Great video:

They are not dramatic. They are pernicious. Most psychopaths are subtle. They are more like poison than a knife, and they are more like slow-working poison than cyanide.So what bullies usually do, they start and stop, start and stop. That achieves the maximal stress syndrome, and this is the great secret of bullying. Never overdo it. Small doses. The victim will do the rest. ~ Sam Vaknin, psychopath

See: the social engineers


Social engineering in practice:

Iraq war inquiry: Blair government ‘massaged’ Saddam Hussein WMD threat

Carne Ross, a British diplomat to the UN who was responsible for Iraq in the runup to the invasion, said intelligence was “massaged” into “more robust and terrifying” statements about Saddam’s supposed WMD.

In evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, which heard that the Foreign Office had objected to the release of documents that he wanted to disclose, Ross said: “This process of exaggeration was gradual and proceeded by accretion and editing from document to document, in a way that allowed those participating to convince themselves that they were not engaged in blatant dishonesty.”

In an example of what he called a process of “deliberate public exaggeration”, Ross said the government in March 2002 sent the parliamentary Labour party a paper that included the claim that “if Iraq’s weapons programmes remained unchecked, Iraq could develop a crude nuclear device in about five years”.

He said the government’s real assessment was more or less the opposite: that sanctions were effectively preventing Iraq from developing a nuclear capability.

The statement to the PLP was “purely hypothetical”, said Ross, “and was true in 1991 as it was in 2002; there was no evidence at either point that Iraq was close to obtaining the necessary material”. A senior Foreign Office official sent a minute to an adviser to Jack Straw, the then foreign secretary, warning about the discrepancy in the memo to the PLP. But, Ross told the inquiry, the official was ignored.


Social engineering in practice:

First some conspiracy facts:

  1. Iran has signed the NPT. As a signatory to the NPT, Iran may rightfully, legally, use nuclear technology for peaceful energy purposes. Iran has submitted to and passed repeated IAEA inspections.
  2. The US intelligence community (NIE) does not consider Iran a nuclear threat. No credible evidence has ever been presented that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
  3. Israel refuses to sign the NPT. Israel has an estimated several hundred undeclared nuclear weapons.
  4. An attack on Iran will have global consequences.


WSJ (high-end social engineering rag): Why hasn’t Israel bombed Iran (yet)?, by Bret Stephens, former editor-in-chief at the JPost, via the Truth Seeker

1. Israeli military planners have concluded that any attack would be unlikely to succeed (or succeed at a reasonable price). “But this analysis fails to appreciate the depth of Israeli fears of a nuclear Iran, and the lengths they are prepared to go to stop it.” EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT IRAN HAS A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM.

2. Israel needs more time to improve its offensive and defensive military capabilities, (ie: to suck dry the US taxpayers.)

3. Netanyahu and his cabinet can’t agree what to do (and who will be blamed if something goes wrong.)

4. And something might go wrong. “This is an unenviable position, and Israel’s friends abroad would do well to spare it easy lectures. Iran is not Israel’s problem alone. It should not be Israel’s problem alone to solve, to its own frightful peril.” EVEN THOUGH THE “PROBLEM” OF IRAN IS ENTIRELY ISRAEL’S INVENTION BECAUSE IRAN THREATENS ISRAEL’S HEGEMONY IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

Commentary by Truth Seeker:

There is a fifth and final reason that Israel hasn’t yet struck at Iran. Despite his impressive record as a journalist, Bret Stephens seems unable or unwilling to acknowledge that Israel has yet to persuade its “ally”to do the job for them.

America’s reluctance to strike Iran can largely be attributed to elements in its military command. But that could change, particularly under someone like Patraeus, who seems to have presidential ambitions.

So while at a stretch it might just be possible, a unilateral strike on Iran would prove very costly for Israel. Indeed it could prove disasterous and rather than face the consequences alone Israel wants the rest of the world to help pay the price.

If only subliminally however, the above does at least prepare readers for the prospect of conflict with Iran.

(image from

Do you see a process of deliberate public exaggeration, just like in the lead up to the Iraq war?

Do you see the starting and stopping? The threat advancing and receding? Month after month, year after year.

Do you see the actual facts of the situation diametrically opposed to the breathless claims justifying war?

Softening you up. Confusing you. Conditioning you. That’s the point.