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

by | Mar 1, 2018 | Interviews | 13 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


  1. 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.

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

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. I am with ya Man!

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

    The Establishment calls it “Controlled Opposition”.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

    • 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.

  9. 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…

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member