Interview 1348 - The Last American Vagabond on Social (Media) Engineering

03/01/201825 Comments

via The Last American Vagabond:

Conditioning, propaganda, manufactured consent, the psyop and the false flag, as well as many other terms, all relate to a subject that many are afraid to think about, or in many cases, unable to think about. It opens the mind up to the possibility that what we think, what we feel, the very actions we take, might not be our own, and that is social engineering.

Much has changed over the last few years, some very erratic and unexpected shifts in perception. For a time it seemed as though progress was being made. People were discussing topics that were once only whispered in dark corners for fear of being cast out from their circles, deemed a theorizer of conspiracies. But just as quickly as these topics were brought to light, Americans were bedazzled by the “anti-establishment” candidates of the 2016 election. Even many preaching the evils of the current system where once again woven back into the fold of the two-party paradigm, allowing them to think they had finally won, not realizing they had fallen victim to the classic bernaysian manipulation that once fooled the past generations, who were balked at for their naivety by those now emphatically cheering for the State.

Was this all part of the plan? Were we led to believe that long-told lies were finally being exposed, only to lull the masses back into a state of subservience and blind patriotism? How would that even be done? What type of massive control structure would be needed to execute such a manipulation? Is that even possible?

Here to discuss this and much more is James Corbett of

Bernays – “Propaganda” (pdf)

Sean Parker unloads on Facebook: “God only knows what it's doing to our children's brains”

Divide and Conquer: Politics and the Left/Right Fraud

2/12/18 Jodie Evans on CodePink’s “Divest From The War Machine”

How To REALLY Defeat Globalism

Deep State Rising: The Mainstreaming of the Shadow Government

Filed in: Interviews
Tagged with:

Comments (25)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. john.o says:

    This is the best online conversation on this topic I can think of. Many specific parts deserve replying and relistening.

    I do want to share one disappointment with a remark toward the very end, IF I understood it. I haven’t replayed or relistened but I believe, while discussing truly productive conversations about sensitive issues, cutting against reactions to cognitive dissonance and changing minds and hearts, you said something like “If there is a way to have those conversations in the online comments sections, I haven’t seen it yet…”

    Maybe you are only referring to truly major paradigm shifts here. In that case this perhaps becomes close to true. I have never heard anyone say at the end of a thread: “Oh I see, you are right. I thought it was 19 Arabs with boxcutters, but now I see 911 was a planned operation, planned to some extent, by the people investigating it.”

    Without that qualifier, I must say this strikes me as unnecessarily cynical. More hopefully, I can say from personal experience here and on many other forums, not “big major forums,” it is true, but on others like this one, where there are many intelligent people sharing information and perspectives that clearly not all of the rest of us have, that I have had and have observed many conversations that have educated me to the point changing my point of view, sometimes in a way probably intended by my interlocutor, and sometimes some other way, but it does happen, and occasionally even paradigmatic changes do occur, as you say, especially over time.

    Another grain of salt assumption: “one cannot ever really examine ones own consciousness, that is a false meta-narrative…”

    Leaving aside the difficult word “consciousness,” there is truth there, because one will never observe or report on oneself without bias and distortion, but this is the situation we are in with all observed phenomena.

    Observing our own psyches, learning how we ourselves distort things and trying to mitigate that, is a fundamental characteristic of rationality, which you, James, have clearly mastered to a great degree, and I feel that is worth noting. It is, as you also noted, a never ending agenda, as long as one thinks, and cares about communication with others.

    And again, this conversation is worth several careful listens. How rare is that? Miracles happen. Even online.

    • VoltaicDude says:

      You’re right john.o – this is an impressively thoughtful conversation on the subjects covered.

      In reading Bernays he actually seems more than just current, he’s almost still futuristic – in a Frankenstein kind of way, of course!

      A majority of people are still basically mindless and unaware of this shadowed aspect of their social controllers.

      We often talk about how a minority of psychopaths disproportionately make their way to the “top” of social hierarchies.

      Less often we talk about how those psychopaths above are empowered only through the complicity of the majority of people that are mesmerized into following mainstream pathways to behaving like monstrous sociopaths.

      Their brains seem more in tune with “getting along” socially than with trying to retain some objective criteria and having some faith in their ability to meaningfully question the official “narratives” upon which they were socialized.

      This is consistent throughout human history.

      I wonder about the Gaia-type equilibrium that may have developed regarding the demographic proportional spread of psychopath-to-sociopaths-to-outliers in order to stabilize societal structures to maintain a minimum integrity for survivability (if that’s not an erroneous assumption in a nuclear-bomb world) and still allow for long-term (frustratingly for an outlier) change, or social evolution.

      Too sci-fi? Or too Hegelian? Or too Freudian?…!

      Originally I was almost (almost) dismissively skeptical when I came across 911 Truth (a little like Richard Gage, except on the other end of the mainstream conservative/liberal false narrative), but once I saw a video of Building 7…well.

      Little-by-little, based on ever-growing sets of solid evidence, things unraveled and much more profound questions were established about “what’s actually going on?!”

      But I can’t tell you how many people I have seen go through this same process, well, at least start at the same place in any case, and then veer off to embrace total denial.

      I see fear in them, of course, but it’s not like I’m immune to that – that doesn’t seem to be the definitive difference.

      It’s not just with 911 Truth, it’s with lots of other things too, and sometimes these people seem like Stepford wives.

      I wonder how much is chance (but for the grace of…), and how much is “wiring” – and probably it’s a mix, but exactly how does the mix work?

      Why did I get lucky? Or am I lucky? I suppose that’s an existential affirmative for me.

      I liked when James said, “…real conversations with actual human beings.”

      So many people that get turned on to recognizing the shadows of how our bankster-military-industrial government works, then turn around and perpetuate exactly a part of the malicious meme that the powers-that-shouldn’t-be created to begin with!

      It’s not enough to see the monster, one has to transcend the gaze and break free from the vicious cycles that corral us along sociopathic ways.

      I’m still very impressed with Vera Brittain’s, Testament of Youth – saw the movie recently; not yet read the book.

      It’s from around the same time as Bernays, and also still relevant!

  2. HomeRemedySupply says:

    I can’t help but to think of this 2 minute clip again from Showtime’s Homeland…
    “Get outraged! Let’s go!”

  3. danmanultra says:

    Good conversation. Glad you had an interview with someone who can really keep up. I’ll have to check out more from this guy I think.

  4. dubrey says:

    I would say that as things are and how they have been for years. If there is a shooting/bombing or any event that a solution is being immediately pushed by the media, it would be safe to say that it should always be suspected as being false, until proven otherwise.
    It’s not tinfoil hat to come to this conclusion. In fact, if the government was truthful, and what they have to say is true and if it could easy be proven, they would make an immediate effort to be forthright and take the stance that they will absolutely provide the proof. Wouldn’t they?

    I wonder how the media would cover a true shooting/bombing event? Wouldn’t they incessantly provide everything? Including every small detail? (including real dead bodies)
    Here’s a video of the perp walking into the school with his weapon, here’s the bullet casings all over the floor, here’s the bloody mess, bodies included, the broken windows, the hundreds of bullet holes in the corridors. Here’s the killer running away, Here’s the body cam of the arrest. I think if they had a case, no stone would be left unturned to provide even the most insignificant proof to get their solution implemented, and their point across.

    I suspect that the government having been caught in lies so often, it has learned that it is almost impossible to fabricate truth successfully. The more information provided in a lie, the easier it is to get caught. Solution? Provide as little information as one can get by with and throw in confusing disinformation to boot. Call everyone who does not foolishly accept the story, a nut.

    So….. no concise and verifiable information, along with substantial contradictory information? Somebody is lying..the burden of proof is, and always should be, on them.

    • john.o says:

      “I wonder how the media would cover a true shooting/bombing event? Wouldn’t they incessantly provide everything? Including every small detail?”

      Great question!

      And how utterly revealing (and bizarre) that we have no way of knowing what such a thing would look like, pure and simple.

      • mkey says:

        Well, there is one obvious way. But I don’t feel like shooting up a school full of kids.

        What I often wonder about is why are these mixed terrorist events always aimed at the general public? Of course various political “elite” meetings will have a lot of security and what not, but those don’t ever get attacked anyway so I bet people on the security detail are, on a median, unprepared. It’s just a numbers game, really.

        There ought to be better targets than various public events for both domestic and foreign terrorists.

        • john.o says:

          Destabilization. Knowing how we feel about them, deep down we expect our leaders to need security. But stealing and slaughtering kids, terrorizing schools and public events drive fear and mistrust of of each other to new heights.

          I like too view these events, in light of three bodies of research:

          1) Programmed to Kill: The Politics of Serial Murder, by Dave MacGowan

          2) The history of the Phoenix program (and the weird role of William Colby in the investigation/shuttering of the Pedophilia network exposed in the “Conspircy of Silence” Franklin Scandal story.)

          2) The “Gladios,” both Gladio B and the original in Europe, about which from wikispooks:

          “Full article: Strategy of Tension; During his trial, Vincenzo Vinciguerra revealed that, in addition to discrediting left wing political groups, there had been a second aim behind the bombings – to inculcate a climate of fear among the general populace. This was known as the ‘strategy of tension’ which was intended to generate a pervasive sense of fear which would encourage the population to appeal to the state for protection…‘You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public to turn to the State to ask for greater security.’- Vincenzo Vinciguerra”

          • john.o says:

            That second paragraph is typo’d even beyond my own comprehension. It should read:

            “I like to view these events in light of three different bodies of research: ”


          • mkey says:

            LlAnother thing which is conveyed is their supposed hatred for “our way of life.” However, what I was wondering about is the perspective of the would be terrorist, not of “our leaders” whom should be refered to as rulers. Rulers rule, leaders lead.

            Anyhow, if some of these events were truly carried out by and for the foreign freedom figters who see it as an oportunity to gain some publicity and score revenge or whatever, why would they do the very thing which will ultimately lead to having the boot stuck even deeper in their ass. Because mass histeria may lead only toward a tighter stranglehold in the long run, firstly on the people, then on the terrorists and their people. It seems to me that we usually fail to grasp the fact terrorists have their people as well, people who tend to die by the millions because of this supposed terrorist action.

            The ultimate revenge would be one comitted against the “leaders” not “the people,” but this is not something that appears to cross their mind that often. Further to the point, when was it the last time a “famous” person fell in any of these attacks? It’s usually just a bunch of random people, some of whom appear to be eerily similar to people who may turn up alive at a later date.

            Maybe I’m just nitpicking, but I tend to deconstruct and dissassemble to better understand and make sense of things. The why is as important as often its ignored.

            • john.o says:

              I get what you mean now. Yes, very few things happen that would make sense in a world of real terrorists not funded with ulterior motives.

  5. beadbud5000 says:

    The podcast awesome as usual but I love the music video of the last 5 minutes!!! Amazing!

  6. brian.s says:

    The control mechanism is not imposed from without – except as part of its false flag diversion. The control mechanism is operating from the inside out. If your mind is hacked, it is because you accepted it as you for your own reasons or need at that time. Now is the only time to realign your mind in the heart – that is the open honesty of relational being – free of all the diversionary drama. So indeed learn to recognize the ‘bait’ and don’t take the bait! The ‘deceiver’ may seem to be ‘out there’ but only your unattended mind offers the correspondence for manipulative intent.
    My main point perhaps is to invite release of the personal persona masking diversion of identity investment, and use the world and the awareness of what seems loveless or manipulative to serve the awakening of a willingness for love – understanding that love is being with what is real here – and not a manipulative disarming ploy or trading of conditional expectations and demands.
    The words and the forms of anything do not hold the meaning, for you are the resonance of a true recognition or a fall for a phishing attack and identity theft.
    How will we check for resonance if we react without listening, checking in at the heart – or if you prefer in the silence of our being – for these words can only prompt and point to what you are the willingness of.

    A Course in Miracles may be idolized for its love and forgiveness teachings at a certain level of ‘self-improvement’ while its contrasts with the insanity and viciousness of the ego or self-in-image is glossed over (evaded) to get to the ‘good part’ but the seeming exaggerations of the negative are an apt reflection of an insane defence or control system, that the mind of the mask in the world is hidden from and hiding from.

    ACIM is one tool among many for the reintegration of mind in Mind and that is not a fear driven drama – though of course in the course of undoing such a reactive habit, its patterns and beliefs are going to be exposed to awareness.
    This is what is ‘going on’ but you are free to give it all the meaning it has for you – and that is a matter of what your purpose is – not ‘Them’.
    Perspective is not outwardly fixed excepting we conform to a group-think of ‘accepted definitions and beliefs’ – and so the breakdown of such a narrative reality to be clearly seen as a narrative dictate or mind control, is the basis to question, challenge and be curious about exactly what is going on, such as opens expanded and fresh perspective. If you then seek to shove the glimpse into your own version of mind control, you trash your own heart’s knowing to ‘save the world’ or whatever.
    Buying into a fake or adulterated currency of thought is to ‘think’ in a falsely framed set of limitations, that protect limitation and separation as a sense of salvation from conflicted relationship. The illusion that we are nice loving folk who just want to get along is an evasion of underlying conflict traumas that operate in the dark because our mind operates upon the denial of what is hated, unwanted or feared. Denial is no less active for being coded unconscious. Well the unconscious is becoming conscious and everything is coming up and nothing and no one is going to re-lid this jack in the box – and so we have to make relationship with or be driven to deeper pain, fragmentation and loss of consciousness. This is a choice. We are being brought to recognize our choice and so the important thing is to know your acceptance is true for you, because choice has consequences, and fundamental acceptance of who and what we are sets the core vibrational patterning of our unfoldment of self relation and world.

  7. hammy says:

    Wonderful discussion… and what was that last illustrated piece of video?

  8. bharani says:

    How did Prussian Schools get established in the USA. It is a bit more involved.

    Look here

  9. Prolefed says:

    That was a great conversation on a topic that sits at the very heart of our problem. So much to take from it.

    Not intended to denigrate the clear benefits of self reflection and analysis, James’ comment on examining one’s own consciousness reminded me of Bierce’s definition in his ‘Devil’s Dictionary”:

    Mind: A mysterious form of matter secreted by the brain. Its chief activity consists in the endeavor to ascertain its own nature, the futility of the attempt being due to the fact that it has nothing but itself to know itself with.

    On the subject of the deliberate creation, shaping and management of dissent, one of the less discussed aspects of Orwell’s 1984 narrative is that O’Brien himself wrote (or collaborated in writing) Goldstein’s book.

    Thanks James.

  10. manbearpig says:

    After the first 7 minutes and 15 seconds of this interview I had to hit the pause button, almost moved to tears, finding the exposée so perfectly and eloquently laid out. Awesome introduction by the interviewer. As usual Mr Corbett picked up the ball with formidable pedagogical agility.

    Confirms what I’d long suspected: If we are to keep the conversation going, the word “sheeple” must be banned from our discourse.

  11. mirrorofourego says:

    Yes, there COULD be a new „program for social engeneering“, yes, these „erratic shifts“ COULD be initiated via social engeneering and yes, maybe „they“ COULD be behind all this and luring us in another „reload of the matrix“. I think you people (who are suspecting a new form of manipulation behind it) are so accustomed by your “alternative mindset” that you only suspect “them” behind everywhere and at any time; that you doesn´t can (or will) IMAGINE that things will change (as they have always done throughout human history!) and make the world a better place to live in. Am I „naive“? No, I am just allowing myself to imagine and believe – and if YOU don´t, HOW the hell you will ever CHANGE something, you even don´t imagine or believe in?

  12. taoss says:

    When I worked for big corporations and something went wrong, they said, “We need to do Damage Control”.

    The Establishment calls it “Controlled Opposition”.

  13. HomeRemedySupply says:

    I like how Corbett stresses the importance of “getting the word out” and in a manner with which is appropriate for the receiver of the communication.

  14. Nevertheless says:

    US elections have one purpose, to foment division in America. Regardless who is in office, they still serve the AIPAC.

    It is all about positioning Americans to align right or left, buy into their particular cheerleader (MSNBC, CNN, Fox, NPR…), then work to push the rt v left narrative.

    Then once the American people put their trust into the news outlet that tells them what they want to hear: How evil Trump is, or Clinton…They then use that trust to push other narratives, gun control, multiculturalism, open borders…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top