Gang Stalking World

United we stand. Divided they fall.

Down with the system

People keep writing in and asking the same questions, so I keep giving the same answers.

To understand what is going on start with a system. Then give it little appendages of control, and go from there.

Different sectors of society are then controlled in different ways.

Some are just controlled via socialization, and when they get out of line they are socially annexed. this works very well, and in some societies in the past, this was used instead of jail. A person who had committed a wrong, would be ostracized, and this would be punishment enough. The same with shaming a person. In our modern day society we still have similar same mechanisms in place.

[b]Schools[/b]
Children are socialised from an early age to confirm, and to be controlled. They are taught that they are free, and that we live in a democratic society, but what they are really learning in most cases, is how to be good citizens, follow peer pressure, and how not to question the system. Most will go through life, believing in these ideals and freedoms, because it’s what they have been conditioned to think.

[b]Work[/b]
Workplaces are the same, more control and conformity. Those who can pretend to get along well, or who fit in line with the structure the most usually rise to the top and come through the system the best. (This is not always the case, but most often.) Another social structure where conformity is key.

[b]Religion[/b]
Same thing, and most people are aware of how structured religion can be. How people can be socially annexed, and how regulated the views, values and beliefs are suppose to be. We think we have made great strides separating church from the state, but the control and conformity the church loses, the state picks up the slack.

[b]Television Programing[/b]
They call it programing for a reason, and most of us are plugged into it from the time we are born, until we die. We trust it, and it often helps to tell us what our views values and beliefs should be. Most people do not realise the impact this has on them, but it has a great deal of impact with molding what people think, believe, and even how they act.
When subtle social conformity fails what happens next? That is what we are seeing now. When these forms of subtle social conformity are not enough to do the job, then other forms of control are put into place. This is not the case in every instance, but it’s the case in too many instance.
[b]Bullying[/b]
Tim Fields, God rest his soul. He was instrumental in not only being bullied himself, but in realising that bullying was a phenomenon that was responsible for thousands of deaths every year, from grade school, right on up into the workplace. Bullying unlike mobbing, usually involves a single bully, who goes after one person at a time. The person is usually seen to be the best, brightest, or the person who really stands out.

One thing that Tim began to look into before his death, and before his website went offline was obstruction.

(Yes I just checked and bullyingonline.org seems to no longer be available in the conventional sense of the word. Just one more resource gone.)

He realised that there was a great deal of obstruction ongoing.

[quote]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?

Employers, unions, law firms, and employees of the justice system are part of society, and every group, professional or otherwise, contains a few poor performers and rotten apples. This ranges from inexperience through ineptitude and incompetence to collusion and corruption.
[/quote]
[b]Mobbing[/b]
Almost the same thing as bullying, except it involves a group of individuals. Workplace mobbing could be called or seen as the cousin to community gang stalking. The target is the focus of gossip, rumours, slander, most times they will never fully hear what is being said about them. They are provoked, made to seem as if they are bad at their jobs, usually fired, or given menial tasks until they quit. When leaving, many who do have the resources to sue the system are met with the same obstacles listed above in the bullying section. Many targets of mobbing will kill themselves, or be unable to function or work again. Often they can not find jobs in their industries.

Mobbing was first documented in Europe, the name came from the activity that a noted professor watched crows attacking one bird. Just repeatedly pecking at it, one by one.

Definition of mobbing from http://www.mobbing.ca

[quote]Mobbing can be understood as the stressor to beat all stressors. It is an impassioned, collective campaign by co-workers to exclude, punish, and humiliate a targeted worker. Initiated most often by a person in a position of power or influence, mobbing is a desperate urge to crush and eliminate the target. The urge travels through the workplace like a virus, infecting one person after another. The target comes to be viewed as absolutely abhorrent, with no redeeming qualities, outside the circle of acceptance and respectability, deserving only of contempt. As the campaign proceeds, a steadily larger range of hostile ploys and communications comes to be seen as legitimate.
[/quote]

I am an old pro at this one by now, and though I can’t say it get’s easier to deal with, at least knowing what you are up against helps a great deal.
[b]Gang Stalking[/b]

[quote]Gang Stalking on a macro level is a systemic form of control, which seeks to control and destroy every aspect of a targets life, often without leaving a trace.
[/quote]

Just like with workplace mobbing, this is the community version of the same thing. Many targets of this will be falsely institutionalised, jailed, commit suicide, or go missing. Socially, financially ruined and annexed. Many
never realise what is happening to them till it’s too
late.

Gang Stalking is not only very similar to workplace mobbing, it’s also very close to Cointelpro, which never stopped, and according to some sources is very much alive and well in it’s modern day form.

http://www.Cointelpro2.com
[b]Cointelpro[/b]
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm

COINTELPRO is an acronym for a series of FBI counterintelligence programs designed to neutralize political dissidents. Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history.

It was not just designed to neutralize political dissidence, it was designed to stop it in all it’s forms, and inceptions. This program was designed to stop these groups from ever having a chance to reach any potential. The way this program stopped these groups is by stopping the people behind these groups. Political assassinations, dirty tricks, breaking up people’s relationships, leaving them jobless, making their neighbours spy on them, putting them in jail on trumped up charges, sending them on the run, disruption, disinformation, squashing dissidence in all it’s form.

It destroyed and ruined, just about every civil rights movement that could actually make a real difference, and made sure that any future leaders, were squashed before they had a chance to rise and become the next Messiah that could electrify the masses.

Here is to you J. Edgar. Hoover, somewhere out there, I do hope the Karma is still smiling on you.

[b]The Buzzsaw[/b]

This is what can cut through you if you are a journalist and you step out of line. However this is what can happen to you in any profession, if you step out of line. It just has different variations.

[quote]Borjesson describes “the buzzsaw” as “what can rip through you when you try to investigate or expose anything this country’s large institutions — be they corporate or government — want to keep under wraps. The system fights back with official lies, disinformation, and stonewalling.

Your phone starts acting funny. Strange people call you at strange hours to give you strange information. The FBI calls you. Your car is broken into and the thief takes your computer and your reporter’s notebook and leaves everything else behind … The sense of fear and paranoia is, at times, overwhelming.” [/quote]

[quote]When they speak out, buzzsaw victims are usually treated as paranoid conspiracy theorists.[/quote]

[quote]Borjesson was subject to similar attempts at character assassination by her former peers[/quote]

[quote][b]There’s something of an X-Files feel to a lot of these stories, though not in the way that condescending guardians of official truth think. Rather, their surreal feeling comes from the first-person experiences of people finding the institutions they’ve served all their lives suddenly turning on them. As Borjesson writes, “Walk into the buzzsaw and you’ll cut right to this layer of reality. You will feel a deep sense of loss and betrayal. A shocking shift in paradigm. Anyone who hasn’t experienced it will call you crazy. Those who don’t know the truth, or are covering it up, will call you a conspiracy nut.” [/b]

In fact, that’s just what a lot of these writers have been called. Once a journalist has been tossed out of the inner circle, anything they write can be smeared as sour grapes or mere ranting. The media has already branded them unreliable, so their charges are extremely unlikely to be taken seriously.
[/quote]

[quote]Indeed, some of the writers in Buzzsaw say that, before their own experiences, they were among the scoffers. Webb writes, “If we had met five years ago, you wouldn’t have found a more staunch defender of the newspaper industry than me … I was winning awards, getting raises, lecturing college classes, appearing on TV shows, and judging journalism contests. So how could I possibly agree with people like Noam Chomsky and Ben Bagdikian, who were claiming the system didn’t work, that it was steered by powerful special interests and corporations, and existed to protect the power elite?”[/quote]

Yes and before gang stalking and electronic harassment, I would have laughed people silly out of the forums. Until it happens, unless it happens, it’s hard to believe. Even as it happens it’s hard to believe, because it requires suspending beliefs and realising that all of society is like this, and this is a systemic form of control to keep the masses in line, and in check with the status quo.
[b]Whistle blowers, activist, dissidents[/b]

[b]Dissident Peter duesburg.[/b]

After a stunning 20 year career, with just about every reward and recognition under the sun. He realised that the findings on the theory HIV leads to AIDS might have some loop holes. He went from a stunning career being the darling of the field to doing without grant money. He dared to question the stutus quo. The problem with this of course if there is validity to what he is saying, then they should be discussing this.

I understand that in it’s 20 year run, the dissident movement and questioning the HIV/AIDs theory is now right up there with Holocaust denial? When we have seen science be wrong about so many things in the past, to the detriment of so many, do we really want to rule out all possibilities until all the facts are in? Of course we do, because the system say so.

I remember when everyone mocked the guy who thought that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacteria? http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/hpylori/#3
After years of confirmation that stress was what caused all ulcers.

Pellagra was thought to be from bacteria in Maize, but it was in fact a vitamin b deficiency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellagra

History has taught us on these and so many other occasions to keep an open mind, but we never do.

(Great upto date, insight full article on HIV.)

http://www.jpands.org/vol12no4/bauer.pdf
[b]Whistle Blower Lana Vandenberghe[/b]

After finding out the truth about the London tube shooting. This brave whistle blower tried to get the truth out to the world, so that an innocent man, would not have his reputation killed and destroyed, like he had been. For her efforts she paid a price.

[quote]Lana Vandenberghe, who worked for the Independent Police Complaints Commission, said that ten officers broke down her front door in a dawn raid. She was placed in a cell without food or access to a lawyer for eight hours by bullying officers who told her that she would go to prison.

Despite the ordeal, Ms Vandenberghe, who lost her home, her job as an administration secretary and was treated for depression after being arrested, said that she would do it all again to expose the deliberate police “cover up”.[/quote]

She is just one of thousands, here and abroad, who have paid the price for doing what they know to be right. Exposing corruption, drugs that were bad for the public, health care scams, unsafe air travel, etc. Many of them are offered no gratitude, many will loose their jobs, and be ostracised. The system does not reward you for going against the status quo, and the fate of whistle-blowers is just one more example of this.
[b]Activists Judi Bari[/a]

Earth first activist. Tried to save the forest. Had the FBI bomb her car, tried to blame her for it. She would be paralysed, go through this awful trial to try to figure out what had happened and prove her innocence. She had a small child during this time to try to take care of. She would later die, but she did win her case against the state.

Again her story is just one of many. There are hundreds of activist, dissidents that are dealt with in the same way. The people who have tried to expose 9/11. Many have met with unfortunate circumstances or death.

The activist that tried to expose the CIA bringing drugs into ethnic minority communities in the States, again the same fate.

Regular citizens are controlled by being socially ostracized on one end of the scale, all the way to being gang stalking on the opposite end of the spectrum.

It is one system of control.

I also keep getting the same questions and comments

Q: For each target to be followed around it would cost $20 million per year per target?

A: Considering they did the same thing during Cointelpro, and that Russia and East Germany were able to pull this off by using civilian spies, why would our society be any less capable?

Q: Wouldn’t it have to be a conspiracy, that the whole world was in on?

A: The whole world does not have to be in on it, but a large enough sector of society must be aware of, and taking part in these activities, for this to happen.

Q: Are these people just paranoid?
A: Hey anything is possible, and I would have thought the same thing myself, but after doing the research for a year and half. Witnessing things that seem impossible, and yes, out of an X-files episode, or one of those stepford wives movies, then I to go with what I am seeing, experiencing, and what the corresponding, documented evidence is showing me. I am not the only person to come to these conclusions or to experience similar events.

Read some of these books if you have additional questions.

1. Ward Churchill, Jim Vander Wall “Cointelpro Papers”

       2. Protectors of Privilege: Red Squads and Police Repression in Urban America
       3. Anna Funder “Stasiland”
       4. Gloria Naylor. “1996″
       5. Victor Santoro  “GASLIGHTING How To Drive Your Enemies Crazy “
       6. Anthony Brina “Suburban Spies”
       7. Stephen Knight “The Brotherhood”
       8. Alex Constantine “The Covert War Against Rock”
       9. Jim Redden  “Snitch Culture”
       10. Frank Donner “The Age of surveillance”
       11. Kristina Borjesson “Into the Buzzsaw”

Q: Can this change?

A: Anything can change, but only if you want it to. Only with time. Only with a strong will and a resilient nature, and even then, the results are not guaranteed.

To the system. I leave it to it’s fate, and let the Karma work it’s will accordingly.

February 5, 2008 Posted by | 9/11, black, Black Females, black women, BlackFemales, blackwomen, Bullying, buzzsaw, Censorship, CIA, Cointelpro, Controlled society, Corruption, Covert investigations, crazy, dissident, driving-crazy, Electronic harassment, Female, Females, Gang Stalking, Gangstalking, Gaslighting, harassment, Insane, Minorities, mobbing, Monitoring, oppression, Police State, sexual harassment, society, Spying, Stalking, State target, Targeted Individual, whistle blower, White, WhiteFemale | Leave a comment

Facebook CIA opperation?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10456534&pnum=0
Was facebook really started by the CIA? Now I don’t use facebook, myspace or any of those other sites admittedly, but when I first saw this article some months back it really made me wonder if the story could be true.

If the CIA really did start facebook, do you know how much information could be gathered from this operation? Even though I don’t use facebook, just about everyone else I know does.

I have heard family and friends discussing this useful little apparatus and explaining that you can find anyone on there. Well obviously not everyone on there, but quite a few people.

[quote]is a dark side to the success story that’s been spreading across the blogosphere. A complex but riveting Big Brother-type conspiracy theory which links Facebook to the CIA and the US Department of Defence. [/quote]

From what I understand of facebook it’s social networking, so you know someone, then they are on your list, and people can go onto your profile if you don’t have your privacy on, and find out who you know, and then go onto their profile and find out who they know, etc. Now that alone in and of itself is pretty violating, but can you imagine if the CIA really did start it?

[quote]Facebook’s first round of venture capital funding ($US500,000) came from former Paypal CEO Peter Thiel. Author of anti-multicultural tome ‘The Diversity Myth’, he is also on the board of radical conservative group VanguardPAC.

The second round of funding into Facebook ($US12.7 million) came from venture capital firm Accel Partners. Its manager James Breyer was formerly chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, and served on the board with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1999. One of the company’s key areas of expertise are in “data mining technologies”.
[/quote]

Big bucks from big brother for social networking? The link to the Information Awareness Office is what’s concerning. The IAO if I remember correctly is what became of the project to have 1 million spies.
[quote]It was when a journalist lifted the lid on the DARPA’s
Information Awareness Office that the public began to show concern at its information mining projects.

Wikipedia’s IAO page says: “the IAO has the stated mission to gather as much information as possible about everyone, in a centralised location, for easy perusal by the United States government, including (though not limited to) internet activity, credit card purchase histories, airline ticket purchases, car rentals, medical records, educational transcripts, driver’s licenses, utility bills, tax returns, and any other available data.”.
[/quote]
That is some pretty good food for thought if you are a facebook user. Because I don’t use the service, I don’t feel it wise to comment further, but for those who do, maybe it’s something to think about. Usually we complain about our online privacy, but it seems at other times we might just be a little too liberal with it.

[quote]Parts of the IAO’s technology round-up included ‘human network analysis and behaviour model building engines’, which Facebook’s massive volume of neatly-targeted data gathering allows for. [/quote]

Wondering if the IAO is using this to gather information, what are they learning about how we act, behave, and how better to control a population of social creatures?

Well if you were not a little paranoid before, I hope I just added to your day. :-)

February 5, 2008 Posted by | CIA, community policing, Controlled society, Facebook, IAO, Socialnetworking, society | 3 Comments

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 228 other followers