You can't. But I think it's likely that Project Camelot, Bill and Kerry's project, just took their name from the old Project Camelot, which the
Wiki refers to.
The wiki itself lists these references
* Irving Louis Horowitz, ed., The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot: Studies in the Relationship Between Social Science and Practical Politics,
Cambridge MA: The M.I.T. Press, 1967 JSTOR
* A. L. Madian, A. N. Oppenheim, "Knowledge for What? The Camelot Legacy: The Dangers of Sponsored Research in the Social Sciences", British
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1969), pp. 326–336. JSTOR
* Solovey, Mark (2001-04-01). "Project Camelot and the 1960s Epistemological Revolution: Rethinking the Politics-patronage-social Science
Nexus". Social Studies of Science 31 (2): 171–206. doi:10.1177/0306312701031002003. sss.sagepub.com... Retrieved
* George E. Lowe, The Camelot Affair, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Tome 22, No 5, May 1966, ISSN 0096-3402
I'm not completely sure what you are asking about. If you are asking about "Project Camelot", yes, it existed in the 60's but was nixed in 1965
when it came under public strutiny. Project Camelot is an important case for American Social sciences because it opened the debate about state
patronage of the American Social sciences. The project itself was concerned with the study of the sociological foundations of revolutions.
What absolutely boggles me about the guy in the video is the inconsistency in his thinking. If Project Camlelot (the mordern Bill and Kerry thing) was
somehow "part of the "Illuminati"" or is a rejuvenated version of the 60's porgram, for God's sakes wouldn't they have picked another name?
Wouldn't their "Illuminati" handlers have said something like " cough.... Billl, Kerry... We like the name but it kind of gives away that you are
part of our sinister agenda and we wouldn't want that now, would we?"
I have a simpler explanation. Neither Bill nor Kerry have ever heard of the 1960's Project and therefore are totally ignorant of the correlation.
Or they forgot.
Or maybe they know and just don't give a twit?
I find that more likely.
If you're interested in the 1960's Project, see the Wiki page for basic information and links:
Or read Christopher Simpsons wonderful, totally underdiscussed but brilliant book "The science of conversion". It does not discuss Project Camelot
but it delves heavily into the subject of government patronage of the US social sciences post WWII:
Well, that stuff he mentioned about Project Camelot sounded a bit like
to me. A 1960 project? I gonna check the links, you provided, thank you.
Edit, to avoid dp:
Nice quote from the wiki-page, that seems to fit to my impression:
"Project Camelot, which was initiated during a time when the military took counterinsurgency seriously as an area of competency, recognized the need
for social science insights. According to the director's letter: "Within the Army there is especially ready acceptance of the need to improve the
general understanding of the processes of social change if the Army is to discharge its responsibilities in the overall counterinsurgency program of
the U.S. Government." "Chile was to be the first case study for Project Camelot"
Sounds like Iraq and Afghanistan are/were the real case studies. But, wait,
"The project was canceled as the US Defense Department came under increasing criticism for attempting to subvert social research, as well as
arguments that social science research was an appropriate way to avoid cultural conflict.
At the time of Project Camelot, there was not unanimous agreement that unclassified social science research is subversive, or that such research
should be classified"
So the Project was canceled, because people thought it should be classified. Sure. Doesnt sound like a conspiracy at all.
After the Chile case study was cancelled, there will have been some brilliant minds in search for some new strategic sandbox.
The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of AboveTopSecret.com.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.