Shedding light on a dark side of online community

[firemonkey]

Shedding Light on a Dark Side of Online Community

Demons on the web need to be registered with NY times to access full article.

FOR years they lived in solitary terror of the light beams that caused searing headaches, the technology that took control of their minds and bodies. They feared the stalkers, people whose voices shouted from the walls or screamed in their heads, “We found you” and “We want you dead.”


When people who believe such things reported them to the police, doctors or family, they said they were often told they were crazy. Sometimes they were medicated or locked in hospital wards, or fired from jobs and isolated from the outside world.

But when they found one another on the Internet, everything changed. So many others were having the same experiences.

Type “mind control” or “gang stalking” into Google, and Web sites appear that describe cases of persecution, both psychological and physical, related with the same minute details — red and white cars following victims, vandalism of their homes, snickering by those around them.

Identified by some psychologists and psychiatrists as part of an “extreme community” on the Internet that appears to encourage delusional thinking, a growing number of such Web sites are filled with stories from people who say they are victims of mind control and stalking by gangs of government agents. The sites are drawing the concern of mental health professionals and the interest of researchers in psychology and psychiatry.

Although many Internet groups that offer peer support are considered helpful to the mentally ill, some experts say Web sites that amplify reports of mind control and group stalking represent a dark side of social networking. They may reinforce the troubled thinking of the mentally ill and impede treatment.

Dr. Ralph Hoffman, a psychiatry professor at Yale who studies delusions, said a growing number of his research subjects have told him of visiting mind-control sites, and finding in them confirmation of their own experiences.

“The views of these belief systems are like a shark that has to be constantly fed,” Dr. Hoffman said. “If you don’t feed the delusion, sooner or later it will die out or diminish on its own accord. The key thing is that it needs to be repetitively reinforced.”

That is what the Web sites do, he said. Similar concerns have arisen about a proliferation of sites that describe how to commit suicide, or others that promote anorexia and bulimia, providing detailed instructions on restricting food and photographs of skeletal women meant to be “thinspiration.”

For people who regularly visit and write on message boards on the mind-control sites, the idea that others would describe the sites as promoting delusional and psychotic thinking is simply evidence of a cover-up of the truth.

 

[spiritual_emergency]

I followed the links back to John Grohol's article and the NYT article. I concede that I found the NYT's article in particular to be distasteful in that the overall tone seems to be one of maintaining distance from a subgroup of people identified as "really weird". Part of my concern is related to the professional opinions of psychiatrists like Dr. Ralph Hoffman...

Dr. Ralph Hoffman, a psychiatry professor at Yale who studies delusions, said a growing number of his research subjects have told him of visiting mind-control sites, and finding in them confirmation of their own experiences.

“The views of these belief systems are like a shark that has to be constantly fed,” Dr. Hoffman said. “If you don’t feed the delusion, sooner or later it will die out or diminish on its own accord. The key thing is that it needs to be repetitively reinforced.”

I can't help but draw on my own experience here. For example, lets take the "delusion" of people who self-identify, however temporarily, with being Jesus Christ. I imagine most psychiatrists, such as Dr. Hoffman would say that's an example of delusional thinking. But what mainstream psychiatry doesn't ask itself is, Why does Jesus Christ show up repeatedly in the experiences of these people?. My own experience and research tells me such individuals are expressing an emotional state or state of consciousness in metaphoric or symbolic terms which are misinterpreted along literal lines by those around them. It's easy to label something as delusional if we don't understand it.

By the same token... I have a camping spot I like to go to in the summer. It's peaceful out there. And quiet. There's no traffic, cell phones, radios blaring, horns blasting, throngs of people or hum of electricity in the air. In the city, all of those noises and energies can be experienced by me as invasive. Certainly, it requires a certain degree of energy to cope with and turn down the chronic assault of the sights and sounds of our daily living. Would someone else express that same complaint as "invasion of neurological weaponry" or "electromagnetic torture?" Have you ever stood beneath power lines and listened to that high-pitched hum? Is it possible that some people are especially sensitive to such things? And if they were and I wasn't, does that mean they're delusional whereas I have a monopoly on sanity?

I recall chatting with a fellow a few years ago at a party. He was sharing a story about a house he'd lived in as a child that he felt was haunted. To the best of my knowledge, I've never seen a ghost so I couldn't relate to everything he was saying, but one thing that was very apparent was that something happened in that house that frightened him so much that even recounting the story decades later, the fear was still present. Likewise, I've never seen an alien. Years ago, while watching Whitney Streiber's Communion my initial impressions were that what I was seeing on the screen was reminiscent of the cell division that takes place at the creation of life. Was it possible that some people might actually remember their cellular creation? I don't know. It sure was a mucous-laden movie though.

My point is that rather than see a professional stand back from the situation and label it as something he most certainly is not, I'd much prefer to see them roll up their sleeves and "climb into the muck" so to speak. Why does one group of people complain of gang-stalking and another, electromagnetic torture? What I hear is an expression of powerlessness. What are they saying? What do they mean when they say it? What happened in their lives?

Vaughan Bell, a British psychologist who has researched the effect of the Internet on mental illness, first began tracking sites with reports of mind control in 2004. In 2006 he published a study concluding that there was an extensive Internet community around such beliefs, and he called 10 sites he studied “likely psychotic sites.”

So, what is he suggesting... that psychosis is transferable over the internet? You know how I feel about such theories -- ever since Fuller Torrey came out with his cat poop missive, I figure the doors were blown wide open for anyone to say damned near anything. So, sure, let's allow that some sites on the internet have been scientifically determined to be "psychotic sites". Oooooh. Sounds scary!

But the Web sites are not moderated by professionals, and many postings discuss the failure of medication and say that mental health professionals are part of the conspiracy against them.

Again, what is the point? Does he want a psychiatrist serving as moderator in every Tom, Dick and Harry online bulletin board so any talk of medication failure or what may be well deserved criticisms of professionals can be shut down? Would I be forced to write on the board, 100 times... I will not cite the CATIE studies; I will not cite the CATIE studies; I will not cite the CATIE studies...?

Does the internet have a dark side? Sure it does. If the human mind can come up with it, it's out there. Personally, I'm more concerned with the sort of sites that actively promote hatred and harm of others. As for people who might gather together to share some unusual or oddball beliefs... there are thousands of sites like that and not all of them are related to mind control or an invasion of the body snatchers. Meantime, those people do have lives outside of the internet and most of them probably know how to call a doctor if they feel they need one. Maybe what the docs should focus on is being able to actually help them if they do call and labelling them as "delusional" or believing that "medication" is a magic bullet for all, might not be the way to go about gaining their trust.

.​

 

[Apotheosis]

Internet mind control and the diagnosis of delusions:

Internet mind control and the diagnosis of delusions:

http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2006/02/internet_mind_contro.html

http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2007/01/mind_control_and_the.html

A recent paper in the medical journal Psychopathology has analysed the links between websites of likely-delusional people who publish their experiences of 'mind control' on the internet, and has concluded that they challenge the psychiatric criteria for the diagnosis of delusions.

One of the defining features of a delusion is that it should not be a belief "ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture". Nevertheless, some researchers have noted that there is no clear measure of what is 'ordinarily accepted'.

It is also possible that cultures or subcultures could be based around beliefs that would otherwise be diagnosed as delusional. Until now, however, there have been no obvious examples of such subcultures identified.

In the Psychopathology paper, ten websites reporting psychosis-like 'mind control' experiences were identified. The reports were anonymised and independently blind-rated by three psychiatrists who confirmed that they reflect experiences stemming from psychosis.

The links between the websites were then analysed using a technique called social network analysis that allows the social network of the authors to be inferred.

This analysis suggested that the authors of the reports were part of a 'small world' social network, based around the content of likely-delusional beliefs.

This contradicts the current definition of a delusion, suggesting that it is becoming increasing redundant as technology shapes and re-shapes social networks.

It also suggests that, according to the current definition, anyone can 'cure' themselves of a delusion by using the internet to find or form a community of others who share the same belief!

Importantly, however, the researchers make clear that this research does not imply that all of the internet 'mind control' community are psychotic, as reports were chosen to specifically reflect psychosis-like experiences.

It is interesting, however, that the identified authors are also likely to be an active part of a wider, non-psychotic community, who may have similar, although differently motivated, concerns.

PROJECT FREEDOM

http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/pro-freedom.co.uk/index.html

http://www.trufax.org/catalog/aw.html

From the Site -

http://www.trufax.org/

MATRIX III

The Psychosocial, Chemical, Biological and Electromagnetic Manipulation of Humans

http://www.trufax.org/catalog/m3v1.html

The section on electromagnetic mind control in Matrix III Volume One has no equal anywhere in the world. The groundwork is covered in relation to the use of the electromagnetic spectrum, the deliberate historical suppression of the hyperspacial nature of electromagnetics (the so-called Hertzian Conspiracy), and a host of data on advanced mind control applications that goes far beyond anything you have ever seen before. It is this material which brought this book into planetary popularity.

The book discusses the new electronic networks, the secret behind the use of the cellular telephone systems, mind control projects (two pages of projects are listed), and the manipulation of the earth grid. There is more data on the Montauk projects than any single book in existence, including the individual books released years later. Interspaced with all of this data, there is a host of supplementary material, interviews and revealing information. The NWO plans for total planetary domination, economic and otherwise, are discussed, including plans for a one-world religious control system, the objectives of electronic mind control and the GWEN system, schools of thought contributing to the mind control paradigm, and research.

 

[spiritual_emergency]

The book discusses the new electronic networks, the secret behind the use of the cellular telephone systems, mind control projects (two pages of projects are listed), and the manipulation of the earth grid.

This thread would meld well with the one on conspiracy theories and what makes conspiracy theories so fascinating is that they probably contain a kernal of truth as fueled by an enormous amount of speculation. As an example, what are the effects of widespread electricity and electronic devices on the human body or even, the earth's magnetic field? I don't know and various conspiracy theorists probably don't have the absolute answers either but they're asking the questions and attempting to connect the dots for themselves. It's certainly not theoretically impossible that our reliance on electricity is having a profound impact on the environment including our physical bodies.

.​

 

[gangstalking]

A visit from the dark side

Hey there,

I just wanted to stop by and share my point of view. My website was one of the one's mentioned in the article, but it has not had a chance to publicly respond to the article, funny how that works. So I have spent a bit of time, tracking the article and posting one of my many responses to it. If this is not the right place to post it, I am sure a mod will let me know. Thanks.



After giving the New York Times article a little bit more time to settle there are three points that I wanted to review further.

The first was how the article came to use the term extreme communities. I did read over the Vaughan Bell article where a reference is made to such communities.

http://arginine.spc.org/vaughan/Bell_2007_JMH_Preprint.pdf

According to what Dr Bell wrote in the article it was views considered extreme or unacceptable by the mainstream. Using this definition I wondered if things such as the 9/11 truth movement would be an extreme community? Their views are not considered mainstream. I also wondered who else might fall into this list based on Dr Bell's definition?


Websites that cover conspiracy topics might well meet his definition of extreme communities. Many of the subject matters covered on websites such as http://www.AboveTopSecret.com would fall into this category. They would be a website of mini patches of extreme communities.

Another factor that I thought should be calculated in when defining a community as an extreme community is the obvious, is the community helpful vs harmful? What kind of purpose do they serve? If I go to a website that has what by some is considered an extreme view that encourages me to kill myself, then that should be considered different than going to a website that expounds none traditional views, but steers the website viewer away from inflicting harm to themselves?

There are lot's of websites that conform to traditional or more traditional mainstream views that in my opinion are probably fairly harmful to some aspects of society, but we turn a blind eye, because it does pass mainstream muster.

The definition as is, in my opinion is fairly broad, and the references to the term were limited except for references to Dr Bell's work and the New York Times article.


The other point that I am wondering about is who or what now defines what is mainstream or normal? In today's society we have so many different variables to consider. At one time spending all your time online might have been considered the actions of lonely desperate people. Now with websites such as Facebook, and much of web 2.0 culture, being online is considered normal, and spending many hours online as long as it's spent socialising is considered a fairly normal and healthy activity.


According to a report from Mediamark Research in a 30 day period 2.5 million adults participated in online dating. I am sure they find this to be completely normal and mainstream, but I am sure there are patches of society that do not agree with this.
http://www.mediamark.com/PDF/Nearly...icipated in Online Dating in Last 30 Days.pdf


World of WarCraft reached 11 Million monthly Subscribers. Many of them sane individuals who go online to take part in these roleplaying games. For that community, I am sure they consider themselves normal and mainstream, just by their sheer numbers. I am sure there are still many in society who would not however consider going online to roleplay normal, mainstream or even healthy.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3170971


Thus what would be considered as abnormal or extreme view offline is often a normal and accepted view online, in many different circles. Eg. 9/11 conspiracy offline, might still be considered anti-government or none traditional, but online they are a fairly regular part of web culture and discussions. When defining mainstream and referencing the Internet, we might have to start finding different ways to do so.

Eg. I just read an article today, that talks about a real life couple getting divorced because he is cheating online with a virtual girlfriend. Traditional definitions are having to be adapted and redefined to accommodate an online culture.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/081114/world/lifestyle_britain_family_divorce_internet_offbeat

A second woman in Japan was arrested because she killed her online husband. She killed his virtual self. That's right, she did not kill him, or have any intention of killing the real him, but when his online virtual self divorced her, she got even and killed him. She was arrested for hacking into the computer and other things, and now if she is formally charged, she could face up to 5 years in jail.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081023/koddities/japan_avatar_murder


It is becoming more and more clear that it is the offline world that is having to adapt to the new online realities and not often the other way around. Therefore what we considered traditional and mainstream yesterday for an offline reality, in many ways is being redefined, and it does not seem as if some offline structures are keeping up to date with this reality.


The third point of concern with the New York Times article is that people were being considered paranoid with simple offline assessments. Are these offline assessments adequate for some of the challenges that people are facing in the modern day world to define Targeted Individuals as paranoid?

Recent research has unearth a great deal of information to show that when people are being termed as paranoid, it might not be the case.

Research is showing that there are in fact networks of individuals being hired by the state in various countries to track and spy on average citizens. The spying includes email and phone taps. Being followed around in public by hired Covert Human Intelligence Sources. Having these same Informants move into the houses around the target when possible. Following them around in vehicle and foot patrols, plus many other forms of intrusive surveillance.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04_02/007graphic1_468x1052.jpg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/c...23/Why-earth-Stasi-state-spying-families.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/c...23/Why-earth-Stasi-state-spying-families.html

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/he...antiterror_laws_to_spy_on_ordinary_people.php

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/privacy/fusion_update_20080729.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLpHitaKk1s

Individuals and Families under these types of surveillance are often not aware, and if they do become aware and go to seek help, they are often written off by the establishment as paranoid, psychotic, or crazy. The modern day reality is that without proper investigations, Freedom Of Information Act requests, and other proper forms of inquiry a true assessment might be impossible to determine. The secondary problem is that many of these investigations are ending up in secret databases, which the public has no access to. F.O.I.A. requests are no longer a sure fire way to determine if an individual is under surveillance.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...or-ask-couple-tailed-weeks-council-spies.html
http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20080214_snitch_state.htm


I think it's fair and safe to say that before a community is considered extreme many factors should be considered, and the definition itself should factor into consideration what's considered normal online as well as offline. Assessing if a community or individual is paranoid or psychotic in today's modern surveillance society should be done with care and caution. It's been shown time and time again that anti-terror laws are being abused, National Security Letters are being handed out left right and center, with over 30,000 being issued per year, and many groups and individuals are being spied upon and placed on watch lists, unfairly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html

In a society as the one described above, it is not only normal to have concerns about surveillance, but when there is a suspicion of such, the job of therapists in the future might not be first subscribing the patient to medication, it might be first asking if they have placed a F.O.I.A. request.

Society might even have to make it a mandatory law for psychiatrist to be notified if a person is under surveillance so that they are not falsely labelled, committed or medicated. This does not happen, the culture and society have changed within the last decade, but the methods used for determining paranoia, psychosis, and mental illness, in regards to the belief that one is under surveillance are still fairly antiquated in many cases, and might not pass muster for the realities of a modern day surveillance society.

 

[gangstalking]

Vaughan Bell never researched Gang Stalking Websites

Just a quick update on the New York Times article.

I have just spoken to Vaughan Bell, one of the key psychologists mentioned in the article and he was kind enough to clarify that he has never studied Gang Stalking.

The research that he did, fully focuses on Mind Control sites. He has never studied Gang Stalking or the Gang Stalking World website more specifically.

I think one of the things that Sarah Kershaw did in the article, that many people do is that she lumped in Gang Stalking, Electronic Harassment, and Mind Control, all together.



For the record I do believe that all three happen and are happening to Targets. I know about Mk Ultra, the experiments that happened, the law-suites for mind control. I am familiar with Electronic Harassment. How many times have I gone into the shower to have patches of my skin peal off from the burns of the night before?

I do however focus on the Gang Stalking aspect of it, because it comes down to what can you prove? Over the last two years, I have spoken to enough police officers, (who are no longer mentioned), health professionals, social workers, crisis centers, lawyers, Investigators, Human Rights, etc to find out what I could about what was happening with the Citizen Informants, and the programs that they are being used for.

I have enough people offline and online that I have spoken to, to know that I know what I am talking about with the Gang Stalking stuff.


Since the only psychologist thus far that I could find who mentioned extreme communities was again Vaughan Bell, he has not identified the Gang Stalking websites as such, since he has never studied them.

The article also does make it clear that in relationship to Dr. Ralph Hoffman, his patients have "told him of visiting mind-control sites, and finding in them confirmation of their own experiences."

So we have two named professionals, one psychiatrist and one psychologist, both who have not it would appear studied, or actually made mention of the Gang Stalking Websites.

It seems the confusion and the lumping together of the terms might be coming from the author of the article Sarah Kershaw, and it is an easy error to make, if you are not familiar with the three phenomenons. We are all Targeted Individuals, but just because you experience or are a target of one, does not mean that you are a target of all.

I just wanted to clarify this factor for anyone who still had questions about this article or how the conclusions came about. I might do a bit more follow up, on this article with at least one more person, but these are important details that I thought should be clearifed.

 

[gangstalking]

Extreme assessments and paranoid conclusions.

After giving the New York Times article a little bit more time to settle there are three points that I wanted to review further.

The first was how the article came to use the term extreme communities. I did read over the Vaughan Bell article where a reference is made to such communities.


According to what Dr Bell wrote in the article it was views considered extreme or unacceptable by the mainstream. Using this definition I wondered if things such as the 9/11 truth movement would be an extreme community? Their views are not considered mainstream. I also wondered who else might fall into this list based on Dr Bell's definition?


Websites that cover conspiracy topics might well meet his definition of extreme communities. Many of the subject matters covered on websites such as AboveTopSecret dot com would fall into this category. They would be a website of mini patches of extreme communities.

Another factor that I thought should be calculated in when defining a community as an extreme community is the obvious, is the community helpful vs harmful? What kind of purpose do they serve? If I go to a website that has what by some is considered an extreme view that encourages me to kill myself, then that should be considered different than going to a website that expounds none traditional views, but steers the website viewer away from inflicting harm to themselves?

There are lot's of websites that conform to traditional or more traditional mainstream views that in my opinion are probably fairly harmful to some aspects of society, but we turn a blind eye, because it does pass mainstream muster.

The definition as is, in my opinion is fairly broad, and the references to the term were limited except for references to Dr Bell's work and the New York Times article.


The other point that I am wondering about is who or what now defines what is mainstream or normal? In today's society we have so many different variables to consider. At one time spending all your time online might have been considered the actions of lonely desperate people. Now with websites such as Facebook, and much of web 2.0 culture, being online is considered normal, and spending many hours online as long as it's spent socialising is considered a fairly normal and healthy activity.


According to a report from Mediamark Research in a 30 day period 2.5 million adults participated in online dating. I am sure they find this to be completely normal and mainstream, but I am sure there are patches of society that do not agree with this.


World of WarCraft reached 11 Million monthly Subscribers. Many of them sane individuals who go online to take part in these roleplaying games. For that community, I am sure they consider themselves normal and mainstream, just by their sheer numbers. I am sure there are still many in society who would not however consider going online to roleplay normal, mainstream or even healthy.


Thus what would be considered as abnormal or extreme view offline is often a normal and accepted view online, in many different circles. Eg. 9/11 conspiracy offline, might still be considered anti-government or none traditional, but online they are a fairly regular part of web culture and discussions. When defining mainstream and referencing the Internet, we might have to start finding different ways to do so.

Eg. I just read an article today, that talks about a real life couple getting divorced because he is cheating online with a virtual girlfriend. Traditional definitions are having to be adapted and redefined to accommodate an online culture.


A second woman in Japan was arrested because she killed her online husband. She killed his virtual self. That's right, she did not kill him, or have any intention of killing the real him, but when his online virtual self divorced her, she got even and killed him. She was arrested for hacking into the computer and other things, and now if she is formally charged, she could face up to 5 years in jail.


It is becoming more and more clear that it is the offline world that is having to adapt to the new online realities and not often the other way around. Therefore what we considered traditional and mainstream yesterday for an offline reality, in many ways is being redefined, and it does not seem as if some offline structures are keeping up to date with this reality.


The third point of concern with the New York Times article is that people were being considered paranoid with simple offline assessments. Are these offline assessments adequate for some of the challenges that people are facing in the modern day world to define Targeted Individuals as paranoid?

Recent research has unearth a great deal of information to show that when people are being termed as paranoid, it might not be the case.

Research is showing that there are in fact networks of individuals being hired by the state in various countries to track and spy on average citizens. The spying includes email and phone taps. Being followed around in public by hired Covert Human Intelligence Sources. Having these same Informants move into the houses around the target when possible. Following them around in vehicle and foot patrols, plus many other forms of intrusive surveillance.

Individuals and Families under these types of surveillance are often not aware, and if they do become aware and go to seek help, they are often written off by the establishment as paranoid, psychotic, or crazy. The modern day reality is that without proper investigations, Freedom Of Information Act requests, and other proper forms of inquiry a true assessment might be impossible to determine. The secondary problem is that many of these investigations are ending up in secret databases, which the public has no access to. F.O.I.A. requests are no longer a sure fire way to determine if an individual is under surveillance.


I think it's fair and safe to say that before a community is considered extreme many factors should be considered, and the definition itself should factor into consideration what's considered normal online as well as offline. Assessing if a community or individual is paranoid or psychotic in today's modern surveillance society should be done with care and caution. It's been shown time and time again that anti-terror laws are being abused, National Security Letters are being handed out left right and center, with over 30,000 being issued per year, and many groups and individuals are being spied upon and placed on watch lists, unfairly.


In a society as the one described above, it is not only normal to have concerns about surveillance, but when there is a suspicion of such, the job of therapists in the future might not be first subscribing the patient to medication, it might be first asking if they have placed a F.O.I.A. request.

Society might even have to make it a mandatory law for psychiatrist to be notified if a person is under surveillance so that they are not falsely labelled, committed or medicated. This does not happen, the culture and society have changed within the last decade, but the methods used for determining paranoia, psychosis, and mental illness, in regards to the belief that one is under surveillance are still fairly antiquated in many cases, and might not pass muster for the realities of a modern day surveillance society.

 

[spiritual_emergency]

Hey there,

Recent research has unearth a great deal of information to show that when people are being termed as paranoid, it might not be the case.

Research is showing that there are in fact networks of individuals being hired by the state in various countries to track and spy on average citizens. The spying includes email and phone taps. Being followed around in public by hired Covert Human Intelligence Sources. Having these same Informants move into the houses around the target when possible. Following them around in vehicle and foot patrols, plus many other forms of intrusive surveillance.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04_02/007graphic1_468x1052.jpg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/c...23/Why-earth-Stasi-state-spying-families.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/c...23/Why-earth-Stasi-state-spying-families.html

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/he...antiterror_laws_to_spy_on_ordinary_people.php

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/privacy/fusion_update_20080729.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLpHitaKk1s

Individuals and Families under these types of surveillance are often not aware, and if they do become aware and go to seek help, they are often written off by the establishment as paranoid, psychotic, or crazy. The modern day reality is that without proper investigations, Freedom Of Information Act requests, and other proper forms of inquiry a true assessment might be impossible to determine. The secondary problem is that many of these investigations are ending up in secret databases, which the public has no access to. F.O.I.A. requests are no longer a sure fire way to determine if an individual is under surveillance.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...or-ask-couple-tailed-weeks-council-spies.html
http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20080214_snitch_state.htm

I found this section of your post to be absolutely fascinating. It should be borne in mind that by definition, paranoia is considered irrational behavior but if the fear is rational, it can no longer be considered paranoia.

That doesn't mean that everyone who thinks the government, their local council, or the neighbor is spying on them is correct but since these things do happen, it can't be ruled out as a possibility without some degree of investigation and/or reality testing. I have long argued that behavior that is frequently labeled as delusional may only be considered as much as long as it is not understood. Often, even the most "delusional" type of behavior contains a kernal of truth.

Thanks for sharing the information gangstalking -- you presented some good arguments. If, you should come back to read this post and you have any insights or comments into how the members of your community investigate or reality check their personal fears/concerns, I would be interested in hearing them. You might have some insights to share that would be applicable to individuals diagnosed with paranoia or paranoid schizophrenia.

~ Namaste

.​

 

[gangstalking]

Additional info

I found this section of your post to be absolutely fascinating. It should be borne in mind that by definition, paranoia is considered irrational behavior but if the fear is rational, it can no longer be considered paranoia.

That doesn't mean that everyone who thinks the government, their local council, or the neighbor is spying on them is correct but since these things do happen, it can't be ruled out as a possibility without some degree of investigation and/or reality testing. I have long argued that behavior that is frequently labeled as delusional may only be considered as much as long as it is not understood. Often, even the most "delusional" type of behavior contains a kernal of truth.

Thanks for sharing the information gangstalking -- you presented some good arguments. If, you should come back to read this post and you have any insights or comments into how the members of your community investigate or reality check their personal fears/concerns, I would be interested in hearing them. You might have some insights to share that would be applicable to individuals diagnosed with paranoia or paranoid schizophrenia.

~ Namaste

.​

I agree that maybe not everyone who thinks they are being followed by the government is an actual target, but in today's society, there are many people who have legitimate concerns.

For our community there is no one standard method for determining if we are targets. I do recommend observations, and documention over a period of time. Eg. Most people who arrive at the website have had this ongoing for months, usually years, and though it's covert what is happening to them, the Citizen Informants have done or said things over a period of months years, that finally adds up, and our visitors start to try to figure out what is happening.

What happens to us is considered the death of a thousand papercuts. One small event or a couple mean nothing, but over time it all adds up, as must the observation and evidence gathered.


In my case, before my stalkers were aware that I knew that I was being followed, I tested the theory all over my citiy, for some time, to find out if I was being followed. I didn't want to believe it, but after repeatedly testing this out by going into alleys, underground tunnels, just places I would have previously been alone. This was over a period of time. At times I litterlly took off and then you would have almost like a panic reaction and then a few people come surrounding you in different directions. Apparently no excape.

For the observation in my home. Part of what I did was use phrases or quotes that are not everyday quotes, to see if I would hear them back. Plus there were elements that were kind enough to want to clue me into what was happening. It was a process. It did not happen over night. It was a step by step. Primarily it was have a theory, test out the theory, does it hold water?

I also once I realised some of what was going on, I try to investigate. I spoke to police, some very helpful in confirming that there is a city wide program matching the magnitude that I was seeing, other would flat out try to deny it. I spoke to investigators, some said they had no idea, one was shocked, and said this is a typical police investigation, and gave me information about how it worked, social workers who might have encounter this, crisis centers, mental health professionals to see if they were getting calls of this nature, or if this was a complaint, and so many others. It was a process.

It was not as overt as the familiy that was being cellphone stalked, but over time there is evidence gathered, plus eventually they did some pretty overt things as well.

Here are two more articles things that I think might be helpful when understanding the concepts of our targeting. Again just like the mobbing community 10 - 15 years ago, getting misdiagnosed is not that uncommon. Usually it's the individual who still sees a continued pattern of interfarance in their lives, who go seeking additonal answers.

 

[gangstalking]

The Structure of our oppression

The Structure of our oppression.

The following article will try to put into perspective some of the societal structures that are most likely responsible for the targeting some of those in the Targeted Individual community are experiencing.

For years Targeted Individuals have been saying that they are being followed around, stalked, monitored while at home, and out in public. They have complained of a system that is capable of 24/7 surveillance, able to harassment at home, work, in the community, and even while traveling abroad. For several years there has been a great deal of disbelief that such occurrences could even be possible. The follow article, will try to explain referencing sources already available and documented how this could be happening.

The following article represents the views and opinions of the GangStalkingWorld.com website and does not necessarily reflect the views of any other person, or website in the community.

It has long been a widely expressed view that the monitoring is being done by various groups of citizen informants, members of various community policing type programs. Based on recent research conducted it seems most likely that the people being used to follow Targeted Individuals around are what society and the government in some countries refer to as, "covert human intelligence sources". They can also be known as own as Citizen Informants. Another slang terms that is often used to describe these individuals is the term Snitch or Snitches.

Covert human intelligence sources

A recent article came out in the London Telegraph, saying that Children as young as 8 are being employed by the state as “Covert human intelligence sources” aka Snitches. Targeted Individuals often complain that the harassment is being perpetrated by all members of the community including children.

Children are being hired and used by the government to spy on their neighbors in the Uk. and "being encouraged to photograph or video neighbors guilty of dog fouling, littering or "bin crimes" The article says there are "hundreds of Junior Streetwatchers, aged 8-10 years old, who are trained to identify and report enviro-crime issues such as graffiti and fly-tipping." The adult spies according to authorities are recruited via newspaper ads.

"Other local authorities recruit adult volunteers through advertisements in local newspapers, with at least 4,841 people already patrolling the streets in their spare time.

Some are assigned James Bond-style code numbers, which they use instead of their real names when they ring a special informer's hotline.


This escalation in Britain's growing surveillance state follows an outcry about the way councils are using powers originally designed to combat terrorism and organised crime to spy on residents. In one case, a family was followed by council staff for almost three weeks after being wrongly accused of breaking rules on school catchment areas." 1

Community Oriented Policing

Though the article primarily focuses on the United Kingdom, it should be noted that other countries are setting up such community structures, via community oriented policing programs. These programs are a

"a systemic approach to policing with the paradigm of instilling and fostering a sense of community, within a geographical neighborhood, to improve the quality of life. It achieves this through the decentralization of the police and the implementation of a synthesis of three key components: (1) strategic-oriented policing—the redistribution of traditional police resources; (2) neighborhood-oriented policing—the .interaction of police and all community members to reduce crime and the fear of crime through indigenous proactive programs; and (3) problem-oriented policing-a concerted effort to resolve the causes of crime rather than the symptoms. " 2

Fusion Centers


The ACLU has released a report on Fusion Centers. 800,000 operatives will be dispersed throughtout every American city and town. Set to report on even the most common everyday behaviors which will go into state, local and regional, linked data bases. These linked databases are not just emerging in the United States, they have already emerged in many countries around the world in the wake of implied terrorist threats.

"We pointed out that, while diverse and often still in the early stages of formation, they often seem to be characterized by ambiguous lines of authority, excessive secrecy, troubling private-sector and military participation, and an apparent bent toward suspicionless information collection and datamining." 3

The article then goes on to point out that in a short space of many of the warning in the report had come to pass. The article talks about the fact that this apparatus is responsible for watching and recording the everyday activity of a growing number of individuals. The reports are then gathered together and then they are accessible to any law enforcement agency that is a part of these fusion centers.

"In the six months since our report, new press accounts have borne out many of our warnings. In just that short time, news accounts have reported overzealous intelligence gathering, the expansion of uncontrolled access to data on innocent people, hostility to open government laws, abusive entanglements between security agencies and the private sector, and lax protections for personally identifiable
information.
Overall, it is becoming increasingly clear that fusion centers are part of a new domestic intelligence apparatus. The elements of this nascent domestic surveillance system include:
• Watching and recording the everyday activities of an ever-growing list of individuals
• Channeling the flow of the resulting reports into a centralized security agency
• Sifting through (“data mining”) these reports and databases with computers to identify individuals for closer scrutiny
Such a system, if allowed to permeate our society, would be nothing less than the creation of a total surveillance society." 3

These fusion center will have the capacity to circumvent laws that are in place to limit federal vs local authorities and the access that each has to specific information.

"Even more troubling is the fact that these centers are networked together and seamlessly exchange information with the intelligence community through the Director of National Intelligence’s Information Sharing Environment (ISE). The Washington Post report was based on a document produced from a survey of fusion centers, which shows their intent to maximize the access each of the fusion centers has to the various databases. This would allow a state fusion center that under state law or local policy is prohibited from buying credit reports, as an example, to circumvent its own restrictions by simply calling a
fusion center in Pennsylvania to and asking Pennsylvania authorities to access the records it wants to analyze. This “policy shopping” process guts state and local privacy protections and gives the participating agencies, including the federal intelligence community, access to information they may not legally have on their own." 3

These centers if allowed to expand will create a one way justice system. Your information, even your daily activities will be allowed to be gathered, collected, and possibly used against you. When you then request information to confirm if you are a target of surveillance, the information will be stored in a secret database and not available for you to access.

"Even as fusion centers are positioned to learn more and more about the American public, authorities are moving to ensure that the public knows less and less about fusion centers. In particular, there appears to be an effort by the federal government to coerce states into exempting their fusion centers from state open government laws.31 For those living in Virginia, it’s already too late; the Virginia General Assembly passed a law in April 2008 exempting the state’s fusion center from the Freedom of Information Act.32

According to comments by the commander of the Virginia State Police Criminal Intelligence Division and the administrative head of the center, the federal government pressured Virginia into passing the law, with the threat of withholding classified information if it didn’t.33 Such efforts suggest there is a real danger
fusion centers will become a “one-way mirror” in which citizens are subject to ever-greater scrutiny by the authorities, even while the authorities are increasingly protected from scrutiny by the public." 3

Public Employees


The next aspect of the targeted that has been reported by the Targeted Individual community is the fact that public servants seem to be taking a part in the continuous monitoring and harassment private citizens. American Civil servants, firefighters, police officers, Corporate Employees, learning to collect data and spy. The information then goes into secret data bases. They will also communicate in code. Many targets have expressed a belief not only that they are being tracked, but that their stalkers are communicating via a one handed sign language similar to that which the Stasi used.

 

[gangstalking]

The Structure of our oppression part 2

Watch Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU-xsQ3Xepw

"They are entrusted with hunting for “suspicious activity,” and then they report their findings, which end up in secret government databases.

What constitutes “suspicious activity,” of course, is in the eye of the beholder. But a draft Justice Department memo on the subject says that such things as “taking photos of no apparent aesthetic value” or “making notes” could constitute suspicious activity, Finley wrote. " 4

Not only will this program used the civil servant already mentioned, but it will expand who is used in the program. They will have secret sources of communication available to them. The members of these programs will connect with the fusion centers. None disclosure agreement or a confidential disclosure agreements will be signed by many in these programs to ensure that the information is protected.

"And the private sector would be involved, too. “The program would eventually be expanded to include Health Care personnel and representatives from private, critical infrastructure entities, with communication systems specifically tailored to their needs.”

In this regard, Terrorism Liaison Officers resemble InfraGard members. (See “The FBI Deputizes Business”.) This FBI-private sector liaison group now consists of more than 26,000 members, who have their own secure channels of communication and are shielded, as much as possible, from scrutiny.

Terrorism Liaison Officers connect up with so-called “Fusion Centers”: intelligence sharing among public safety agencies as well as the private sector. The Department of Justice has come up with “Fusion Center Guidelines” that discuss the role of private sector participants.

“The private sector can offer fusion centers a variety of resources,” it says, including “suspicious incidents and activity information.”

It also recommends shielding the private sector. “To aid in sharing this sensitive information, a Non-Disclosure Agreement may be used. The NDA provides private sector entities an additional layer of security, ensuring the security of private sector proprietary information and trade secrets,” the document states." 4

Other than the United States many other countries have similar programs in place where they have requested that public servants in the course of doing their day to day activities keep an eye out on what is happening.



Stalking and Monitoring.

Though I do not in believe the family in this video are targets of Gang Stalking I will say that the example shown explains very well how someone could be stalked, monitored and spied on 24/7 as this family was. I do not believe they are targets of Gang Stalking, because Gang Stalking is often covert, what this family experienced was extremely overt and left behind lot's of verification and proof, the harassment targeted individuals experience does not often offer any overt evidence.

The stalking they believe was done primarily using their cell-phone. They were followed 24/7. Their phone conversations listened to. When the mother was in the kitchen making lemonade, the phone rang, and the caller told her, he preferred limes. When the family heard someone at their door in the middle of the night banging, they called the police, when the police arrived the invaders had already left. After the police left this happened again, the family called the police, the invaders had left, this happened a third time and finally the family stopped trying. After filing a complaint with the police, the family were sent a recording of their conversation with the police, by the stalker. They installed a camera system, the stalker called to say that he already knew the code.

The list goes on, and apparently there were a total of three families in the area that the cell phone stalking happened to. The case has received wide media attention, including the Tyra Banks show. There is technology out there designed to do this. A company which I will not name in this report, has a service for cheating spouses, where you can use a phone to know where they are and listen into their conversations. There are also programs which will allow the camera on a phone to be used to spy on the person with the camera phone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV_I7cgkqXc

"The families say the calls come in at all hours of the night, threatening to kill their children, their pets and grandparents. Voice mails arrive, playing recordings of their private conversations, including one with a local police detective. "

"The caller knows, the families said, what they're wearing and what they're doing. And after months of investigating, police seem powerless to stop them. "

"It got worse. The Kuykendalls and two other Fircrest families told ABC News that they believe the callers are using their cell phones to spy on them. They say the hackers know their every move: where they are, what they're doing and what they're wearing. The callers have recorded private conversations, the families and police said, including a meeting with a local detective. " 5

Not all members of the Targeted Individual community have a cameraphone, but this example is just to show how one family could be terrorized by an encounter such as this. What we experience is ongoing, and often just as upsetting, but we often do not have the same proof that this family had, which enabled them to go to the police.

"Recently, the stalkers have begun to come to their home in the early hours of the morning, banging on their doors. The mother said that the first time they came, she immediately called 911, but as soon as the police arrived, the stalkers had fled. The police, unable to do anything, left, and the stalkers returned right away. She said every time this happens she contacts the police, but after about the third call and then the third return, she just stops trying." 6

Regulation of Investigatory Powers

Regulation of Investigatory Powers is a United Kingdom law, which enables public bodies to carry out investigations and surveillance on individuals. Authorities can use directed surveillance or intrusive surveillance for months or years. These types of operations often employ “covert human intelligence sources’. Recently these laws were abused by using them to spy on families for anti-social behaviours and noise complaints.

"Directed surveillance’ is covert surveillance of individuals during a specific but non-intrusive investigation’ (our emphasis). Surveillance is covert where it is carried out in such a way to ensure that those targeted are unaware that it is taking place (cl.25(8)). ‘Surveillance’ is defined as including any monitoring, observing and listening to persons, their movements, conversations or other activities or communications. It also includes any recording of such activity and surveillance by or with assistance of a device."

" Intrusive surveillance’ is defined as covert surveillance in relation to anything taking place on residential premises or a private vehicle. It may be carried out either by a person or device inside residential premises or a private vehicle or by a device placed outside" 7

Secret Databases

A new story also came out this year claiming that information is being kept on Canadians, in secret databases that they have no access to.

"Jennifer Stoddart, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, has released a 48-page report warning that the RCMP (Canada’s national police force) is keeping thousands of files on regular citizens in secret databases which cannot be seen by the accused.


One of the many disturbing facets of Stoddart's report are the examples she cites of information for these secret files coming from citizen informants. In one case a man was put into the secret database because a resident of his daughter's school neighborhood saw him entering a rooming house and—believing drugs were involved—called the police. The police investigation concluded that the man had only stepped out of his car to have a cigarette, but the file was still in the national security databank seven years later.

Another incident cited in the Stoddart report involved a neighbour who saw two men carrying "something that resembled a large drum, wrapped in canvas" into their house. Police were called to investigate but found nothing resembling the reported item, yet the data was still sitting in a top secret databank five years later. As Stoddart points out in the CBC story on the report, this is potentially disastrous for the individuals named in the files, because it "could potentially affect someone trying to obtain an employment security clearance, or impede an individual's ability to cross the border." 8

References:



1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...aged-eight-enlisted-as-c ouncil-snoopers.html


2. http://www.amazon.ca/Community-Oriented-Policing-Systemic-Approach/dp/0130141100


3. http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/privacy/fusion_update_20080729.pdf


4. http://www.progressive.org/mag/mc070208


5. http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3312813&page=1


6. hs.riverdale.k12.or.us/maverick/?q=node&page=18


7. http://www.fipr.org/rip/JRP2HRA.html

8. http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20080214_snitch_state.htm


Other Sources:

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...orism-laws-used-to-spy-on-noisy-children.html.

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV_I7cgkqXc

 

[gangstalking]

Areas to consider when researching Gang Stalking.

In researching Gang Stalking there are many factors to be considered. It’s not a subject matter that should be studied lightly. Also the average psychiatrist if not familiar with some of the other issues that are affecting members of many communities might not be able to make an iron clad assessment without looking at several factors. Here are factors that I think should be considered.

Areas to be aware of when studying Gang Stalking.
Workplace Mobbing.

It’s our nearest and dearest cousin on an emotional and psychological level. The methodology used in workplace mobbing are some of the same that we see happening with Gang Stalking.

http://mobbing-usa.com/

Awareness is slowly growing in the U.S. and in Canada about the darker side of work and the devastating effects that mobbing and bullying can have on the self, health, organizations and society. Our colleagues in North America, though still rather few, do their part to contribute to the growing interest. For example: Three conferences on the topic have been organized in the U.S. since 2000, in California, Massachusetts and Iowa; the Department of Environmental Quality for the State of Oregon has established the first anti-mobbing policy in the U.S.; efforts to add new anti-mobbing legislation are under way in California, other states and in Canada; and several new Internet self-help and advice groups and websites address specific professional groups or aspects of incivility at work. In the aftermath of the Columbine and other school shooting tragedies, the media has increasingly discussed bullying in the schools, thus also raising awareness of adult bullying/mobbing in the workplace.

The Snitching system

Websites such as http://www.November.org are doing a really nice job of showing the world the other side of snitching, and it’s true affect on society.

Also Alexandra Natapoff has done some wonderful research into the wider and more impacting issues of the Informant system and how it’s affecting members of some communities. In some areas over 50% or more of ethnic communities had been inducted into becoming police informants. Both men and women.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mav9tOvmWcQ
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/natapoff-snitching.html
From what I have seen, the numbers are higher than this and it’s no longer limited to the communities focused on in her research.



Community Based Policing

This method of policing is changing how societies think, react and interact. It’s basically turning our communities into societies like what they have in China, had in Russia, or East Germany. There is a U.N. agenda called 2020 that seeks to adapt this model for every country in the world by 2020.
http://www.albionmonitor.com/9711b/policing.html

“Ruling the community with an iron fist. “Savvy law enforcement types realized that under the community policing rubric, cops, community groups, local companies, private foundations, citizen informants and federal agencies could form alliances without causing public outcry.” Covert Action Quarterly, summer 1997.”


http://www.newswithviews.com/Raapana/niki4.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Raapana/niki2.htm

American communitarians promote the same kinds of surveillance and neighborhood informants the communists used to control East Germans. Americans are slowly being taught what East Germans had to learn very quickly. Today the KGB trains “community” police all over America. Our friendly neighborhood cops are saving our communities from criminals and terrorists.

Crisis Centers

When I tried to follow up on some of the research that “Norma” over at gangstalking.ca had done in conjunction with crisis center I found out that these are some of the places that targets were turning to for help. Before the Gang Stalking websites were available, woman and to a much smaller extent men were calling the crisis centers, more specifically the Rape Crisis Center to get some help, or to find anyone who knew about Gang (Organised) Stalking.

See what some of these psychiatrist do not realise is that before the websites were available, the beliefs were not going away. People were not accepting the false explanation that they were delusional. This was in many cases, too, real, to obvious, and far too life impacting. So when the police failed, doctors, psychiatrists, etc. They were calling the crisis centers.

Online before the Gang Stalking websites, they were visiting Mobbing, Conspiracy, Bullying, and mind control sites. These were the only places that were close to having any information, shared stories, or experiences that might help the target to further understand what they were going through.



Systemic Corruption.

Before his death Tim Fields who shed some much needed light on the Bully phenomenon also saw a very obvious pattern of collusion amongst the targets that were seeking help. He started to research it and then passed away before he could get further.

http://www.bullyonline.org/action/obstruct.htm

Many targets of bullying report that they seem to be obstructed every step of the way in their pursuit of justice. The management refuse to investigate, or use an untrained investigator, or whitewash the case. The union refuses to help, or initially shows interest but suddenly changes sides. The solicitor initially shows interest but then starts acting in a manner which suggests they have the other side’s interests at heart rather than yours.

The employer’s lawyers apply for, and obtain, adjournment after adjournment, then obtain a pre-hearing review which the tribunal chairman handles in favour of the employer. In the tribunal, favour is shown to the respondent (employer) and you get the impression that the verdict has been decided in advance. Your solicitor, the respondent’s lawyers and the tribunal chairman seem to know more about your case than you think they should.

After the tribunal you’re left with no option but to privately sue the employer, the union, and your solicitor, and appeal the tribunal decision, but by this time you have no job, no income, your savings are gone, so is your health, maybe your marriage too, and there’s no prospect of ever being employed again, especially in the professions.

Sound familiar? If so, you might be surprised to realise how often this happens. Mostly it’s in cases from the education sector, although it may happen in any public sector case, for example the NHS. Occasionally, but less often, it happens in private sector cases, and in rare cases from the voluntary sector.

Although there’s never any substantive proof, it seems that all the parties arrayed against you have been colluding in secret. The question is, what allegiance binds these individuals together, and where could they meet such that the normal rules of confidentiality do not apply? What fraternal obligation places their duty to support and protect each other above the moral, ethical and legal obligations by which the rest of us are bound?

Tim Fields is not the only person to have noticed this type of systemic corruption when it comes time to finding help for issues of Bullying, Workplace Mobbing, etc but he might have been the one to shed the brightest light on it, had he lived.

http://www.crvawc.ca/documents/WorkplaceHarassmentandViolencereport.pdf

http://www.harassment101.com/Article5.html

Unchecked Surveillance

The unchecked surveillance that is happening to many private citizens all across the globe. We live in a new reality, but the diagnosis is the same. Think you are being followed around? Must be paranoia. Yet had the family in this article gone for help, thinking they were being spied upon, they might well have been diagnosed as paranoid, when in fact their concerns would have been fully warranted.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-weeks-council-spies.html?printingPage=true
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/c...23/Why-earth-Stasi-state-spying-families.html

This wasn’t just a cursory background check.
The details of the three-week surveillance operation read like an MI5 logbook: “Target vehicle pulls up and parks.”
“Female and three children enter vehicle.”
“Curtains open and lights on in premises.”

This very average, unassuming family were spied upon, 24/7, followed around by (Informants) Covert Human Intelligence Sources, had their play by play activity recorded, all because someone thought they were falsifying the school district that they lived in. This is just a glimpse at what our societies have turned into and how these laws and unchecked surviellances ae being used and abused, to the unchecked power that has been handed out to many branches within society.

 

[gangstalking]

Areas to consider when researching Gang Stalking. Part 2

Lastly is the concern or question of wither Gang Stalking website help to enhance, or feed a delusion, and can these website prevent someone from seeking help for an illness?

It’s a great question and one that no one can answer definitively. If someone believes that something is wrong and traditional points of reference are not providing answers or a solution, they will clearly look towards other points of healing. This is what was happening with Gang Stalking.

Before the websites were here, the beliefs were still held by individuals. When the websites were not here, people were still desperately seeking help and assistance. They were using outside sources which at times could not always formulate a basis of reference for what they were experiencing, but they were still using those points of references, because it was the best available at the time.

If someone goes to a mobbing website and it confirms a belief that they already have that co-workers are out to get them, then it’s up to the individual how they further choose to use the information. The same is true with someone using the bullying website who believes that there is collusion within the system and that is what is happening to them.

The Gang Stalking websites are here, just like mobbing, bullying, etc and they are providing information, research, and shared experiences for the website visitor that chooses to review and consider the information provided.


----------------
Part 1 is apparently waiting for a moderator to approve it. I will leave it as is, till part one has been approved.

To read the full article you can do so at this link.
http://www.gangstalkingworld.com/Social/article.php?sid=321&mode=thread&order=0

 

[Apotheosis]

GangStalking - Am I not right in saying that "None of this TI Stuff or Cause Stalking has ever been proved"? It is all very interesting & of course people are sometimes put under surveillance. But concerning what you are talking about - a cause stalked TI - it's never been proved, any of it, in any country at any time.

I am all too fully aware of some of the states of mind it is possible to be in when in altered states & experiencing a psychosis. I have at one time or another genuinely believed that I have been under total surveillance - by agents using highly sophisticated technological methods - everything was bugged & camered, "they" were employing satellites too to spy on me.

A long time ago I have been involved with & connected to people involved in crime; certain places I have stayed in have been involved in surveillance operations. Earlier this year I was involved in an armed response operation, where the police had been tipped off that a wanted criminal was hiding in the house I was in - they sent up two helicopters over the house, & surrounded the place with armed police, around 20 officers. They thought I was the suspect. Around 6 armed officers came in the house - we let them in & chatted, they were amicable & it was cleared up. These things happen - there is no secondary motive; there is no wider agenda that it is all part of a highly shadowy & secret conspiracy to play with my mind. Everything which has happened in my life has explanations & perfectly rational reasons.

If my mind was more suspicious (which it has been in the past) then I could read all kinds of things into some of the things I have experienced & been through. The simple truth is that there is no proof of this stuff going on.

Until there is some kind of factual evidence or definite proof to this stuff - then I for one will not be suspending my disbelief.

There are a couple of questions I wanted to ask -

What is the purpose of "targeting" certain individuals who have no criminal involvement of any kind, who aren't terrorists, who aren't spooks, what is the point, why???

What are the logical or theorised conclusions to the extent of the advancement of the technologies used in such operations? You don't appear to have touched too much on "Mind Control" subjects - but such things are intimately tied in with what you are talking about.

Although some of this stuff is interesting - I seriously question how helpful it is to promote as fact, stuff for which there is no proof for; on a MH forum, on which people are prone to severe paranoia & delusions.

 

[gangstalking]

Well we do have a history of cointelpro, some targets have confirmed via FOIA that they are under surveillance, and we do know that families and innocent individuals are being placed under watch for very simple reasons.


http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/07/361691.shtml

li endured extreme mental distress during the period of surveillance, as did Kyle. We feel the stress contributed to Kyle's suicide on 7/2/06.




Eli
In 2005 my residence was entered by two Federal Bureau of Investigations agents and a North Bend Police Officer. Federal Agent William Soulle and FBI Bomb Technician John Hallock, accompanied by Officer Jeff Bohannen, entered my residence and seized several computers, books, papers, scraps of plastic, paint, glue and other miscellaneous items which were related to what they called an "imminent terrorist threat" and would be used to "determine the intent" of the device I will mention in a moment. This would be the beginning of a five-month long investigation which would include FBI tails, line-taps, surveillance, and in one scenario, being stopped early one morning at an improvised roadblock on a rural road.

So, what did I do to earn the scorn of the Federal Bureau of Investigations?

My friend and I, out of boredom, constructed a device to launch a model rocket. A model-rocket-launcher if you will. According to the FBI, however, we had constructed a lethal and highly-illegal device similar to what was being produced by insurgents in Iraq. News of our "Improvised Anti-Personnel Weapon" (IAW), we would find out, would make it all the way to Washington D.C., to both an anti-terrorist task force at the Pentagon as well as to the desk of the President of the United States of America.

It quickly became apparent that we were in a situation with the U.S. Government that had the potential to be highly-volatile, that could end in arrest and detention in undisclosed locations, or worse.

But, how did it get to this point?

The day Kyle and I finished the device, we decided to test-fire it in what we perceived to be a safe location in the nearby area. The location was ideal. It was on a dirt lot away from any property or timber that could be damaged, an area I had practiced target shooting with my bow years prior. It was an area that a lot of local kids, like I had done, visited frequently to light off firecrackers and shoot slingshots without getting into huge trouble or burning something down.

Kyle and I put the launcher into the cab of my Ford Ranger and, followed by my father (who decided to come along to take pictures), headed to the area which was located just down the road from our house. As we pulled into the lot, the ignition switch was touched somehow and the rocket ignited in the truck, filling the cab with smoke, resembling a particular scene from a Cheech & Chong movie. No damage done. At that exact moment, however, a squad car pulled in behind us and turned his lights on.

My truck was searched, the launcher was seized and given over to the State Police. From there, it was handed over to the FBI in Salem. Little did we know, the property I had been visiting for years was newly-acquired airport property. Now it was a matter of National Security, a matter which would produce search warrants and affidavits issued by the U.S. Department of State, and would begin long and far-reaching federal investigations against all three of us.

During that time I was tailed everywhere I went, my phones were tapped, my mother's phones were tapped, Kyle's phones were tapped and my father's phones were tapped. I was followed in the local area, tailed by unmarked cars as well as police, and even followed on several trips to a location three hours south of my hometown. My email accounts were being obviously monitored and about once a day emails would go missing and reappear, or I would be unable to login to any of my accounts during short periods of time throughout the day. The FBI was not making any attempt to conceal their surveillance measures. I almost completely stopped using phones and e-mail, and rarely strayed from preset courses when traveling in an attempt to identify surveillance vehicles. A word of advice to anyone under investigation...everything is surveillance. Fear ruled my life. I stopped sleeping, I stopped talking, I stopped traveling. I started listening, watching and making note of everything--trusting nothing and nobody. If it looked like a trick, it was...and there was nothing I could do to stop it, so I just had to live with it.

Since that time I've been afraid to say anything at all. I know that within the borders of this country, if you are intelligent and eloquent, you are to be considered extremely dangerous.

Mobbing has been proven, Cointelpro has been proved, The East Germany Stasi has been proved and how Russia fausly locked away scientists has been proved.

You had the belief, but what did you do to confirm your belif that you had? How long did you have this belief?

I think only the people giving the orders can answer the why's. I don't have such a mentallly so I could not tell you. However there are lot's of people asking this question.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-weeks-council-spies.html?printingPage=true

A family spoke yesterday of their outrage at learning a council had spied on them for three weeks to check they lived in the correct school catchment area.

Tim Joyce, Jenny Paton and their three daughters were subjected to an extraordinary covert operation.

They were tailed round the clock by officials who filled out detailed surveillance forms and described the family's car as a "target vehicle".

There is a unfounded myth going around that you have to be special or extraordinary to be spied upon in society and that is just not the case.


http://www.Spying101.com

If you attended a Canadian university in the past eighty years, it's possible that, unbeknownst to you, Canadian security agents were surveying you, your fellow students, and your professors for 'subversive' tendencies and behaviour. Since the end of the First World War, members of the RCMP have infiltrated the campuses of Canada's universities and colleges to spy, meet informants, gather information, and on occasion, to attend classes. Why they were there is the subject of a new book by Steve Hewitt.



Spying 101 provides new insight on the previously secret operations of one of Canada's most powerful institutions and best-known national symbols, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. For more than eighty years, the RCMP and its younger counterpart, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), have been conducting covert investigations within the hallowed halls of Canadian universities in an attempt to discover 'subversive' activity among faculty, employees, and students, and, periodically, to hunt for spies and terrorists. Information has been collected on thousands of Canadians, including prominent individuals such as Pierre Berton, Peter Gzowski, Lotta Hitschmanova, and Rene Levesque.

Mind Control can be tied into the targeting, but you can also have targets who are just being Gang Stalking, or who are being Gang Stalked and Electronically harassed, or just Mind Controlled. My site focuses on Gang Stalking aspect of it.

This is because there are two areas of research well studied and this is in some ways part of a third branch.

Mobbing has been proven and cyber violence which extends into the community has been proven to happen.