Gang Stalking World

United we stand. Divided they fall.

Under Siege?

Well another article has come out it’s called What’s Behind Internet Conspiracy Empires?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=6443988&page=1

Dec. 12, 2008—

The article much like the last few articles wonders what the impact is that Gang Stalking Websites, more specifically Gang Stalking World, because let’s face it there are only a few websites in the community that discuss what is actually happening.

[quote]
A man standing on a street corner with a sign reading “the lizard people rule you all,” or, “my neighbors are spying on me for the government” isn’t likely to get many supporters.

But give that man a Web site template, or let him produce some slick videos on YouTube and, lo and behold, he may have thousands of people across the world supporting him.

Such is the story of several extraordinarily popular conspiracy theorists and theories online today.

Take the victims of gang stalking — a subculture of people who think their friends and neighbors are all secret government spies ready to turn them over to the authorities. The movement has recently spawned gang stalking support groups, forums and advice Web sites.
[/quote]
The article is not unexpected. Ever since I saw the article a few months ago about Truman Show Delusion, I expected similar articles. I did not expect them to specifically hone in on the Gang Stalking Websites so soon, but you knew it was coming.

So in anticipation of this, I wanted to give people a chance to discuss some of the things that have been happening to us. If they are truly interested in discussing Gang Stalking and Researching it, you can do so here.

http://www.GangStalkingUnited.com/forum

Because of programs like Cointelpro and their ability to wipe out movements, we have learnt that it’s very possible to cover up things that are happening, demonize movements, or get rid of people that are not within their control. You can discuss the topic as long as they control what is being said about it. 

What I see happening with Gang Stalking is that we have some real targets being removed from the scene, I blogged about this recently. I also see that we have many websites and blogs, but many in my opinion are not by genuine targets. Based on what we know about Cointelpro and other programs of that nature, we know that these programs have a habit of removing legit groups and starting up their own, this way they are in control of what is happening, what gets said, and what progress the movement makes.

I have often said that out of 10 websites you would be lucky to find one that is legitimate, that still holds true.

I have also suggested that you request your F.O.I.A. freedom of information act request, but please avoid people online that would get you to compose outlandish letters that will spawn the concern of “mental health experts”.

The other problem is that activists and dissidents of other groups that are being spied upon, are getting some attention and concern, where Gang Stalking targets seem to still be very marginalized. We can not show reason to believe that we are being targeted, but our claims even with all the research are still being put off into the conspiracy zone. I am wondering if any activist in the community, who are parts of other activist programs have had any luck with getting assistance from outside communities?

Eg. Have you joined or are you a part of a peace movement that is under surveillance? I am wondering if targets in this situation have had any luck with gaining assistance from an outside source as a target of surveillance rather than Gang Stalking because they belong to a peace movement?

Anyways it’s an interesting article. If this is just the new buzz word then that’s great. If it’s not the new buzz word, then we will see attempts by health experts to show that these sites are harmful. We might even get examples of this.

This article completely left out mentions of the Mind Control websites and went straight for Gang Stalking, and specifically Gang Stalking World.

It’s something to be aware of. The information on Gang Stalking World has been free to be shared, and backed up for sometime now. I suggest that you share the information, and if you have the space, make a copy of the website.

If we do not learn from history, we will be sure to repeat it. We might repeat it anyways, but at least we learnt.

December 12, 2008 Posted by | activism, Awareness, Cointelpro | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Virgin Birth

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/10/081010-shark-virgin-birth-2.html

Ok. I know that you are all as fascinated by this subject matter as I am, not. Still it’s a really interesting subject. The correct term for it is parthenogenesis. This means a female egg will self fertilize without the presence of a male and she will give birth.

This has been know to happening with insects, amphibians and reptiles. Usually this happens after long periods without the presence of any males. Recently just to show you how far behind our science is, they realised that sharks have this ability, maybe not all sharks, but at least two species, including the hammerhead shark.

A female shark that had been in an aquarium died, and upon autopsy it showed that she was carrying a fully formed pup. Neat.

Could this happen in other species? Probably, but since science has not been looking for virgin births, when they see it, they probably attribute it to other things, such as long term sperm storage, yeah. If you are not looking for proof of a phenomenon, how can you prove it’s existence?

So if this happens with sharks, reptiles, and other amphibians could it ever happen with mammals? With this is an interesting question, and I don’t know if they are looking into this, because their science tells them that it’s not likely, that is of course until it happens. If you are not looking for a phenomenon, then you won’t recognise it even if it does happen.

The problem with mammals is of course by their very nature, they often take care of their young, and many live in communal groups, whales, bats, humans, etc, so the circumstances that would bring about  parthenogenesis in other species probably does not present itself as readily in mammals.

I think it’s interesting and something that science should try to look into. Since we know that when this happens the offspring has fused chromosomes of the mother, then we could genetically test mammals to see if this phenomenon had happened in any species that exist alone for long periods of time. Here is the story about the shark and it gives you a lot to think about.

[quote]Chapman and his colleagues generated a DNA fingerprint for the mother shark and her pup fetus with a procedure identical to a human paternity test.

Ordinarily, a shark’s DNA contains some genetic material from its mother and some from its father. Tidbit’s pup, however, was not ordinary.

“Every part of the fingerprint of the embryo comes from the mother,” Chapman said. “In other words, there is no genetic material from a father.”
[/quote]

Since we now know that this does happen in nature, what we don’t know are what are the mechanism that trigger this effect? Is it a rear occurrence or something programed in all genetics to keep the species going? There are a lot of unanswered questions, because if you know what triggers the process, then you can say if it could happen in other species.

[quote]Examples have been documented in komodo dragons, pythons, rattlesnakes, chickens, and turkeys. [/quote]

This article is saying that parthenogenesis would not be possible with humans, but I don’t believe that for a second. Until we understand more about the process, what triggers it, and how do we know what the cells would be capable of? All humans start off as female embryos, and then with the male hormone they become male vs female. How do we know what processes would kick in under these circumstances in nature? Currently however science has not reported parthenogenesis in any mammals, but till a couple of years ago, they had not reported anything in sharks either, and thought that it was impossible, till it happened.

[quote]Parthenogenesis is not possible in humans because if all the genetic material comes from the mother, certain genes will be switched off, and the embryo won’t develop.

“For sharks in captivity, [parthenogenesis
[/quote]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4909

[quote]A mammal that is the daughter of two female parents has been created for the first time.

Until now such a feat had been considered biologically impossible. But the mouse, called Kaguya, was born without the involvement of any sperm or male cell – only female eggs were needed.

In the same way that the birth of Dolly the sheep in 1997 shattered the dogma that an adult cell could never be reprogrammed to make a new individual, the fact that Kaguya lives challenges another one of long-held rule: that two mammals of the same sex cannot combine their genomes to give rise to viable offspring.
[/quote]

If we can do this in the lab, why could this not naturally occur in nature, when we see that there is a natural process in nature that does make this possible for other species? Could it be that we are not looking?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-mouse-that-roared-virgin-birth-560837.html

[quote]The mouse was generated from two unfertilised eggs and its birth has demonstrated for the first time that it is possible for mammals to be born by the “virgin birth” phenomenon of parthenogenesis.

Scientists said the mouse developed normally to adulthood and had offspring of its own by normal sexual reproduction, showing parthenogenesis could work on warm-blooded mammals, including humans.
[/quote]

What we need to do to set science on it’s ears once more is to find the process working in nature, which I do believe is fully possible. Again however, we need to know more about what starts the process, so that we can look for optimum circumstances where that can be achieved? Is it just removing males from the environment for long periods of time? Does the female need to be isolated also? Are all creature capable of this, or just some special ones within the species? What tells the process internally to start?

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/belfast-team-discover–virgin-birth-13444103.html

[quote]Dr Paulo Prodohl, head of the Queen’s research team, said: “The findings were really surprising because as far as anyone knew, all sharks reproduced only sexually by a male and female mating, requiring the embryo to get DNA from both parents for full development, just like in mammals.

“The discovery that sharks can reproduce asexually by parthenogenesis now changes this paradigm, leaving mammals as the only major vertebrate where this form of reproduction has not been seen.”

Parthenogenesis – where females give birth to fully formed young without their eggs being fertilised by a male – has very occasionally been seen in some vertebrate groups such as birds, reptiles and amphibians, but has never before been seen in major vertebrate lines such as mammals or sharks.

The most likely form of parthenogenesis leads to less genetic diversity in the infant than the mother, leading to fears that genetic diversity could be eroding in shark populations if females have difficulty finding mates.

[/quote]
Till science can answer these questions conclusively, I don’t think it’s fair for them to presume what is and what is not possible at this stage, because we don’t know enough about what starts the process, we just know that it is capable of happening.

December 12, 2008 Posted by | Science | , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The final pieces of the puzzle 2.

So if Cointelpro or a branch of it is happening again today. Why are there no checks or balances? What happened to the Church commission?

That’s an interesting question and i just came across an interesting answer.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/Unwelcome_Truths_CTSG.html

Unwelcome Truths

See people like dirty laundry to get aired and exposed, just not too much of it. When the Church committee showed their findings the public were somewhat receptive of it, but by the time it was the Pike committees turn, the mood had changed and they didn’t want all the dirty laundry being exposed anymore.

[quote]Daniel Schorr thought he was upholding the First Amendment by publishing the Pike committee’s final report; in return, he was fired by his boss, investigated by the government, and scorned by his colleagues. And Schorr was only the most visible victim of a larger phenomenon: the backlash against all of the congressional and journalistic investigators. After the triumphs and high expectations of the year before, the investigations had collapsed in embarrassment, frustration, and despair.

Why were the media so reluctant to defend Schorr? Many observers at the time blamed Schorr’s gift for making enemies as well as the pressures of competitive journalism. As with Seymour Hersh, it was easy for rivals who had missed the story to denigrate their more successful colleague’s accomplishments.

But the number and scale of the attacks on Schorr indicate that something more was happening than simple revenge on an unpopular colleague. In leaking the report, Schorr had defied not only Congress and the president but also the public mood. As David Ignatius said in a perceptive piece in the Washington Monthly, Schorr had “misjudged the public temper. This was not the Pentagon Papers and he was not Daniel Ellsberg, and this was not even the same country, anymore, that had needed the press to batter its corrupted institutions, force a lying President out of office, strip the cover of national security from the CIA.” A December 1975 Harris poll had shown that slightly more respondents disapproved of the investigators than approved of them-and this poll was taken before Welch’s death and the leak. Much of the public was tired of the Daniel Schorrs and Seymour Hershes and Otis Pikes who seemed to be threatening the security of the nation and its secret agents. Anthony Lewis reported that congressmen were hearing from their constituents that they did not want to know about any more American crimes or embarrassments. Watergate was over; the “necessary demolition,” as Ignatius said, had been accomplished. “But Dan Schorr-ever the reporter-was still battering away.”

Schorr partly understood this at the time. In his first major speech after his suspension, he used the metaphor of a pendulum to explain how the public mood in the United States had alternately shifted from valuing liberty to prizing security. “I got hit by a swinging pendulum,” he said.[/quote]

Apparently shedding some dirty laundry is ok, but not too much. If you start to shed too much the public’s mood can easily shift and turn on the person bringing the message. It’s a slippery slope reporting the truth to the audience. The truth has an appropriate time, when people are open and welcome to it, and then there are other times when they just don’t want to know, because it would remove the veil the facade that exists in their society, to reveal too much truth, might damage the very core and foundations of which they base their beliefs and existence.

To lift the veil fully would expose, very troubling, dirty embarrassing secrets, it would destroy the image that society works so hard to keep, democratic, liberal, fair, just, it would change everything. It’s not just the people in power that protect the system, it’s also the people that are enslaved by it, as weird as that sounds. Think of it as a kind of systemic Stockholm syndrome. Siding with those that are holding you hostage.

[quote]And how effective was that reform? Critics have questioned whether the permanent committee has exercised adequate oversight. In many ways, Congress has continued its reluctance to challenge the secret agencies. Despite its post-Watergate reputation for skepticism, the press has also hesitated to question and expose the secret government.

Why, given the early high expectations for great reform, did the investigations achieve so little? Why did these extensive, far-reaching inquiries result only in restoring the CIA’s credibility? The answer can be found in the attitudes toward the secret government held by the press, the Congress, and the public. Despite the rising distrust of governmental secrecy after Vietnam and Watergate, many journalists, congressmen, and other Americans were not sure how much they wanted to know about the nation’s dirty secrets.[/quote]

The spouse is cheating, or harming the kids and you only want to know so much. Again cause the full truth would ruin that illusion and then you would be left with truth, the full truth, and most people can’t handle the truth. So after these communities finished, the secret government legalized the dirty that they had been doing. Then they limited the powers of the oversight committees. Thus why we have been back where we started from almost right from the start.

[quote]Ultimately, however, Congress abandoned these legislative blueprints because of opposition from the intelligence community and a lack of enthusiasm from the Carter administration. Advocates for stricter accountability did achieve one reform in 1978 with the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which required the FBI and NSA to obtain court orders for wiretaps in the United States.

When Ronald Reagan came into office in 1981, he swiftly loosened the regulations hindering the CIA and the FBI. He allowed CIA domestic spying in certain cases, permitted physical surveillance of Americans abroad, and authorized some covert actions in the United States. Most important, he appointed his campaign manager and former OSS agent William Casey to be director of central intelligence. Casey was determined to free the CIA from the fetters imposed after Watergate-and he was willing to evade and subvert the law to do so.[/quote]
See the truth get’s exposed, the public express their outrage, and then forces move in to make sure it’s harder the next time around to let the truth surface. We saw strains of this with the exposure of priest that like to have sex with children. There are lot’s of things like this that happen, and this is the how and the why of it.

[quote]When Seymour Hersh exposed the CIA’s domestic spying, when Michael Harrington demanded that the House investigate the charges, when Otis Pike confronted Henry Kissinger, when Frank Church issued his assassination report, and when Daniel Schorr arranged to publish the Pike report, they never expected that the end result of their efforts would be to legitimize the secret government. After Vietnam and Watergate, many reformers had hoped to attain a new democratic accountability for the secret agencies. They had wanted to restructure the intelligence community, enact restrictive laws, write new charters, even abolish covert action. In the end, though, many were happy to settle for a new congressional committee.[/quote]

Did you read the above carefully? The outcome of these committees that were there to expose corruption was in the end to unwittingly legitimize the secret government.

So why is our faithful media not still standing guard and exposing what is happening?

[quote]
Many journalists were indeed willing to question the open operations of the government, seeking out stories on corruption, incompetence, or personal immorality. These reporters tried to emulate Woodward and Bernstein, or at least pop culture’s mythic image of Woodward and Bernstein. But only a very few reporters dared to challenge the secret government. Those who did so won no prizes for their efforts. Seymour Hersh’s domestic spying stories were underplayed by all but his own newspaper. A whispering campaign in Washington questioned the veracity of his stories and prevented him from winning a Pulitzer Prize. Daniel Schorr was also attacked by his colleagues, first for his mistake on the spy-in-the-White-House story, then for his role in the publication of the Pike report.

Even the New York Times, the most aggressive news organization throughout the year of investigations, proved receptive to government pleas for secrecy. The Times refused to publicize President Ford’s unintentional disclosure of assassination plots. It joined many other papers in suppressing the Glomar
Explorer story and led the editorial attacks on the Pike committee and on Schorr. The real question, as Tom Wicker wrote in 1978, is not “whether the press has lacked aggressiveness in challenging the national-security mystique, but why?” Why, indeed, did most journalists decide to defer to the administration instead of pursuing sensational stories?

In part, this deference was a defensive reaction. Intellectuals and columnists like Max Kampelman, Irving Kristol, and Joseph Kraft would continue to condemn the “imperial media” for years to come. Many journalists were intimidated by these attacks.
[/quote]
Intimidation, fear of exposing national secret, yes like assassination plots. Fear of being pushed to the outskirts the same way the other journalists were.
[quote]
… the investigations never truly aroused the public the way Church a hoped. This apathetic response might have been a product of what sociologists call the “issue-attention cycle.” According to Anthony Downs, American public attention does not remain focused on any one issue for long, “even if it involves a continuing problem of crucial importance to society.” Typically, Downs says, a new problem will vault into the center of public attention, stay there a short time, then quickly fade from public view as people realize how difficult, threatening, or costly the solutions would be-or simply after they get bored with hearing about the problem. During the investigations, congressmen frequently commented that their constituents did not seem interested in intelligence abuses after the initial flurry of revelations. “This is not the Watergate investigation,” one member of Congress told the New York Times as early as May 1975. “Nobody ever talks to me about it on home trips, and I hear very little about it here.”

Some commentators argued that Americans could not sustain their outrage because they had become jaded by scandal. The public had already learned about the My Lai massacre, the secret bombing of Cambodia, the secret war in Laos, and the Watergate scandals. As a result, Americans had experienced “a kind of deadening of moral nerve-ends, a near-inability to be surprised, let alone disturbed,” by new revelations, the Washington Post editorialized. The “years of revelation and shock,” as columnist Meg Greenfield put it, had produced an “anesthetizing effect” on many Americans.[/quote]

The above scenario explains it best. We saw the same willingness to know that there was a problem, but lack of willingness to fully investigate the corruption that was happening on the Toronto Police Force. A few years several officers in Toronto were arrested for a variety of charges, extorting money from local stores, selling drugs, requesting sex from prostitutes etc. The police were arrested, but then a report came out that said this was just the tip of the iceberg and that if the problem was ever fully investigated it would embarrass those from the top down to the bottom. To really look into the situation and fix it, truly fix it might not only be costly, but it literally in some cases might involve a full turn over of those in power, and if your career depends on many of those in positions of power, you are not going to be the one to go there.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2006/11/21/report-police.html
[quote]
Americans also may have doubted that they or their representatives had the power to change the secret agencies. A December 1975 poll showed that only 30 percent believed that the investigations would produce real reforms, while 41 percent were more skeptical. Moreover, with public confidence in all governmental institutions at a historic low, most Americans did not trust the Congress to devise solutions.

Finally, many Americans resisted believing the news that their government had committed crimes. During the years of the liberal consensus, there had been no dialogue in American political culture about CIA or FBI activities. Most Americans’ knowledge of these agencies came from popular culture, which portrayed U.S. agents as heroes. Once Vietnam and Watergate had shattered the liberal consensus, suddenly the American people learned about the murder plots, drug testing, and harassment of dissidents that had been carried out in their name. They had been taught a “child’s history” of the world, as Richard Helms’s biographer Thomas Powers has explained, and they did not want to learn about the real history written by Helms and his colleagues. “To discover oneself the victim of so many illusions, all at once, is disorienting,” Powers has noted.

It is painful for any nation to learn about its government’s dirty tricks, but it is perhaps most painful for Americans, who hold their government to a high moral standard. As Michael Schudson has commented, “That is not to say that other peoples expect their governments to be immoral but there may be an unusual American spirit that the government is expressive of and representative of its people and that we cannot think well of ourselves if we cannot think well of our leaders.” America is, after all, supposed to be the “city on a hill,” admired and emulated by the rest of the world. Subverting foreign governments and plotting to assassinate foreign leaders does not fit well with this image.
[/quote]
The other reason this continues, many people just can not handle the truth. They like the fairytale that they were brought up on. I was the same way, and without personally being targeted by this situation, I would not have believed it myself. Many of us in society grow up believing these illusions, these fairy tales about how just, fair and democratic our countries are, and it takes a lot to have those beliefs shattered. They are not just beliefs about a country, they are part of the images that we hold in regards to ourselves, to shatter those images with truth, is something that many people are simply not ready for.
[quote]
The country has never resolved this contradiction between its ideals and its acceptance of Cold War secrecy and subversion. Most policymakers decided to maintain American illusions by keeping the public ignorant of secret operations. They concluded-perhaps correctly-that many Americans wanted to be kept in ignorance.
[/quote]

Ignorance is bliss for many people. That is also in part what keeps this system in place. The less they know, the happier they are, not truly happy, but that false sense of happy that they have consistently been feed, but they have been feed it for so long, they no longer know the difference.
[quote]

Richard Helms contends that this attitude reveals that “we’re basically a rather hypocritical nation; we like things to be done, but we don’t want to have the blood on our own hands.”
[/quote]
That is so true. People do not like to have the blood on their hands. That’s why monitoring someone for 15 minutes, 30 minutes, is so effortless. You never have to truly see them, the blood is spread around so thin, you don’t even notice it when it splashes. The citizens helping out in our harassment, are hardly ever present or there for the end results and even if they were, many would think that they had just done or performed an invaluable service for the country.

[quote]Americans would “pretend” to be shocked by the Church committee assassination report. “We have never before known the details-and they are sordid and ludicrous in the extreme-but we have known that American policy has at times meant interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and trying to bring down their governments,” the paper scolded. A Washington Post reader urged Americans to admit that they supported “covert subversive activities” in other countries or take responsibility for attempting to limit them. Most Americans refused to make that choice, however. They preferred to leave the CIA’s undemocratic actions in the “attic of the implicit,” as columnist Rod MacLeish said, rather than bringing them down to the more painful level of explicit endorsement.[/quote]
Forcing people to admit that they support these covert actions that are taking place in other countries was hard, imagine getting them to admit that it’s happening in their own countries?

[quote]The inquiries asked them to doubt the morality of J. Edgar Hoover and John F. Kennedy-men they had regarded as true American heroes-and to question whether their nation truly adhered to its professed ideals.

One year earlier, Americans had faced equally difficult questions during the Watergate scandal. But not even Watergate had shaken most Americans’ support for “the system,” political scientists have shown. Having survived that shock, most Americans were reluctant to challenge the system’s legitimacy now. As one American wrote to the president in 1975, “Let’s not turn the CIA probe into another Watergate. Just try to take steps to prevent the recurrence of alleged illegal activities.” It was much easier to assume that the investigations had taken care of past problems-and that the system had worked-than to challenge American illusions.[/quote]

Protecting those illusions, that is what helps to keep the system in place, and anyone who comes along and challenges those illusions have not only the system to worry about, but sometimes the very people they are trying to help within those system.
[quote]Congress began a new era of oversight in 1976. The “newness” of this era, however, became the subject of much controversy … In 1986, the two successors to the Church and Pike committees discovered that the Reagan administration had evaded and ignored the intelligence reforms enacted since the 1970S and had lied to the overseers. In 1987, former Church committee member John Tower, who headed the presidential commission that investigated the scandal, pronounced the Iran-contra affair to be an “aberration.” In 1988, the joint congressional investigating committee concluded that the existing oversight laws were adequate and that the system had worked. This view was widely shared by opinion leaders. In the 1990S, there seems little prospect that lawmakers or journalists will again question the fundamental soundness of the existing oversight system.[/quote]

Thus you have it. The people are all tucked back nicely into their illusions and fairy tales, the system works and you have nothing to worry about, when evidence clearly shows otherwise.

This article for me served to clarify why a structure such as this could be in place and still standing. This structure is built into the core of society and how they see themselves in part, so to destroy this wall of illusion would be to destroy the fairytale views and beliefs so many hold about their society and themselves. To shatter an illusion so deep rooted and strong, might well send the society in a tale spin. Therefore as long as the illusion or the fairytale continues, many of us are likely to be caught up in this system and the illusions that keep it going.

December 12, 2008 Posted by | activism, Awareness, Censorship, Cointelpro | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The final pieces of the puzzle

I was just reading up on Cointelpro and I think I have the final pieces of the puzzle put together.

It’s shiny and it squirts water, is it a water gun? No a detective that makes these things told me it was a watering stick. Describe this watering stick to me. Well you pull the trigger, and water  comes out and it can get people wet. Are you sure it’s not a water gun? No a private detective told me that it’s a watering stick, besides water guns don’t squirt blue liquid and this one does. Well Ok then, and thus Cointelpro in whatever form it choose to continue in was masked as Gang Stalking.
Since Cointelpro was only ever an American program people have been saying that it can not be Cointelpro because what is happening is International. It’s patterns are however the same, and with the new community policing programs and anti-terror laws it too has risen from the shadows where it momentarily dwelt, and has continued almost consistantly to do what it has always done. What’s been confusing is the electronic harassment and the gaslighting tactics, but enough research will show ghost tactics have been used before, including what we now know about the former East Germany. 

Recently I came across an article that I think just really helped me to put the whole thing into perspective. I think I have finally internalized it at last. I came across a story that I had not heard before. It was the story of how a young outspoken black journalist was put away by the system.
Mumia Abu-Jamal. This story starts back in the day of the black panthers, and climaxes in the early eighties and continues on to this present time. It’s a leangthy story, so I will just go over the highlights, but I suggest that you read it in full. I think after reading it, you will see a pattern that has always existed and that still exists.
http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/mumia-abu-jamal-enemy-of-the-state/

 

[quote]
At City Hall, Rizzo was blunt with the press: he expected them to close ranks in support of police actions. Then, from the crowded pack of reporters, a young Black journalist spoke out in the resonant tones of a radio broadcaster. He raised pointed questions about the official police story Rizzo had just laid out.

Mayor Rizzo exploded in fury and spat out a thinly veiled threat: “They believe what you write, and what you say, and it’s got to stop. And one day–and I hope it’s in my career–that you’re going to have to be held responsible and accountable for what you do.” [2]

The journalist who challenged Rizzo that day was Mumia Abu-Jamal. He had spent a decade exposing the racism of Philadelphia’s police and legal system.

On December 9, 1981, three years after this press conference, at the age of 27, Mumia Abu-Jamal fell into the hands of the police. He was shot, almost killed by a police bullet, arrested, and repeatedly brutalized in custody. And then, in a trial borrowed from Kafka or Alice’s Wonderland, he was condemned to death for the shooting of policeman Daniel Faulkner.

Mumia Abu-Jamal has not spent a day in freedom since. He is now on Death Row–defying the sterile isolation of the SCI Greene prison: writing, speaking out, and opening the eyes of a new generation to the injustices of the system.[/quote]
Like many stories his does not begin or end there, where it will end will soon be decided by a jury of his peers? Well we know that a jury will soon make a decision in regards to his fate, but let’s take you back.
Born in 1954 as Wesley Cook he grew up in the projects of Black philadelphia.

While growing up he was subjected to racism and a lot of the political unrest of that time period. He did not let that kill his spirit, infact he was able to rise above it for a time.

As a young teenager his mind was finally opened up to the true nature of the racism in his city and he joined the black pather party.

[quote]
 I was grabbed by two of them, one kicking my skull while the other kicked me in the balls. Then I looked up and saw the two-toned, gold-trimmed pant leg of a Philly cop. Without thinking, and reacting from years of brainwashing, I yelled, ‘Help, police!’ The cop saw me on the ground being beaten to a pulp, marched over briskly–and kicked me in the face. I have been thankful to that faceless cop ever since, for he kicked me straight into the Black Panther Party.”[8]

In 1969, when Mumia joined the campaign to rename his school Malcolm X High, the FBI and the Philadelphia political police squad started keeping records on him, using informants and wiretaps. In the following years, their file would grow to over 800 pages.[9][/quote]
Soon he would start to write articles and for the group and draw attention to the plight of the people in his commuity.

[quote]<b>The FBI took note, and added Mumia’s name to the ADEX index of those persons to be rounded up and interned in a national emergency.</b>[/quote]
So for people wondering if the Fema lists do exist, here is proof that as far back as the 70’s they had lists of those who should and should not be rounded up in case of a national emergency.

[quote]“Mumia was, and is, a very sensitive, committed and thorough journalist. And his journalistic focus in large part was issues involving the inner city, involving the conflicts and tensions between those on the bottom of our society and those running it, and pretty much the daily affairs of the city.”

Linn Washington, veteran reporter and Temple University journalism professor [18][/quote]

His only achievement was not just helping to start up the philadelphia chapter of the black panthers at 15, he would later become an radio jounalist, and a free lance journalist, winning many community awards.
[quote]In Philadelphia in the mid-1970s, Mumia’s work brought him into contact with the MOVE organization. MOVE, a radical utopian largely-Black organization, was formed the year Rizzo took over City Hall. Its members lived together in communal homes as an extended family, adopting the common surname Africa, and wore their hair natural, in dreadlocks. In 1974, from their base in West Philadelphia’s Powelton Village, MOVE started speaking out at political forums and organizing community demonstrations against police brutality.

In 1974 two pregnant women from MOVE were man-handled by cops until they miscarried. MOVE’s demonstrations intensified. The police responded with a campaign of “arrest on sight.” Between 1974 and 1976, there were 400 arrests of MOVE members, resulting in bail and fines of more than half a million dollars. Life Africa, a three-week-old baby, was killed during one violent police attack. [30]

By March 1978, these confrontations came to a head when Philadelphia police clamped a siege on MOVE’s home on West Philadelphia’s Powelton Avenue. Police cut off water and electricity. They set up barricades to prevent food from entering.

Armed with his tape recorder, Mumia stepped into the middle of this mounting conflict. He later said that he gave voice to the members of the MOVE organization at a time when most Black reporters ignored them, and the mainstream press simply slandered them.[/quote]
The police after all the press they were getting pretended to back off, and then ofcourse staged a waco like attack on the residents. The organization members were put through a questionalble trial and placed in jail. He was one of the few journalists to ask the truly hard questions and carry out the function that a journalist is meant to perform.

[quote]Mumia Abu-Jamal spoke out from the crowd of journalists, sharply raising questions about the way police had destroyed evidence after the raid.

Rizzo was already on edge over the increasing coverage of police brutality spreading into the mainstream press. He could feel his long-standing support in the city’s media eroding and it bothered him. [39]

But to be publicly challenged in his own press conference by a Black journalist the same day a cop had just died in a raid–that made him livid. Rizzo’s answer to Mumia’s question was a now-famous threat: “They believe what you write, and what you say, and it’s got to stop. And one day–and I hope it’s in my career–that you’re going to have to be held responsible and accountable for what you do.”[/quote]

Three years later that would all come to a head, but not before he continued to live, work and rise in the community as someone who was nsightful, passionate and caring.

[quote]In 1980, at the age of 26, Mumia was elected president of the Philadelphia chapter of the National Association of Black Journalists. The following year, he was named one of the city’s “People to Watch” by Philadelphia magazine. The article spoke of his “eloquent, often passionate and always insightful interviews.”[/quote]

He was known as the voice of the voiceless. Then December 9, 1981 things all came to a head. 27 years ago.

[quote]The events of December 9, 1981 started as a typical police stop for “driving while Black.” Just before 4 a.m., Mumia’s younger brother Billy Cook was driving his Volkswagen Beetle in a seedy part of Philadelphia’s Center City–when he was pulled over on Locust Street by Officer Daniel Faulkner.

The official record claims that the reason for this stop was a crooked license plate and a broken bumper. But before Daniel Faulkner even climbed out of his patrol car, he had decided to arrest Billy Cook and called for a police wagon to take Cook away. Faulkner quickly had Billy Cook out of the driver’s seat, spread-eagled across his car and was beating him in the head with a weighted police flashlight. [47]

Mumia was driving his cab that night and came upon this scene. Moments later, when police backup arrived, Mumia was on the ground, shot in the chest. Faulkner was dead from two gunshot wounds and Billy Cook was standing against a wall bleeding. Anyone else involved in the incident had fled.

A cop was dead and from that moment on–true to the methods, mentality and traditions of the police–Mumia was responsible and deserved to die, no matter what the evidence (or lack of evidence) might actually say.[/quote]

Since then he has been in the system, fighting for a fair trail and litterally fighting for his life on death row.

[quote]
In the months that followed Mumia’s arrest, the machinery of Philadelphia’s notorious Homicide Squad went into motion–and systematically manufactured a case against Mumia Abu-Jamal. Evidence was suppressed. False evidence was created. Witnesses were coerced. And a notorious hanging judge was rolled out to ram this railroad through the trial process.

Mumia had been the dogged opponent of a brutal power structure for 12 intense and explosive years. He had exposed their crimes, upheld their victims, given voice to their accusers. Now he was in their hands–a political prisoner headed for death row.
[/quote]

Thus the story in part ends there, but continues now 27 years later. He has been on death row ever since then, the system then as now is the same and it has not changed. Evidence of a signed confession from another man exists from his team, suggesting that the police officer was shot in a mob style hit.

http://www.freemumia.com/beverlydeclaration.html

Abu-Jamal is still on death row waiting once again for his fate to be decided some 27 years later. Some would say that his fate was decided when he confronted the Mayor on his actions in taking down yet another group from that time period.

[quote]We are now at the crossroads of the case. This is a life and death struggle in the fight for Mumia’s freedom. His life hangs in the balance. The following are details as to what has been occurring in the Supreme Court.

Abu-Jamal v. Beard, U.S. Sup. Ct. No. 08A299: On October 3, I filed in the Supreme Court a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Justice David H. Souter granted the motion on October 9th. The Petition is now due on December 19, 2008.[/quote]

So here it is, just one more piece of the puzzle, that’s finally helping me to put it all together. The full story is a fascinating read, and it answers the questions that I had when I first came online and started to learn about Cointelpro.

I had wondered why there were no more leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. I mean that time period seemed to have produced a lot of leaders and groups, such as the black panthers, Malcolm X, etc. The last two I grew up thinking of as outlandish radicals, but now I see that they were just a part of the same struggles that we are all a part of wither we know it or not.

So that answers that part of the puzzle for me. They are locked away in the system. If they are not dead, in prison, in process of being destroyed, or in mental wards as is the new thing to do, then they are simply unaware, or a part of the system itself.

Coitelpro as we see primarily targeted ethnic minorities, their leaders, political movements, and organizations, but even before Martin Luther King Jr’s assassination the mandate was changing for that program. The mandate had become making sure that no (black) messiahs rose up, this would mean finding creative ways to target these future messiahs, these ones that could potentially rise up and distrupt the system, cause dissidence and throw a cog in the wheel. Those at every level who refused to fall in line.

Well the machine has continued to work, and so has the corruption and the injustice. The system that existed then, as much as I wanted to believe that it had fully changed, I am in reading and researching lead to now believe that it has never really changed. Those frieghtening tentacles still exist and instead of just targeting activists and dissidents, these programs have merged and branched out. Again in accordance with new initiatives such as community policing, anti-terror laws, etc, they are alive and well, and the machine is as active as ever. With the emergence of 9/11 and overseas wars, we are simply seeing the machine mount up and show itself more clearly, apparently this is very common, during such times from what I have read.

Abu-Jamal was known as a voice for the voiceless, he helped shed light on injustice for dozens if not thousands of people throughout his time, before the system also took him out of the picture and almost silenced his voice. Today his life still hangs in the balance, and a fair trial is needed once more. Can any justice exist in this system of corruption and conformity? It’s been 27 years, and a decision is days away from being made, maybe by being a voice for his plight, and sheding some light on this case, some right can finally be achieved.

December 12, 2008 Posted by | black, Cointelpro, control, Controlled society, Corruption, Covert investigations, domestic spying, Gang Stalking, Gangstalking, harassment, Martin Luther King Jr, Minorities, oppression, Police Abuse, Police Corruption | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments