Pop Up Embed Embed this video on your site

Do NOT buy this product

When we discuss the subject of social engineering, I think it's fair to say it generally provokes a negative response. After all, we're human and our concerns would surely lie with our own individual ability to determine life in our own particular way, so to think we've been 'engineered' would surely provoke our "Id, ego and super-ego" to naturally respond to the idea of 'another' being able to influence our behaviour by means of social engineering, as being something which runs counter to our belief that we are individuals with freedom of thought.

Sigmund Freud wrote: "We all approach the id with analogies: we call it a chaos, a cauldron full of seething excitations... It is filled with energy reaching it from the instincts, but it has no organisation, produces no collective will, but only a striving to bring about the satisfaction of the instinctual needs subject to the observance of the pleasure principle."

My own view and how I express it, may surely fit with others, but I doubt it would fit with all.

Of course if we all thought the same about everything then that would be ridiculous. Many others have a different understanding, they have had different educations, and many others may have been specifically educated or trained in the subject of human psychology for instance. So too, there are others who just don't want to know, and want to keep watching Eastenders and that's what makes us all different. We also have different skills and different knowledge's and we are all products of different social environments, and thus we are all highly complicated individuals, each with an individual pattern of thought and expression of what we each find right or wrong.

But we're all 'human'right?

Clearly that is an obvious statement to make but I think we need to consider whether it is natural for humans to form collective identities? - i.e. I would argue that a collective identity for instance, would give us similar inner instincts and expressions within a like minded society of individuals and that would create more harmony. It would possibly also be a more peaceful society if we all held similar 'inner thoughts'?

What we have now is a situation where our 'super-ego's' are at odds with each another as our particular social environments, along with the conditions to which we've been susceptible, has given us varied beliefs and inner thoughts. These have naturally engendered different feelings of morality, right and wrong and reasoning for example which we use to express what we like to think of as our own opinion.

But remember that opinion is based on how your brain, mind, 'id', or inner-self, - call it what you will - has been 'conditioned'.

Sigmund Freud wrote: "The Super-ego can be thought of as a type of conscience that punishes misbehavior with feelings of guilt. For example: having extra-marital affairs."

I would argue that once you understand you are able to control your naturally conditioned response and instead analyse whether there are ANY circumstances in which 'social engineering' can be good, then it begins to open you to think positively about being 'engineered'.

For instance, would it be acceptable for government of a society that was about to die of starvation due to there being insufficient food to eat, to promote the idea that it would be good for society if everyone planted potatoes and made a garden? - Surely that would be 'good'?

So what is bad about social engineering?

It is this question I'd like to tackle in terms of the subject, method and authority of the 'engineer', when I say that our collective identity is surely being engineered on many areas.

I'll list a few here which I think relevant but there are many more, but it is just as well to remember that sometimes it is 'good' to make the masses believe in a 'good' collective ideal which affords us a collective happiness and peace.

One social conditioning for instance is the wearing of seat-belts, another is making it illegal to park on double-yellow lines and another is banning smoking.

But these are minor subjects when compared with those I want to discuss here because I feel these are certainly not healthy for us and I think they pose a real danger to our very existence. These are:

National Identity - We're British.

Collective Grouping - Lost industrial base.

Common Enemy - Media and Government.

Indigenous Population - Under threat from immigration.

Morality - Church attacked, minority views upheld.

Media and Government - Lies, controlled and attacking our collective British identity.

Personally, like many others I continue to view media reports and television programs particularly on Channel Four and the BBC, and see them as mind controls. Others might like to scrutinise what they see more closely in regard to what I see as a continuous daily bombardment of 'social engineering' through the media and government', which I see as our collective enemies.

You might like to start HERE and HERE with a company which offers social engineering services through the media, and you might want to watch the above video which is one of many that explains how minds of the masses are changed 'voluntarily'.

But please don't buy one for heavens sake, and please never think that you are anything less than a perfect individual human being when you hear the enemy or a confused brain-washed idiot say that smoking is anti-social, you're overweight, you should dye your hair or buy that makeup to look like that air-brushed model, you're lazy because you're out of work, you're nervous and stupid because you bite your nails, it's wrong that you are pregnant when you're 'only' 16, that the earth will end unless we pay more taxes, or that your views are extreme because you want to protect your collective national identity by joining the British National Party.

I suggest in future that you view your TV screen and media as a direct conduit into your mind which seeks to input the thoughts of other people who want you to believe their message on the above subjects, rather than ones you believe to be beneficial to the collective good.