De-Manufacturing Consent with Guillermo Jimenez Presents Tom Secker: The Making of A National Security State

The National Security State, Predictive Programming & 7/7

On this edition of De-Manufacturing Consent: Guillermo is joined by author of the new book, Secrets, Spies and 7/7, Mr. Tom Secker. Guillermo and Tom discuss the book, the motivation for pursuing this area of research, and the lasting psychological and sociological effects of flashpoint events like 9/11 and 7/7. Tom describes the ways in which predictive programming in mass media has been used to prime the public for such focal events, facilitate certain social memes, and foster acceptance of the national security state. We also touch on geopolitics, Syria, the moral arguments against war, and much more.

Listen to the Preview Clip Here


Listen to the full episode here (BFP Subscribers Only):




This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.


  1. CuChulainn says:

    Tarpley tends to take the drill as his template for all incidents; his hostility towards Snowden suggests that he sometimes relies on intuition more than evidence.

  2. what is the basis for Secker’s claim at 56:00 that Assad is a “terrible man” and a war criminal?

  3. metrobusman says:

    The basis for Secker claiming that Assad is a terr ible man is that Secker is a spook. His job is to occupy the conspiracy theory space but to rebut those arguments which lead to the truth. Secker is the voice of British intelligence. It was entertaining to listen to him and Corbet say that there was no evidence to support the claim that the alleged London bombers were murdered at Canary Wharf in London. They went on and on about it. The London Police confirmed that there were multiple murders there on 7/7.

  4. Wow, metrobusman, you sound really smart. You must know quite a lot about who’s an undercover agent. I bet you and Tarpley get along great.

  5. metrobusman says:

    Well, Xicha, it’s like this: I’ve heard Secker a few times and in each case he has basically affirmed whatever Western imperialism has claimed about this leader or that–as he did when he echoed John Kerry’s assessment of Assad or, more absurdly, when he said that the Peter Power thing was dubious–and has ferociously countered any particular bit of information which would confirm that 911 or 7/7 was an inside job. Somewhere in James Fetzer’s archive there is a show in which Secker does just that. You might listen to it if in fact you are interested in the topic.

    In a recent Corbet interview the two of them drone on and on abt Canary Wharf and the lack of evidence supporting it. That baloney and they both know it. The BBC reported the events and the police confirmed them initially. You may find this evidence unsatisfactory, but evidence it is and it is just absurd to deny it.

    I don’t claim to “know quite a lot” or be “really smart” but I am I not entitled to the free use of my critical faculties? Why did that upset you so? Are we to accept everything we hear,see, or read as fact? Anybody with any background in political research or activism knows that the media and social movements are well infiltrated by agents of the government. This has been documented a thousand fold. It’s not a question of if but who. Those who consistently back the governments geopolitical meta-narratives are a good place to start looking.

  6. Look, I hear you, metrobusman. But, unfortunately, another good place to start looking might just be at those who call others “agents” or “spooks”. You can’t deny that this might be a useful tactic in a divide and conquer strategy.

    So, my reaction was not to dissent or criticism, it was to the name calling that all to often leads to lots of bad insults on other sites.

    Your explanation here did a lot more to inform us all about what you really think. But, I don’t think it’s wise to start calling out the spooks, as it can’t be proven and it’s unproductive.

    Please excuse my rude response. I can’t count the number of “spooks” that other guy I mentioned has called out (including accusing Sibel) and I was reminded of him.

    Sometimes other people might just be wrong. Even us. I disagree with Corbett on the whole individualism market-god motorcycle club wannabe stuff and his blaming all evil on collectivism. It’s frustrating – we obviously need a balance. But calling him an agent won’t help my argument.

Speak Your Mind