How long has the CIA been conducting social engineering experiments? A long time. One of the first social engineering laboratories, with what me might consider "modern" techniques, was the Philippines.
Aangirfan has a post up collecting some examples of social engineering, including the following video explanation.
The video tells us that 1) social engineering is simply the clever manipulation of the natural human tendency to trust; and 2) a hidden agenda of war is to break up societies and their clans.
One way to manipulate the natural human tendency to trust is by breaking down trust. You break down trust by breaking down society. You break down society by breaking down the family. You break down the family by making it difficult for the family to survive.
There are many ways to do this. You might start a war and make them refugees. You might make it difficult for the family to survive by increasing economic pressures, crime, drugs, etc. You might get people all hopped up on sex and fantasies so they lose track of their priorities and break trust with each other. Whatever method you choose, you keep the pressure on relentlessly. These relentless forces pull families apart. Once you pull the families apart and get them on the move, people become more vulnerable and easier to manipulate. Then you reprogram them. You tell them who to blame. You pit them against each other. It becomes easier and easier as the people forget how to be any other way.
Strong families are the first line of defense against social engineering. Therefore strong families are also the UNDECLARED MORTAL ENEMY of social engineers.
It seems that certain indigenous societies share a similar fate over time. It seems that social engineers have long understood that in order to conduct effective social engineering, the first thing to compromise are the people who live close to the land, work hard, and have strong family units.
The Jesuits went to Paraguay in 1588 and began to convert the Guarani Indians. Today the Guarani Indians suffer. Today Paraguay has become a hub for organized crime.
For the Guarani, land is the origin of all life. But violent invasions by ranchers have devastated their territory and nearly all of their land has been stolen. Guarani children starve and their leaders have been assassinated. Hundreds of Guarani men, women and children have committed suicide.
They are a deeply spiritual people...For as long as they can remember, the Guarani have been searching – searching for a place revealed to them by their ancestors where people live free from pain and suffering, which they call ‘the land without evil’.
And the Jesuits also were in the Philippines infuriating the peasants there too, hundreds of years ago. The Dagohoy Rebellion lasted from 1744-1829.
Unlike the Tamblot revolt, the Dagohoy rebellion was not a religious conflict. Rather, it was like most of the early revolts which were ignited by forced labor, Spanish oppression,bandala, excessive tax collection and payment of tributes. On top of these injustices of the Jesuit priests, what triggered Dagohoy most was the refusal of the Jesuit priest to give a Christian burial to his brother who died in service while chasing a fugitive who went against Christianity. This caused Dagohoy to call upon his fellow Boholanos to raise arms against the oppressors. The rebellion outlasted several Spanish Governor Generals and several missions.
And I guess we all heard what happened to the American Indians. To pick out one example, we could recall the Trail of Tears, when the Cherokee Indians -- matrilineal, agricultural, with their own system of writing -- were forced from their tribal lands in Georgia and the Carolinas and set on a death march to present day Oklahoma, in order to make room for white settlers.
Thousands of Cherokee men, women and children died along the trail from exposure, starvation and fevers. Federal funds allotted for their removal was diverted into the pockets of corrupt politicians and military commanders. (source)
And today, what prominent roles do Native Americans have in our society? Well not much. After all the Native Americans comprise less than five percent of the US population. Not that that should really matter, because after all the Jews comprise less than three percent of the US population and that hasn't stopped them from anything, but I guess that's different social engineering.
In Guatemala, over 100,000 people were assassinated over land conflicts in the 1980s alone.
In the 1980s alone, the Guatemalan military and its death squads killed over 100,000 people. Entire Indian villages were massacred. A front-page article in the Sept. 20 New York Times made a rare admission. It said that "the conflict had its roots in a 1954 coup sponsored by the Central Intelligence Agency." The Times then went on to claim that "most of Guatemala's 10.5 million people can no longer remember what started it."Today Guatemala is home to the remaining Mayan culture in Central America, which is alive and well throughout the whole country. However, despite rich natural resources and biodiversity, the country remains poor, with high illiteracy rates and a major organized crime problem.
But United Fruit--now Chiquita--remembers. What brought down the wrath of this company and of the CIA was President Jacobo Arbenz Guzm n's attempt to distribute uncultivated lands owned by United Fruit to landless peasants.
Why do these people have hard lives? These people have hard lives because there is NOTHING wrong with them. The truth is that social engineers have engineered a system that forces people like this into lives of extra difficulty precisely because these indigenous people know how to work hard, they know how to live off the land, and they know how to run their families. Therefore they are naturally strong, the mortal enemies of social engineers, who abuse trusting people to weaken and fray society in order to gain power, and who specifically target the strongest groups first.
On and on. Around the world. Over and over again the story repeats. The people live on the land, they work hard and have big families. They have enough to eat. They have clean water. They settle their conflicts with their neighbors. Someone shows up "to help:" to bring democracy, to bring economic growth, to bring religion. Things get worse. The people suffer and may have to leave their land, or stay and be poor. This goes on for so long that no one remembers anymore what it used to be like. History gets forgotten or rewritten. It becomes a racial thing. You know, those people have hard lives because they're brown.
That's the social engineers at work. They set people up and then they throw them right under the bus for walking into the trap. And it was important to set up the brown people first, and to practice on them for a long time, so that the white people would never see their turn coming.
The social engineers know that all they need to do is redefine people with legitimate grievances as terrorists, and that will be all that's required to justify killing them. As long as 1) the people are far away, and 2) the right experts, such as military or foreign policy people, tell us that the people are terrorists, and 3) there's no chance of any serious consequences, it's that easy. And now, maybe the people don't even have to be far away.
The social engineers have been at this for years and years, perfecting this, practicing it. Only God knows how many innocent people have died as a result.
In the Philippines, before Vietnam, there was the Huk Rebellion (1946-54), often described as a "Communist-led peasant uprising."
- Philippine independence from the United States was scheduled for July 4, 1946.
- An election was held in April for positions in the new government.
- The Hukbalahap participated, and the Huk leader Luis Taruc won a seat in Congress but--along with some other Huk candidates--was unseated by the victorious Liberal Party.
- The Huks then retreated to the jungle and began their rebellion.
How hard? Very hard.
The Philippines' counterinsurgency campaign that followed the Huk move to open revolt in 1946 was known as President Roxas's "mailed fist" or "iron fist" policy (the CIA would later describe it as a policy of "gradual extermination"). The full force of the army, the Constabulary and the civilian guards was thrown against the Huk forces when they could be found, and, more frequently, against the peasant communities associated with them. Villages were mortared, shelled, and burned, suspects were rounded up and shot.1 The repression was largely carried out on traditional punitive lines, and in many areas it was considered worse than the Japanese occupation. Some of the counterinsurgency measures were the same as those used by the Japanese, including the zona and the "magic eye" (identification by a hooded informant).2 Population movement was severely restricted by means of passes issued, for a fee, by mayors and provincial authorities, with imprisonment, beatings, or even death as punishment for traveling without one.3Sounds like Gaza.
Were these Huk's terrorists? No they were not. Their operations were defensive.
Even in the central Luzon heartland, Huk military operations remained essentially defensive, a resistance movement against overwhelming external force. Huk forces carried out ambushes, raided outposts, cut roads, and "confiscated" funds and property to sustain the movement; they neither held nor sought to hold territory, and there was never any question of liberated zones.6
They were vulnerable to US aid coming in and eroding popular support by providing services to the locals.
The HMB movement's failure to evolve into a popular, national movement with clear objectives left it extremely vulnerable to both the aggressive, programmatic counterinsurgency initiated in 1950, as well as to highly publicized rural projects designed to undermine Huk support—including well- drilling, health clinics, military-backed courts to hear tenant-landlord disputes, and loans to peasant farmers. As in later American psy-war reform projects, from Vietnam to El Salvador, at least half of the funding for the rural development projects was provided by U.S. economic aid.7
Only much later, decades later, did the movement really become "Communist," after the land conditions had very seriously deteriorated.
In 1969, remnants of the HMB and a breakaway faction of the Communist Party came together to form a new, national guerrilla organization, the New People's Army (NPA). By then, the agrarian conditions that had motivated the Huk Rebellion in the 1940s and 1950s had worsened throughout much of the nation. The emergence in the 1960s of mass organizations of students, trade unionists, slum dwellers, and multisectoral political opposition groups in the capital and other urban areas provided new and powerful allies to the previously isolated peasants. The post- Huk revolt that sputtered and flared in the 1970s would emerge in the 1980s as a full-fledged revolutionary movement active throughout much of the national territory. The counterinsurgency methods in use today in the Philippines draw directly from both the experience of the 1950s and the later development of U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine and practice.
The CIA knew the people had legitimate reasons for rebelling, but they played up the Communism angle because it was politically expedient.
Although the influence of the Philippine Communist Party (PKP) on the rise of the HMB was relatively minor, and its later attempt to control the Huk Rebellion proved ineffective, the role of the PKP stood out in the analysis of the U. S. military. Even though the agrarian roots of the conflict were recognized, the ideological viewpoint that categorized the Huks as communists dominated practical policy. Some early CIA and military reports provided a fairly measured assessment of the Huk movement, but by 1950 the view of the Huks as a phenomenon of the Cold War prevailed. A 16 January 1946 Military Intelligence (G-2) report presented a rather fair view of the economic background of the wartime Hukbalahap, observing that they lived in the Luzon Plain, an area in which "98% of the land is owned by 2% of the people," whereas "the majority of the people are tenant farmers who raise rice and pay 50% of their production in land rent."8 While attributing the strength of the movement to the agrarian situation, it suggested a gradual infiltration by leftist leaders:
The Huks resisted the unfair economic system, and they resisted quite well. They had to go. So the CIA's Edward Lansdale simply REDEFINED the Huks as Commies and terrorists and thugs -- on official documents only because his private correspondence showed that he knew better -- but thus with a few strokes of the pen, he justified the murder of innocent people.During the occupation by the Japanese, the Japanese took 75% of the rice production in tax. This created an opportunity for patriots to organize guerrilla bands to fight the Japanese as a means of survival.... After the Hukbalahap movement became effective, certain liberals (with communistic leanings) decided to proclaim themselves as members of the Hukbalahap and use it as a means of political power.9
Major Edward Geary Lansdale...maintained that the leaders of the wartime Hukbalahap were all "true disciples of Karl Marx," hell-bent on revolution.12 And, in a convoluted twist of logic that would become characteristic of U. S. policy, Lansdale maintained that the mass following of the Hukbalahap was won primarily through terror....
...for the official record, the Huks were commies and the job was to eliminate them.
It is truly hard to appreciate how relatively small lies like this grow and grow, and bear hideous fruit year after year, and cause untold suffering for untold human beings; yet that is what happened. And that is what happens to this day, all around the world. It keeps happening because people keep believing the lies told by people who have a long proven history of lying. It keeps happening because before this lie started about the Huks, the Americans had fifty years earlier thought nothing of brutalizing Filipinos during the Philippine-American War.
It has all been done before, many times, killing people for no good reason.
The conflict (like Iraq it was never called a ‘war’ by the Americans) involved 200,000 American troops and cost the taxpayer about $600 million. According to contemporary American approximations 16,000 Filipino ‘insurgents’ were killed, and upwards of 1,000,000 civilians were killed (this in a country of approx 10 million at the time).
The fight against the Americans was hard fought, and though US military might meant that more were lost on the Filipino side, the fact that they were fighting for their own country and against a new imperial power meant that they naturally fought harder and with more passion than the Americans.
The Americans responded with a fear campaign that included killing civilians, including women and children. It also brought about further innovations like the use of the “water cure” on captured Filipino fighters, orders to kill everyone over 10 years of age on Samar, and the creation of concentration camps....The present war is no bloodless, fake, opera bouffé engagement. Our men have been relentless; have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people, from lads of ten and up, an idea prevailing that the Filipino, as such, was little better than a dog, a noisome reptile in some instances, whose best disposition was to the rubbish heap. Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to ‘make them talk,’ have taken prisoner people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show they were even insurrectos, stood them up on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop them into the water below and float down as an example to those who found their bullet-riddled corpses. [A reporter for the Philadelphia Ledger]
Over a hundred years ago that happened.
We must stop listening to liars, to the social engineers, if we ever want to have a different world to live in. Because they'll have us on this ride from hell forever IF WE LET THEM.
The resistance beings in your mind. Thinking is resisting.