This is a very helpful diagram by the "fact-checkers" at LittleSis.

@specman Looking at its web-site suggests that is so: just a chummy bunch of political idealists who think they know better than everyone else how to run the world. Nothing new in that of course, and highly unlikely to have any influence on any but a small numbers of politicians already largely agreeing with them anyway, and then only in democratic (small 'd'!) nations

I did read on it what seems a warning of a trap. That is of over-using the adjective "far", of any political view strongly-held but not your own. If so that is a good point: to me a "far-xxxx" government would be totalitarian, single-party be it of Left or Right; or a campaigner who supports such governance. It should [i]not[/i] be merely a cheap slur used by someone on the more ideological sides of the USA's Republican or Democratic Parties, or the UK's Conservative or Labour Parties, against someone of the opposite party and view. Politics do not always achieve much; but cheap slurs achieve nowt at all.

The Brownstone Institute is American, and based there; but does have a few members from other countries.

It says it named itself after a building-stone widely used in 18-19C America, and also called "freestone". Brownstone might be a freestone but "freestone" is the masons' term for a rock easily worked in any direction, nothing to do with its colour; like Portland Stone, which is white. So one might wonder the BI's political "colour" - one I find rather confusing when trying to understand what US users here are arguing about when they say "Red" or "Blue": apparently the opposite to the UK's colours for Labour and Conservative (cap. 'C') respectively; and to the worldwide use of red for hard-line socialism or Communism

BI appears Right-leaning (so light red in US?). That alone is fair, but we must consider "Right" or "Left" on which country's political spectrum. That spectrum of US politics appears generally quite Rightwards relatively to the British and most European spectra.

For example, "debates" elsewhere suggest many American Republicans think we Britons are practically Communist; while we East of the Atlantic might wonder if some of them in turn dine with Presidents Orban and Erdogan; but see the more left-leaning Democrats as approximating to the more "centrist" Labour politicians.

It is natural that BI would ally itself with other political groups of similar leanings, particularly in its own USA; but whether Left or Right I would be wary of any such group's reporting of organisations that are themselves politically neutral, let alone of opposite polarity.

So where does this leave its fancy diagram? Nowhere, really! The 23 organisations it names might simply be its sources of information or opinions it can select to support its own opinions; but it does not control them; nor vice-versa.

Nothing new in this sort of debating-shop. I'd not worry about it. Do that and you risk falling into the "conspiracy-theory" trap.

@ArishMell Well done! a one-man take-down of the Brownstone Institute!

You allow yourself such privileges, yet when we "conspiracy theorists" attempt a take-down of your "safe and effective" vaccine narrative by a thousand proofs, you just scoff!

Talk about censorship! You are really in the centre of it!

@WalterF You've misjudged me. I did not "take down" the Brownstone Institute at all but simply explained how I see it as a merely a discussion-group with fancy ideas but no real power, so essentially harmless and not conspiratorial.

I'd be more worried about that LittleSis lot. That was the one trying to demolish the BI by alleging shady deals with those twenty-odd other organisations, at home (USA) and abroad.

Censorship? I don't like censorship any more than you do, and whatever LittleSis intends I saw nothing to make me suspect the BI of censoring anyone. It has its own ideas, written by named people, and we are free to read them, agree with them, disagree with them as we wish. So who is censoring whom?

Whatever you think of its politics, at least the BI is open and honest in stating definite places and people; unlike one or two on-line "magazines" I have seen that do not reveal their identities and locations, and try, usually lamely, to hide their political colours. One I saw a couple of years ago now, pretended to be a serious, American-British defence-analysis journal and certainly looked it, but may well have been from Russia by its very anti-US tone!

Those anonymous ones are the type to worry about -

- and LittleSis is one such, hiding its ownership and location behind complete anonymity; though its list of subjects suggests a manipulative group or individual trying to advance its own strong opinions within America's febrile domestics. Its eye-straining web-site shows it is no friend of Donald Trump, but while that shows its owner's party-political loyalty, much more seriously its own claims imply being interested in only "exposing" alleged corruption, not testing truth, nor personal guilt or innocence.

It invites donations, not a subscription: a subscription might be expected set to cover office, Internet and any staff costs; whereas inviting donations to an unknown destination might mean whoever "is" LittleSis might merely be trying to make a lot of money by criticising others for making money!

Of the two bodies, frankly if I were an American - or come to that a Hindhu from India (see its Tabs list) - I would fear the likes of LittleSis' investigative play far more than the BI idealists. Not for myself - I am not so vain as to think myself important to these prunes! - but for it cashing in on US, and indeed Indian, social and political divisions.

@specman The [i]publisher[/i] of the diagram Walter quotes is LittleSis, but that still might may not help you even if you search out LS, because many of the names and badges are too faint for proper legibility even when enlarged by 3 times on a good-quality 19" monitor. It might have come from a printed report or magazine where it would be clear.

Basically though, these 24 including the Brownstone lot [i]allegedly[/i] pals with all the rest, are mainly or entirely American and British organisations of various types.

Some have obvious names showing their remit, so might be civil-service agencies.

Other names are meaningless enough to be commercial "consultants", money-traders or perhaps "think-tanks". (The last a fancy term for a chat group a bit more learned and analytical though not necessarily any more politically neutral, than a social-media site... Internet or pub).

One or two use names suggesting being merely pretentious political campaigners, of Left or Right.

Whether there genuinely are any links between any of that lot, or if BS or LS simply imagine there are, is another matter- and frankly, probably of no matter!