village," consistent with Gluckman's “equilibrium model." John A. Barnes was also a one-time director of the Rhodes Livingston Institute, and along with Mitchell, would win INSNA's highest honor, the Simmel Award.

Who was Georg Simmel? Though the following quotes from him, on the Venetian method of counterintelligence, will turn the stomach of American patriots, just remember that the Venetian methodology is for lazy chumps. The Venetians spent their time creating all kinds of intrigues because they were so utterly bored with their own existence. Shakespeare's character Iago is a prime example.

“The Venetian government," Simmel wrote, “used this means most effectively by offering extraordinary inducements to the people to denounce any sort of suspicious character. No one knew whether his nearest acquaintance was not in the service of the civic inquisition, and consequently revolutionary plans, which presupposed the reciprocal confidence of a great collection of persons, were cut off from the root; so that in the later history of Venice public revolts practically did not occur."[23]

Though Karl Rove is not a member of INSNA, you will hear shades of his method in the following quote by Simmel, again about the Venetian method. In fact, think of the silly politicians who claim to be master-debaters, even though they have allowed themselves to be sucked into Rove's absurd “talking points." Rove's political opponents often have brought on their own destruction, because they have bought into the existence of the “rules of the game" theory, just like a MySpace addict:

“The baldest form of divide et impera, the instigation of positive struggle between two elements, may have its purpose in the relation of the third party to either of these two, or to an object existing outside of them. The latter occurs in case one of three candidates for an office understands how to instigate the two others against each other, in such a way that by gossip and slander, which each of them sets in motion against the other, they spoil each other's chances. In all cases of this type the art of the third shows itself in the degree of the distance at which he is wise enough to place himself from the action which he instigates. The more he guides the conflict by merely invisible threads, the more he understands how to tend the fire so that it continues to burn without his further assistance and observation, the sharper and directer will be the struggle between the other two, until their reciprocal ruin is accomplished; but, more than that, the prize of the struggle at stake between them, or the objects otherwise of value to the third party, will seem to fall into his lap of themselves. In this technique, too, the Venetians were masters."[24]

See how the Venetian tactics of Simmel are applied to social networking--then ask yourself, is it really “your space?"

“Taken from the work of Georg Simmel, the `tertius gaudens' is defined as the `third who benefits' (Simmel 1923). It describes the person who benefits from the disunion of two others.... Where informal structural holes provide a platform for tertius strategies, information is the substance with which the strategy is performed (Burt 1992). Accurate, timely and relevant information delivered between two non-redundant contacts at the right time, creates an immense opportunity to negotiate and control the relationships between these actors. That is the power of structural holes, and that is why the theory is so relevant for business networks on the Internet."[25]

With the advent of the Internet, game theory would take on a whole new meaning. Social networking would then be given a venue to “change what people believe and what they do."[26] INSNA's helmsmen of information would now map out social networks on the Internet like a giant electromagnetic grid, by developing software that expanded on the work of Moreno's sociograms,[27] eventually developing 3-D modeling.

INSNA first began playing around with the idea of social networking through the Internet on EIES, the Electronic Information Exchange System, one of the first networking technologies, and they coordinated their early conferences with this technology.

INSNA players developed some of the software for social network analysis, such as UCINET and SOCNET, which could analyze social networking sites such as myspace.com, facebook.com, ancestry.com, or multiple interface gaming, such as Microsoft's “Counterstrike." The cybernetic “change agents" developed technologies to map the flow of rumors through society, which they claim spread like the transmission of epidemics, such as AIDS.[28] This technology could also be used to create social movements, thereby setting the stage for gang and counter-gang conflicts--techniques entirely coherent with those used in Venetian or British colonialism.

These programs could be used to steer or “herd" popular opinion into a desired direction under one condition: the existence of willing guinea pigs. This required people to provide full psychological profiles that could be used for manipulation. If the “guinea pigs" bought into the positivist's binary view of mankind, then the game theory matrices could be set up through a vast array of “Karl Rove talking points." In other words, the social engineers could outline a “group think" matrix, like a “Choose Your Own Adventure" book.

The social networking sites gradually filled up with youth who had bought into the fad. They were told that they no longer had to take part in the messy aspects of social interactions. They no longer had to look people in the eye, or sit with them in a room. Instead they could sit in a cyber-pod and become pod people. Each youth could run from his pod world at the computer lab, to his pod world at the coffee shop, to his pod world in his dorm. He could then shield himself from human interaction in the outside world, by putting earplugs into his podpiece to create a walking podworld devoid of human interaction. And here is the real kicker: Every once in a while, the pod person could have a real, anonymous experience. He could play the role of Georg Simmel's The Stranger. He could get together with other anonymous pod people for a “spontaneous" orgy.[29] This would be his only non-cyber experience.

And from their helicopters above, billionaire voyeurs stare at and play with their little “natives." They mess around with the anthill and watch its patterns change:

“Similarly, in exchange theory, our assumptions about what the natives know about the nature of their networks is critical to our theorizing. We love the Kula Ring because, according to Malinowski (1922), the total shape of the network, not to mention its consequences for social solidarity, were matters which `not even the most intelligent native has any clear idea of.' The most intellectually charming aspect of network analysis is that we are able to make visible that which, without our `macroscope' is invisible to natives. We are able to get up in our helicopter and see the traffic patterns in which the natives are stuck. What is more, in my research, I have never found a case in which the natives' views of their structure are entirely accurate. And this goes also for our `most intelligent natives' whom we call intellectuals. In my study of the American intellectual elite (Kadushin 1974), we asked respondents to characterize intellectual circles. None of them had an even close to accurate picture. I know our network picture was accurate not only because it `worked' and made good sense at the time and was acknowledged as correct and `obvious' once the natives had seen it, but because, even though I could not realize it at the time, it also predicted the intellectual circle pattern ten years later. In the upper right hand corner of our computer drawn sociogram (direction entirely accidental and arbitrary) the circle which eventually became known as the Neo-Conservatives was clearly shown."[30]

Maybe this is what attracted Rupert Murdoch to this social networking technology: He realized that he could keep track of his favorite Nazi movement--the neoconservatives.

“Social structure becomes actually visible in an anthill; the movements and contacts one sees are not random but patterned. We should also be able to see structure in the life of an American community if we had a sufficiently remote vantage point, a point from which persons would appear to be small moving dots.... We should see that these dots do not randomly approach one another, that some are usually together, some meet often, some never.... If one could get far enough away from it, human life would become pure pattern."[31]

Every empire knows that destruction is best done from the inside. Georg Simmel wrote:

“It has been said that England could gain India only by means of India, as Xerxes earlier understood that Greece could best be conquered by means of the Greeks. Precisely those who by likeness of interests are brought together best know reciprocally each other's weaknesses and their vulnerable points, so that the principle of similia similibus--the annihilation of a condition by producing a similar condition--may here be produced in the widest degree."[32]

These seemingly brilliant and elaborate social engineering schemes have one crucial flaw: They completely backfire if no one shows up to the “game." That is, if no one buys into the view of the mind which claims that the mind is merely capable of saying yes or no to outside stimuli, then “they" won't be able to “game" the herd. Socrates did not allow himself to be gamed. He refused to accept the “rules of the game," and he constantly pointed out the absurdities of the axioms of his day. The Socratic method is used to this day, by all sovereign minds, to break the mental haze created by the empires of the past.

Why would you want to show up at their game every day? For you addicts, why show up at their game 36 times a day? Why show up at all? One day, you just may wake up from the haze to find the Coliseum cheering and blood on your hands. Snap out of it! Don't be duped by these “Dungeons and Dragons" gamers. Imagine Karl “turd blossom" Rove, like a roly-poly little grub, sitting in his mother's basement next to the nerdy Bill Gates, decked out in gladiator gear, thinking of ways to engineer society's discussion and destruction.

Instead of playing with these perverts, fight on behalf of the universal principles that are at the core of the U.S. Constitution. Fight for the general welfare; fight for future generations--your posterity; fight for the sovereignty of your mind. Don't be Rupert Murdoch's silly little tool, fleeing into the gladiator's Coliseum of a fantasy cyber-world. Join a real social process, which discusses the history of the development of ideas. You just may have a lot of fun doing so. Remember, Russell's positivists are utterly bored as they await the eventual heat death of the universe. Why get gamed into these schemes of their pseudo-scientific pessimistic drivel?

The most stunning refutation of the conceptions of the cybernetics crew came from Lyndon LaRouche. The most succinct dismissal of the cybernetic concepts discussed in this paper is contained in LaRouche's “Vernadsky and Dirichlet's Principle" (Executive Intelligence Review, June 3, 2005). LaRouche and his colleagues are now the sole torch-bearers for the dynamics of Leibniz.

Understanding the development of ideas through the history of mankind is the core of LaRouche's method. Given the developments of the recent period, LaRouche's method has been shown as the only one competent to deal with the onrushing economic crisis. Anyone who understands creativity as LaRouche does, knows that creativity is the most devastating refutation of entropy.

“Since the universe is changing, anti-entropically, through the process of generation of discovery of universal principles, it is the anti-entropy which bounds the universe."[33]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] http://credibilityserver.stanford.edu/captology/facebook/

[2] Eric Trist “The Formative Years, The Founding Tradition, Pre-War Antecedents" (available at moderntimesworkplace.com)

[3]After Rudolf Hess was brought to Britain for safekeeping, he developed a trusting relation with his doctor, John Rawlings Rees. Extensive work was done on Rees and the Tavistock Institute by the National Caucus of Labor Committees, and published in The Campaigner, during the 1970s. See, for example, “The Tavistock Grin," Parts 1 and 2, The Campaigner, April and May 1974. Available at www.wlym.com/PDF-68-76/CAM7404.pdf.

[4]Trist, op cit., footnote 1.

[5]Ibid.

[6]Ibid.

[7] K. Lewin (1942), “Time Perspective and Morale," in G. Watson, ed., Civilian Morale, second yearbook of the SPSSL (Boston: Houghton Mifflin).

[8] See, for instance, the November-December 1974 issue of The Campaigner, “Rockefeller's `Fascism with a Democratic Face,'" ICLC Strategic Study.

[9] K. Lewin, Resolving Social Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics, Gertrude W. Lewin, ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1948).

[10] Lazarsfeld worked with, and studied Jacob Moreno's “sociometry." The following quote is from “Leadership and Sociometric Choice," Helen H. Jennings Sociometric Institute: “The Sociometric test, devised by Moreno, discloses the feelings which the individuals have in regard to one another in respect to membership in the groups in which they are at a given moment (ideally all groups in which they are or could be). It is an action test. The criterion for choice must have the explicit meaning for the subject and offer him the specific opportunity to give the information for reconstruction (or retention) of the situations in which he is. The results are put into operation to the optimal satisfaction of subjects. Thus, in respect to the criterion of the group's formation, the psychological position of every member in the composition of the group's structure is brought to light. By periodic testing, in like manner, changes in this structure can be traced, followed, and evaluated." (Sound like an ad for MySpace?)

The models are referred to as sociograms. INSNA refers to Moreno as one of the most important figures in social networking. Moreno worked as a self-appointed psychiatrist to the prostitutes of Vienna. He was also a psychiatrist at Sing Sing Prison, and then later at a “reform school" known as the Hudson School for Girls, where he gathered data to be used in his book, Who Shall Survive? (which he wrote with Helen Jennings). This is one of the key documents for those interested in game theory, mass psychology, and social engineering.

[11]Theodor W. Adorno et al., The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper, 1950).

[12]Ibid.

[13]. Norbert Wiener, The Human Use of Human Beings (Da Capo Press, 1950).

[14]For a quick summary of a “game theory matrix" without any of the “matheze," get a paperback “Choose Your Own Adventure" book. If you become bored flipping back and forth among the pages, don't buy another one, but try “Dungeons and Dragons" this time. If you still don't understand game theory, witness a MySpace or Facebook addict going from page to page and then back again for hours on end. If all of these predetermined games bore you to tears--good, you have escaped the matrix.

[15]Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics: Or the Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1948). Wiener even went a step further, declaring, “If there had to be a patron saint of Cybernetics, it would be Leibniz."

[16]INSNA's Alvin Wolfe states that: “In the early 1960's my studies of the problems of new African states ... led me to appreciate the importance of multinational enterprises in the mining and metals industry--not so much in their individual actions as in their systematic organization at a supranational level. My 1962 paper, `The Rules of Mining in Southern Africa,' was the first presentation of the network of corporations that is the `team' of the title. A 1963 paper, entitled `The African Mineral Industry: Evolution of a Supranational Level of Integration,' is the first where I recognize the development of a supranational system as a major evolutionary situation...." UrbAnth-L online list, March 11, 2006.

[17]. The Empire Club of Canada Speeches 1942-1943 (Toronto: The Empire Club of Canada, 1943), pp. 239-255.

[18]Frank Salamone, “The International African Institute: The Rockefeller Foundation and the Development of British Social Anthropology in Africa." He quotes Henrika Kuklick's reference to the funding provided by the Rockefellers to the International African Institute.

[19]Eric Trist, op cit., footnote 2.

[20]Ibid.

[21]Scott Thompson and Nancy Spannaus, “George Pratt Shultz: Profile of a Hit Man," Executive Intelligence Review, Dec. 10, 2004: “Synarchist George Shultz's first known nefarious mentor was Kurt Lewin, an operative of London's Tavistock Institute who had set up a Research Center for Group Dynamics on the MIT campus. Included among Lewin's objectives for mind control was to lower the cost of labor. In the mid to late 1940s, Shultz collaborated at the center with John T. Dunlop, with whom he did a study which found that speed-up of labor and wage-gouging could be accomplished, not only through the `human side,' but also by the threat of economic depression and unemployment. Shultz was appointed chairman of the Industrial Relations Division of MIT in 1954."

[22]www.iserp.columbia.edu. “ISERP is descended from the Bureau for Applied Social Research (BASR), established in 1944 by sociologist Paul F. Lazarsfeld after the Rockefeller Princeton Radio Project moved to Columbia University. The bureau secured Columbia's place as a pioneering institution in the social sciences, making landmark contributions to mass communications research, public opinion polling, organizational studies, and social science methodology. After Lazarsfeld's death in 1976, the legacy of the bureau was carried on by the Center for the Social Sciences, which was later renamed in Lazarsfeld's honor. Under directors Harold Watts, Jonathan Cole, and Harrison White, the Center continued the tradition of pushing the boundaries of social scientific methodology and interdisciplinary research, particularly in the areas of sociology of science and network analysis."

[23]Georg Simmel. “The Number of Members as Determining the Sociological Form of the Group: II," American Journal of Sociology, 8 (1902), pp. 158-196.

[24]. Ibid. Anatol Rappaport, INSNA pioneer, put the tertius strategy yet another way, after having won a game theory tournament with his strategy called TIT-FOR-TAT: “[H]ow did it win the tournament? By allowing all the other strategies to eliminate each other. (`Let you and him fight!' he [Rappaport] explained). He gave some examples to illustrate the principle. A former student of his had developed a scenario called a `truel'--a duel for three shooters, all of whom should shoot at the same moment. The first man is known to be a crack shot; he hits his target 95% of the time. The second man is almost as good a shot; he hits his target 90% of the time. The third man is a poor shot; he can hit a target only 50% of the time. So which of these three `truelists' is most likely to survive? Answer: the third guy. The other two men will kill each other, leaving the worst marksman unscathed. TIT-FOR-TAT's victory represented a similar outcome: it allowed the other strategies to kill each other off." (Metta Spencer, “Rappaport at Ninety," Connections magazine, www.sfu.ca/@slinsna.connections-web/volume24-3/metta.web.pdf).

[25]Quote taken from a blog referring to Ron Burt's theory about structural holes. INSNA's Burt is director of the Leadership Institute of Raytheon, the military-industrial giant. www.ux-sa.com/2007/09/structural-holes-and-online-social.html

[26]. “The Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab creates insight into how computing products--from websites to mobile phone software--can be designed to change what people believe and what they do. For that reason, we're studying Facebook--it's highly persuasive." http://credibilityserver.stanford.edu/captology/facebook

[27]See footnote 9.

[28]Center for Models of Life, out of the Niels Bohr Institute. http://cmol.nbi.dk/models/inforew/inforew.html cmol.nbi.dk/models/infore#CF605

[29]Remember Matrix II?

“The new philosophy of human interrelations, sociometry, gives us a methodology and guide for determination of the central structure of society through the evocation of spontaneity of the human subject-agents. These factors, once located and diagrammed, supply us with the basis upon which the planning of all the many facets and activities of society may be undertaken--from juvenile and adult education to super-governments and world states."

And, “The task of the social scientist is to invent the adequate tools for the exploration of a chosen domain. On the level of human interrelationships , this domain is made up of the interactive spontaneities of all the individuals composing it. Therefore, the task of the social scientist becomes the shaping of the tools in the fashion as to enable him to arouse the individual to the required point of spontaneity on a scale which runs all the way to the maximum. But individuals cannot be aroused--or only to an insignificant degree--by undynamic or automatic means. The individuals must be adequately motivated so that the full strength of their spontaneous responses is evoked. Thus, the intention and shaping of methods for social investigation and the stirring up of reactions, thoughts and feelings of the people on whom they are used must go hand in hand." “Sociometric View of the Community," J.L. Moreno. Moreno is known as a pioneer in “psychodrama," and developed sociometry.

[30]Charles Kadushin, “The Next Ten Years," Connections, 1988.

[31]www.insna.org/INSNA/na_inf.html. The quote is from Roger Brown of the University of Michigan, who did a study on the sociological impact of the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

[32]Georg Simmel, op cit., footnote 23.

[33]Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. “For Today's Young Adults: Kepler & Cusa," Executive Intelligence Review, March 2, 2007.

Return to subject index

Return to main index