Psychological Warfare

Tavistock Agenda PsyWar Huxley vs. Orwell Introduction Holographic Control The Root Family Tree Draconian Utopia In the Stocks History Timeline Expanded Timeline End Notes CIA Tavi All Stars Players Video Links PsyOps Bibliography English Ideology Dumbing Down Propaganda Political Myths Credibility British Psychiatry What's New Paranoia MK Ultra Aquarian Conspiracy Operation Research US Clones Tavi Overview Tavistock NerveCenters Basic English Mind War Toxic Hypnosis Media Deception Controllers Delphi Counterculture Drug War Mass Media Blog Manipulation Fred Emery Trist History TV Programming Occult Jung EIN Power Elite Photo 2


Soviet Peoples War - Psychological Warfare at home and abroad

"The gigantic catastrophes that threaten us today are not elemental happenings of a physical or biological order, but psychic events. To a quite terrifying degree we are threatened by wars and revolutions which are nothing other than psychic epidemics. At any moment several millions of human beings may be smitten with a new madness, and then we shall have another world war or devastating revolution. Instead of being at the mercy of wild beasts, earthquakes, landslides, and inundations, modern man is battered by the elemental forces of his own psyche." - Carl Gustav Jung

"During times of universal deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

“The conflicting propaganda of opposing parties is essentially what leads to political abstention. But this is not the abstention of the free spirit which asserts itself; it is the result of resignation, the external symptom of a series of inhibitions. Such a man has not decided to abstain; under diverse pressures, subjected to shocks and distortions, he can no longer (even if he wanted to) perform a political act. What is even more serious is that this inhibition not only is political, but also progressively takes over the whole of his being and leads to a general attitude of surrender.” — Jacques Ellul,  Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes

“For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.” - George Orwell

Research into the use of microwave weapons and their use for mind control began in 1950s at the Tavistock Institute, one of Britain's leading psychiatric research establishments. The UK institute was researching into ways of mind controlling the British population without them knowing. The monkey submission response, whereby the dominant monkey caused submissive behaviour in the underlings, was the brain state of most interest to the British scientists. Having found this specific brain rhythm for docile submissive, zombie-like behaviour, it was then recorded and used as the template for the ELF signal beamed on UK microwave transmitters. Britain was the first discoverer of microwave technology, used for radar, in the 1940s and therefore had a commanding lead over everyone else in this field.--Tim Rifat


THE CENTURY OF THE SELF - Freud's influence on culture, PR & consumerism

Part 2 controlling the masses

Part 3 Freud opponents; derepressed inner self

Part 4




Get an education on the dumbing down of education via The Tavistock Method



Download “Propaganda” By Edward L. Bernays free E-book in pdf from











In 1970, Stefan Possony described the characteristics of people's war, virtually impossible to distinguish from the Tavistock Method, as follows:40

  • People's war is a long drawn-out or protracted revolution. Its unavoidable duration is exploited by guerillas to bankrupt their opponents politically, morally, and economically.41...The most practical objective of guerilla warfare is to create chaotic conditions in the target country and prevent effective, efficient, and good government.

  • The key concept of a people's war is to build up dual power by means of guerilla warfare. Dual power means the existence of two sets of power institutions, authorities, and government-like administration functioning side-by-side competitively.

  • The transition of power from government No. 1 to government No. 2 is to be accomplished by withdrawing the loyalty of the population from the pre-existing government and bestowing it on the emerging government, while simultaneously providing it with legitimacy. This transition constitutes the revolutionary process.

  • Victory means that one or the other government prevails. Defeat means that one or the other government (or regime) disappears [author's emphasis]. The transfer of loyalty depends in large measure upon the success of violent guerilla operations.42

Some of its tactical methods include:

  1. The use of propaganda to deprive its enemy of its legitimacy and outside support....Propaganda, especially if it is attended by conquest, is the prime method through which legitimacy is withdrawn and attributed to a new power elite.43 In this context, propaganda has a special purpose: "As the war appears and disappears from the news but for years continues to rage, world public opinion is being conditioned to accept rebel victory as inevitable and pre-destined."44
  2. Destroying the enemy's economy.
  3. Promoting anti-militarism and encouraging defections from the army, stimulation of desertion and mutiny.45
  4. Mass terror as a "psychological" operation to weaken the enemy's forces and morale, and strengthen the guerillas.46
  5. Securing intelligence and denying intelligence to the enemy.47

Beyond these specific tactics, there are several basic principles which an insurgent group must observe: 1) staying in existence; 2) modifying the pace of hostilities; and 3) securing and maintaining safe sanctuaries and mobility. The foremost aim of an insurgent force, whether it is violent or non-violent, is to avoid annihilation, for which purpose it must avoid visible organization, concentration, and battle. The insurgent force is not interested in speed, but in long-term survival and growth - it must reckon in decades.48 With regard to the pace of hostilities, "the war goes away and returns. Strategic management can be improved by alternating the centers of gravity, re-escalating and de-escalating, multiple diversions, changes of targets, and through concealment and propaganda."

The most significant of the five Studies in Prejudice, produced for the AJC during 1944-50, was The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper, 1950). Authors Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford assembled a large research team from the Berkeley Public Opinion Study and the International Institute of Social Research, to conduct thousands of interviews of Americans, to profile their allegedly deep-seated tendencies toward authoritarianism, prejudice, and anti-Semitism. Dr. William Morrow, the leading protégé of Dr. Kurt Lewin, who was one key, bridge figure between the Frankfurt School and the Tavistock Institute, was a research director for the Authoritarian Personality project.

The study was an exercise in self-fulfilling prophecy and Marxist/Freudian self-delusion. Long before the first survey questionnaire was drafted, Horkheimer and Adorno had written exhaustively about the ``authoritarian'' character of the American nuclear family, about the ``problem'' of the American people's belief in a transcendent monotheistic God, and about the underlying fascist character of all forms of American patriotism. They ``cooked'' the survey data, in advance, by devising a series of scales, purporting to measure the American population's tendency toward anti-Semitism, ethnocentricity, anti-democratic ideology, and, ultimately, fascism. Not surprisingly, the research team found the American public ``guilty as charged,'' and produced dire warnings that, unless a dramatic overhaul of the American ideology and mass culture were carried out, America would soon emerge as a Fourth Reich, repeating the horrors of Hitler on an even grander scale.

The authors of The Authoritarian Personality let it all hang out in the concluding chapter of the book, in which they summarized their findings and spelled out their recipe for social transformation:

``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.''

The authors conclude with this most revealing proposition: ``We need not suppose that appeal to emotion belongs to those who strive in the direction of fascism, while democratic propaganda must limit itself to reason and restraint. If fear and destructiveness are the major emotional sources of fascism, eros belongs mainly to democracy.''

Eros was precisely the weapon that the Frankfurt School and their fellow-travellers employed, over the next 50 years, to create a cultural paradigm shift away from the so-called ``authoritarian'' matrix of man in the living image of God (imago viva Dei), the sanctity of the nuclear family, and the superiority of the republican form of nation-state over all other forms of political organization. They transformed American culture toward an erotic, perverse matrix, associated with the present ``politically correct'' tyranny of tolerance for dehumanizing drug abuse, sexual perversion, and the glorification of violence. For the Marxist/Freudian revolutionaries of the Frankfurt School, the ultimate antidote to the hated Western Judeo-Christian civilization was to tear that civilization down, from the inside, by turning out generations of necrophiliacs.

If this statement seems harsh, consider the following. In his 1948 work on
The Philosophy of Modern Music, Frankfurt School leader Theodor Adorno argued that the purpose of modern music is to literally drive the listener insane. He justified this by asserting that modern society was a hotbed of evil, authoritarianism, and potential fascism, and that, only by first destroying civilization, through the spread of all forms of cultural pessimism and perversity, could liberation occur. On the role of modern music, he wrote, ``It is not that schizophrenia is directly expressed therein; but the music imprints upon itself an attitude similar to that of the mentally ill. The individual brings about his own disintegration.... He imagines the fulfillment of the promise through magic, but nonetheless within the realm of immediate actuality.... Its concern is to dominate schizophrenic traits through the aesthetic consciousness. In so doing, it would hope to vindicate insanity as true health.'' Necrophilia, he added, is the ultimate expression of ``true health'' in this sick society.



Lucian Hudson, Consultant on Collaborative Strategies

Lucian Hudson advises on collaborative strategies to help organizations achieve greater impact. He has recently produced a report for the FCO on what makes for effective partnership and collaboration, examining the relationship between governments, business and non-government organisations (NGOs). He has involved more than 100 organizations globally, including 20 governments, and 10 international institutions.

From September 2006 until June this year, Lucian was the FCO Director of Communication. He created and led for the first time in the FCO’s history a singlecommunication directorate, and a global network of 200 communicators. This drew together strategic communication, public diplomacy, media, internal communication and stakeholder engagement. He led the first change programme to mainstream communication.

Previously, Lucian led the UK government’s Media Emergency Forum, and co-chaired a Cabinet Office working group involving government departments, emergency services and media representatives to agree and implementnew rules of engagement after 9/11. He was the principal communications adviser to the government's Risk Group, and oversaw implementation of the Freedom of Information Act in all government communication directorates.

Between 2004 and 2006, he was Director of Communications, DCA (now Ministry of Justice), and chaired the department’s crisis management team. Between 2001 and 2004, he was Director of Communications and Chief Knowledge Officer at the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Lucian was seconded to the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) to run media operations at the height of the foot and mouth crisis in 2001 from his post as the government’s first Director of e-Communications. He launched the UK government’s first web portal, andestablished the firstUKonline marketing strategy.

Before joining the Civil Service, he was editorial director of a following a 16-year career with the BBC and ITV, as a television executive, programme editor and producer.

For seven years, Lucian led two not-for-profit organizations, the Tavistock Institute, and the Rory Peck Trust.

Collaboration- The Case for Strategic Pragmatism 



Lucian J. Hudson,

Adviser on Collaborative Strategies

Former Director of Communication, FCO

Why this report, and why now?  

  • Collaboration: an idea right for its time. When it works, huge advantage; when difficult, Boy is it difficult!
  • Set of intractable problems, and social goals, that can’t be achieved by one organization, or by governments, business or NGOs working alone.
  • Redefining organizational fitness-for-purpose: CSR, collaboration and innovation all go hand in hand.

Ground covered 

  • What is collaboration
  • What makes for effective collaboration
  • Impact on organizations
  • Social collaboration
  • Possibilities

FCO Report: Collaboration and its Possibilities 

  • More than 100 organizations

contributed globally, including

20 governments.

  • More than 200 contacts,

with a core virtual group of 20.

  • British Ambassadors survey

(with support from Booz & Co)

  • Chevening alumni network


Key visits and events during


  • Mexico, New Europe (Poland,

Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary)

  • Shell International, Lloyds TSB,

Futerra Communications

  • European Commission, NATO and

UN Geneva-based international


  • Sanofi Pasteur pandemic

Preparedness symposium, Portugal;

IPRA round-table.  

Support from British Library, Said Business School at Oxford University,

and London Business School


  • My experience of 25 Posts. Career experience of collaboration. Return to classic texts. Tavistock Institute ideal of multi-disciplinary integration.
  • Interviews and sustained correspondence. Access to governments, business and NGOs.
  • Key intellectual inspirations: Stamp, QinetiQ team, Huxham, Murray, Grint, Losada, Allen, Cull, Anholt, public diplomacy network. Key practitioner inspirations: 19 leaders panel.
  • Developing one’s own approach: “suspending assumptions while explain them to the other”. Advocacy/inquiry mix. The “interested” enabler. The “enterprising” public servant.

Reflection on the practice: step back to get ahead! 

  • My own experience as a practitioner. Taking a step back to be even more strategic - and innovative about policy.
  • A report on collaboration was itself an exercise in collaboration.
  • Conceptual approach vs. lived experience: 4 types of knowledge.
  • Management & business studies: relevance and priority
  • Personal mastery. Dealing with the “shadow” of Myers-Briggs scores. Translation and transformation.

Case for strategic pragmatism  


“Collaboration, by its very nature, means that traditional means of control - market and hierarchy - cannot be used to manage relations among participating organizations. Instead, it depends on the ongoing negotiation of relationships by individuals who are both participants in the collaboration, and, at the same time, accountable to and representative of the diverse organizations and communities involved in, and affected by, it.”

Hardy and Grant, 2005. Quoted in: Lotia and Hardy (2008) pp. 366-367 

Case for optimism  

“If we combine our efforts with other people’s efforts, we can make our resources go further, and achieve more impact.” 

Steven Fisher, Deputy Head of Mission, British Embassy, Budapest 

“Whether you are a manager in the public or private sector, collaboration taps a source of value that includes, but goes so much further than, price- the value of what people can accomplish together if they really apply themselves, and organizations support and develop them”.

Verna Stewart, Strategic Relationship Director, Strategic Development Solutions, Lloyds TSB 

“Companies that do not transparently communicate their

sustainability performance are running out of excuses”

Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Chairman, Anglo-American

Case for caution 

“You have to be tough-minded and have enough sensitivity to make collaboration work. It’s not just people who have egos; organizations have egos too.”

Diplomat in one of the NATO missions, Brussels

Challenge for Social Collaboration 






Business can be more strategic than government but expects government to deliver on any collaboration 

NGO perspective: Are governments allies, targets or partners? Issues: independence, funding 

Different tensions in role of NGOs:  
advocacy, delivering services, enabling solutions or problem-solving, improving governance or transparency, harnessing new or existing markets 

Corporate Social Responsibility: not just PR but business strategy 

Governments alone can't achieve social goals. Private sector investment and responsibility & NGO expertise and networks needed. 

We are not bystanders. We want solutions 

Is our role as architects, builders & interested enablers as much as leaders?

Civil Society: evolution of roles 

    NGOs can perform one or more of the following roles,

    regardless of whether they were large or small, global,

    national, regional or local: 

  • Advocacy: pursuit and promotion of policy objectives
  • Delivery of services: complementing or substituting for government or other public service provision
  • Enabling solutions or problem-solving, working with government or business
  • Improving governance, rule of law, transparency
  • Harnessing existing or new markets in countries where NGO credibility and reliability helps business achieve legitimacy and local support.

NGO waves of evolution 

  • Foundation wave
  • Transformation wave
  • Collaboration wave

Source: Gib Bulloch, Accenture Development Partnerships 

NGO rethinks strategy & priorities

Investment in IT 

Organizations and sector address entire approach

Investment in human capital/training 

New era where governments, businesses & NGOs work together seamlessly

Evolution of role of business 

  • Collaboration: innovation and productivity
  • Intractable problems: business opportunities
  • Shaping, not just responding to, economic environments
  • Tapping invisible value: brand equity and reputation
  • Civic action, not just compliance

Government/Business evolution 

The reasons behind these investments are straightforward: self-interest. Companies that rely on the natural resources and human capital of emerging markets are investing and instituting sustainable development practices and education initiatives in partnership with the U.S. government because both government foreign assistance programs and companies alike are dependent on the global economy. Because of this reliance, both the public and private sector are motivated to act.” James Thompson, US State Department  

Coca-Cola Company invest millions in an alliance between USAID and local bottling facilities in Africa, Asia and South America to conserve water resources  

Starbucks Corporation work with Verde Ventures, Calvert Foundation, EcoLogic Finance, Conservation International and USAID to finance more than $12m in loans for rural entrepreneurs in Latin & Central America  

MTV provide technological resources to a $13m alliance between USAID and MTV Europe Foundation to increase awareness and prevent trafficking of women and children for forced labour and sexual abuse

Effective collaboration between business, governments and regulators  

  • Taking a strategic, long-term view of the regulatory framework in which business operates;
  • Creating an effective dialogue between the regulator and those regulated;
  • Recognizing that the languages of business and regulation can be different- and making the effort to understand those differences;
  • Allocating time and resources to collaborating on the co-design of regulations;
  • Investing in the development of the personal relationships and mutual trust that are necessary to achieved shared objectives.

Source: 11th Annual Global CEO Survey, PwC

Case study: M-PESA 

  • Vodafone and Safaricom, Kenya, with DFID funding, launched M-PESA, a mobile phone-based payment service that targeted customers in Kenya who didn’t have bank accounts.
  • Lack of infrastructure in Kenya in fixed-line telephony, and in banking, ensured growth of pre-pay mobile telephones and a means to transfer money.
  • DFID funding enabled the companies to spend more time on ‘needs assessment’ in the product development phase, brought expertise in the financial sector and gave the project a high profile.
  • Stakeholders (Kenyan government, NGOs, International Organisations and private sector) have assisted with regulatory buy-in to the M-PESA service.
  • Massive customer up-take in project’s first year indicates pent up demand for simple financial transaction services.

Case study: Tourism Industry Emergency Response (TIER) 

Following the London bombings of 7 July 2005, TIER went

into action to:

  • Provide accurate, consistent information to reassure and inform visitors
  • Promote a clear ‘business as usual’ message in UK and international media
  • Ensure media worldwide and UK Government are given consistent messages from Britain’s tourism industry
  • Limit speculation as to the possible financial impact of 7 July and provide the authoritive impact assessment
  • Leverage opportunities to demonstrate consumer confidence and kickstart recovery.

The TIER campaign effectively brought together in a

collaborative arrangement Britain’s vast and fragmented

tourism industry to communicate with one voice.

Evaluation: Yes, please: more, and better 

  • UN Report on Partnerships (2005)
  • The Global Fund (2008)
  • PwC Annual Global CEO Survey (2008)
  • World Economic Forum Leaders Report (2008)





Hard power 



Soft power 

Increasing requirement for collaborative resolution 

COMMAND: Provide answer 

MANAGEMENT: Organize process 

LEADERSHIP: Ask questions 

Increasing uncertainty about solution to problem 

Leadership response to types of problem  

Source: Grint, K. (2005) p.1477

Drivers of effective collaboration 

To be effective, experience indicates that on the whole, collaboration

builders need to:

  • Think of collaboration as part of a bigger play

    Align the collaboration with strategy to deliver, if possible, the highest common denominator - collaboration can be at the heart of plans, or complement and reinforce other plans.

2. Achieve results with genuine, more broad-based support Combine effectiveness with legitimacy, particularly if the collaboration itself can’t deliver changes, but the combined effort of others in society can, if motivated and inspired to behave differently.

  • Keep up the focus and momentum, and secure meaningful involvement from most partners

    Lead and manage with and through others, managing complexity, uncertainty, ambiguity and difference- yet accept trade-offs to achieve the common end.

4. Experiment, evolve and improve

    Adapt to, and try to shape, immediate and wider environments- the collaborative world is not about winning an argument, but working together to do what’s right, now and in the future.

15 steps needed to implement a collaborative strategy  

  • Clarify the purpose
  • Aim high
  • Strive for commonality of interest
  • Evaluate success
  • Create value – and demonstrate values
  • Understand the different contexts in which collaboration operates
  • Use political intelligence
  • Show long-term commitment
  • Use all four types of knowledge
  • Establish common principles
  • Decide the timing
  • Manage the dynamics
  • Exploit creative potential
  • Tap the undercurrents
  • Tap the talent
  • Aim high

Aiming high in collaboration means raising the sights

of what negotiations can produce in creating and

delivering value.  

  • Strive for commonality of interest

All the best negotiations aspire to reaching what

economists call the Pareto optimum - the point of

agreement which favours each side equally,

maximising the gains, and minimizing the losses.  

Cycle of Collaboration: 7 Steps 

    1. Identify, assess, and act on the opportunity - political, economic and

    social dividends 

    2. Design collaboration, attract and select partners 

    3. Convene: gather information and build relationships 

    4. Frame challenge and opportunity; explore options and


    5. Align interests, focus the choice 

    6. Establish and require personal and organizational commitment 

    7. Decide, implement, review and learn

Collaborative partnerships model 


Collaboration complementary to main focus of organization 


collaboration even more of an option 


Collaboration essential 



collaboration an option 



Upper limit 

Natural ‘floor’ 


Indicator value 

Zone 1:

“Things are going well, and we can

always do better” 

Zone 2:

“Things look

good but it doesn’t feel


Zone 3:

“Things are going wrong, and unless decisive action is taken they will get worse” 

Zone 4:

“Things are better, everything feels back to normal but can we count on that” 

Source: Hudson, Dodd, Marsay, Stamp & QinetiQ, 2008 

Collaboration: its impact on organizations 

  • Depending on context and environment, collaboration can become even more important, and the main way in which organizations shape their efforts.
  • Collaboration provides a way of achieving what is not immediately possible, especially in a turbulent environment. It can become the engine for change and renewed growth.
  • Collaboration can be seen as a temporary organization and transitional space in which to foster innovation and learning, essential for long-term survival.

How we can all raise our game to make collaboration work 

  • In the context of achieving social goals, governments can think as much about their role as architects and builders (shaping the conditions in which collaboration happens, and delivering their part in it), as about their role as leaders (taking the primary responsibility for securing results).
  • Despite evidence of increasing collaboration as a source of business success, the full potential of collaboration has yet to be reached.
  • Companies find themselves under social, as well as competitive, pressure. They are subject to new levels of transparency, whether in response to changes in corporate governance, or to public concerns on environment or consumer rights.
  • Corporate social responsibility is a means for companies to better connect with their stakeholders and customers, as well as their own employees.
  • NGOs can play a crucial role in delivering on social goals, particularly in development- but they need to better equipped for the challenges that lie ahead.

“[If] the health of any society is only as secure as the medical conditions of the

worst-off society, whose infections can circle the globe in hours, there must be

ample reason for GlaxoSmithKline or Pfizer to join with the WHO to improve

preventive care and early warning systems in the poorest countries.”

“International NGOs do not have that basis in legitimacy that is provided by

democratic processes. What is needed is greater transparency in the operations and funding of NGOs. Among the most important NGOs, although we don’t think of them this way, are multinational corporations. Just as governments in the era of the market state will have to learn the business methods of wealth creation, so businessmen- however much they dislike it- will have to learn the methods of winning public consent, for they have truly global interests.”

Philip Bobbitt ‘Terror and Consent’ 2008 

“Public governance is a global issue. No longer can businesses, governments or non-governmental organizations afford to act independently of each other - the stakes are just too high. Only through a combined effort can we achieve economic growth, sustainability, and create an opportunity for a better life for people everywhere.“

John Connolly, Chairman, Global Board, Deloitte



Dr. Jose Delgado
    "Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electrically control the brain. Some day armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain."


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