Gang Stalking World

United we stand. Divided they fall.

Workplace zero tolerance laws

I came across this information last week when I was researching some Florida and California laws. Apparently Ontario, in Canada is going to have a new type of zero tolerance program for workplaces. This seems to be a good thing on the outside, but it will most likely create a zero tolerance program similar to what happened with their zero tolerance program for schools.

The zero tolerance program for schools, which was in effect for some time, was used to weed the schools of a lot of young black males. They were systemically targeted by the program, pushed out into the streets and gangs. Most likely also into the police informant programs as well.

Anyways the parents of many of those kids fought for years to bring cases to the Canadian or Ontario human rights commission and then finally the laws were suppose to be scrapped, because they were unfair and discriminatory, in the way that they were used. Again not before a generation of children were adversely affected, but who is counting?

Remember when programs like this are instituted in any country, city, society, they are often hailed as a good thing. Who wants violence in the schools or the workplace? Not anyone that I know. So the Ontarians are at it again. They now have the human resources acting as change agents. For those not familiar with the term, huge New World Order buzz word. Don’t forget that similar programs have been instituted in other areas. Welcomed as a good things, but based on history of such programs, what’s likely to be the real outcome 5 years down the line? More cases before human rights commissions? Not as likely, because the people who will be weeded out using these programs, will be jobless and often not able to go before commissions. The other likely scenario is because they will be booted out for zero tolerance, many might well end up on some of these lists and be followed around and systemically destroyed. So I am being proactive and warning any workers in any city, who had similar programs, watch your back, and get ready now, and not 5 years from now.

Let’s look at some articles that I came across in relationship to this.

http://www.cos-mag.com/201002011792/legal/legal-stories/fonseca-talks-workplace- violence-at-hr-event.html

[“The other component is the implementation of best practices and a sincere commitment by employers and employees to banish all violence in the workplace,” he said, adding that the Ministry of Labour has had “positive relations” with the HRPA, particularly in consulting about various legislative initiatives for Ontario workers.]

The problem with such policies are that they often don’t banish violence in the schools or the workplace. They let those such as Human Resources personnel and others who are familiar with how the system works, it allows them to find ways to exterminate those around them. To get rid of people they see as trouble makers. It will allow them to use the smallest and widest range definitions to destroy innocent lives. It will bring about change, but not the way you think. Having seen how their zero tolerance programs worked in the schools, workers should be on their guard.

http://www.cos-mag.com/201006071889/legal/legal-stories/bill-168-faq-series-chal lenges-of-complying-with-bill-168-part-1-of-3.html

[quote]

Employers may wish to have slightly different reporting requirements depending on whether the conduct at issue is workplace violence or harassment. Given the dangers inherent in workplace violence, mandatory reporting of violence from any customer, patient or client, visitor or co-worker, and obligatory remediation are desirable.

However, there are separate considerations with respect to harassment as it will be defined under the OHSA.

The tremendously broad definition of harassment in Bill 168 means that a wide spectrum of conduct would, arguably, be subject to complaint, investigation and remedy under the policy and program. This could include harassment ranging from behaviour based on grounds protected under the Human Rights Code to much more trivial behaviour that can arise as part of workplace disputes. Such harassment can also be perpetrated by a range of individuals from all levels of the organization. Finally, victims may well have different levels of tolerance for harassing behaviour. To that end, the employer may wish to permit a greater amount of discretion in the hands of employees when it comes to reporting harassment by encouraging reporting rather than mandating it.
[/quote]

The first couple of lines are the most important, cause now harassment can be defined in so many new and unexpected ways that people never dreamed of, and the little worms that know the system best. The worms that are a plague upon humanity can use it to do harm. Don’t get me wrong, if used properly programs like this should be a good thing, but with a New World Order agenda working in the background, that is not likely to happen.

“The tremendously broad definition of harassment in Bill 168 means that a wide spectrum of conduct would, arguably, be subject to complaint, investigation and remedy under the policy and program. ”

A wide spectrum of conduct would be open to complaint and investigation. Not only that, but also this could get people as mentioned before put on lists. Behaviours that were not subject before now will be. Remember the guy in another city who was joking with his friend, and said something very innocent along the lines of, oh better hide the immigration officials are here. His friend was black, he was white, but they had been friend for years. Well it was over heard by a third party and he was reported, put on suspension and he committed suicide. That is what zero tolerance can and often does mean.

http://www.news.com.au/world/technician-roy-amor-kills-himself-after-row-over-racist-joke/story-e6frfkyi-1225852471753

[quote]
A HEALTH technician shot himself in the head after being suspended for making a politically incorrect joke.

Roy Amor had jokingly told a black friend and colleague that he “better hide” after he spotted immigration officials at their workplace, Britain’s Mail on Sunday reported.

Although the man was not offended, someone who overheard the remark was, and complained to Mr Amor’s bosses at Opcare, which makes prosthetic limbs.

Mr Amor, 61, was said to be devastated at the prospect of losing his job and shot himself outside his house, near Bolton, England, just hours after receiving an email from his bosses.

The email had asked him to explain his comment.

According to The Mail on Sunday, Mr Amor left three notes, all of which mentioned Opcare.

One of his friends told the paper: “Roy made a joke along the lines that his friend had better hide in case the officers found him.

“It was nothing more than a good-humoured joke but apparently someone overheard it and made an official complaint because they thought it was racist.
[/quote]

If used properly it can and will be a good thing, but too often, it allows these whiny crybabies with emotional issues, that truly never learnt to take a joke, to complain about the smallest things. Now don’t get me wrong. I take the issue of workplace harassment very seriously. I understand full well that sometimes you need a broader definition. Eg. With workplace mobbing, often the examples of harassment are subtle, and it’s hard to prove much less report, and in such cases it might help to have a broader definition. With workplace mobbing, just like with a lot of other things, what happens is that the person being harassed, ends up having the harassers make complaints, and then the persons justifiable outbursts are used against them to have them removed or placed on lists. This will allow a wider range of things to be used against those targeted, when they do justifiably respond back after being taunted. In most cases, the workers feel that they have done a good job getting rid of someone who was a real problem, and the reality all too often is that these programs get used as a systemic cleansing for those that are not sheep.

http://www.cos-mag.com/201002011792/legal/legal-stories/fonseca-talks-workplace- violence-at-hr-
event.html

[quote]
“Today we live in challenging and changing times, both for government, employers and employees. Our determination to succeed is being tested. Our government must reflect the realities of a changing workplace and we must seek to make our workplaces fair, safer, as well as more competitive,” Fonseca said.

Antoinette Blunt, chair of the HRA board, also talked about the changing workplace brought about by globalization. “Globalization means that the world has become a much smaller place.”
Blunt challenged HR professionals to become “change agents” allowing better understanding between employers and workers.[/quote]

Globalization and change agents. Wake up, the New World Order agenda is knocking on a lot of doors, and by the time it has finished, it will cleanse, remove, and destroy the innocent. People have to be aware of this, and figure out ways to legally arm themselves in advance. Consider this your 10 second warning.

Workers need to have the right to know when they are being investigated, and if they get put on a watch list, they have the legal right to know. This program is likely to be used and abused in ways never imagined. Zero tolerance is great in concept, but it should not mean that innocent people get destroyed in the cross fire, and zero tolerance should not be used as a cleansing agent, for New World Order agendas.

July 2, 2010 Posted by | Black Females, Blacklisted, blackwomen, Bullying, Citizen Informants, Community harassment, community mobbing, Conformity, Conspiracy | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Violent Registry Marker

This is one example of how a list could be make via workplace or Educational Institution.
VIOLENCE/AGGRESSION
INCIDENT REPORT FORM No.

PART 1 (to be completed by the victim)

Full name_______________________________________________________________

I am an employee/student/other *(please specify________________________________)

For employee only: Job title_________________________________________________

Department/Campus_______________________________________
When did the incident occur?

Date_____________________________Day__________________Time_____________

Where did the incident occur? (Draw a sketch and attach it to the report if it helps)

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

What actually happened leading up to, during and after the incident?

(Attach a separate sheet if necessary)

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Details of assailant/aggressor(s)

Name(s) if known__________________________________________________________

Address(es) if known________________________________________________________

Other contact point (e.g. workplace)____________________________________________

Approximate age_____________ Sex: Male/Female*

Appearance at the time of the incident (physical and behavioural, e.g. drunk)____________

________________________________________________________________________

Do you have any idea what may have caused the attack/aggressive behaviour?

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Please give names and contact details of any witnesses to the incident

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Describe how you felt during and after the incident (please attach a separate sheet if there is insufficient room here)________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Part 2 (to be completed by the victim’s Supervisor/Line Manager or other appropriate person e.g. Course Tutor, Site Supervisor)
OUTCOME OF INCIDENT

Did the victim receive any physical injury? (please describe briefly)_________________

________________________________________________________________________

Did the victim have to take time off from work/study? Yes/No*

If Yes, please state for how long_______________________________________________

Was there any damage to:

Personal property? Yes/No* If Yes, please describe______________________________

University property? Yes/No* If Yes, please describe_____________________________
DETAILS OF FOLLOW-UP ACTION TAKEN AND AFTERCARE

Police notified ___________________________________________________________

Legal Action to be taken ___________________________________________________

Hospital Treatment? ___________________________________________________

Counselling recommended __________________________________________________

Specialist care ___________________________________________________________

Victim support ___________________________________________________________

Other _________________________________________________________________

Remedial action required/taken_______________________________________________
Name of Supervisor/Line Manager___________________________________

Copy to: Health and Safety Adviser (City/North Campus as appropriate)

Employee Support Unit (City Campus)

Insurance Officer, Finance Department, North Campus

Director/Head of Department responsible for student discipline

This is a copy of the form for the U.K. Here are some guidelines.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_applica tion/use_of_violent_warning_markers.pdf.

Data Protection Good Practice Note

The use of violent warning markers

This guidance explains to those working with the public how best to manage the use of violent warning markers.
Employers have a duty of care to their staff to protect them in the workplace.

Violent warning markers are a means of identifying and recording individuals who pose, or could possibly pose, a risk to the members of staff who come into contact with them. We understand that, in practice, a flagged piece of
text is attached to an individual’s file. These markers should be used very carefully and should contain the reasons for identifying individuals as being
potentially violent. They are likely to record information relating to:

• the apparent mental stability of an individual; or
• any threatening actions, incidents or behaviour they have or are alleged to have committed.

This means personal data, and often sensitive personal data, will be included in a violent or potentially violent warning marker and so must comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 (the Act).

Compliance with the Act – fairness

The first data protection principle requires that the processing must be fair and lawful. This means that a decision to put a marker on an individual’s file must
be based on a specific incident or expression of clearly identifiable concern by a professional, rather than general opinions about that individual. The individual should pose a genuine risk and the decision should be based on
objective and clearly defined criteria and in line with a clear and established policy and review procedure. The criteria should take into account the need to
accurately record any incident.

For consistency, you should make sure a senior nominated person in the organisation is responsible for making these decisions. Decisions should be reviewed regularly. When making a decision this person should take into
account:

• the nature of the threat;
• the degree of violence used or threatened; and
• whether or not the incident indicates a credible risk of
violence to staff.

For the processing to be fair, you should normally inform individuals who have been identified as being potentially violent soon after you make the decision to add a marker to their record. It should be part of your procedure to write to the individual setting out why their behaviour was unacceptable and how this has led to the marker.

V2.0
21.12.06
2

You should tell them:

• the nature of the threat or incident that led to the marker;

• that their records will show the marker;
• who you may pass this information to; and
• when you will remove the marker or review the decision to add the marker.

There may be extreme cases where you believe that informing the individual would in itself create a substantial risk of a violent reaction from them. For example, because of the nature of the incident or the risk to another individual. In these cases it may not be sensible to inform the individual as described earlier.

If this is the case, you must be able to show why you believe that by informing the individual of the marker there would be a substantial risk of further threatening behaviour.

You should make all decisions on a case-by-case basis and keep records.

Compliance with the Act – processing conditions

The Act states that you should not process personal data unless you can meet one of the conditions in schedule 2 of the Act, and for sensitive personal data, one of the conditions in schedule

3.As employers have a duty of care towards their staff, for example, under health and safety legislation, the appropriate schedule 2 condition to allow processing of information in markers is that processing is necessary to comply with any legal obligation imposed on the data controller (which in this case would be the employer). The appropriate schedule 3 condition is that processing is necessary to comply with any legal obligation imposed on the
data controller in connection with employment.

The individual’s rights

The Act gives individuals the right to make a subject access request. In most circumstances, you should reveal the fact that there is a violent warning marker on the individual record. Although, in most cases, you should already have informed the individual. However, you should make this decision on a case-by-case basis and consider any other individuals (third parties) that may be included in the information. For more information about this, please see our
guidance ‘Subject access requests involving other people’s information’.

There may be rare cases where you will need to consider whether:

• revealing the existence of the marker;
• revealing the information in the marker; or
• what the individual may infer from the existence of the marker; may actually cause serious harm to the physical or mental health or condition of that individual. In these cases, you must get specialist advice from health
and data protection professionals. For some of these cases there may be relevant statutory instruments that modify the provisions in the Act that relate to the individual’s rights (see note 1).

Requests from individuals to stop processing their personal information Section 10 of the Act gives individuals the right to require you to stop processing their personal information if this is likely to cause them substantial
and unwarranted damage or distress. If an individual gives you a section 10 notice relating to a violent warning marker then you should be aware that you may ultimately have to justify creating the marker in court.

Passing the information to other organisations
From a legal point of view, the appropriate schedule 3 condition for processing mentioned earlier will not cover disclosing the marker information to other
organisations, as the condition relates to a legal obligation on the employer for their own staff, not other organisations’ staff. However, where there is a good
reason for providing the information to another organisation, for example, to alert them to the potential risk to their staff, this will be justified even though no
Schedule 3 condition obviously applies. In these cases, our focus is on whether the processing is justified and not unfair.

The senior nominated person in the organisation should determine this on a case-by-case basis where there is a credible risk that an unlawful act, such as an assault, will occur. They should only provide the information to an
individual of a similar level in the other organisation.
If you pass the information on to another organisation, you should inform the individual, unless that would be a serious risk to the person or another individual as described earlier. If you review the marker and decide to change
or remove it, you should then inform the other organisations you previously sent the information to.

Retention

The fifth data protection principle states that personal information should not be kept longer than necessary. You must make sure violent warning markers are removed when there is no longer a threat. This should be part of the
standard review procedure. The retention period is likely to depend in part on:

• the original level or threat of violence;
• how long ago this was;
• the previous and subsequent behaviour of the individual; and
Note 1
SI 2000 No. 413 ‘The Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Health) Order 2000’
SI 2005 No.467 ‘The Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Social Work)
(Amendment) Order 2005’

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cacheCheesylCf6Rx4cqEJ:www.gov.gg/ccm/cms-service/download/asset/%3Fasset_id%3D8882059+potentially+violent+person+Data+Protection+Act&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiy2TlGr9etGwBeQE2i9Je0lCGW0Ca7IAzOq9322SNjzNohs35F8zxvCgvrKTxI4xcX8weSAnOrjKcKwEH4DjvaFc-N1hUSE_8Cw2BsYL8ka_g1IRBZo93GtYjBG_kK7NZcB_H0&sig=AHIEtbQfHgdY3aAZKY-JuhKj3WG0G1s1nA

http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/Documents/480/Violentwarningmarkersusepublicsecto r.pdf

http://www.veterans-uk.info/pdfs/publications/guides/admin_guide/i_part9.pdf

http://www.kent.police.uk/About%20Kent%20Police/policies/n/N96E%20Management%20o f%20Potentially%20Dangerous%20Persons%20(PDPs).html

The crazy thing about the targeting that we get are that many of the tactics were used in Cointelpro and by the Stasi. However in retrospect the Stasi used citizen informants in similar ways.

March 4, 2010 Posted by | Gang Stalking | , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Iwatch. Nationwide citizen watch program

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,561661,00.html

New iWatch Program Urges Citizens to Be ‘Eyes and Ears’ Against Terror Plots, iWatch is a nationwide community watch program

[quote]
A new program aimed at keeping Americans safe from terror attacks will rely on individual citizens to serve as “the eyes and ears” of their communities.

iWatch is a community watch program endorsed by police chiefs across the U.S. that teaches people how to detect suspicious behavior and report it to police.[/quote]

Other sutable names. Istasi, Istalk, Iharass, Iturninmyneighbour and many more.

[quote]

L.A. Police Chief William Bratton, who developed the program with Police Commander Joan McNamara, called it the 21st century version of Neighborhood Watch, a program that encourages local residents to stay alert and informed about their neighborhoods.

“A single observation, a single report can lead to actions that can stop a terrorist attack,” warns a Public Safety Announcement video released by the LAPD.[/quote]

A single report can do so much damage, just like in Russia or the Stasi Era.

[quote]When the chiefs of the 63 largest police departments in the U.S. and Canada met to endorse iWatch at a conference last Saturday, they cited the case of Najibullah Zazi — the Denver man suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda who has been accused of plotting to use a weapon of mass destruction within the U.S.[/quote]

Wow Big Brother Canada was also there what a surprise.

Anyways as I have said a billion times these types of programs will come to the public light, this one is a program that is nationwide, and Canada somehow seems to be taking apart. All we need now is one that is planet wide, coming soon to a one world government near you.

These programs will come to light, Gang Stalking will be proven, but will anyone care? See it won’t be proving it, I don’t think that will be the big hurdle, much of that has already been done and overcome. Getting the ameba to show any remorse will be the real challenge and I don’t really know that that will happen.

http://www.lapdonline.org/iwatchla

[quote]iWATCH, iREPORT, i KEEP US SAFE (iWATCH) is a community awareness program created to educate the public about behaviors and activities that may have a connection to terrorism.

This program is a community program to help your neighborhood stay safe from terrorist activities. It is a partnership between your community and the Los Angeles Police Department. We can and must work together to prevent terrorist attacks.

To learn about the iWATCH program and about the behaviors and activities that you should report, view the videos and review the list of examples. You can also read and download a brochure that explains the program.

Remember that the iWATCH program is about behaviors and activities, not individuals. [/quote]

Ipuke, Igag, I am sorry, but this sucks. If they are being so open about it then the snitch force is complete enough for them to be this open and this proud about.

Well I just thought it might be interesting to read.

November 8, 2009 Posted by | Gang Stalking, Snitches, Social Control, society, Spying, Stalking, Stasi, State target | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Are Canadian’s paranoid enough?

Are Canadians being watched?

I thought that this would be a fun topic to cover. I was recently on a Canadian forum and I had a conversation with several members about electronic harassment and Gang Stalking.

Some thought it was paranoid to worry about being spied upon and monitored, that’s fair, but let’s look at some of the evidence presented and you tell me if they are paranoid enough when it comes to government spying.
The privacy commissioner of Canada, Jennifer Stoddard, warned Canadians this February about Secret databases that can not be accessed by the accused.

 

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

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/13/rcmp-privacy.html?ref=rss

[quote]
Jennifer Stoddart, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, has given her own Valentine to Canadian citizens: a 48-page report warning them that the RCMP (Canada’s national police force) is keeping thousands of files on regular citizens in secret databases which cannot be seen by the accused.
One of the many disturbing facets of Stoddart’s report are the examples she cites of information for these secret files coming from citizen informants. In one case a man was put into the secret database because a resident of his daughter’s school neighborhood saw him entering a rooming house and—believing drugs were involved—called the police. The police investigation concluded that the man had only stepped out of his car to have a cigarette, but the file was still in the national security databank seven years later.

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

 

What these seemingly disparate reports point to is a growing movement to turn the citizens of so-called free, democratic nations into a self-regulating secret police, saving the government the hassle of keeping tabs on everyone by delegating the duty to an unwitting public duped by a phoney war on terror.
[/quote]

Ok So Canadians are in secret databases that can not be accessed, not a big deal for some. Let’s see what else might be happening.
http://www.spying101.com/

[quote]If you attended a Canadian university in the past eighty years, it’s possible that, unbeknownst to you, Canadian security agents were surveying you, your fellow students, and your professors for ‘subversive’ tendencies and behaviour. Since the end of the First World War, members of the RCMP have infiltrated the campuses of Canada’s universities and colleges to spy, meet informants, gather information, and on occasion, to attend classes.[/quote]

Spying in Canadian schools and on Campus.
[quote]
The book, a thorough examination of RCMP surveillance of the academic world, also discusses the Mounties’ efforts to keep tabs on other elements of society, including government, the media and women’s groups.
The RCMP created security files on 800,000 Canadians, and it has long been known the force took an active interest in politicians and public 
servantswith links to Communist organizations or other pursuits deemed subversive.[/quote]
Wow 800,000 Canadians and counting with files opened, just for going to a Canadian University or College. That sounds reason to be a bit paranoid.
[quote]The Mounties cultivated informants among students and faculty at universities across the country and sometimes relied on the direct observations of RCMP members who were taking classes to further their education.[/quote]

Fellow students cultivated as Informants who then graduate and go on into the workforce and into the rest of society? Nothing to be paranoid about there, if you care about your privacy.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2499.html

[quote]According to Redden, citizens can sometimes defeat the snitch culture. He lauds Canadians for discovering a secret government database that contained information on “virtually everyone in the country.”

The system tracked domestic and external travel, personal finances, and other intimate details on 33 million people.

When journalists revealed that the database was being used by spy agencies and the Mounties, 18,000 Canadians petitioned the health ministry to find out what the government knew about them. Eventually, the government was forced to dismantle the database ? or so they said. Government officials admitted the database was insecure, and so countless copies could easily have been made by police or nosy bureaucrats.
[/quote]

Wow a secret government database the contained information on nearly everyone in the country. The last time I heard about something like this, it was East Germany. I wonder how a country the size of Canada, can have a secret government database with information on just about everyone. What intimate details did this system have, and how did it get this information?

They dismantled a database with information on everyone in the country, that they must have spent a great deal of time, effort and money to collect? Does anyone really believe this? Of course they do.
Wow this would make some people a little paranoid.
Lastly not related to spying but an interesting link. From the people who brought you Truman Show Syndrome.

I found out that there is a military link, at least one of the male patients had a former military background.

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2008/07/

being_the_main_character_in_yo.html

Also one of the psychiatrist that is researching Truman Show Syndrome works out of McGill University in Quebec.

https://gangstalking.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/truman-show-delusion

[quote]Gold and his brother, Dr. Ian Gold, the Canada research chair in philosophy and psychiatry at McGill University in Montreal, came up with the term “Truman Show delusion.”[/quote]

 

If you will remember the MK Ultra mind control experiments which the Canadian and U.S. government agreed to, were conducted by McGill University in Montreal, Dr Ewen Cameron’s old haunt. Ewen Cameron is the doctor that was at the heart of the MK Ultra experiments and McGill is the very University that allowed them.
Also many of complaints about Gang Stalking in Canada are coming out of Toronto and Vancouver Canada. I have seen at least one news article on this for Vancouver, but I don’t think I have seen any articles about this subject out of Toronto yet, which based on the complains is an epicenter for Gang Stalking.

This is all fun stuff to know. So should Canadians be more concerned, more paranoid, or is there really nothing to see here?  Only time will tell.

December 27, 2008 Posted by | Awareness, Baiting, Citizen Informants, Civilian Spies, Cointelpro, Conspiracy, Controlled society, Covert investigations, domestic spying, driving-crazy, East Germany, Entrapment, Fascist, Gang Stalking, Gangstalking, government corruption, Monitoring, New World Order, NWO, Social Control, Stalking, Stasi, Surveillence, Targeted Individual | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Gang Stalking United

http://www.GangSTalkingUnited.com

Gang Stalking United, because the world was just not enough. I want an empire.  😆  😉

Seriously I liked the way the name sounded. It reminded me of Manchester United, or X-Men United. The site is about coming together and getting to the heart of the matter. Real targets want a place to hang out and share ideas and information. Informants and government agents want to find a place to hang out, disrupt and pass on disinformation. Researchers want to look into this matter a little more. Social Psychologist students want to study this, so therefore Gang Stalking United was created for this purpose.

I can assure you that there will be disinformation agents on the site. They will probably out number targets, but the way the site is set up, hopefully they will do limited damage, and the research will outwiegh what they are able to do. We will also be able to report posts on the site, so if something really harmful is posted, we can self moderate. It’s not a sure fire method, but in anticipation of various matters, the site was created.

Here is my first post.

[quote]

Hi extratired1, 

I will say welcome to the forum. 

Since Cointelpro was suppose to be officially disbanded, we might have trouble saying that it’s definitely Cointelpro, even though I do think it did carry over probably under other names. I see the obvious connections in recent times, to what has happened in the past.

What we do know is that other countries had similar programs to Cointelpro. Canada had V.I.P.S., and there does seem to have been cooperation between Canada and the US even back then. 

http://www.gangstalkingworld.com/Social/article.php?sid=161 

 The reason there has been so much discussion and debate about what is happening is because Cointelpro was the name the American program was known to use, where the targeting that we are seeing is being done by various governments. 

Eg. Other targets have said, that they see the targeting continue even after moving to various countries. This suggests wide scale corporation between many governments. Which we can show is currently happening using anti-terror laws. 

There are reports coming in from many other countries reports that this type of surveillance is happening. 

Cointelpro in theory was suppose to be limited to the states, that’s why it might not be correct to label it all Cointelpro, but again I agree that we are pretty well seeing many of the same old traits, with some new ones that were not previously reported. 

This website is going to go through all the information, and then take it from there. On a ground level I am still personally going to refer to the targeting as Gang Stalking. 

In addition to the above, much of the research conducted by myself and others shows that what is happening is much wider than just a program to control dissent. What we are seeing is multifaceted. It’s government cooperation across many countries, and at various levels. The indication is that this might be a part of a pre step towards what some are calling the one world government. 

Again that is why this forum is about research. Trying to find current information to corroborate the findings. I will be placing links relevant videos on the site over the next few weeks. Anyone on this website, disinformation agents, genuine targets, the general public, psychologist, social psychology students, etc are welcome to also share their findings, research, ask questions, and help us come to a collective conclusion if possible.[/quote]

December 13, 2008 Posted by | activism, Awareness, Cointelpro, domestic spying, Gang Stalking, Gangstalking | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment