Sometimes you don’t have the truth, because you don’t want the truth. I was just watching another of those charming, yet so annoying articles that actually had the adacity to get printed recently, like November or something like that.
Now I often say it, no press is bad press, but today at this moment at time, I’am thinking it, sometimes you just don’t have the truth, because you don’t want the truth. You don’t have the credence, or the respect you deserve to have because you as a community, and a society are enabling them to print joke articles such as this, the article was just annoying, it’s another article where T.I. Targeted Individuals are hearing voices, sure you hearing freaking voices, but if the articles doesn’t do you credit, then be all over it. It’s the type of article that sites such as FFCHS, typically sponser and their minions and I am tried of it, I litterly read the article and I seriously wanted to reprove someone from their situations, I seriously wanted to remove them from situations, I seriously wanted to reprove them from their outcomes. After how hard some of us have
worked in our situations, after how hard some of us have worked in our outcomes, I serioiusly wanted to be in the correct situations, and have the correct situations, thus occuring, and thus co-happening to me.
Instead I am greeted by another article that was sutable for the inside of a birdcage, or the local washroom fascilities if you managed to forget your toilet tissue. The fact that the Threat Assessment Teams are behind this has been documented, court cases, you have them, you have a stunning court case in the form of the Jane Clift case. I am cognizant that Targeted Individuals
are out there, you typically still make sense, but you need to be in the correct situations, and have the correct situations thus occuring, and thus co-happening to you. This means when articles that are fit for the trash compactor are printing, and the latest govenment sponsored websites is noted that trying to, or attempting to take over the situations are out there, and stepping up to us, they need to be stepped back to, they need to be responded to.
Instead what I see and veiw at times is a community enabling us to go backwards in time to the stone age, the bloodly stone age, for gosh sakes, I couldn’t even believe the article, or that any editor with any credibility whatsoever enabled that to be printed as a well researched article, there were so many glaring errors, and omissions, not only that, but honestly simple mistakes as to what Gang Stalking is, vs what Electronic Harssment is, though they are losely affliated, and often one does thus occur with the other, they need not be mutually exclusive, in and in and of themselves.
I use to think that most articles, most press was suitable, even if it was not the best represented, but I have personally moved forward, so have so many others, they have the truth, and they much like myself are not willing to return to the stone age, or the bed of lies and deceptions. It’s not going to be that type if situation, but it so often is, because in those moments, if you won’t stand up for it, claim it own it, and and defend it, then others will, and they all too often still do not do justice to the Targeted Individal community, those stories have a specific spin, and bent for a reason, the moment I saw who had posted the link, i was clear that it was going to be that type of story, that type of situation.
The bloodly lameness has to stop, it has to discontine, because it does not make sense to me, it does not make sense to anyone else. You had enlightenment, any and everytime, I see or watch you deliberatly going back to the dark age, it will be that type of situation, cause I am frankly bloodly well tired of dealing with it.
The article, yeah I couldn’t even bother, just more fod for the fire, or like whatever, but the truth, not that has substance, and when I see it, and when I find it, then it makes sense, in the mean time, down with the sickness, the stupidity, and things that don’t make sense.
The Psychiatric Reprisal
What it is
This was a practice first identified as being used in the former Soviet Union. Targets of this practice were misdiagnosed as mentally ill, many were placed in state run psychiatric facilities.
Thousands upon thousands of individuals were targeted and systemically eliminated this way before the practice was brought to light and drew international attention.
The primary targets of this practice were dissidents, activists, those who tried to exercise their rights, or who wrote or published items that the state did not approve of. Those practicing freedom of religion. Also those who practiced minority or ethnic rights.
The practice was brought to the attention of the United Nations in 1969, and brought some condemnation in 1974, but this did little to change what was happening. The practice continued. It was only in 1991 when change was happening on the world stage, that the issue was again examined in more depth and the practice seems to have diminished.
Russia is not the only country to have used this practice. The practice was also heavily used in China as well. They also used this as a way of dealing with political dissidence.
What was interesting about the research into this practice is the idea that a whole field of professionals can become corrupted and misguided in their views. Believing that any form of dissidence is a mental illness.
She could not sleep that night, and became increasingly worried during subsequent months as more instructions from Moscow appeared on her desk. They were unusual, and what was worse, they confirmed her fears of that very first night: The author, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, was not normal. Actually, he was ill, clearly suffering from what was widely known in Soviet psychiatry as “sluggish schizophrenia.” And indeed, Gorbachev had all the symptoms: struggle for the truth, perseverance, reformist ideas, and willingness to go against the grain. My interlocutor continued to believe in her diagnosis until the Soviet Union collapsed and the windows to the world were opened wide. Only then did she realize that her concept of mental illness, shared by virtually all the approxi-mately 45,000 Soviet psychiatrists, was what was abnormal and that Gorbachev had been normal all along.
What is frightening is the realization of how indoctrinated these health professionals were. That they so implicitly believed the propaganda of what the state taught them to, and were willing to turn this indoctrination on innocent citizens. Just like some of the Nazi’s in Germany, many were following what they had been told or taught to do.
The overwhelming multitude of Soviet psychiatrists either had never participated in the political abuse of psychiatry, had tried to avoid being trapped by authorities into taking part, or had no idea that they were hospitalizing people who according to international standards were in perfect mental health—if such a thing exists. They followed thee criteria that they had been taught by a monopolized psychiatric educational system that was dominated by the Moscow School headed by Professor Snezhnevsky. They had been cut off from international psychiatry and had no knowledge of what their colleagues in the outside, “bourgeois” world believed. If any information trickled through, it was immediately seen as an offspring of degenerated bourgeois societies.
Many times we like to view these individuals as evil. Denizens of the state who cruelly and unconscionably tortured and falsely inprisioned innocent citizens, but what history is repeatedly showing time and again is that things are often not the cut and dried. These psychiatrist in many cases apparently did not realise the evil that they were doing. They in many cases were following a criteria, a set of standards laid out for them, by a governing body, and anyone who fell into specific criterias, were automatically labelled mentally ill.
They were part of a society in which private initiative, independent thinking, and going against the grain were, at the least, considered dangerous and were often branded criminal. They were part of a society that was taught that anybody who was different, both in thought and in appearance, was “not normal” and thereby almost inherently was “antisocial” and “antisocialist.” When combined with the theories of “sluggish schizophrenia,” this training made it very easy to convince rankand-file psychiatrists, who had only a Soviet education and no access to world psychiatry, that any person who went against the Communist Party and was willing to risk the happiness of both his family and himself had to be mentally ill.
These professional had a limited lens by which to judge, and so they went with what they had been taught, they followed the guidelines without question, and placed people into categories based on predetermined criterias. Could the same pattern be re-emerging in other societies? Could these same patterns be happening in democratic countries? Could health professionals also be following a set of criteria, and misdiagnosing perfectly healthy individuals as mentally unwell, schizophrenic, without having ever met them face to face, based solely on predetermined criteria?
Dissidents were held for observation in the fourth (“political”) department, and in most cases mental illness was the eventual diagnosis—almost invariably accompanied by a diagnosis of “sluggish schizophrenia.” When the investigative commission reviewed the files, the retired psychiatrist recognized many names under the diagnoses: former colleagues, sometimes friends, known to her as good professionals. The diagnoses were composed as though she had written them herself: the same style, the same terminology, and probably the same conclusions. Yet when the commission subsequently examined the 60 former victims in person, she was shocked, devastated.
What is really scary is how these diagnosis were handed out and delivered. By her own admission this psychiatrist would likely have put many of these individuals away, yet in person they still remained healthy fully functioning individuals, even after years of surviving the Soviet hell that they were put through.
As I said earlier, after the fall of the Soviet regime we found that the truth about Soviet psychiatry was even more horrific than we had imagined. The political abuse of psychiatry was only the tip of the iceberg. The Soviet regime had ostracized any person who was not productive, who did not fulfill the image of the healthy socialist person laboring for the common good—the radiant communist future.
Could these same criteria be slowly getting implemented in many democratic societies? Could this same agenda be making it’s way to the west? Will the citizens of the western world soon experience what their counter parts in the former Soviet Union did? A systemic abuse of power that targets 1 in 3 political prisoners?. A practice that touched possibly millions of innocent lives?
Approximately one in three political prisoners were held in psychiatric hospitals rather than in camps and prisons. Yet, the thousands of victims of these political abuses form only the tip of the iceberg of millions of Soviet citizens who fell victim to totalitarian Soviet psychiatry.
The American Psychiatric Association is said to be writing it’s soon to be updated version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and the criteria for mental illness might surprise some individuals.
Yeah the title sounds corny, but if you remember what this weekend is, it’s Easter weekend, and yesterday was good Friday. That’s the day the state assasinated him by nailing him to a cross, after bringing up phoney charges against him, by false witnesses. Sound familiar?
He came with a mission to help people. He was persecuted at times, until finally the state found a way to target him once and for all. They used a snitch that was a part of his company to sell him out, and along the way he had to tell the powers that be that they were corrupt and misleading the people. He would get angry at times, he also found it frustrating how people were at times. The spread rumours about him, said he had a demon, that he was crazy, a friend of sinners and publicans, they asked him all sorts of questions to try to set him up, like is it right to pay taxes? Hoping he would say no, so they could set him up.
In doing this activism, I realise that State oppression and the parasite informants don’t change that much. The same stuff that happened then, is the same stuff that pretty much happens now. The world does not change, and the people in charge know how to manipulate the people in the system. They know how to keep people in check, give them a sense of freedom, and then keep then in check in various ways.
I have been thinking about this a lot, because I am wondering what he would do about the informants? Would he try to out them, out them but subtly, or just ignore them? I have been thinking about the ways he handled himself, because I see a lot of this stuff is the same. He came across the same kind of system.
The more I see of these people’s actions and the deliberate tactics they use, the more I am reminded of his activism/ministry. I know a lot of people might not be able to relate, or this might not be there cup of tea, but if you are a target, it might not hurt to brush up on the way he handled irritating people who were spreading rumours, slander, a family that cared for him, but might not have been there for him, the way he needed, people trying to set him up, officials that were corrupt and teaching the common people all the wrong things, and Judas the snitch that would betray him.
Most times I just ignore them, but I don’t think this is the right approach, so I have been wondering what others would do. I know people always think of Jesus as peaceable, and for the most part he was, but he was not above telling the corrupt leaders what they were, what they were doing to the people, and he could hold his own.
The same type of parasites then and now. It’s fascinating, but it’s true. So that’s what I have been wondering, how did he handle being around Judas, how do you handle these snitches? How do you handle the provocation they bring, and cause, and what is the best way to deal with them?
I think you can learn a lot from the past, but I also think each activist is going to be different and you have to find ways to deal with each situation. What works for one will not work for the other, and yet we can take advise from past targets and apply them quite easily to the current situations at hand in trying to determine what to do under some circumstance.
[quote]18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.[/quote]
Always trying to find something. They also called him crazy at times as well.
[quote] 14 Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.[/quote]
Always looking for a way to bring down those who would question and challenge the system.
A lot of the stuff John Lennon said is coming back to me as well. The quote is from the US vs John Lennon.
[quote]“When it gets down to having to use violence then you are playing the systems games. The establishment irritates you, pull your beard and flick your face to make you fight, because once they have you violent then they know how to handle you. “
They really don’t change that much, this parasitic element. I guess each person in every generation has to find their own way to deal with them, and leave what they can for the next target.
It’s interesting however, a lot does not change in the way these people think work and operate, it would be nice for once to fully win.
I think someone needed a little bit of free publicity so here it is. Eleanor White dropped by one of my blogs and left a comment. This post is in response to the comment that was left. I don’t want to spend too much time on this, but as I said before, I felt this issue had gone on long enough and recently choose to intervene.
[quote]I’m sorry the author of the “gang” stalking web sites and e-book can’t seem to grasp why I object to the term “gang” stalking. I thought my reviews explained that pretty clearly.[/quote]
Eleanor, I appreciate that you, object to the use of the term. I appreciate that you and those working towards the same goal as you, want to have people discontinue the use of the term Gang Stalking.
I disagree with this. I think if you and yours wish to use the term, then please use the term for your activism. You are deterring the efforts of others, others who have had success with the term.
I have pointed out that some use the term Community Mobbing, Community Harassment, and several others to describe the same thing, and I think that is fine, as long as they get the correct message across to the audience.
[quote]I’ve been an activist for 13 years, and during three of those years, I spent some time almost every day right out in the street, discussing the crime of organized stalking and electronic harassment with the public.[/quote]
That’s great Eleanor, I have spent just under three years and I have been using the term Gang Stalking, and that has worked just fine for me and several others. If this term does not work for you, then I appreciate this. However by telling others that the preferred term is Organised Stalking, you are interfering with the rights of others to use the terms they prefer. I have now seen others on the Internet telling others that they have to use Organised Stalking now, and that is not correct or accurate.
If this is the term you prefer, then great. I think it’s wonderful that you and some of yours wish to use the term. I think that there is more than enough room in the Targeted Individual community for a variety of terms.
[quote]I tried a number of terms. Other anti-OS activists have also tried a number of terms.
With “gang” stalking, I found that the mind of my listener immediately and consistently got the image that I was talking about being stalked by some sort of ordinary gang, such as race gang, youth gang, biker gang, or Mafia.[/quote]
Great Eleanor, I don’t know what your demographics are, and I don’t know who you come across in your activism.
Eg. Someone coming across someone from the Cointelpro era might wish to use that term. Someone coming across a demographic that is riddled with the stop snitching, informant culture, might wish to use another term, and coming across people from Eastern Europe, I find reference to Stasi to work a bit better.
I encounter a lot of younger people, I also encounter a lot of cultural diversity and I use the term that best suits the situation. Not every term will work for every person, so I use what’s appropriate and make sure that the right concept is getting across. I adapt to the situation and that works for me, because of who I am.
Maybe organised stalking worked for you, because of who you were and the types of people that you came across.
[quote]That is clearly the WRONG picture of current day organized stalking groups.[/quote]
The way you do it, yes. But for some of the demographics that I reach it’s not. There are people that like the slang Gang Stalking, and it works with some demographics. The ones that will get this culturally accepted as other methods have not worked as well. So why not work all angles? What’s the reason for trying to get rid of the term that has been a success for three years, and starting from scratch. It’s the same as if we tried to get rid of the term Targeted Individuals, it would just destroy those efforts.
[quote]I have tried “vigilante stalking” too. That worked to some degree, but didn’t seem to paint a really clear picture in the minds of my listeners.[/quote]
Again Eleanor it’s how you present it, and who is presenting it. It’s all based on who the activist is, and the demographics that you try to reach, what works for one, does not work for another. If you look across the net, the term has reach a variety of groups, they are familiar with the term and they use it. I refuse to see that effort killed because you have a preferred term.
I have a preferred goal of getting this exposed, and I think using whatever terms work, to get the concept across. I could not use the term vigilante stalking with a straight face, because I hate the term, add all the false disinformation bs that goes with it. Another person whoever could use the term with no discomfort and probably over 85-95% success rate.
I say give them a bunch of terms. Having reviewed discussions about this, and the conversations people get up to, I see some refer to it as Cointelpro again, others as Stasi, let people use what they want to use, as long as the end message is the same, more or less and the concept get’s across, because exposure is the key.
In the modern day world Eleanor, it’s not the up to down effect that get terms introduced into society, it’s often the other way around. The terms start at a ground level, or urban level, gain popularity and go from there, that is the trend I am seeing with other terms and concepts that have become popularised and mainstream, and that is the angle that I am using.
Please don’t take this the wrong way Eleanor. You tend to be very old fashioned about certain things, and I like to take a modern approach, look for new ways to get things done, to reach and work with a modern audience. I like to use those methods and concepts, that works for me, and some others like me. This might not work for you, that’s fine.
[quote]Then Lynn Troxel originated “organized” stalking. By FAR, that term brings the unaware listener to an accurate picture of the crime of OS, and does so quickly.[/quote]
It does not however. When I sought help, the terms and concept that worked best was community mobbing, because people have an idea of what mobbing is, and by saying it happens in the community, they got that. The same was true when I sought help at the other websites. Two of the mobbing sites based on the description I gave, immediately decided to add links to Gang Stalking websites, I emailed about 10-15 stalking sites, and they did not see the relevance to what happens to them. Think about that, those activists did not see the relevance or significance.
[quote]In the effort to first educate the public, and eventually get the crime stopped, I feel the term which creates an accurate picture of the crime, and does so quickly, is quite important to find and use. The unaware public is not interested in taking on “another headache” or another worry, and doesn’t give anti-OS activists much in the way of attention span. Often just seconds.[/quote]
I think if you use the most accurate term and do not add the appropriate information this does no good. I have spoken to you before about the continued effort of letting people think this is vigilantes, or right wing extremists behind this, but you keep pushing David Lawson. Oddly enough.
[quote]This is why I speak out against “gang” stalking and promote “organized” stalking. Nothing more mysterious than that.[/quote]
I don’t know if I believe that, but it does not matter. The point is what you and the others associated with this effort are doing is killing other efforts that have gone before. Where to really have maximum effectiveness, people should have a variety of terms at their arsenal to help with getting this exposed. Many hate the term organized stalking, and do not feel that it truly expresses what is happening to them. The stalking term vs the mobbing term for example. They don’t feel that stalking even comes close to describing what is happening, and it takes the attention away from the meat and potatoes. I let people use what they want. I want to train people up to do their own thing, not be told what to do, and use. I do agree that uniformity is nice to have in some quarters, but I fully disagree in this one.
[quote]I also object to activism materials that state government is doing the stalking. We do not have evidence, as of today, which proves that. Such claims are part of the e-book “Bridging the Gap.”[/quote]
Oddly enough, you were happy to support David Lawson and unsubstantiated claims of vigilante stalking, but you have a problem with this. You never had more than David Lawson claiming this was done by vigilante gangs, but you never objecting to misleading people down this path, but with so much proof that government is doing this you object.
We have Tim Rice telling us that they were doing 24/7 surveillance on Journalist and others.
We have the ACLU telling us about Fusion centers and what they are doing, and about people being put under investigations. That these people will be communicating in code.
We have a billion and one articles from the Uk press telling us about the covert surveillance that individuals are being placed under, and the tactics being used, which match ours in many cases.
I have posted a passage from a police training manual about how to handle informants, and the book even says that they use a one handed sign language.
Bob the lawyer some of you all hired has said this. The success that people have had with court cases mostly involve going after the government. I speak of Donald Friedman and the FOIA released, and Jesus Medoza and what he heard back from his case, that he has blogged about.
Not to mention the book the Buzzsaw, which show how journalist go through something similar.
Plus the history of Cointelpro and the Stasi.
With all this you were willing to put forward and support a theory and book, that had the potential to get targets in trouble, but you object to hard information.
The ebook in question, just like the hiddenevil.com, have you had a chance to review that site? http:www.TheHiddenEvil.com let me know what you think. You must have just been sleeping, and missed this site.
Have evidence to show that the government could be behind this.
I think the ebook in question that you are referring to, asks the question of why would the government do this to their own citizens, and the book answers the question. Do you want books, and material looking at the issue of Gang Stalking to leave this stuff out? That does not sound right to make. I get that you making unfounded accusations is not good, but that is not the case. The books back up their theories with current research. Including research from the ACLU on modern fusion centers.
[quote]There is nothing hidden or nefarious in my credibility reviews on:[/quote]
When I fist say you and Kelly discussing this I thought oh my gosh, witch hunt. I left it as it was. I wondered how long it would be till my site and other legit sites made the witch hunt, but I left it as it was, because I knew it was coming, but I hoped the community would be smarter than that.
Those reviews are again, your opinion of what you think is good and bad, and you want others to mindlessly agree to this without thinking.
As per the email I sent you, requesting you remove my site, because I did not appreciate it there. I did not think that you had the right to label my site bogus, because you do not like alphabetical order. I did send you an email and you said if I changed the order of my listing, I might get approved, well you know what I think of that?
You are putting sites there for minor things, so instead of going after the people, these so called credibility reports allow you to go after their sites, which amounts to the same thing. You go after their sites, and then it’s all done under the guise of what’s best for the community. I really do care about this, because it’s my life, and I do need to get this stopped. Joining the dark side is not an option for me.
Case in point. I will use my site but I think there are a few others on their that should not be there.
The so called credibility review says:
Eleanor White rating: BOGUS (trivializes the crime)
November 21, 2008
[quote]WEB SITE: http://www.gangstalkingworld.com/Techniques.html
SITE TITLE: Gang Stalking World
EW: This well-executed web site rates a BOGUS because it
misleads the visitor from the public into believing that
targets of organized stalking and electronic harassment are worrying about things that are trivial and not serious, and in fact common occurrences of every day life.[/quote]
The site misleads the visitors in what capacity? This is not the front page of the site, which is what people see.
Second of all, the page is in alphabetical order, because some of us who do research like it that way.
If this is your reason for calling a site bogus, how much good are these reviews actually doing for this community? Honestly, they are targeting some good sites, that could help people for minor things, which I believed was going to be the case all along.
[quote]Next notice the very first, most prominent technique this site describes. The first item is presumably the one that causes targets of organized stalking the most grief. It is listed as “Air Stalking.” In other words, the site cries out against aircraft stalking targets on the ground!
That concern literally shouts “paranoia” to the world.[/quote]
No really Eleanor to the educated public who can think for themselves, this shouts alphabetical order, and I wont be changing this for anyone.
Oh yeah, the other thing about these so called credibitlity reviews when you and Kelly first cooked them up was that you were going to be reviewing specific pages or sections to say what could be impoved, or why it was or was not good, instead you have used the oppertunity to use the reviews to discredit websites in whole.
Youre reviews are not saying, I don’t like websitex.com because of this page or this section, you are targeting the whole website, by picking one little section.
Eg. You primarily are picking on the techniques page for Gang Stalking World, and a picture or something, but using this to declear the whole site as bogus, notice the word you choose to use? Not Eleanor disapproves, but bogus, making people think the site has no credibility, which is not the case. It’s just like if I did this, but used the word fraud, to describe some of your websites.
If you really were interested in anything other than a witch hunt, you would have also used better words, and reviewed the pages and listed the pages specifically and not attacked the full site.
You on your website
I think the picture of the militia guy that you have on your site, just does not work for me, for various reasons. I also think the section about Terri Schindler, on your site would give people the wrong message. I know it gave me the wrong message when I first started looking for stuff that could help.
You also have things about people’s cats being tortured to death. Though I respect this, as part of the targeted individual community, are you kidding me, do you think a new site visitor might not think we are a little Lonnie for this?
I know when I first saw your site, no offense, but I was really put off, from your site and a couple of others, and stayed away from it for some time. I think your site has some good information, but you talk about giving the wrong impression. I am going to leave it at that, because I am not hear to bash your site.
If I like a site, I like to it and use that. I try to avoid bashing things, unless I think it will be detrimental to real targets, and then I take a stand.
I think if you have sites that you like, then create a website of good and approved information that you and yours can use. That’s what I do, there are so many YouTube videos that I know are not good, but I don’t attack those, the same way I don’t for the most part out agents. I just try to point people to good sites or material I think will help them.
[quote]My only purpose is to assist targets in selecting the best materials for the fight to expose and stop organized stalking.
With all due respect Eleanor, I do not feel that you are doing this with your credibility reviews, and i definitely don’t feel that you are doing this with your members, telling people which terms they can use. It’s not cool, and it’s not right.
People should be able to use what they are comfortable with. This is very quickly becoming use the sites we say and the terms we say or be a pariah, and isn’t the point that people are already segregated in one way, why should their blogs, websites, and materials be also treated the same way?
I don’t think these are good, and when your members get called on this stuff, they accuse others of causing divisions in the community, but realistically, it’s these reviews and your members telling people which terms to use that are causing some of the problems.
I do appreciate you dropping by, at this moment there is nothing else that I feel a need to add to this conversation, if there is anything else that you would like to add, I will be happy to have you post it.
So that those interested in this discussion can read it, I will post it on the blogs.
*Free advertising to none credible sites removed.*
I was up early and I realise it’s going to be one of those days, trying to figure out what to do? How to help? What can be done for Targets of Gang Stalking?
I have so many things to blog about. Eg. Our algorithm is being suppressed, meaning that when you look up Gang Stalking or Targeted Individuals in the google search engine or at least when I do, you don’t get very diminished results. The same trend just started happening for the terms Targeted Individuals and Targeted Individual, both terms were previously almost 2 million hits.
Also I read this amazing report by the ACLU, and I want to write more information about that. If you get the chance, read this report, it’s a fascinating read for anyone who cares about what is happening with surveillance and information sharing in their country. http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/surveillance_report.pdf
Outreach and other communities we should be trying to connect with. I think it’s great that people make their existing online communities aware of what is happening, use the available materials and post it if you don’t know how to have discussions about Gang Stalking.
What to do for the missing and incarcerated targets? Little things like that. Even though we now know that we are not alone, too often, we still have our own struggles to go through.
I had been following a thread over at the Stormfront community, because Gang Stalking affects everyone, black, white, Asian, Indian, etc. Male, female, transgender, etc. Every social economic background you can think of. Anyways, a member of that community had reported some time last year that his friend was a target of Gang Stalking, he believed his friend, which is commendable, but on the most recent follow up thread, he posted to say that his friend had been institutionalised.
It’s really sad, because it does not matter what your view points are, (well it does to an extent), but the truth is every voice silenced, every soul that they muzzle in regards to this, brings the state one step closer to imprisoning us all. For those not familiar with the Stormfront community, it’s a white nationalist community. (So if you are easily offended, don’t go there.)
The latest thread was brought up by a person who thought that Masons were behind the whole thing. There is still a lot of that going around, like taking the blame from the government and trying to put in on one group, like Masons, Street Gangs, KKK or scientologist, etc. They are all taking part, so you can’t just blame one sector of society, it’s all of society. (By this I don’t mean that everyone is involved, I just mean that all sectors of society take part, there is a difference.)
Anyways it’s an interesting thread, and it tells me once again that just about every sector of society is in some way being exposed to what is happening. It tells me that some targets are very aware and some are not. It also tells me that targets are still being picked off one by one so to speak, and using the mental health rap is probably working really well. Targets need to have a plan of action.
The poster who was known as theninthtrust, who was very active on YouTube, is still missing or has not been online for the last seven months. http://uk.youtube.com/theninthtrust
I have not had any postings from apocalypto wanderings since June, He was a retired gentleman, with a tough attitude, use to work for the government. Maybe he is just taking a break from it, sometimes targets need to do that. http://apocalypto-wanderings.blogspot.com
Somethings that we are doing are working really well, keep having the discussions, keep making people aware, keep using the materials.
Things that we need. What we need are people who are familiar with mental health laws, and how the informant system works. These are two ways targets are either eliminated, (meaning trapped in the system or turned into part of the system.)
Emotionally we have been shown to be fairly good at providing information and emotional support for one another, so let’s continue of this front.
Freedom of information. If an investigation is ongoing normally you might not get these files, or if the information is in a secret database, or if they have outsourced the surveillance, these are ways that they get around giving out targets this information. Jesus Medoza has had some luck with his, JBH had to try three times before getting anything, the first two times they told him they had nothing on him. Donald Friedman, he kinda went to extreme lengths to get his files, but it worked.
These are some of the things that I want to blog about, but it’s already been a long morning, and
I just want to see what we are doing well as a community and what we need to improve upon.
I was on my usual weekend hunt for more information about how these situations are being created and I came across something really interesting. The case referenced below is about a police office who blew the whistle, only to have his workplace hire 1 psychologist and a psychiatrist, to basically without speaking to him, fully remotely declare that he was unstable, even suicidal, could be a danger to others. Also they were advised that if they could get him arrested and placed in a psychiatric facility to just do it.
Now can you imagine an assessment like that followed by a little high tech harassment? http://www.Hightechharassment.com
I find the scenario so interesting for so many reasons. The site says that this is the sort of thing that was done in China, Russia to dissidents and those considered to be enemies of the State. Ever notice that more and more research from various sources are starting to link to the fact that we are doing this like communist regimes have in the past? Does this concern anyone?
A Canadian Police Department and the Canadian College of Psychologists
Kenneth Westhues, Professor of Sociology at the University of Waterloo, studied a case of a police officer targeted for elimination after reporting corruption to provincial authorities. The Police Department had enlisted the services of both a psychologist and a psychiatrist in support of its aim to get rid of the whistleblower. The latter, however, withstood the campaign against him and successfully held onto his job. Subsequently, he sought sanctions against the psychologist and the psychiatrist, and asked Westhues to set down in writing his reflections on the actions against him. Here is Westhues’s account, with names and other identifying information removed.
You have asked that I give you my reflections on the actions of the Police Department against you from the mid-1990s until 2000. I write on the basis of the documentation you have provided to me in connection with my research on workplace mobbing, an uncommon but severe organizational pathology that can have unwarranted, devastating effects on the mobbing target’s career and life. I understand that the reason you have requested this letter is so that you might include it with your request to the Ontario Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, that it review the decision of the Complaints Committee of the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, and the separate decision of the Complaints Committee of the Ontario College of Psychologists.
In the mid-1990s, you reported in good faith to the appropriate provincial authorities what you saw as corruption in the Police Department. The appropriate body investigated, and found your allegations to have merit. In the wake of this conflict, your Police Department engaged psychologist Dr. X and psychiatrist Dr. Y to give their opinions on your mental health. Without speaking with you, both Dr. X and Dr. Y signed their names to reports that strongly suggested you were mentally ill. Dr. X wrote in December 1998, that your “thinking appears delusional to the extreme,” and he wrote in his own hand, “I essentially agree,” on a police investigator’s memo summarizing his meeting with them. The memo included these assertions:
• The issue is that the man’s thinking is disordered.
• You need to find a way to get him to a psychiatric assessment by compulsion, because he’s probably not going to accept that he has a problem.
• If you have enough information to arrest him and take him to a psychiatric facility – do it.
• It is easier to contain an explosion than an implosion – you shouldn’t blame yourself if he commits suicide.
Dr. Y wrote in January, 1999, that it was “in the realm of possibility” that you had a “Paranoid Personality Disorder,” and that “a psychiatric assessment would be required to rule this out.”
Shortly after Dr. X’s and Dr. Y’s reports, neither of which was provided to you, you were suspended from your position and charged under the Police Services Act. This was in January of 1999. It took almost two years, until November of 2000, for you to clear your name and get free of the stress and stigma of administrative sanction. In the end, you were found guilty of no offense. You have continued as before, to fulfill capably and with honour your responsibilities as a police officer.
In your complaints to their respective colleges, you fault Dr. X and Dr. Y for failing to live up to the ethical codes of their professions. The Complaints Committee of the College of Psychologists dismissed almost all of your complaint; the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons dismissed your complaint entirely.
The decision of the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons contains obviously false statements about the most basic facts of the case:
• The Committee says you were “later dismissed from the police force.” You were not and have never been dismissed. You were and remain an officer with an unblemished record.
• The Committee accepted the word of Dr. Y that your Police Department required you to undergo an assessment by Dr. X, the psychologist. Further, according to the Committee, Dr. Y reported that Dr. X had concluded from his assessment that you posed a possible risk of harm to others, that you are the type of personality that could “go postal,” that your thinking was disordered, that you were at high risk for suicide, and that you should be examined by a psychiatrist.
In fact, your Police Department never required, and you did not at any time undergo, such an assessment. The decision of the Complaints Committee of the College of Psychology admits that Dr. X made his comments about you without having assessed you.
An organization’s employment of mental-health practitioners to stigmatize, discredit, and harm a targeted worker is a common mobbing technique. The harm is exacerbated when the professional bodies to which the worker may appeal, fail to investigate thoroughly and to hold the practitioners responsible for their part in the mobbing process.
I would not presume to say what corrective action the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board should take. Public safety requires, however, that regulatory bodies not be allowed to gloss over any complicity of mental-health professionals in efforts by employers to discredit sane, responsible employees who have blown the whistle on administrative misconduct.
I hope that you and the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board may find these reflections on the actions against you helpful toward a fair and truthful resolution of your complaints. Best wishes.
Postscript. The body to which the police officer appealed, and to which he submitted Westhues’s letter, dismissed the appeal. One member of the hearing committee told the police officer at the hearing that when you stick your finger in a hornets’ nest, you can expect to get stung. [/quote]
Can you believe that workplaces are doing this crap?
Think of what this could mean. You make a complaint, the company hires 2 people to evaluate you, they write up an assessment like the one above, you have no idea, then suddenly because you are so unstable and mentally ill and won’t go in for an assessment of your own free will suddenly you have this problem, and for your own good they put you on some watch list.
If you do ever get into this situation and think that going in for an evaluation is a good thing, think again. There was an article or website that tells you the exact methods that will be used to railroad you.
See I know what we are up against is horrific, but if we can find anything in this madness to use, then it’s in our best interest to use it and find out if that is indeed what is happening. I think this is worth further examination.
Could something like the above scenario also happen in communities where they want to get rid of someone. I am sure this could happen to activist, dissidents, anyone who goes up against a school board, etc. How easy is this to be used against someone in the exact method as described above. How would the target even know it? They really would not. How could they find out?
I think this is really exciting to find this information, because it could further explain just how the state is getting some people listed for being mentally ill/unstable remotely. There should be some kind of a paper trail, because someone is pulling the strings.
- Above top secret
- Abu Ghraib
- Active denial
- Active Denial Weapons
- as the world turns
- Asain Male
- Asian Female
- Astral Plane
- Background records checks
- bad luck
- Black female
- Black Females
- Black Male
- black women
- Brain reading device
- Britney Spears
- brown coats
- Buffy The Vampire Slayer
- changing vibrations
- Citizen Informants
- Civilian Spies
- Community harassment
- community mobbing
- community policing
- concentration camps
- constitutional change
- Controlled society
- Covert investigations
- Cultural diversity and multiculturalism
- david icke
- devinci code
- domestic spying
- East Germany
- electromagnetic frequency
- Electronic harassment
- Emotional Vampires
- False Prophets
- files updated
- Gang Stalking
- government corruption
- GPS tracking
- Guantanamo Bay
- Health and Safety
- Heath Ledger
- High technology
- Honey Trap
- Indigo Ribbon
- Informant System
- Intimate Infiltarations
- Jeremy Blake
- Joan of Ark
- John Lennon
- Kilmeer Gill
- Lord Of The Rings
- Marian Fisher
- Mark M Rich
- Markus Wolf
- Martin Luther King Jr
- Meat production
- mental concentration camps
- metropolitan police
- militarized police force
- Mind Control
- Mind Reading
- Minority women
- Naomi Ebersole
- National Security Letters
- Neurolinguistic programing
- New World Order
- one handed signals
- Online Stalking
- Passive Aggressive Manipulative
- Personal Identifiers
- Police Abuse
- Police Corruption
- Police State
- Production Company
- psychological harassment
- Quantum Physics
- Record keeping
- records updated
- Red Squads
- Robot Sentient Project
- Rosa Parks
- School Shooting
- sexual harassment
- sign language
- Skin Heads
- Social Control
- Spiritual Based Products
- Spy cameras
- spy satellites
- State target
- Stop snitching
- Targeted Individual
- The Matrix
- Theresa Duncan
- Third wave
- Thought Police
- Threat Assessment Teams
- time travel
- twilight zone
- violent persons registry
- Voice to skull
- walls of jericho
- whistle blower
- white female
- White Male
- workplace mobbing
- Young and the restless
- zero tollerance