Thesis – anti-thesis – synthesis
The Institute for the Study of Conflict is a classic case of use of the Hegelian Dialectic by high end corporate Intelligence, in order they can bring two opposing sides under the control of one body, without those on each side being aware of the fact. The facilitating factor to this end comes in the form of finance, one group positions itself able to finance both its targeted enemies so each party can obtain all they require to fight a war that the financiers are going to ignite by subterfuge and deception. From this position the dependance by both targeted parties allows the creditor to determine which side will win based on which is the more likely to honour the debt incurred to carry out the war, and is the more lightly to follow the lead of the creditors after the war.
This strategy can be said to be the Venetian art of war, a simple but effective means to removing your two biggest threats by having them fight each other. The most effective protocol was to finance the second biggest threat to protect itself from the most prominent threat, for this to become a reality one has to first impact the target nation with secret societies you ultimately control, in order the idea of a threat from your bigger neighbour is implanted into the hearts of the targeted nation. Then at the right time you expose the military and covert actions of your second biggest antagonist to your ultimate nemesis, the largest threat to your operations.
The following report is a prime example of just such a game in our time.
The correct title for the Institute should be; The Institute for the Study of Conflict in Order we can Use the Data Against the Conflicting Forces, in the Control Position, While Maintaining Total Secrecy of the Fact.
The Institute for the Study of Conflict was a corporate umbrella organisation acting as the script writer to create the fear required to set up all the changes to British Intelligence, from which change in the entire system could follow. The IRA were the perfect MI6 model for this agenda through the both century. This move would allow for the creation of various cells and think tanks to advise the government and Intelligence community as a whole. The threat would allow an increase in Intelligence budgets, expanding the network directly into the domestic system through privatisation. The secret not to be revealed would be that the actual threat came in the expansion of Intelligence budgets to combat the perceived threat. 911 is a prime example from which the United States got the Patriot Act and Britain had forced upon it the Contingency Act.
The agenda moves on all levels so threats had to be procured in finance, cultural ideology and religion. In this manner the possibility in formulating a dictatorship to capture complete control of a nation can be achieved, Today we have socialism V capitalism, morality V immorality, and we have two religions about to go to war on behalf of a third, Christianity V. Islam on behalf of Zionism.
Thus we are left with a question Who are the people writing the script to be followed by governments of the day?
Samuel Julius Gould[a] appears to have been a key player in formulating strategy for the Institute for the Study of Conflict, (ISC). This report is of another highly significant player in the ISC, a man who’s influence and strategic offerings played out under the coalition government of Cameron and Clegg through this mans influence on Intelligence affairs for Margaret Thatcher, and was a very close compadre of Gould, meet Brian Crozier.
It is fair to state David Cameron, the man fronting the real power magnet, Nick Clegg, and the agenda of the Constitution Unit, [b] is a prodigy of Thatcher, well versed in the Intelligence arena, [c] with an attitude of screw the people, I am very all right Jack, the perfect attributes to destroy the idea of a Conservative outlook in British politics in the eyes of the voting public. Yet as we have just witnessed in the 2015 election, such control is also had over Labour, a political party so far off its original philosophy via the influence and authority of the Fabian Society, so despised are the labour faction, and, as distasteful as Cameron and his austerity agenda is, yet again Cameron finds himself in power. I do not believe the British public voted unanimously for Cameron, I suggest the Institute for Government and the Constitution Unit by some unseen arts, have pulled this result from the cauldron.
Brian Crozier appears to be the man chosen in order his masters could move to control the minds in Britain naturally opposed to the communist model.
In a profile of Julius Gould, the man seemingly a key player in this agenda, we explore this strategy further. The following information expands on the strategy presented, a reality experienced today whereby both the anti-communist and communist agendas, while separate entities in belief and aims to their members, are but actors in a script playing out by those who hold the power of finance on which they both depend. The left and right dance for the same piper.
Keeping in mind the fact, the CIA is a private intelligence operation controlled by the Federal Reserve, via the National Reconnaissance Agency, then we can see the power in this script are the money masters, administered by the Committee of 300, the Olympians, today centred in the Adelphi Complex in London we call the John Adam Street Gang.
Brian Crozier and the Institute for the Study of Conflict
The London-based Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) provides an especially well documented case study of the use of a purportedly independent institute as a front for propaganda operations of hidden intelligence agency and corporate sponsors. In 1968, and again in the mid-1970s, ISC’s principal, Brian Crozier, was revealed in the British press to have been an agent of British and US intelligence, to have served secretly as a propaganda conduit for the South African police, and to have colluded with British firms and trade associations in a campaign to smear British trade unions with the tar of subversion. This did not in any way discredit Crozier as a Western expert. He continued to be cited as a reputable authority in Britain and the United States and was a major speaker at the Jonathan Institute conference of 1979.
Crozier was long a regular contributor to Britain’s Economist and to the US National Review,’ while taking time off to write an admiring biography of the Spanish dictator, Francisco Franco.  In 1966 he became the head of the CIA-organised and CIA-supervised Forum World Features (FWF),  a purported news service that sought to compete with UPI and Reuters. In 1968 Crozier was identified in the British press as an agent of British intelligence,  and in 1975 the nature of FWF itself was exposed when the Pentagon admitted, during the Church committee investigations, that it had used FWF as a propaganda agency in Europe. According to a report to CIA Director Richard Helms in 1968, FWF provided the US with a significant means to counter communist propaganda, and a handwritten note on the document added, Run with the knowledge and cooperation of British intelligence.
ISC was established with secret CIA funding in 1970, to complement the work of FWF? The latter was a conduit for suitable news to the media; ISC would provide anticommunist propaganda under the guise of independent research and the analyses of independent experts like Crozier. As Steve Weissman noted, although it produced no substantial research, Crozier’s institute gave academic respectability to old anti-Communist cliches, whether on Vietnam or Angola, and offered professional and authoritative-sounding analyses, both for the general public and for more specialised audiences of academics, policy makers, police officials, and military commanders.
Besides the CIA, the ISC was funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, who provided more than $1.1 million to the institute between 1973 and 1979, and by the Ford Foundation, Shell Oil, British Petroleum, and other firms.  As we noted earlier, the Heritage Foundation, and more on the Heritage Foundation sent some $140,000 to Crozier for distribution through a right-wing clearinghouse called the International Freedom Fund Establishment, based in England. According to Scaife associate R. Daniel McMichael, ISC set up solid working relationships with the Heritage Foundation, the National Strategy Information Centre, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and a number of other Scaife-supported organisations.  ISC also received financial support from the so-called Pinay Circle, established in 1969 and named for a former prime minister of France, Antoine Pinay. The circle’s chief fundraiser was Jean Violet, a member of the SDECE, France’s intelligence agency. Well connected to US, British, West German, and South African intelligence, Violet was also friendly with numerous rightwing millionaires and politicians in Europe and the United States. The circle included William Colby, former director of the CIA, Edwin Feulner of Heritage, retired General Stilwell of the US Defence Intelligence Agency and ASC, and Crozier himself.
In the early 1970s, ISC played a significant role in politicising industrial conflict in England. In co-operation with the Confederation of British Industries (CBI), it launched a campaign designed to establish that industrial conflict rested on subversion; and it helped get important segments of the press to blame left-wing militants for labor unrest. Subsequently, it was found from ISC’s own correspondence that ISC was being funded by CBI and its member firms; that its study Sources of Conflict in British Industry was written in part by writers from other institutes closely affiliated with industry; and that much of its evidence came from the files of well-known and discredited right-wing organisations whose materials only took on respectability when laundered through ISC.
Similarly, it was disclosed in 1975 that the institute had close relations with high police and intelligence officials in Rhodesia and South Africa, with whom they had exchanged visits and information in a highly collegial spirit. Crozier’s own commitment to South Africa, common to so many in the right-wing network of institutes and experts, was shown in his writing a propaganda tract for the apartheid government.  It was also evident in his 1981 statement on appropriate Western strategy for South Africa in the National Review :
The real priority is to stop SWAPO coming to power in Namibia; for if they do, South Africa will be totally isolated, and the West cannot survive without South Africa’s minerals; moreover, if Namibia goes, the South African hold on the strategic harbour of Walvis Bay will become tenuous; moreover, with SWAPO in power Savimbi will be outflanked and starved of supplies; so the real priority is Angola: give Savimbi and the other Angolan guerrillas operating in the north maximum aid and the whole Cuban effort in Africa can be nullified, and possibly SWAPO can be finished off in the bargain.
ISC’s Peter Janke, now with Control Risks Ltd., was a good friend and close ally of Michael Morris of the South African security police and, eventually, head of the South African Terrorism Research Centre. ISC’s Conflict Study no. 52, South Africa? The End of Empire, written by Janke, was based in part on information on terrorism in Mozambique supplied him by P. J. De Wit, the head of South African intelligence, a source unacknowledged in the report. ISC also passed along to South African officials their report Sources of Conflict in British Industry, which would be useful for indicating how South African unions might be attacked as recalcitrant and strikeprone, not on account of any real grievances but only because of left-wing militants and outside agitators.
ISC also established close working relationships with the British police and military. John Alderson, the director of the Bramshill Police College in 1972, asked Janke to help the college develop a course on terrorism and counter-subversion. The ISC’s Manual on Counter-Insurgency was developed and used at the Police College and elsewhere. The stress of ISC’s instruction was on the need for more extensive surveillance and preemptive action.  This training, sponsored ultimately by the CIA and British intelligence, is strongly reminiscent of the U.S. training of Latin American police in the 1960s and 1970s on subversion and the need for preemptive counterinsurgency, which […] played a significant role in the rise of torture, disappearances, and large-scale state terrorism in that area.
In an article entitled Victory for Strauss, published in Germany’s Der Spiegel in 1982, secret intelligence reports by Hans Langemann to the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior were quoted at length on the broader efforts of Crozier and the Pinay Circle.  The gist of the intelligence reports is that Crozier, along with operatives from the CIA and British, French, and Swiss intelligence, was organising a transnational security organisation designed to use the media to shift European politics and ideology to the right. The objectives stated in the late 1970s as summarised by Langemann were: (1) to bring a conservative government to Great Britain; (2) to promote the candidacy of Strauss in West Germany; and (3) to influence the situation in Rhodesia and South Africa in accord with a conservative agenda.
One of the memos states that as far as can be judged by outsiders Crozier has initiated with his group the project Victory for Strauss using the tactics applied in Great Britain, of major themes such as the communist, extremist subversion of government parties and trade unions, KGB manipulation of terrorism and damage to internal security. Within a month of the Pinay Circle’s discussion of ways of promoting Strauss (January 1980), Crozier had an article in Sir James Goldsmith‘s magazine NOW! in defence of Strauss, and other pro-Strauss articles by Crozier followed. Goldsmith himself soon made allegations that Der Spiegel’s criticisms of Strauss were orchestrated by the KGB.
This led to a lawsuit by Der Spiegel, eventually settled out of court. The Crozier-Pinay Circle’s pro-Strauss campaign eventually failed, but there were successes, and the effort itself is worthy of note. Crozier has important connections and serves powerful global interests. (Committee of 300)
Crozier’s preoccupation with national security and subversion and his sympathetic understanding of right-wing state terrorists were spelled out in some detail in his writings of the late 1970s and early 1980s on the democratic state and Chile. For the former, Crozier has the greatest contempt, using words like absurdity, fraud, and fallacies to describe the theory and practice of Western democracy and the party system. 
For Pinochet and his new Chile, on the other hand, Crozier has only purr words? a man of a political vision, a statesman, one who brought peace and prosperity where disorder and poverty had reigned, who has engaged in one of the most interesting . . . constitutional [sic] experiments in the world today, and who has been badly maligned in claims of systematic torture that, barring a few early excesses, are palpably false. 
The fatal flaw of Western democracy and party systems is their inability to provide for national security and to protect the state against subversion, which is the first order of business in a properly run state. A well-run state also does not let unions and welfare systems get out of hand, as happens regularly in democracies and with party systems. Authoritarian regimes, despite their excesses, at least give proper value to security and property rights, and in Crozier’s accounting, Franco Spain rates just a mite below England under the labor government. 
The class bias in Crozier’s analysis is blatant. National security for him is, by implication, the security of property interests; subversion is anything that threatens those interests. This is why he affiliates with and apologises for right-wing dictatorships like those of Pinochet and Franco, and the apartheid system of South Africa, which create mass insecurity but protect established property interests. From a non-owners and democratic perspective, however, Pinochet and the generals of Latin America have been a premier force for subversion of democracy and a threat to the livelihood and personal freedom of the majority. Crozier never discusses these alternative conceptions of subversion and insecurity; he simply premises that these threats are from the left. As in standard right-wing treatises, he postulates that the Soviet Union is trying to conquer the world, that its agents are everywhere penetrating unions and other organisations of the left, and thus it is the left that poses the fearsome threat of totalism.
The organised right, security forces, and Pinochet strive to counter this threat only for the good of society; the military leaders in Latin America intervened out of a sense of duty and as ultimate repositories of the well-being of their nations . . . it was their job to clear up the mess created by party politicians. 
Thus mass killings and torture are pushed under the rug or rationalised by Crozier and never constitute terrorism. In Crozier’s manichean world, any group that calls itself anti-communist and fights leftist or even nonaligned regimes is defended, no matter how violent. Crozier even rallies to the support of RENAMO against the highly tendentious State Department report of 1988, putting himself in the class that we may call the RENAMO right of the West? a significant set in the Western terrorism industry.
It may be observed that Crozier’s views are extremely close to those of the Latin American generals and spokesmen of the National Security State, as expounded, for example, at the November 1987 Council of Armies. Crozier has always found any serious reformist or left tendency in England to be a frightening manifestation of international communist influence? Thatcher barely saved freedom and both he and the generals find that their pro bono interventions are always just in the nick of time. The Langemann papers, of course, indicate that Crozier and his friends in the Pinay Circle are not above a little opportunistic use of frightening threats to freedom to achieve the kind of nondemocratic but secure political order to which they aspire.
While at ISC, Crozier and his associates produced several essays dealing with international terrorism in they’re monthly, Conflict Studies, and their Annual of Power and Conflict,’ and they issued five studies dealing with the IRA. Crozier was an important figure in helping shape Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher‘s anti-terrorism policies, particularly in regard to Northern Ireland.  The thrust of the policy recommendations was predictably the need for an uncompromising use of force.
Crozier has long expounded the right-wing version of the Western line on terrorism. As a featured speaker at the Jonathan Institute conference of 1979, he implied repeatedly that the Soviet Union was behind most, if not all, of the world’s political unrest, including the troubles in Northern Ireland.
How strange then it is that the IRA had been infiltrated by MI6 at the highest levels almost from the get go of the Northern Ireland troubles, on that premise it is clear anti-communism is the same as communism, they have achieved synthesis.
1. Brian Crozier, Franco (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967).
2. We say supervised, as a CIA operative was regularly assigned duties within FWF.
3. Gordon Winter, Inside BOSS (New York: Penguin Books, 1981), p. 170.
4. Wilson, M15 and the Rise of Thatcher; Lobster, no. 11 (April 1986), p. 35.
5. Steve Weissman, The CIA Makes the News; in Philip Agee and Louis Wolf, eds., Dirty Work: The CIA in Western Europe (Secaucus, N.].: Lyle Stuart, 1978), p.208.
6. Kermit Roosevelt, on behalf of the CIA, tapped the Mellon family for the monies needed to establish FWF’s parent company, Kern House Enterprises, Ltd. For a brief history of the relationships among the CIA, the Mellons, and various U.K.-based publishing ventures, see Freemantle, CIA, pp. 311-15.
7. Quoted in Saloma, Ominous Politics, p. 32.
8. Wilson, MI5 and the Rise of Thatcher; p. 39.
9. Subversion, Inc.; Time Out [London], Sept. 5-11, 1975. A great deal of information, some cited in the article Subversion, Inc.; came from a cache of over 1,500 ISC letters and internal memos deposited, apparently unsolicited, at the offices of the British muckraking paper Time Out in 1975.
10. Winter, Inside BOSS, pp. 443-44.
11. Brian Crozier, Allied Divergences; National Review, April 17, 1981, p. 410.
12. See Subversion, Inc.
14. This sensational document, well reported in Europe, was virtually ignored in the United States. We use the translations given in Brian Crozier, the Pinay Circle and James Goldsmith, in the British dissident publication Lobster, no. 17 (Nov. 1988); and Victory for Strauss; in the U.S. magazine Counterspy, Dec. 1982Feb. 1983.
15.Brian Crozier, the Pinay Circle. . . p. 15.
16.Brian Crozier, The Minimum State-Beyond Party Politics (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1979), pp. 11-23.
17. Ibid., p. 100; foreword to Suzanne Labin, Chile: The Crime of Resistance (Richmond, England: Foreign Affairs Publishing Co., 1982), pp. vii-viii; article on Chile in Free Nation (a newspaper published by the British right-wing organisation Freedom Association), Oct. 1983, quoted in Jennings, Enemy Within, p. 24.
18. Crozier, Minimum State, p. 50.
19. Ibid., p. 100.
20. Brian Crozier, Riddles of Mozambique; National Review, Oct. 28, 1988. Crozier says, On the Resistance [sic] side, it is worth pointing out that the State Department ignored Renamo’s invitation to visit the zones it has liberated, or even to meet its representatives on neutral territory. Nor are Renamo’s successes attributable to South African aid. For some years, Pretoria did support Renamo. In 1984, it ceased to do so, and indeed now has a good relationship with Maputo. The claim of a cessation of aid in 1984 is an outright lie. See note 5 of Preface.
21. This is in contrast with the Pol Pot left; a frequent epithet of Jeane Kirkpatrick and others, but as far as we know, a nonexistent set among Western activists and intellectuals.
22. Mc Michael noted that ISC’s research into political and psychological warfare, revolutionary activities, insurgency operations and terrorism is consistently used by the Thatcher government.The Heritage Foundation Goes Abroad; Nation, June 6,1987, p. 763.
Tags : Adelphi Complex, Brian Crozier, Federal Reserve, Francisco Franco, Hegelian Dialectic, Institute for the Study of Conflict, John Adam Street Gang, Jonathan Institute, Margaret Thatcher, National Reconnaissance Agency, Nick Clegg, Olympians, Samuel Julius Gould, Sir James Goldsmith’, Terrorism Research Centre