UnSpun 039 – “Counterintelligence in the Alt-Media Continued: Steven Hager”

Share

unspun_039_longb

Aired September 13-14, 2016. Joe Atwill and Jan Irvin continue their discussion on counterintelligence "infiltration" into the so-called "alt-media" community. In this episode we focus in on the former editor in chief of HighTimes magazine, Steven Hager.

Alt stream:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gthA5sBN-Y]

Audio only:

  7 comments for “UnSpun 039 – “Counterintelligence in the Alt-Media Continued: Steven Hager”

  1. Bizantura
    September 15, 2016 at 9:03 am

    It is sad that good researchers that probably know the Trivium method are not able to talk to one and other and properly discuss things, so what if you disagree, that is the point of discussion. Seems getting your own little agenda thru is more important and absolutely not being part of a grander puzzle. Dot connecting thru each others work has become a perilous journey.

    For the layman I think it is to much work, even if you provide all the links of researched work, to follow them. Sadly most people look for a short blogpost reafirming their allready firm established beliefs. Not to mention scrutinizing your own thoughts/beliefs is not easy.

    I hope both Jan and Joe will stay willing to throw a wrench in my personal worldviews to mull over.

    Is there any reason why the video part is private?

    • September 16, 2016 at 7:17 am

      There’s two versions of the trivium, one for manipulating others, one that stops the manipulation. If you don’t know the trivium, you might think that people just “disagree” – but a contradiction is a sign of a LIE or an error. Your statement “good researchers” is vague. YOU need to use the trivium method to verify data yourself, so that you don’t get caught into such traps by seeing just “disagreements”. There are people, hosts, “researchers” who are actually trying to manipulate you with the classical trivium. You can learn the difference so you don’t see it’s just “getting your own agenda thru”. Again, a contradiction is a lie or an error, not just a place for “researchers to get along.

  2. Jerms Bermford
    September 16, 2016 at 4:55 pm

    If you really want all these suspect individuals to come on the show and defend themselves against your allegations, then you and Joe really need to stop interrupting and shouting over each other. Otherwise no one is going to rise to the bait and submit themselves to what would seem to be a pissing contest – who can get the most powerful stream the highest. I would love to hear you debate with these people and pick apart their holy cows, but I reckon you need to tone down the rhetoric to make this an attractive proposition, or else it’s just gonna be empty challenges. It sounds like Joe realises that there’s little point in getting caught up in the minutiae of faces book comments, and that a protocol should be established amongst ‘alt media’ folk to help the information rise to the surface of the murky waters without getting caught up in the tangled weeds of hubris. Look at Miguel Conner and the guests he has regularly. Remember Jan, back in the day when you used to have interesting guests? where are they now? It’s now just mainly you, Joe, and sometimes Hans and Steve. Bring back the interesting research and stop flogging a dead horse please. We all know we’re being played for fools, and we always have been. Big Deal. No one really gives too much of a fuck, we just get on with life as best we can.

  3. Stan Stan
    September 17, 2016 at 1:54 pm

    The narrative you are exposing in the show is revelatory, insightful, intelligent, and educational. Excellent job! I have watched several episodes couple of times over. The research and evidence you are presenting is compelling.

    However, I think you are making a mistake by spending couple of shows on debunking people who have tried to discredit you. Do not worry about it. Mention it, or briefly go over it. That is all. You don`t have that much material, and when you spent an hour on it, it is counterproductive, insofar as it brakes the main research you are trying to expose. Wait for someone to actually make the case against your work up to date, and then focus on trying to counter it.

    I, for one, think it`s not necessary for all of these people to admit to their connections to whoever anyway. They do not seem to take a stab at the meat of the matter, so when you are defending yourself against their mostly inessential remarks, you are creating their argument for them. Why do it, if you posses a fantastic research that drops the curtain around the charade that has been going on in the American culture (and the world`s) for the past 60 years…

    • September 17, 2016 at 7:12 pm

      It’s not to discredit people, it’s to show how counterintelligence works. If we have to use examples of people to get it across, so be it. High Times goes right up into the Yippies, and from there, right to Aldous Huxley, the CIA, et al.

    • Camille Harang
      September 19, 2016 at 4:25 am

      Just ran into this new video about how occultists, mind controllers and Crowley fans handle trolls and haters on the Internet. Maybe you’ll find it interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg_2GwbKjdM

  4. Pamela Seley
    September 30, 2016 at 1:23 am

    “Economic and Game Theory Against Intellectual Monopoly,” by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, a book published online for free:

    http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

    In chapter 2, page 33, this sentence sums up the reason for the creation of copyright laws:
    “Copyright originated not to protect the profits of
    authors from copyists, or to encourage creation, but rather as an
    instrument of government censorship.”

    There are a few points I may take issue with, but overall, the authors make some valid points.
    Who would have thought — “copyright originated … as an instrument of government censorship.” All along we’ve been led to believe copyright is to protect the author.

    The mainstream media is not going to acknowledge Miles Mathis’ proof that John Lennon faked his death, or your proof Gordon Wasson went to Mexico in search of the magic mushroom on the CIA’s dime.

    I didn’t start paying attention to the alternative media until about 2010, although I’ve known for years something is not right in our world. I have to agree, after doing much of my own, independent research, many of these alternative media celebrities have turned out to be bullshitters. I’m not going to name names, but it’s good to point out the hacks of the world. Keep up the good work, Jan

Leave a Reply