#globalists

A Stanford professor has organised a statement calling on policymakers and technology leaders to build policies and institutions to address the rapid rollout of AI because it will disrupt economies.

Less than a week before, his work was cited in the UN’s first global report assessing artificial intelligence capabilities, risks and impacts.  A report which reads like the UN is attempting to take control of the global narrative using AI.

But that’s not all. The professor’s institution at Stanford is a partner in projects involving human augmentation using AI and neuroscience.

Quartz published an article yesterday titled ‘Economists are coming around to the idea that AI really is killing jobs’, describing a statement released the day before by economists and researchers titled ‘We Must Act Now’. The statement warns that AI "could bring risks, including large-scale job displacement.”

It sounds as if these researchers and economists are finally talking sense.  But the title of Quartz’s article is misleading, and the statement is a front.  The giveaway is in the first paragraph of Quartz’s article:

More than 200 economists and researchers, including 15 Nobel laureates, released a joint statement on Monday warning that artificial intelligence could reshape the economy at a speed and scale exceeding the Industrial Revolution, and calling on policymakers and technology leaders to begin building policies and institutions to address the disruption.

“To begin building policies and institutions” is the key phrase; the rest is activism and fluffy language to say what they are doing without actually saying what they are doing.  What the statement actually means is that policymakers and technology companies should create institutions to “govern” or control AI.

It’s not coincidental that last week, on 6 July, the United Nations (“UN”) held a “Global Dialogue on AI Governance.”  Tim Hinchcliffe concluded that, rather than safeguarding information integrity as claimed, the UN is seeking to use AI to control the narrative globally: whatever they say goes, and everything else should be censored as misinformation or disinformation.

Read more: UN created a global disinformation task force; now it’s taking control of information through “AI governance”

So, we dug a little deeper into who was involved in the UN’s “Global Dialogue” to see if there was a connection between the economists and researchers' statement and the UN’s agenda.

The UN Reports

In 2023, as part of the United Nations Secretary-General’s ‘Roadmap for Digital Cooperation’, a High-level Advisory Body on Artificial Intelligence was formed “to undertake analysis and advance recommendations for the international governance of artificial intelligence.”

In September 2024, the Advisory Body released a report titled ‘Governing AI for Humanity’. This report informed the “Global Dialogue” held on 6 July 2026. Erik Brynjolfsson’s work on generative AI at work and productivity was cited in the Advisory Body’s report.  Remember Brynjolfsson’s name, as it comes up again.

A few days before the “Global Dialogue,” on 1 July 2026, a the UN released a report titled ‘Preliminary Report of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI’ (“Preliminary Report”). This report provides the first global “scientific” assessment of artificial intelligence capabilities, risks and impacts.

One of the sources used in the Preliminary Report was Stanford Institute for Human-Centred AI (“HAI”), from which the report used 3 papers/articles, and another was the Stanford Digital Economy Lab, from which the report used 1 paper/article.  Additionally, the report used material from the Stanford Digital Repository, which “supports management of scholarly information resources of enduring value to Stanford University.”

Two of the Stanford entities used as sources, HAI and the Digital Economy Lab, have at least one person in common: Erik Brynjolfsson. 

A biography for Brynjolfsson states:

Erik Brynjolfsson is the Jerry Yang and Akiko Yamazaki Professor and Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centred AI (HAI), and Director of the Stanford Digital Economy Lab. He also is the Ralph Landau Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR), Professor by Courtesy at the Stanford Graduate School of Business and Stanford Department of Economics, and a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

Conducting a search in the text of the Preliminary Report for “Brynjolfsson” reveals that HAI and the Stanford Digital Economy Lab are not the only sources used that originate from or are affiliated with Brynjolfsson. Brynjolfsson’s name, specifically, appears 8 times in the list of sources:

- Brynjolfsson, E., & Mitchell, T. (2017). What can machine learning do? Workforce implications. Science, 358(6370), 1530–1534. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8062 - McElheran, K., Yang, M.-J., Kroff, Z., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2024). The rise of industrial AI in America: Microfoundations of the productivity J-curve(s) (NBER Working Paper No. 32937). National Bureau of Economic Research. - Brynjolfsson, E., Chandar, B., & Chen, R. (2025). Canaries in the coal mine? Six facts about the recent employment effects of artificial intelligence. Stanford Digital Economy Lab. - Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. (2025). Generative AI at work. Quarterly Journal of Economics. - McElheran, K., Yang, M.-J., Kroff, Z., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2024). The rise of industrial AI in America: Microfoundations of the productivity J-curve(s) (NBER Working Paper No. 32937). - Brynjolfsson, E., Rock, D., & Syverson, C. (2017). Artificial intelligence and the modern productivity paradox: A clash of expectations and statistics. NBER Working Paper No. 24001 - Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. (2000). Beyond computation: Information technology, organisational transformation and business performance. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(4), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.4.2 - Brynjolfsson, E., Rock, D., & Syverson, C. (2021). The productivity J-curve: How intangibles complement general purpose technologies. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 13(1), 333-372.

We haven’t followed the source references to see how the report used these materials.  But Brynjolfsson’s involvement in the UN’s reports is relevant because, as Quartz noted:

The statement's significance lies partly in who signed it. Erik Brynjolfsson, a Stanford economist who helped organise the effort, said there has been "a notable change in the profession," according to The New York Times. 

So, Brynjolfsson’s work is cited in the 2023 report to inform the UN’s “Global Dialogue,” it is cited again in the Preliminary Report and, a week later, a statement “calling on policymakers and technology leaders to begin building policies and institutions” - organised by Brynjolfsson - is released.  Coincidence?

Quartz names two others that The New York Times deemed worthy of noting:

Among those who put their names to the document are Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson - both MIT professors and 2024 Nobel economics laureates - whose earlier public scepticism about AI's disruptive potential made their participation particularly striking, according to the Times.

Like Brynjolfsson, Daron Acemoglu’s work was cited in the Preliminary Report. 

It would be interesting to check each of the "more than 200" signatories to Brynjolfsson’s statement and see how many of them have works cited in the UN’s Preliminary Report.

MIT, Stanford and the Committee of 300

MIT, which Quartz noted is where Acemoglu and Johnson hold professorships, is an acronym for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In the UN’s Preliminary Report, the MIT FutureTech’s AI Risk Repository/Incident Tracker is noted as one of two “independent AI incident databases” being maintained to track “how a system behaves after release, with real users, real tasks and real environments.”

Source material was also taken from MIT for the UN’s report, namely:

- Boine, C. (2023). Emotional attachment to AI companions and European law. MIT Case Studies in Social and Ethical Responsibilities of Computing (Winter 2023). https://doi.org/10.21428/2c646de5.db67ec7f - MIT AI Risk Initiative. (2025). AI risk mitigation database and draft taxonomy. https://airisk.mit.edu/ai-riskmitigations

As with Brynjolfsson’s work, we have not followed through on these citations in the report to see what the UN was drawing from them or for what purpose. We merely want to demonstrate that MIT is among those that the UN turns to inform its decisions.

In his 1991 book ‘Conspirators' Hierarchy: Story of the Committee of 300’, Dr. John Coleman wrote, “the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) one of the premier The Committee of 300's research-institutes.”

“The first Club of Rome's 'global planning contract' went to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT),” he said.

At the end of the book Dr. Coleman lists MIT as one of the many institutions that is directly under the influence of the Committee of 300. “This major institute is not generally recognised as being a part of Tavistock USA. Most people look upon it as a purely American institution, but that is far from being the case,” he said and noted that one of MIT’s clients was the Institute for Defence Analysis (“IDA”).

“So vast is the reach of IDA that it would take hundreds of pages to describe the activities in which it is engaged, and IDA is fully described in my book on the role played by Institutions and Foundations in committing treason against the United States of America, which will be published early in 1992,” Dr. Coleman said.

In addition to The Committee of 300, Dr. Coleman wrote: ‘Diplomacy by Deception’ (1993), ‘One World Order: Socialist Dictatorship’ (2003), ‘The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations’ (2006) and ‘The Rothschild Dynasty’ (2006).  

The upcoming book Dr. Coleman was referring to must have been ‘Diplomacy by Deception’ which is described as “an excellent companion book to the The Committee of 300 by the same author.”  The opening chapter is titled ‘The Threat of the United Nations’.

On Sunday, we published an article focusing on the work of Stanford Research Institute (“SRI”), which began as part of Stanford University and then formally separated from the University in 1970.  In our article, we provided an excerpt from Dr. Coleman’s book.

According to Dr. Coleman, SRI is also controlled and owned by the Committee of 300, under the umbrella of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, a British non-profit headquartered in London.

Read more: Changing images of man: Who funds and controls SRI International?

Dr. Coleman provided a list summarising “the major Tavistock institutions in the United States engaged in brainwashing at all levels”; MIT is among them:

Conspirators' Hierarchy: Story of the Committee of 300, Dr. John Coleman, 1991 Stanford and Human Augmentation

HAI is part of Stanford University and has no known/declared collaboration or affiliation with SRI, apart from both institutions coming under the Tavistock umbrella, according to Dr. Coleman.  However, the two institutions' work seems to be along similar lines, which makes one wonder if the historical ties, being Stanford University, have been completely cut.

Speaking of an SRI project codenamed SHAKY, Dr. Coleman wrote, “The massive electronic-brain in SHAKY was capable of carrying out many commands … Twenty eight scientists worked on what is called ‘Human Augmentation’ … By the 1980's, 60% of SRI's contracts were devoted to ‘Futurism’ with both military and civilian applications.”

In comparison, Stanford HAI’s “vision for the future is led by the commitment to promote human-centred uses of AI,” its website states. “In support of these goals, our research falls into three key focus areas: Human Impact, Augment Human Capabilities, and Intelligence.”

What do they mean by “Augment Human Capabilities”?

A summary on HAI’s about page explains: “AI has the potential to replace people in their jobs. But AI also has the potential to educate, train, and augment people, making them better at their tasks and activities,” a summary of “Augment Human Capabilities.”

It sounds fairly benevolent until we scan the “Major Milestones” at the bottom of HAI’s “about” page. 

In 2023, HAI partnered with Wu Tsai Centre to fund research into AI and neuroscience.

Stanford University Human-Centred Artificial Intelligence, About page

Yale University’s Wu Tsai Institute is dedicated to understanding human cognition and exploring human potential through interdisciplinary inquiry.

“From the smallest building blocks of the brain to powerful algorithms of the mind, cognition is the source of all human knowledge and endeavours.  Understanding it is the moonshot that brings us together,” the Wu Tsai Institute states.

And its latest blog, dated 6 June, is titled ‘A brain-computer interface that works with, not against, the brain’.

What kind of augmenting human capabilities does that sound like?  Like the fluffy language of HAI trying to save people’s jobs kind? Or like human augmentation of the Fourth Industrial Revolution kind?

We have a right to know since Erik Brynjolfsson, a Professor and Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centred AI (“HAI”) is informing the UN about “governing” AI globally, and then nudging policymakers and technology leaders towards “building policies and institutions” related to “governing” AI.

On a personal level, Brynjolfsson is not the only one who should be investigated for conflicts of interest. He is likely to be just one member of a small group, trapped in groupthink or enjoying the financial benefits a little too much, doing the same.

Related:

- Fourth Industrial Revolution will lead to fusion of physical, digital and biological identities – Schwab (2019) - Schwab’s WEF is now pushing to implant Tracking Microchips in Humans as part of The Great Reset agenda - Kissinger speaks from the grave: To avoid AI wiping out humans, people should be biologically engineered to work better with AI - The founders of Bitcoin were transhumanists - Human Augmentation Will Be the Death of Humanity - Gene Therapy and Human Cyborgs: We Are Being Played Before We Even Know What the Playing Field Looks Like

If you've never made an AI girlfriend before, SweetDream is the gentlest on-ramp. The creation flow is clear, you don't need any technical know-how, and you end up with a companion who feels alive in just a few minutes.

In a recent appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience, Rupert Lowe MP said that the shadowy group known as the Fabian Society was deliberately trying to wreck the UK.

“It’s the most extraordinary organisation,” Lowe told Rogan. “Their emblem is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, as if that doesn’t tell you what they’re doing.”

On the Joe Rogan Experience aired on 8 July, Rupert Lowe, UK Member of Parliament (“MP”) for Great Yarmouth, discussed a variety of topics.  The focus of the discussion was on The Rape Gang Inquiry Report, but the two men touched on a variety of topics, one of which was the Fabian Society.

Read more: The BBC, Media Silence and the Fabian Society, Transcript from Rupert Lowe’s interview on the Joe Rogan Experience

The Fabian Society is a British socialist organisation that co-founded the Labour Party, which to this day formulates and controls the Labour Party’s policies.  There are over 6,000 members of the Fabian Society and it boasts being “the future of the left since 1884.”

“Every Labour prime minister has been a Fabian and today 100s of Labour politicians are members of the society, including Labour leader Keir Starmer MP and more than half his cabinet, as well as senior figures in devolved and local government. Our elected executive committee currently includes five Labour frontbenchers,” its “About Us” page states.

Read: George Bernard Shaw, the Fabian Society and a ‘Brave New World’

Past Labour Prime Ministers such as Tony Blair were/are Fabians. Starmer, the outgoing Prime Minister, is a Fabian. And the incoming Prime Minister, protector and ally of child rapists Andy Burnham, is as well.

Read:

- Andy Burnham or Keir Starmer makes no difference; they are both Fabians - Andy Burnham is an ally of the Muslim rape gangs

Lest the rest of the world thinks that the Fabians are a British problem, we should note that Fabian influence is felt throughout the world, even if populations in countries outside the UK have never heard of them.

For example, in the late 1990s, Tony Blair’s “New Labour” adopted his so-called “Third Way.”  It was designed to modernise social democracy by synthesising centre-left social justice goals with centre-right economic policies.  Blair’s “Third Way,” published as a seminal pamphlet by the Fabian Society,  was heavily influenced by sociologist and director of the London School of Economics - who later became a member of the House of Lords - Anthony Giddens’ “Third Way,” the idea of an alternative to neoliberalism and social democracy in an era of globalisation. “New Labour in government is putting the Third Way into practice,” Blair wrote in 1998.

Blair’s “Third Way” was exported to other countries. “It also was associated, less directly, with a number of centre-left administrations, notably those of US Pres. Bill Clinton (1993–2001) and Chancellor of Germany Gerhard Schröder (1998–2005),” Britannica says.

“Throughout the 1990s, Bill Clinton and other Democratic Leadership Council figures launched a campaign to take their Third Way ideology global,” Jacobin wrote.

The “Third Way” campaign even spread to African countries.  “Other ‘Third Way’ disciples included Bill Clinton from the US, Lionel Jospin of France, Goran Persson in Sweden, Henrique Fernando Cardoso of Brazil (and later Lula Da Silva) and Thabo Mbeki here at home ,” SAIIA wrote.

Essentially, the UK government under Blair sought to reorder the world around the “Third Way” principles through foreign aid, the creation of the International Criminal Court and humanitarian interventions.

Read: Through its members and offshoot organisations, the Fabian Society’s influence is global

In the following, Ben Sellers highlights Rupert Lowe’s comments about the Fabian Society and a former Fabian research director's reaction to it.

British MP Exposes Secret Society Behind UK’s Lurch Toward Socialism

By Ben Sellers, originally published by Headline USA and republished by ZeroHedge

The stunning transformation of Great Britain in recent years - from a beacon of decorum and stiff upper lips to a cautionary tale of wokeness run amok - has been blamed on everything from socialism to satanism.

However, Rupert Lowe, a member of the British Parliament and founder of the political party Restore Britain, said the reality may be even more sinister.

In a recent appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast, he said a shadowy group of elites known as the Fabian Society was deliberately trying to wreck the country.

“I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of the Fabian Society, but if you go and have a look at it, it was basically most of the Labour Party for many, many years,” Lowe said, referring to England’s leading left-wing party, the equivalent of US Democrats.

https://twitter.com/RupertLowe10/status/2075851460001083492

America’s Left may be facing a similar identity crisis as it tries to shake off the subversive influence of the Justice Democrats, Democrat Socialists of America and other fringe elements that are pushing neo-Marxist ideas.

But the British version has been around for nearly 150 years. The club, founded in 1884, was a direct reaction to the philosophy of Karl Marx (who died a year earlier in London).

Rather than forcing a collectivist government as Marx suggested, through class struggle - which generally led to uncomfortable outcomes for aristocrats - the group advocated for a socialist society to take root slowly and incrementally.

It was the brainchild of intellectuals including the man who first created the ‘My Fair Lady’ heroine Eliza Doolittle, playwright George Bernard Shaw. Science-fiction visionary H.G. Wells also counted himself a member.

“It’s the most extraordinary organisation,” Lowe told Rogan. “Their emblem is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, as if that doesn’t tell you what they’re doing.”

Among the beliefs it endorsed was eugenics, the idea of breeding out unwanted attributes through various means, scientific and otherwise. While the Nazis would go on to run with the idea - and ultimately help to effect its demise. 

The Fabian Society was also rumoured to have inspired author George Orwell, whose dystopian ‘1984’ (written in the late 1940s) was set exactly 100 years after the society’s founding.

https://twitter.com/An89390Anglo/status/2075533316288045102

According to Lowe, not all of the Society’s ideas have vanished entirely. Rather, some of them simply evolved into a modern political framework. “Everyone should look at the Fabian Society, because that runs deep through the veins of Labour,” he said.

Writing for The Telegraph, former Fabian research director Stephen Pollard sought to dismantle the claims by attacking Lowe as a conspiracy theorist. However, his argument may have only helped to make the case for some that “basically what it wants to do is destroy all good and create a dependency culture.”

After defending ideas like eugenics as having been widely accepted in their time, Pollard insisted that the current society was more concerned with selling magazine subscriptions than world domination.

Many of its policy papers now deal with addressing the nation’s housing crisis.

“To take that and conclude that they are in fact part of a secret cabal dedicated to destroying Britain is not so much misguided as a sign that someone is truly away with the fairies,” he claimed.

In his 1991 book, Dr. John Colman said that the Stanford Research Institute (“SRI”) was owned and controlled by the Committee of 300.  And that it was part of a network of organisations that falls under the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.

One of the reports to come out of SRI was the 1974 ‘Changing Images of Man’; the blueprint for how to socially engineer populations using education and rhetoric spewed by both formal and informal “leaders.”

SRI International is an American “nonprofit scientific research institute and organisation,” Learn & Work Ecosystem Library said in 2025. “The organisation was founded as the Stanford Research Institute 75 years ago. SRI formally separated from Stanford University in 1970 to become known as SRI International in 1977.”

Since then, SRI has expanded and now participates in more than 500 research and development projects per year.

SRI International, ‘About Us’, retrieved 12 July 2026

Who funds SRI’s projects and owns the patents the organisation files?

Under the subheading ‘Funding and Financial Model’, Grokipedia states, “The majority of revenue derives from US government contracts, awarded directly or via subcontracts with agencies such as the Department of Defence (DoD) and National Institutes of Health (NIH), reflecting a model where federal funding supports applied R&D in areas of national interest. Remaining income, around 20-30%, stems from commercial and international clients, including licensing of intellectual property generated from prior work.”

Who are the commercial interests included in the “around 20-30% … clients”?  SRI’s website doesn’t have a funding section stating who funds their projects. So we will turn to someone who has researched them.

In his 1991 book, ‘Conspirators' Hierarchy: Story of the Committee of 300’, Dr. John Coleman listed SRI as one of the powerful institutions owned and controlled by the Committee of 300 that “come under the MOTHER OF ALL THINK-TANKS AND RESEARCH-INSTITUTIONS, THE TAVISTOCK INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RELATIONS with its far-flung network of hundreds of ‘branches’.”

The Committee of 300, also known as the "Olympians," is “the ULTIMATE controlling-body that runs the world and has done so for at least a hundred years,” Dr. Coleman wrote. Its membership is made up of the “leading lights” from “secret societies, front organisations, government agencies, banks, insurance  companies, international businesses, the petroleum industry and hundreds of thousands of entities and foundations.”

He described who the Committee’s members are:

Included in the membership are the old families of the European Black Nobility, the American Eastern Liberal Establishment (in Freemason hierarchy and the Order of Skull and Bone), the Illuminati, or as it is known by the Committee "MORIAH CONQUERING WIND," the Mumma Group, The National and World Council of Churches, the Circle of Initiates, the Nine Unknown Men, Lucis Trust, Jesuit Liberation Theologists, The Order of the Elders of Zion, the Nasi Princes, International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the United Nations (UN), the Central, British Quator Coronati, Italian P2 Masonry  - especially those in the Vatican hierarchy - the Central Intelligence Agency, Tavistock Institute selected personnel, various members of leading foundations and insurance companies named in the lists that follow , the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, the Milner Group-Round Table, Cini Foundation, German Marshall Fund, Ditchley Foundation, NATO, Club of Rome, Environmentalists, The Order of St. John of Jerusalem, One World Government Church, Socialist International, Black Order, Thule Society, Anenherbe-Rosicrucianists, The Great Superior Ones and literally HUNDREDS of other organisations.

Conspirators' Hierarchy: Story of the Committee of 300, Dr. John Coleman, 1991, pg. 112

Below, we have reproduced the first part of the chapter in Dr. Coleman’s book titled ‘Stanford Research Centre’.  But first, as it is mentioned in the excerpt, a brief introduction to the ‘Changing Images of Man’.

Changing Images of Man

Prepared by researchers at the SRI’s Centre for the Study of Social Policy, ‘Changing Images of Man’ is a 1974 report, later published in 1982 as a book, edited by O. W. Markley and Willis W. Harman. “Various intellectuals from the fields of social sciences, humanities, engineering and physics collaborated,” Duane Hayes wrote in a 2018 article.

As well as exploring the role of science, the report/book identifies seven societal functions of myth and image - mystical, cosmological, sociological, pedagogical, editorial, political and magical - mainly derived from mythologist Joseph Campbell's work.  It suggests that deliberate changes in Campbell’s foundational beliefs can catalyse global transformation.

A Duke Report summary of the book states:

Emerging sciences reveal the interdependence of mind, body, society and environment … As scientific paradigms shift, new images of humankind become possible - images that integrate reason, emotion, intuition, and interconnectedness.

The book synthesises the functions of myth and image into several domains: mystical, cosmological, sociological, pedagogical, editorial, political and magical. The mystical function roots individuals in the mystery and meaning of existence. The cosmological function articulates worldviews and aligns behaviour with the perceived structure of reality. The sociological function validates and legitimises social order, establishing norms, rules and systems of authority. The pedagogical function guides personal development, transmitting knowledge and values across generations. The editorial function selects which realities receive cultural attention, shaping collective memory and blind spots. Political and magical functions authorise power and invoke extraordinary means to achieve communal goals. Together, these functions orchestrate coherence, resilience, and adaptability in societies.

Education occupies a central position in the process of image transformation. Schools and universities serve as incubators for new images, transmitting both explicit content and implicit values. Curriculum design, teaching methods and institutional culture can accelerate or impede the adoption of integrative images. Leaders - both formal and informal - play crucial roles as sensemakers, storytellers and exemplars. By embodying new images in action and discourse, leaders foster legitimacy and momentum for transformation. Markley and Harman argue for deliberate investment in educational reform, leadership development and narrative renewal as catalysts for deep change.

Hayes concludes his article:

Within a decade of publishing the Changing Images of Man, we see the meteoric rise of both Silicon Valley and the World Wide Web, both originating directly from out of this innocuous private research institute colloquially known as the Farm. Through the use of primary source material, we see the blueprint from which a plan is devised to socially engineer the American public through its various institutions and agencies, followed by the establishment of the very tools to best facilitate the plan.(!) We also see a deep military affiliation with the project in that the internet stems directly from the Pentagon's ARPANET programme and the Stanford Research Institute is one of three original hubs for the internet.

Stanford University is centred within a few miles radius of all of the social media giants Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo!, and all of these survivors of the dotcom era have major ties to the US intelligence community while also conveniently forming the main framework that is social media.  Is it just coincidence that these were the lucky few to survive the dotcom crash and then go on to dominate the web?

We have attached a copy of ‘Changing Images of Man’ below for those who might be interested in reading it for themselves.

The Changing Images of ManDownload Conspirators' Hierarchy: Story of the Committee of 300 by Dr. John Coleman An excerpt from ‘Stanford Research Centre’

Stanford Research Centre (SRC) was founded in 1946 by the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations. Stanford was created to help Robert 0. Anderson and his ARCO oil company, who had secured for the The Committee of 300 the oil-rights on the North Slope of Alaska. Basically, the job was too large for Anderson's Aspen Institute to handle, so a new centre had to be founded and funded. That new centre was Stanford Research Centre. Alaska sold its rights on a down payment of $900 million, a relatively small amount for the The Committee of 300. The governor of Alaska was steered to SRI for help and advice. This was no accident but the result of judicious planning and a process of long-range conditioning.

Following the governor's call for help, three SRI scientists set up shop in Alaska where they met with the Alaskan Secretary of State and the State Planning Office. Francis Greehan, who headed the SRI team, assured the Governor that his problem of how to handle the rich oil-find would be safe in the hands of SRI. Naturally Greehan did not mention the The Committee of 300 or the Club of Rome. In less than a month Greehan assembled a team of economists, petroleum-scientists and new-science scientists numbering in the hundreds. The report SRI gave to the Governor ran to eighty-eight pages. The proposal was adopted virtually without change by the Alaska legislature in 1970. Greehan had indeed done a remarkable job for the The Committee of 300. From this beginning SRI developed into an institution employing 4000 people with an annual budget of $160 million plus. Its President, Charles A. Anderson, has seen much of this growth during his tenure, as has Professor Willis Harmon, director of the SRI Centre for the Study of Social Policies, employing hundreds of new-science scientists, many of the top staffers having been transferred from Tavistock's London base. One of those was RCA board chairman and former British intelligence-agent, David Sarnoff, who was closely involved with Harmon and his team for twenty-five years. Sarnoff was something of a "watchdog" for the mother institute in Sussex.

Stanford claims to make no moral-judgements on projects it accepts, working for Israel and the Arabs, South Africa and Libya but, as one would imagine, by adopting this attitude it ensures an "inside-edge" with foreign governments that the CIA has found most useful. In Jim Ridgeway's book, "THE CLOSED CORPORATION", SRI spokesman Gibson brags about SRI's non-discriminatory stance. Although not on the Federal Contract Research Centre lists, SRI is today the largest military think-tank, dwarfing Hudson and Rand. Among SRI's speciality-departments are chemical and biological warfare experimental-centres.

One of Stanford's more dangerous activities is counter-insurgency operations aimed at civilian populations - just the sort of "1984" things government is already using against its own people. The U.S. government pays SRI millions of dollars each year for this kind of highly controversial "research". Following student protests against chemical-warfare-experiments conducted at Stanford, SRI "sold" itself to a private group for just $25 million. Of course nothing really changed, SRI was still a Tavistock project and the The Committee of 300 still owned it, but the gullible appeared to be satisfied by this meaningless cosmetic change. In 1958 a startling new development arose. Advanced Research Products Agency (ARPA), a contracting-agency for the Defence Department, approached SRI with a top-secret proposal. John Foster at the Pentagon told SRI that what was needed was a program to ensure the United States against "technological surprise". Foster wanted to perfect a condition where the environment became a weapon; special bombs to trigger volcanoes and/or earthquakes, behavioural research on potential enemies and minerals and metals with potential for new weapons. The project was accepted by SRI and codenamed "SHAKY".

The massive electronic-brain in SHAKY was capable of carrying out many commands, its computers having been constructed by IBM for SRI. Twenty eight scientists worked on what is called "Human Augmentation". The IBM computer even has the capability to solve problems by analogy and recognises and identifies scientists who work with it. The "special applications" of this tool can be better imagined than described. Brzezinski knew what he was talking about when he wrote "THE TECHNOTRONIC ERA".

Stanford Research Institute works closely with scores of civilian consulting firms, trying to apply military technology to domestic situations. This has not always been a success, but as techniques improve, the prospects for massive all-pervading-surveillance, as described by Brzezinski, daily becomes more real. IT ALREADY EXISTS AND IS IN USE, EVEN THOUGH SLIGHT MALFUNCTIONS FROM TIME TO TIME HAVE TO BE IRONED OUT.

One such civilian consulting-firm was Schriever McKee Associates of McLean, Virginia, run by retired General Bernard A. Schriever, a former chief of the Air Force Systems Command, who developed the Titan, Thor, Atlas and Minuteman rockets.

Schriever put together a consortium of Lockheed, Emmerson Electric, Northrop, Control Data, Raytheon and TRW under the name of URBAN SYSTEMS ASSOciaTES, INC. The purpose of the consortium? To solve social and psychological "urban problems" by means of military techniques using advanced electronic systems. It is interesting to note that TRW became the largest credit-information-collecting company in the credit-reporting business as a result and an outcome of its work with Urban Systems Associates, Inc.

This should tell us a great deal about just how far this nation is already under TOTAL SURVEILLANCE, which is the first requirement of the The Committee of 300. No dictatorship, especially not one on a global scale, can function without total control over each and every individual. SRI was well on its way to becoming a key Committee of 300 research organisation.

By the 1980's, 60% of SRI's contracts were devoted to "Futurism" with both military and civilian applications. Its major clients were the U.S. Department of Defence-Directorate of Defence Research and Engineering, Office of Aerospace Research which dealt with "Applications of the Behavioural Sciences to Research Management", Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Health. On behalf of the Department of Health, SRI ran a program called "Patterns in ESDEA Title I Reading Achievement Tests." Other clients were the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Labour, U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Of significance was the paper developed for NSF, entitled "Assessment of Future and International Problems."

Stanford Research, under the tutelage of Tavistock Institute in London, put together a far-reaching and chilling system it called "Business Intelligence Program." In excess of 600 companies in the U.S. and abroad became subscribers. The program covered research in Japanese Foreign Business Relations, Consumer Marketing in a Period of Change, The Mounting Challenge of International Terrorism, Sensory Evaluation in Consumer Products, Electronic Funds Transfer System, Opto-Electric Sensing, Exploratory Planning Methods, the U.S. Defence Industry and Capital Availability. Among the TOP The Committee of 300 companies who became clients of this program were Bechtel Corporation (George Schultz was on its board), Hewlett Packard, TRW, Bank of America, Shell Company, RCA, Blyth, Eastman Dillon, Saga Foods Corporation, McDonnell Douglas, Crown Zellerbach, Wells Fargo Bank and Kaiser Industries. But one of the most sinister of all SRI programs with the possibilities of doing tremendous damage in altering the direction in which the United States will go, socially, morally and religiously, was Stanford's Charles F. Kettering Foundation's "CHANGING IMAGES OF MAN" under Stanford official reference "Contract Number URH (489)-2150 Policy Research Report Number 4/4/74, Prepared by the SRI Centre for the Study of Social Policy, Director Willis Harmon." This is probably one of the most far-reaching investigations into how man might be changed that has ever been conducted.

The report, covering 319 pages, was written by 14 new-science scientists under the supervision of Tavistock and 23 top controllers including B. F. Skinner, Margaret Meade, Ervin Lazlo and Sir Geoffrey Vickers, a high-level British intelligence officer in MI6. It will be recalled that his son-in-law, Sir Peter Vickers-Hall, was a founding-member of the so-called conservative "Heritage Foundation". Much of the 3000 pages of "recommendations" given to the Reagan administration in January 1981 were based upon material taken from Willis Harmon's "CHANGING IMAGES OF MAN".

I was privileged to receive a copy of "THE CHANGING IMAGES OF MAN" from my intelligence colleagues five days after it was accepted by the United States government. What I read shocked me, as I realised I was looking at a blueprint for a future America, unlike anything I had ever seen before. The nation was to be programmed to change and become so accustomed to such planned-changes that it would hardly be noticeable when profound changes did occur. We have gone downhill so fast since "THE AQUARIAN CONSPIRACY" (the book title of Willis Harmon's technical paper) was written, that today, divorce draws no stigma, suicide is at an all-time high and raises few eyebrows, social deviations from the norm and sexual aberrations, once unmentionable in decent circles, are now commonplace and excite no special protest.

A functional oligarchy is where economic elites and organised business groups have significant influence on government policy, while average citizens have little to no independent influence.

As Iain Davis explains, many countries, whether they are capitalist or communist, are now “governed” by a functional oligarchy, the same oligarchy. This is the One World Government.

Functional Oligarchy

By Iain Davis, 29 June 2026

Oligarchy is a very old system of governance and one we have never really escaped. More than 2,000 years ago, Aristotle stated that oligarchy (oligarchia) becomes the governance system “when men of property have government in their hands.” Today, we define “oligarchy” as “government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes.” When oligarchs exercise political power by virtue of their wealth, we call it “plutocracy.”

A branch of political science called “Elite Theory” has tried to justify the plutocracy of contemporary oligarchs. Generally, however, both plutocracy and oligarchy are considered pejorative terms.

We are told that we live in “representative democracies” precisely because oligarchy is widely viewed as unacceptable. Despite the fact that “representative democracy” is the antithesis of democracy, the purported virtues of our fake democracies are constantly extolled simply to convince us that we don’t live in oligarchies. Political science, though, clearly reveals that we do.

In 2014, political scientists Professor Martin Gilens and Professor Benjamin I. Page conducted a multivariant analysis of nearly 1,800 policy decisions made by the US government over a more than thirty-year period. Their objective was to understand: Who governs? Who really rules? To what extent is the broad body of US citizens sovereign, semi-sovereign, or largely powerless?

The pair considered different theoretical models of democratic governance to assess which most accurately explained the US policymaking process over the studied period. The models Gilens and Page examined were the following:

- Majoritarian electoral democracy: policymakers respond to the electoral will of the majority. - Majoritarian pluralism: policy is shaped by the competing influence of interest groups. - Economic-elite domination: policies are made in the interests of the wealthiest in society. - Biased pluralism: majoritarian pluralism is corrupted by the wealth, power, and influence of the economic-elite.

Gilens and Page concluded:

Economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

In 2025, re-evaluating the work of Gilens and Page, two Harvard academics, Professors Archon Fung and Lawrence Lessig, noted that Gilens and Page’s multivariant analysis was “one of the most important studies you’ve probably never heard of.” Fung and Lessig acknowledged that Gilens and Page had demonstrated that the US is not a democracy but is actually a functional oligarchy.

Further research has subsequently demonstrated this to be the case. For example, when In Song Kim, associate professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”), and Helen V. Milner, professor of public affairs at Princeton University, looked at how US foreign policy was formed between 1999 and 2019, they found:

he direction of US foreign economic policy in the past decades suggests have been very powerful. The lowering of trade barriers via the GATT/WTO and various preferential trade agreements, the opening of capital markets and signing of bilateral investment treaties and economic agreements with investment protections, and the harmonisation of regulations in many areas in preferential trade agreements are all policies that the US government has pursued actively and ones that MNCs have championed. MNC preferences seem to be very congruent with much of recent American foreign economic policy.

The US governance system is by no means an oddity. Nearly all governments operate as functional oligarchies.

It is primarily through their controlling interest in multinational corporations (“MNCs”) that oligarchs rule today. Via the global public-private partnership and so-called “policy coordination,” set within their Deep State, oligarchs can exert their power and influence over both domestic and foreign policy. As Fung and Lessig observed, “you’ve probably never heard” of the research studies that expose functional oligarchy. This is because the media and its social media partners are the “gatekeepers of news and information,” and, as such, their task is to keep us engaged in fake democracy and divert our attention away from oligarchy.

Anyone who publicly reports the activities of the oligarchy is dismissively labelled a “conspiracy theorist.” Again, the propaganda objective is to protect the oligarchy. Nonetheless, irrespective of the obfuscation, the hand of the oligarchs can be seen.

Global institutional investment houses, such as BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, carefully guard the identities of their individual investors. They each have slightly different ownership models. BlackRock, for example, is a publicly traded company with shareholders. Vanguard is owned by its own investor funds, which means Vanguard’s investors are also its owners.

As reported by the US Institute of Business & Finance (“IBF”), collectively the major investment houses represent the dominant shareholders of nearly ninety per cent of S&P 500 companies - the most powerful US corporations. Noting that this “level of concentration is unprecedented in the history of capital markets,” the IBF rhetorically asks what happens “when the firms that manage also hold enough voting power to shape the companies those funds own?”

Political science provides the answers. The investment houses act as front organisations for the functional oligarchies that control the policy decisions made by the oligarchs’ primary front organisation: the government.

By maintaining investor anonymity, a kind of investment shell game further protects the oligarchy. That said, we can see how oligarchy operates if we take the time to research relationships.

To illustrate: Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (“CAC”) is a subsidiary of the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (“AVIC”), which is supposedly a “state-owned,” Beijing-based publicly traded defence conglomerate. The leading “private” investment house backing AVIC is China Asset Management Co., Ltd. (“ChinaAMC”). Originally based in Hong Kong, ChinaAMC currently has $0.5 trillion of assets under management. ChinaAMC’s leading investors include the Canadian-based Mackenzie Investments, which is a subsidiary of the Canadian financial services company IGM Financial Inc. IGM is largely controlled by the Power Corporation of Canada, which is dominated by the Desmarais oligarch dynasty. Doubtless, many of the other leading oligarch shareholders of IGM are represented by BlackRock and Vanguard.

The only remaining question is: Who are the oligarchs?

Official disclosures of the alleged wealth of the most affluent individuals and families captivate our interest. We are told by mainstream corporate media outlets who the richest people on earth supposedly are. But, as opulent as these named people are, their wealth appears to be significantly less than the generational wealth accrued by a number of what we can call “oligarch dynasties.”

Elon Musk, Sergey Brin, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Jensen Huang are among the people served up to us as the officially wealthy. All of them are busy creating the centralised authoritarian model of digital infrastructure that will enable the completion of a global surveillance state, which is evidently what the oligarchy desires. Policy agendas are agreed to not by government policy committees but by oligarchs belonging to Deep State enclaves like Dialog. Doubtless, the oligarchs whose faces are presented to the public are very wealthy, but basic logic tells us there is something very wrong with the media’s “rich lists.”

There are dynastic oligarch families, still thriving today, who can trace the growth of their immense financial empires - and their resultant political power and influence - back through more than a thousand years of history. Yet they have never been menti­oned, and their closest representatives are rarely mentioned, on any so-called “rich lists.” These oligarch dynasties do not formally disclose their wealth, ever.

If the popular lists are supposed to tell us who holds and controls the bulk of wealth on this planet, and therefore who the oligarchs are, the complete absence of these oligarch dynasties from any of them renders such lists and indexes redundant. The are yet another diversion from reality, not a reflection of it.

For example, we are told that Elon Musk is the world’s first trillionaire. But in 2024, Newsweek reported that the Rothschilds were worth an estim­ated $15.7 trillion. Newsweek noted that The Sunday Times had reported that the Rothschild family was worth only $1 billion just a year earlier, while others have put in closer to $40 trillion or more. These wild reporting disparities exist because the Rothschild family, which has served as the dynastic oligarchs’ commercial bankers and frequent representatives for the best part of three centuries, does not officially disclose its wealth.

Of course, because the Rothschilds happen to have a German-Jewish* lineage, questioning what influence their plausible wealth buys is, according to Newsweek, dabbling in “anti-semitic conspiracy theories.” This effective diversion is argued whenever anyone questions the Rothschilds’ and other oligarchs’ evident power, irrespective of whether the questioner mentions their heritage or religion. Anti-semitism is widely exploited for propaganda and social engineering purposes - once again, to protect the oligarchy.

*Note from The Exposé: It is highly debatable whether the Rothschilds are Jewish.  They claim to be Ashkenazi Jews (Jewish converts, read HERE), but claiming to be something and actually being that thing is not the same. Jews, who are from many nationalities and ethnic groups, follow the religion of Judaism.  Claiming to follow Judaism and, therefore, worship YHWH does not mean the Rothschilds actually worship YHWH.  The Biblical warning about the “Synagogue of Satan” applies to those such as the Rothschilds who claim to be Jews but are not and are lying.

Secondly, despite the term being used specifically to target Jews, semitism does not equate to Jew.  The term Semite is derived from Shem, a son of Noah in the Biblical Book of Genesis.  It describes people who speak Semitic languages, a branch of the Afro-Asiatic language family.  Over 330 million people across the Middle East, North Africa and the Horn of Africa speak these languages.  Semites include Arabs, Israelis, Akkadians, Arameans and Ethiopians.  People who target followers of Judaism are not anti-semitic, they are anti-Jewish.

To assume the Rothschilds are Jewish and that anti-semitism equates to anti-Jew is to perpetuate the very propaganda that people are calling out. We must stop using the language they have choosen to shape our minds, beliefs and behaviour.

Sadly, though anti-semitism is a real prejudice that often has appalling consequences, those who exploit antisemitism for propaganda purposes couldn’t care less about those consequences. They ladle the accusation on so thickly and with such abandon that they devalue the meaning of the word and stoke the kind of misplaced resentment that can lead to genuine anti-semitism. This immorality is often conducted simply to protect the establishment, and the oligarchy that leads it, from public scrutiny and criticism.

It is not anti-semitic to ask if Donald Trump appointed Wilbur Ross as his first-term secretary of commerce to repay a debt owed to the Rothschilds. As with Elon Musk, Donald Trump’s business acumen is highly questionable. Indeed, numerous Trump businesses have been declared bankrupt. He would almost certainly have gone personally bankrupt in the early 1990s were it not for the bailout loan, brokered by Ross, that he received from Rothschild Inc., for whom Ross was a career-long representative.

It is not an “antisemitic conspiracy theory” to highlight the fact that, in reference to Trump’s bailout, Ross said, “The Trump name is still very much an asset.” An asset? For whom? That’s another reasonable question. Again, policy research studies provide the answer: Trump, like all US presidents before him, serves the oligarchy.

So, we the people, have a choice. We can either carry on pretending that electing the next puppet is in our interest and thereby consent to live as the chattel of oligarchs. Or we can put aside childish things and be mature enough to pursue legitimate solutions. Personally, I suggest we build societies based upon what I call “voluntary democracy.” But, my preference aside, I’m sure there are other, perhaps even better, solutions out there.

@TheDemocrats ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF EVERY ISSUE THAT'S IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF #AMERICAN #CITIZENS‼️