What was josephs relationship with godlike productions

Bernays and Tavistock | INFRAKSHUN

It appears that some of his editors, such as the British Paul Joseph Watson are . Two of his regular culprits are the Vatican and the Council on Foreign Relations. Godlike Productions is forum for discussing conspiracy. ITK7: Godlike Productions (GLP) BANS posters for typing “C2Media”, . Clinic, Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, currently known as Tavistock named Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI=16th Card of the. Post subject: Godlike Productions Reply with quote. Seems that ever since their . So, we want to know if there is any connection between the new owners of dayline.info and .. Deal handled by C. Joseph Giroir. II. Giroir is the Rose law.

He believed it was key to the success of propaganda techniques and urged the US government to ratchet up the fear quota in relation to communism so that the public would become more compliant and malleable to suggestion.

He was employed by marketing and advertising companies as well as celebrities, charities and government agencies. Soap, perfume, cigarettes and commerce were all used as an experimental testing ground which proved time and again to be successful in predicting and leading public desires to prearranged outcomes.

His task was to assist in the preparation of the American mind to accept and support entry into the First World War. Brainstorming sessions took place where the main target of propaganda operations were young working class men who were required to become machine-gun and cannon fodder on the fields of Flanders and the Somme, all of which was unknown to the American public. The funding came firstly, from the British Royal Family, Rockefeller family trusts and several years later from the Rothschilds, to whom Lord Rothmere was related by marriage.

The tripartite relations of the arms industry, banking and Elite designs is a lucrative ideological and geopolitical formula that have defined the financial architecture up to the present day. As Lord Rothmere owned both The Times of London and the Daily Mail it was deemed more than feasible that the shaping of the Anglo-American mind in favour of war could proceed.

They discovered that the ability to reason was poor amongst the population, especially the uneducated which made up the vast majority of conscripts. It was the stimulation of mass emotional reaction accompanied by appropriate slogans and images of national pride and family protection that proved the greatest success.

John Coleman and his own research tells us: With the Tavistock plan modified to suit American conditions, Bernays and Lippmann led President Woodrow Wilson to set up the very first Tavistock methodology techniques for polling manufacturing so-called public opinion created by Tavistock propaganda. The Creel Commission was the first such body of opinion-makers set up in the United States. This was the official starting point, but the ambitions of the Institute were far broader.

Selfishness, instinct, fear and the importance of Pavlovian responses sat upon an abiding materialism and distrust in human nature, all of which served to feed the machine of the 4Cs. Kurt Lewin became director of Tavistock in A ratline of psychologists began to create a conduit between the US and UK. Both authors drew from the usual neo-feudal beliefs which augmented the need to regulate and shape societies. This led to the Institute becoming host to renowned behavioural psychologists and the study of group psychodynamics.

This implanted conditioning meant that it became easier and easier to manipulate through an array of Pavlovian distractions. With the Special Operations Executive agreement between Roosevelt and Churchill already in place allowing British interests to dominate American operations, Dr. Lewin took on the directorship of the Strategic Bombing Survey, which was tasked with bombing civilian housing and avoiding military targets and munition depots inside Germany.

As we have established, World War II was a bonanza for the international bankers who did not want to see their liquid assets destroyed. Germany had always been a national asset to be preserved for a long term economic power base within Europe.

Instead, the ordinary German populace was to be the bulls-eye. The truth was rather different. He left inand went on to develop his own ideas, particularly with regard to Schizophrenia, which he suggested might be a natural, and understandable, curative process, rather than a disease of the mind. His view of schizophrenia, based largely on the concept of Family nexus, were explained in a series of famous books such as Sanity, Madness and the Family.

Laing is often associated with the Antipsychiatry movement. For example, Laing was on the staff of the Clinic, and not on the staff of the Institute. I understand that it is hard that there are two Tavistock Institutes: However, we must distinguish between them.

The place to differentiate between them is in the italicised header. Is there is not enough space, I suggest a disintermidation section at Tavistock movement or Group relations. There are a complicated lines of continuity of personel throughout, such that the names applied at any time are of less significance than the continuity of the work.

Banned From GLP ( GodLikeProductions ) HERE'S A SOLUTION CHECK IT OUT!!!

Ithink you are wrong about Laing and the clinic. He went to the Tavistock Institute to train in Psychoanalysis at the invitation of Jock Sutherland who was director of the Institute. He went into analysis with Charles Rycroft. The section above makes no mention of 'work'. It says correctly that he went to train, and such training was not at the clinic, and the people involved were not at the clinic. He may have worked also in the clinic.

This reference says that he worked as registrar at the clinic [2]. However, in another reference you will find the sentence 'as a research fellow working within the Tavistock Institute' [3]. He did research with Esterton at the 'Tavistock', but research has always been an activity of the Institute, though it may have involved the patients at the clinic.

Since the clinic, postwas NHS funded, it makes no sense that he trained or did research there as I am not aware of the research being NHS funded. I have now added more citations, all of first class quality - one two from the official WFMH site, one from the Nuremberg trial transcripts on a Yale University site.

The main citation from Trist confirms almost everything, and is from the man who became Chairman of the Tavistock Institute after Wilson! You can't get better than that! The intro could then be more of an overview.

No point though unless you will agree that the material is valid. I am refering this page into the mediation process.

Proof? DoglikeProductions Psy-Ops? IntelPro? - Who Else? *PIC*

The anonymous editor above refuses to attempt to win consesus on the Talk page. In an added complication, these are views which are similar to those argued by the Larouche movement, whose supporters are enjoined from editing this page.

Reverting this page without discussing content is not a content dispute, but a refusal to recognise good faith and to follow Wikipedia ettiquette. As such, this reversion constitutes vandalism.

I am issuing this anonymous editor with a warning for vandalism. I am offline for the next week, and ask other editors to review this page closely. I would appreciate other editors' comments, on this page or on that one. If it's a legitimate content dispute, I'll unprotect.

To the anon, please note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I'm therefore going to unprotect. If you want to write a proper history, go ahead, but you're twisting the material to give a vague impression of impropriety, which is not appropriate, and not so far as I can tell reflected in the texts you're using.

Is this not agreed? If the issue is an impression of impropriety, then surely we should just edit to improve, not take out key facts? If you are one person, please pick a User Name and use it consistently, I don't care if it is User: Just pick a name. Otherwise none of use here have any clue whether or not we are having a discussion with one person or an army of wandering drive-by editors. If this is not done, I will petition to have this page locked from any further anonymous edits.

I wonder if we should be looking back to the Enforcement request re: I think we are now in a revert war with supporters of the LaRouche view.

I am on holiday for the next week, but would appreciate it if you could stop by the page. Some of the material being introduced could be correct, however without precise references it is hard to validate. It certainly is the case that much of what is said is clearly mistaken, and needs to go through the Talk page first.

There has been not a single proper, reasoned objection to any of the entries. Locking pages when people are trying to reason things out doesn't seem a good idea to me.

I think you would do better to put in some work and read the citations, then tackle the issues one by one as the above editor suggested. I've seen vandalism and it is a problem.


Vandalism this is not. It's just consorship with refusal to discuss. But this anonymous multi-URL stuff has to stop. Edit in good faith. Edit with a single identity. And we move forward. If you take a look at its website, you'll get a good idea of what it does, and who its clients are. I suggest you give it a read. There is very good reason why the Tavistock institute resides within the City of London.

It's rather humorous that you would assume the truth comes direct from the institute itself via its phony website. That's like me running a brothel but creating a nice, clean, friendly website that covers it up. Very easy to do. Coleman's book is self-published, and is not a reputable source. I've been in the Institute. It's a tiny organisation with two open-plan office and no clinical work of any type.

I feel so much better now. Copied conversations with anon[ edit ] Anon, I can't know whether you'll receive my reply to your note, as you have no fixed talk page, so I'm copying it here: Hi 86, the problem with editing as an anon is that you're using different IP addresses, and as such it isn't easy for anyone to keep track of your edits.

For example, I don't even know whether you'll receive this response. If you log in and use one account only, it will improve communication, and you'll find that, over time, people will come to trust your edits more.

As for the content issue, I don't know what the exact issues are. I saw only that you're adding a lot of material, some of it unsourced, some of it sourced but with a highly selective use of the source material, and when it's removed, you keep reverting. A request was therefore made for page protection. Please take the opportunity to discuss your edits on the talk pages of the three articles, and make your case there.

In the meantime, it would also help if you would review our content policies: Godlike Productions is not universally well-accepted among fringers. A somewhat persistent idea is that sites such as GLP and Above Top Secret have been set up by the powers that be for some sinister purpose e. In the case of GLP there's the particular allegation that it is associated with the Tavistock Institute [2] which has an established place in the world of conspiracy theoristsand posting the name "Tavistock" will result in an automatic ban.

Several thread topics will include words like "naggers" and "dindus", and if one reads the threads, the overall racism of the site will become quite clear. Michelle Obamafor example, is referred to as "Moochelle" quite regularly, and a sizable number of the denizens on the site refer to her as a "wookie" there is even a common smiley depicting suchor believe her to actually be male.

Godlike Productions

A link to an article at Stormfront was pinned by a moderator as being worthy of value, showing the overall depths to which this site has dropped.

In more recent years, since Donald Trump 's election, content is heavily censored to support a racist perspective. Anyone suggesting even the most common sense racial etiquette will be met with bans and post deletion. Use of bots[ edit ] If you type a comment you'll notice another thread will bump either above or below yours.

Check that thread and you'll see that another comment is made at the exact same time you made your comment. Keep doing it and you can spot how many Bots are being used in the forum. Some of the Bots are under member accounts and some aren't. The new membership contract[ edit ] For the last couple of years, GLP has required a membership contract which you will see when accessing the site for the first time. It starts "You are attempting to enter a private internet forum.

Entrance to this private establishment requires membership but not an account. Apart from the usual rules you'll find anywhere else and which can be rather stringent, there are also some peculiar ones such as in effect disallowing users from quoting material posted on GLP elsewhere.