NWO Tavistock Doc 10


Shaping the Moral, Spiritual, Cultural, Political and Economic Decline of the United States.
Not Only Individual Crimes, but also Premeditated Slaughter in Belgium

Women Attacked, Children Brutally Slain, Arson and Pillage Systematic

Wanton Firing on Red Cross and White Flag: Prisoners and Wounded Shot

On May 27, 1915, Wellington House operatives in America reported to London on the outcome of their massive propaganda initiative: "Even in papers hostile to the Allies, there is not the slightest attempt to impugn the correctness of the facts alleged. Lord Bryce's prestige in America put skepticism out of the question." Charles Masterman, chief of Wellington House, told Bryce:
"Your report has swept America." Among the small number of critics of the Bryce Report was Sir Roger Casement. "It is only necessary to turn to James Bryce, the historian, to convict Lord Bryce, the partisan," Casement wrote in a furious essay, "The Far Extended Baleful Power of the Lie." By this time Casement had become a fierce advocate of Irish independence so few people paid any attention to his dissent, which was dismissed as biased. 
Clarence Darrow, the famously iconoclastic American lawyer, who specialized in winning acquittals for ostensibly guilty clients, was another skeptic. He went to France and Belgium later in 1915 and searched in vain for a single eyewitness who could confirm even one of the Bryce stories. Increasingly dubious, Darrow announced he would pay $l,000-a very large sum in 1915 - more than $17,000 in 21st Century money - to anyone who could produce a Belgian or French boy whose hands had been amputated by a German soldier or a single child of either sex that had been bayoneted by German troops.

There were no takers, not one "victim" came forward to claim the reward although Darrow had spent a considerable amount 
of his own money in advertising it, far and wide. After the war, historians who sought to examine the documentation for Bryce's stories were told that the files had mysteriously disappeared. No government official or department offered to start a search for the "missing" documents. This blatant evasion of putting the "severely tested" documents to a newer, thoroughly impartial test prompted most historians to dismiss 99 percent of Bryce's atrocities as fabrications. One called the Report "in itself one of the worst atrocities of the war." More recent scholarship has scaled down the percentage of the Bryce report's fabrications because it turned out that several thousand Belgian civilians, including some women and children were apparently shot by the Germans in the summer of 1914 and Bryce more or less accurately summarized some of the worst excesses, such as the executions in the town of Dinant.
But even these latter day scholars admit Bryce's report was "seriously contaminated" by the rapes, amputations and speared babies. They blamed this grave lapse on hysteria, and war rage. This amounts to giving Bryce a free pass. The number of
corrections that had to be made by critics of Darrow's reports was less than one percent and failed to clear Bryce. As was
pointed out at the time, 99 percent of the Bryce Commission Report were lies. Correspondence between the members of the Bryce committee survived the "disappearance" of the documents; it reveals severe doubts about the tales of mutilation and rape. These serious doubts were never spread across Britain and America in the manner of Wellington House brutality reports. One of the committee's secretaries admitted that he had been given numerous English addresses of Belgian women supposedly made pregnant by German rapes but in spite of intensive searches, was not able to locate a single one on the list. 

Even the highly touted story of a Member of Parliament sheltering two pregnant women turned out to be fraudulent. Bryce apparently brushed aside this negative evidence as Bush and Blair were to do scores of times when on rare occasions, a few reporters did their job and asked awkward questions. Lord Bryce the scholar should have known - and almost certainly did know - - that tales of spearing babies, raping and cutting off the breasts of murdered women were standard "hate - the - enemy" fables hundreds of years old, as were mass rapes in fields and public squares. Even a cursory examination of Napoleon's campaigns in Europe brought out hundreds of these types of "atrocities," a very small fraction of which turned out to be true.
Bryce the learned historian, the learned, trusted scholar with a reputation for honesty should have rejected such fabrications out of hand. He most certainly knew that the vast majority of the "atrocity" stories emanated from Wellington House (the forerunner of the Tavistock Institute.) Instead of examining their origin and then dismissing them as propaganda, Bryce grouped them all into a "report," that found them generally factual and then issued general condemnation of the German army and people. This is
reminiscent of Mr. G.W. Bush and his general classification that the entire population of several Muslim states belonged to an "Axis of Evil." Why didn't Bryce dismiss the fabrications and concentrate on the German executions of civilians? As we have stated, he knew the bulk of the "incidents" were products of Wellington House; and had he done so, it would have opened up a very sticky subject of the wide use being made of propaganda by the British Government. 

There was an important reason why Bryce chose to abandon an honorable course instead of soiling his reputation: A high percentage of the Belgian Army in 1914/1915 was made up of "Home Guards" (partisans) who wore no uniforms except for an insignia pinned to their shirts or hats. The Germans, desperately trying to win in the West before the invading Russian Army smashed through their lightly held lines in the East, were infuriated by these seemingly civilian combatants, and showed them no mercy. That the German Army was entitled to return the fire of civilians or even initiate it by the rules of war under the Geneva Conventions applicable at that time, was never brought out in the press.
The fact is that in 1915 "partisans" right up to 1945, were fair game. Civilians, even with badges pinned to their hats were not given authority to shoot at soldiers in uniform, or afforded protection. Yes, that was what the rules of war laid out in the Geneva Conventions, and Lord Bryce and his commissioners knew it. Nor was this important fact trumpeted across England and America in the manner of the propaganda that had successfully captured the hearts and minds of the British and American people.
Some German field commanders obviously lost their heads and retaliated excessively against whole towns, such as Dinant. But a defense of sorts could be mounted, even for these men. The ensuing debate as to what the Geneva Convention allowed would have produced yawns in newspaper readers. They wanted what Bryce gave them - blood and lust, rape and horror perpetrated by the German ("Boche") "beasts" against women and young children and "unarmed civilians." They wanted proof that the German "Hun" was a barbarian, a savage beast. And if the public had not been deceived, Wellington House, and the British Government's war effort, would have been in deep trouble. 

The Bryce Report unquestionably helped England win the war. Unquestionably it swayed the opinions of the American public and convinced millions of Americans and other neutrals—it was translated into 27 languages — that the Germans were ugly beasts in human form. No one except a few "biased" outsiders such as Sir Roger Casement and Clarence Darrow ever reproached Lord Bryce for the vicious lies he had spread around the world. No fair-minded man could ever forgive Bryce for soiling himself.
Through it all, Wellington House remained in the background - few people knew of its existence - let alone its vital role, but it had done an important job and struck a mighty blow for brainwashing. As for Bryce, he went to his grave loaded with royal and academic honors, a sullied, superior liar, a man who had soiled himself and with the blood of millions on his hands, a brilliant scoundrel, a thief who stole the truth from a public entitled to know it, and who managed to evade detection and exposure and the utter condemnation that was universally afforded to Judas Iscariot. 

From a perspective of a hundred years, we ought to take a much harsher view of this man. The Bryce Report had obvious connections to the British decision to maintain the blockade of Germany for seven months after the armistice in 1918, causing the starvation deaths of an estimated 600,000 elderly and very young Germans, all part of the game plan to so weaken Germany that it would never be a "threat" to the "allies" again. The Wellington House propaganda lies about the German Army was far and away the greatest atrocity of World War I and it made every German man and woman hunger for revenge. By creating blind hatred of Germany, Bryce sowed the dragon's teeth of World War II.

Page 109
From this background, what we saw in the Gulf War circa 1991 was frightening enough to very forcefully remind us of the origin of the black art of successful lying practiced by Lord Bryce and what a congenital, witting liar he had turned out to be. It also brought to mind how Wellington House and then Tavistock set its seal on brainwashing as a tool of war. It was one of the deciding factors that made me determined to write this work and expose Tavistock and its injurious, baleful influence. In the Gulf War the U.S. Department of Defense shut out all news media and appointed its own spokesman who gave his grossly untruthful version of events via television broadcasts. I dubbed the fellow "Pentagon Pete" and he talked blithely about "collateral damage" a new Tavistock phrase being tried for the first time ever. 

It took the public a long time to catch on to its meaning-human casualties, human deaths and destruction of property. Then we had a break when CNN was allowed to come in and report on the success of the "Patriot" missile defense shooting down Iraqi SCUDS, which it turned out, was another base exercise in propaganda. According to CNN at least one SCUD attacking Israel was shot down every night. Only World In Review, in the midst of the war, reported that not a single SCUD missile had been shot down. Nobody dared to report that a total of 15 SCUDS had hit Tel Aviv and other parts of Israel. Disinformation and misinformation prevailed. Only WIR reported the truth, but with a small readership, it didn't matter to the propagandists.
Then there was the gigantic fraud perpetrated on the American people by one of the largest Public Relations companies in Washington, Hilton and Knowles. Here again, only WIR broke the story that the whole tearjerking episode of Iraqi soldiers pulling out new-born Kuwait babies from incubators and throwing them on the floor, was a gross falsehood. It is interesting that like Benton and Bowles, Hilton and Knowles had long ties to the Tavistock Institute. Both companies were leading "advertising" agencies. The Hilton and Knowles fabrication, tearfully narrated by an "eye witness," (who just happened to be the teenage daughter of the Al Sabah family's Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington) was what swayed the Senate to violate the U.S. 

Constitution and "give" Bush the elder, "permission" to attack Iraq, despite the fact that no such provision exists in the U.S.
Constitution. While Bush the elder could say; -"Well, I didn't know this, I didn't hire Hilton and Knowles," he plainly knew all about the key propaganda stunt pulled off against the American people. Nobody will ever believe that he did not recognize the sixteen-year old daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, who he had met before. The Kuwaiti ambassador paid Hilton and Knowles $600,000 to stage the elaborate fraud in front of the Senate, for which he ought to have been arrested for lying to a Senate
committee. What was so galling is that the daughter also went unpunished for her part in tearfully recounting her experience: "I saw the Iraqi soldiers pull the new born babies out of the incubators and thrown them on the ground," she cried.
The fact of the matter was that Narita Al Sabah had not been anywhere near Kuwait for years, and certainly not during the war! She had been in Washington D.C. with her father at the ambassador's Washington residence. Yet this child-liar and her father were not prosecuted. That is what the propaganda experts at Tavistock call "a successful remake of events." Narita Al Sabah's testimony became the centerpiece of a huge media campaign in America, and it is known to have swayed not only the Senate, but put the American people on the side of the war against Iraq. Bush the elder indulged in an old propaganda piece in telling
the world that "Saaadam" had to be removed from Iraq "to make the Middle East safe." (Remember that Wilson sent American troops to their death in France to "make the world safe for democracy.") Bush the elder suddenly began vilifying and demonizing the Iraqi president to suit the purposes of his oil cartel friends, and, as in the case of the Kaiser in 1913, it worked.

Not many people remembered the ploy put on by Wilson, otherwise they might have noticed the striking similarity in what President Bush was saying, and what Bryce told Wilson and what Wilson told the American people to sway them to support WWI. Now that Hussein is all but forgotten and the threats he allegedly posed have all been dismissed as a pack of lies, all of a sudden it is "Al Qaeda" we have to worry about. Woodrow Wilson used plain propaganda when he told a reluctant American people that the war would "make the world safe for democracy." Bush intoned the same veritable deceit. 
The cost of making the world "safe for democracy" was horrendous. Professor William Langer placed the known dead of WWI at 10,000,000 men and women soldiers and 20,000,000 wounded. Russia alone lost 9,000,000 men killed or an astonishing 75 percent of its army. The total cost of the war in dollars has been figured at $180,000,000,000 to which must be added the indirect costs of $151,612,500,000.
Page 113
The cost of the Bush war against Iraq was running at around $420 billion in mid 2005, and the Bush family wants more money for their ill-starred venture. And knowing the American people and their hapless, helpless ail-but useless representatives in the legislature, Bush will get what he wants. The figures of the dollar cost of WWI do not tell anything about the sorrow and suffering brought to America by Wilson, the transgressor. We insert here a recent article, which gives a poignant, personal touch to the dreadful loss of life in that nightmarish war. "Several weeks ago I visited with my family the Soldier's Memorial Museum in the heart of downtown St. Louis. It is a huge and deeply impressive building, dedicated in 1936 by President Roosevelt as a memorial to the 1075 men of St. Louis who died in the First World War. 

The memorial is painfully beautiful, all mosaics and marble, with terrazzo floors and Bedford stone sculptures. It is dominated by the vast black granite cenotaph in its center, covered with the hundreds of dead men's names in neat row upon row." "On the day we visited this striking but haunted place it seemed completely empty. While empty of visitors, it was, however, full of the spirits and voices and faces of the pale, tousled-headed boys in neatly-pressed uniforms, who had marched off from St. Louis 86 years ago to fight in a glorious war so far away in a far-off land, boys who had never come back home.
The poignancy of that was rendered all the stronger by the fact that we are living daily with the repercussions of current conflict, the savage bloody war in Iraq. We read daily of the boys who will never come back home." "What struck me most as I walked around the memorial and the museum, holding my newborn baby girl, was the fact that it looked like so many memorials that I had visited in my home country of Scotland. It also looked like those I had visited in France, in England and in Canada and New Zealand and it looked just like the memorials in almost every other country touched by the carnage of World War One." "In almost every country touched by the carnage of WWI, the so-called "War to End all Wars;" men rushed to join the military and marched off to war with great enthusiasm. They believed it would be a short, sharp and successful war, fought for good reasons, and glorious for the winners. They believed they were building a better world." 

"They were wrong. An average of 5,500 men died every single day for four and a half years in the First World War; that is roughly four men per minute, every minute, for four and a half years, until 10 million men were dead. The First World War did more than destroy lives; it destroyed the confidence in progress, in prosperity and in reasonableness of civilized human beings that had become so characteristic of the nineteenth century. The war destroyed much of the next generation which would have provided leadership to Europe ..." "And this morning, as I sit holding my baby girl I read daily reports of escalating violence in Iraq, with British, Iraqi and American men continuing to die, the St. Louis Soldier's - a memorial to a war that should have never been 
fought - haunts me and their ghosts haunt the Memorial. It was the worst of all disasters, the war that should have never been fought-haunts me."
"The Neo-Conservative brains in the U.S. Administration would have been wise to visit places like this and think long and hard about the lessons of such memorials before embarking on a war in the Middle East that has already killed an unknown number of people and which will certainly kill many more, directly and indirectly. (Written by Professor Dr. James Lachlan MacLeod, Associate Professor of History, University of Evansville, Indiana). My experiences parallel those of Professor MacLeod. I visited the battlefields of Verdun and Passchendale where most of the slaughter he so ably recounts, occurred. 

I tried to imagine 10 million soldiers dying so young, the terror, the horror and the sorrow they experienced, and the inconsolable sorrow of the ones they left behind. While standing in the afternoon's fading light in one of the many war cemeteries in France, and looking upon the thousands upon thousands of neat white crosses marching across the war cemeteries, I was overcome by anger and then overwhelmed by grief, so much so that I swear I heard the cries and the shouts of anguish of the dead calling for justice to be done, so cruelly cut down in their prime, and seemed to see their faces reflected in the clouds above. It was a mystical experience I will never forget, much like the experience of a British officer who visited these battlefields in 1919:

For the Original Tavistock pdf, look below to download it to your device!

1st August 2020 Rev - 1
Mark Aldrich,
Aug 2, 2020, 1:08 AM