The "Real" Story of the Tavistock Institute  What did they do to us?

The image is blunt, designed to shock. Red letters, a single line: Top secret brainwashing think tank. It speaks to a deeper, older worry. Most people behave like a crowd, even though they carry brains capable of independent thought. The question is not whether influence exists. The question is how to separate documented influence from speculation that collapses gaps into conspiracy.

This piece pursues that separation. I use three clear categories: Documented fact, evidence-based inference, and responsible speculation. For each claim, I name which category it sits in, and I list the documentary trace inline so you know exactly what I mean. My aim is precise: to explain how Tavistock’s methods could have been used to influence thought and behaviour, to show what the archives and public record actually say, and to set out the exact evidence that would convert possibility into proof.

Clinic and Institute, two different realities

The Tavistock Clinic began in 1920 as a mental health service. It treated trauma, neurosis, and later contributed to community psychiatry within the UK health system. The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations emerged after World War II. Formally established in 1947, it was conceived as an independent body to study group behaviour, organisations, and community relations. The Institute’s founders were clinicians and academics who had worked in wartime psychiatry, selection boards, and rehabilitation programs. Those wartime experiences shaped the institute’s early agenda: how groups form, how leaders emerge, and how organisations function under stress (Tavistock Institute archives and early institutional histories). Category: documented fact.

Money and motives

Foundations financed the work. The Rockefeller Foundation provided early grants that helped get the Institute started and shaped its early agenda (Rockefeller Archive Center grant files and foundation correspondence). Foundation records, grant proposals, and progress reports show the financial link. This matters because funders set priorities and influence what questions get researched. Foundation support does not prove malicious intent. It does, however, create a chain of influence worth tracing.

Methods and outputs: what Tavistock actually built

Tavistock promoted methods that work. Group relations workshops, therapeutic communities, sociotechnical systems design, and selection boards are concrete innovations. The Northfield experiments and War Office Selection Boards from the wartime era are well documented (wartime reports and published clinical papers). After the war, the Institute published research, consulted for industry and trained practitioners. The academic journal Human Relations hosted early debates and made the methods public (early issues of Human Relations and papers by Eric Trist and colleagues). These methods were designed to diagnose and change group behaviour. Category: documented fact.

Influence is real. Control as total command is not proven

There is a sliding scale from influence to control. Influence happens when ideas migrate. Practitioners leave, start consultancies, join ministries, sit on advisory boards, and carry techniques into new contexts. That diffusion of methods is well documented and explains how Tavistock’s ideas shaped management and policy in the second half of the 20th century (career records, consultancy lists, and government contract databases). None of this requires sinister design. It is how knowledge travels. Category: evidence-based inference.

However, there is another historical fact that opens the question of covert use. Intelligence agencies and state propaganda units have used research institutions, hospitals and universities for persuasion and covert experiments. The US MKUltra program, declassified British propaganda programs and wartime psychological operations show real examples of state actors repurposing social science (declassified MKUltra files and UK Government wartime information department records). The existence of these programs creates a plausible route by which any research institute could be enlisted, used indirectly, or misused by third parties. Category: documented fact and context.

Where the loudest claims come from

Claims that Tavistock is a global mind-control engine, the origin of every social movement, or the hidden hand behind pop culture are not new. They consolidate in polemical books and online cascades. The argument pattern is familiar: identify personnel overlap, note grant money, point to influence, then assert centralized orchestration. Popular authors have compiled such linkages into sweeping narratives (polemical works such as John Coleman’s Conspirators’ Hierarchy and Daniel Estulin’s Tavistock Institute: Social Engineering the Masses, and the many derivative websites). These works are often passionate and readable. They are not, however, primary-archive-based proof. Category: documented origin of a narrative, not proof.

What a rigorous investigator looks for

To move from plausible use to proven covert operation, we need documentary signatures. The kind of evidence that would convert a hypothesis into a firm claim includes:

• Grant or contract language explicitly naming persuasion targets and desired cultural outcomes, signed by government or intelligence bodies and the institute (contract documents and grant terms).
• Payment ledgers showing funds from agencies known to run covert influence programs directed to project accounts (payment records and foundation/accounting ledgers).
• Internal memos or minutes describing covert aims, or reporting frameworks that show operational objectives tied to persuasion (internal correspondence, board minutes).
• Correspondence between intelligence or government officers and institute staff requesting covert or deniable messaging operations (government-institute correspondence).
These are specific documentary objects. Finding them would change the debate from plausible routes to demonstrated practice. Category: testable standard for proof.

The Cass Review and the wake-up call

We do have a contemporary case where institutional practice produced real harm and where public review exposed previously opaque practices. The Tavistock & Portman NHS Trust’s Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) faced a major independent review. The Cass Review identified weaknesses in evidence, governance and decision-making that led to the service being reshaped (the Cass Review report and Tavistock & Portman public statements). This is not proof of past covert operations. It is a concrete example of how institutional culture can hide mistakes and how scrutiny can expose them. It is a reminder that oversight matters. Category: documented fact and a modern indicator for why archival work matters.

Plausible scenarios, ranked by probability

I offer three scenario buckets and the signatures that would confirm each.

1. Methods reused, no institutional conspiracy. High probability. Evidence would include consultancy contracts with the government and firms, public project reports, and career paths showing diffusion. This is already documented and needs no dramatic proof (government consultancy records and TIHR project lists).

2. Targeted covert contracts for specific aims. Medium probability. Evidence would include contracts with intelligence units or ministries describing persuasion aims and payments routed through third parties. Finding such contracts would be strong evidence (contract files naming intelligence units, payment ledgers, and correspondence).

3. Centralized long-term cultural control. Low probability. This requires coordinated directives, multi-decade funding lines explicitly tying cultural messaging to institute projects, and clear operational reporting. No such primary archive has so far emerged (absence of central directives in the Rockefeller and national archives).

How to test the strongest claims, step by step

The hunt is practical. Start with named archives and keyword lists, then expand.

• Rockefeller Archive Center. Request grant files and correspondence for the postwar period that mention the institute. Look for terms in the grant text that suggest intended social outcomes (Rockefeller grant files and committee minutes).
• National Archives UK. Search Cabinet Office, Foreign Office and Information Research Department files for references to institute staff or related projects (Cabinet and IRD file series).
• TIHR internal records and annual reports. Compare project lists to government contract databases and payment ledgers (TIHR annual reports and project archives).
• Declassified intelligence collections in the US and UK. Look for contractor names and signatures matching institute staff (declassified MKUltra-related files and intelligence contractor records).
• Prosopography. Map the careers of key figures. Where did they go, who hired them, and what projects followed? (career databases and institutional directories)

What this research cannot do today

At the time of writing, there is no single archive file that proves a centralized global mind-control program steered from Tavistock. That is an important negative finding. It does not settle every question. It does not mean that influence did not occur. It means that, on the strongest available standard of proof, the claim of a single hidden command centre is not borne out by the published record (searches of Rockefeller Archive Center grant files, TIHR annual reports and National Archives references to date). Category: evidence-based conclusion.

Practical takeaways and democratic safeguards

If the influence of social science is real, it should be visible and accountable. We need basic rules. Publish contract terms for behaviour-change programs that affect citizens. Install independent ethics oversight for experiments that test messaging on vulnerable groups. Make audit trails for consultant work public when public money is involved.

The danger is not the idea of influence. The danger is secrecy. Transparency is the antidote.

Conclusion

History ties Tavistock to powerful ideas and to influential patrons, and it ties social science to statecraft. That combination creates plausible routes by which methods might be repurposed for persuasion, and it demands careful archival work. So far the record shows influence, not centralized global control. That is not a dismissal. That is a standard for proof.

History shows that inconvenient truths rarely arrive wrapped as headlines. Often they surface in grant ledgers, in the footnotes of uneasy reports, or in the sudden revelation of a name on a contract (Rockefeller Archive Center grant files; TIHR internal correspondence). So far, the record ties Tavistock to powerful ideas and to influential patrons; it does not, on the evidence available today, prove a single hidden command centre that engineered modern life. But history also teaches us that proof frequently arrives from the most unexpected places. We will follow those traces where they lead.

Robert Ziehe

 

From Moving Objects to Moving Life

When most people hear the word telekinesis, they think of bent spoons, floating tables, or dramatic film scenes where the mind throws objects across a room. That image is so strong that it overshadows the deeper meaning hidden in the word itself.

Telekinesis comes from two Greek roots: tēle for “distant” and kínēsis for “movement.” The modern term was introduced in the late nineteenth century to describe mysterious movements of objects during séances. Whether those events were real, staged, or misunderstood is beside the point. What interests me is the metaphor: the idea of moving something at a distance without direct physical force.

When you take the concept out of the circus tent and treat it as a metaphor, it becomes surprisingly practical. Every day, we already move things “from a distance.” A well-timed email changes a decision in another office. A single sentence in a meeting shifts the entire discussion. A calm gesture steers a dog before the leash tightens. Nothing supernatural happens here, only the power of attention, timing, and intention. The movement is distant, but it is real.

There is a simple principle at work: where attention goes, energy follows. Words direct attention. Emotions carry it further. Timing decides whether it lands or is ignored. Visible actions turn intention into proof. Together, these elements explain why some people can move situations without raising their voice or lifting a hand.

Let’s look at them more closely:

• Language sets direction. Clear words are like coordinates on a map. They allow others to aim at the same point.

• Emotion carries weight. Flat statements rarely travel far. Honest emotion makes a message resonate.

• Timing creates leverage. The right words at the wrong time fall flat. The same words at the right moment can shift an entire system.

• Visible action builds trust. A small, consistent act proves that the intention is real.

When you combine these elements, you are already practicing a form of telekinesis, not in the sense of floating objects, but in moving people, systems, and outcomes.

Why then did the word get reduced to stage tricks and comic books? Probably because the literal picture is simple and spectacular: an object levitates, the crowd gasps, and the show is over. The metaphor, on the other hand, asks more of us. It requires discipline, practice, and awareness. It turns telekinesis from a parlor trick into a lifelong skill: the ability to move life itself.

This way of thinking also explains resistance. Systems have inertia, people have habits, and animals have patterns. Pushing harder rarely works. Rhythm does. A steady signal builds trust. Trust reduces friction. Less friction means more movement.

Meaning also plays a role. Nothing has built-in meaning. We give meaning to events. If we interpret a delay as disrespect, we react with anger and create more resistance. If we interpret the same delay as a missing structure, we create a process,
and suddenly, cooperation flows. Meaning changes how our signals are received, and that shapes the movement that follows.

Reclaimed in this way, telekinesis is not about breaking the laws of physics. It is about learning how to move what lies outside our direct reach by refining what we can control: our words, our emotions, our timing, our actions, and the meaning we attach to events.

You can start practicing today. Pick one outcome you want within the next twenty-four hours. Write one clear sentence that names it. Breathe the feeling that matches it. Take one visible step that points toward it. Choose the moment carefully. At the end of the day, look for proof that something has moved. Then repeat.

The truth is that we move life not by magic, but by clarity and rhythm. That is the telekinesis worth practicing: the art of moving what matters, even when it seems beyond our reach.

Applauding Murder Is Not Justice. It’s Collapse.

A man was shot on stage.
People cheered.

That’s all you need to know to understand how far we've fallen.

There are videos online right now, some viral, of people celebrating the moment Charlie Kirk was gunned down. Not hours later. Not after the facts were in. Immediately. While others stood frozen, one man pumped his fist in joy. Laughing. Triumphant.

Let that sink in.

A bullet enters a human body, and that became cause for celebration.

This isn’t politics. This isn’t activism. This is sickness.

It doesn’t matter what you think of Charlie Kirk.
It doesn’t matter what he said, what he stood for, who he voted for.

No one deserves to be executed for speaking.
And no one should ever be applauded for pulling a trigger.

There is no nuance here. No complexity.
If you celebrate death, you are part of the decay.

And if you find yourself laughing, clapping, or making content out of a murder, then you’ve been fully captured by the machine. Your soul has already been traded for a dopamine hit.

This is not a random event. This is where dehumanization leads.
First, you cancel. Then you mock. Then you erase.
Eventually, someone pulls the trigger, and the crowd goes wild.

We’ve been here before.
Every empire that collapsed into violence walked this path.
Every totalitarian regime started by degrading human life, and getting the crowd to cheer.

I will not soften this. I will not hide behind “but also” or “however.”
What I see online is evil.

The joy. The hunger. The complete lack of conscience.

That’s the real threat.

When a society claps for a killing, it is already dead on the inside.

And so I say this without hesitation:
I condemn it. Every second of it.

I don’t care who it was. I don’t care what the motive was.
We don’t fix the world by becoming murderers in spirit.
We don’t heal by hating.
We don’t awaken by dehumanizing.

You can call it justice.
You can call it karma.
You can call it whatever makes you sleep at night.

But what you applauded was a killing.
And that makes you part of the problem.

Let’s see who has the spine to share this.
Not for me. Not for clicks.
But because there’s still something human left inside you, and it knows what you saw was wrong.

Silence now is consent.

 

How Taxes Should Really Be Treated

For as long as there have been organized states, there have been taxes. In Egypt, Rome, and throughout medieval Europe, rulers demanded contributions to fund wars, build palaces, or secure their own power. Time and again this led to discontent and uprisings, from the Peasants’ Revolt in Germany to the American Revolution, which began with the famous words: “No taxation without representation.”

Today, taxes are firmly embedded in modern constitutions, in Germany’s Basic Law, in Switzerland’s Federal Constitution. But the core problem remains: the state is at once legislator, administrator, and beneficiary of taxes. It controls itself, and public trust continues to erode.

The Idea of Reform

Imagine this: the state is no longer “the boss” but the employee of the people. It does not manage its own funds but applies for resources to cover basic needs and projects. Approval and oversight are carried out by an independent institution, composed of citizens and entrepreneurs from different backgrounds, supported by experts and modern technology.

This is exactly what a draft law for a new Article envisions:

• Independent Institution: Comprised of citizens and entrepreneurs, two-year terms, no re-election.

• Budget Control: The federal government submits a budget; expenses beyond basic needs must be justified and approved.

• Transparency: All revenues and expenditures are publicly accessible.

• Sanctions: Deception, abuse, or undue influence are punishable by loss of office, fines, and prison sentences.

• Crisis Fund: For extraordinary emergencies, with clear criteria and time limits.

The institution would include 400–550 people, divided into a citizen/entrepreneur chamber, expert departments (finance, law, technology & AI, communication), and support staff. It would be funded independently of taxes, through business contributions (max. 0.01% of turnover), fines, and optionally a tiny share of VAT (0.1%). Annual cost: €70–90 million, about 0.02% of the federal budget. The potential savings from more efficient spending could reach billions.

The Core Principle

The principle is simple:
The state is the employee of the people, not the other way around.

That would mean: citizens and entrepreneurs, as the true drivers of the economy and society, take responsibility for ensuring that tax money is used wisely, transparently, and in everyone’s interest.

The final question is:
Who among you would support such a law?