Gang Stalking World

United we stand. Divided they fall.

Credibility reviews and terms

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.

E W

[/quote]

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.

gangstalking

*Free advertising to none credible sites removed.*

April 10, 2009 Posted by | activism, Awareness, buzzsaw, Citizen Informants, Civilian Spies, Cointelpro, community mobbing, control, Controlled society, dissident, East Germany, Electronic harassment, False Prophets, Gang Stalking, Gangstalking | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Battling Disinfo

Are targeted individuals any smarter than the people targeting them?

https://gangstalking.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/the-witch-hunt/

I like to think that because we are being targeted that we are in a superior position somehow to be able to work around disinformation, to be able to spot when Cointelpro Stasi type tactics are being used and to move beyond that but most people are not, and that is where we will most likely fail. I am not being negative, I am just going over what I have observed, and what has worked time and time and again and from what I can see has every hope of working again for the wrong reasons.

I have pointed out several times that you are lucky to find 1 out of 10 of these websites on the Internet to be true websites belonging to targeted individuals.

I have also pointed out that even when people start off being true targets this does not always last very long, remember the Stasi recruited heavily from within the targeted community, so more then half the activist were working for both sides.

We have seen in the past where Cointelpro went about discrediting legit targets and you would think that the Targeted Individual community would be immune to this somehow, that they would know better, that they would know what to look for, but most times they don’t seem to. They seem to be just as vulnerable if not more so as anyone else.

The other problem is people still like to gather in groups and many people still like to follow a leader, they like to feel that things are getting done, even when they are being lead in directions that might slow them down, they still will follow that course.

I have watched this over time, and in some ways I do not blame them, people want help, they want quick solutions, whatever will bring their torment to an end, and the scary part is, they are just as capable of making the same mistakes as those that are targeting them, without realising it.

This brings me back to the topic of these witch hunts, which are designed to look not like witch hunts, but a means to help the community, to tell the community what is good vs bad information. Do targeted individuals realise that some of this is going to get used to discredit legitimate activists? Do they realise that it will be used to promote in some cases those that are non credible, or not the most credible sources at times? Do people realise that it will be used to do what could not be done outright?

With these charming credibility reports, or witch hunts as I still like to call them, they are being used to target legit sites and activists.

For example gang stalking world has gotten a bogus rating, do you want to know why? Apparently because the techniques section is listed in alphabetical order, and Eleanor White (and sources) do not like that. (The same Eleanor White who is was happy to lead people on the vigilante bend), anyways, Eleanor has appointed herself and her minions the self appointed guards of what can and can not be used for the Targeted Individual community. So instead of just bashing people, she has found a very subtle way to convince people that what she is doing is noble, and helping the community. She is telling you what is credible and not credible so you no longer need to think for yourselves, just like the people targeting us, they are being told who is good and who is bad, and they no longer need to think for themselves. (Everytime I see those credibility reviews, I remember Harry Potter character Dolores Umbridge.)

The scary part about the human race is that people at times are so easy, they do the same things over and over again, but in different ways. If you ask many of the people targeting us, they don’t realise that they are doing anything wrong, because a so called authority figure has told them it’s ok, or wrong or right. I think there are now some legit targets that might be starting to take the so called bogus credibility reports seriously, and this is the only reason I am taking the time to try to address this again, before the witch hunt goes too far, but witch hunts are like that, and I see how much luck we have had stopping out own externally, only to go and let one be conducted internally. The irony of it all.

Anyways this issue has to be addressed. Are you as Targeted Individuals going to let people tell you what is legit and what is not legit? Who is legit and who is not legit? See this way Eleanor never has to target a person, no she can target their material, or website, but most people will put not internalize it that way. What they will do is take a bogus rating and think that the person behind the material is also bogus, this way no fingers ever have to get pointed, and as a new target, I am fairly sure this will work very well. Most people will never consciously realise this, but that is the message that is internalised.

This method is wonderful, because you again get to fire the bullet, without pulling the trigger, and if you don’t see the parallels to what is being done to us externally, with what the so called bogus credibility review is doing internally, then I don’t know if there is much hope externally in getting our informant force to recognise that what they are doing is wrong.

I am taking the time now, because I do not think I will be going back to this. It’s taken years to get to where we are, I addressed this earlier and I will address it again. For some reason along with the credibility reviews, there is an open effort amongst Eleanor and others to get rid of the term Gang Stalking. Having mulled it over, not only does this impede progress, but getting rid of this term, would put things into the organized stalking camp, a place where I have always left the David Lawson’s and others who I think belong there.

Anyways, I was going to try to find a nice way to do this, but I don’t think what people need is nice, they need blunt awareness. The same way I am blunt about what is happening to us, and who is behind it, is the same way I am starting to have to be more blunt with what is happening. There has been too much legit ground gained to loose that ground, to sources, that might have other agenda’s.

Remember people, these people that are doing this, know this will come out, when it does, they want to be holding the cards. This means they want their people, the 9 out of 10, plus their sleeper agents up front and available to smile and answer questions, and to be the ones running the show in the direction that they choose. The same would be true if I organised, there people would be littered in any organization that you try to form, the same as with Cointelpro, and the panthers.

For me I still think a leaderless resistance is the way to go, where there is information, but people do their own thing, because if one is taken down, others can remain. The disadvantages are many, but then the advantages are also there, it’s 6 of one half a dozen of the other.

Maybe it does not fully have to be one or the other, if there is a way that we can work together, but remain separate, I would love to see that, but from what I have seen, the legit are still being targeted, turned, or put away and others have a path laid out because it suits the agenda.

If you have not read bridging the gap, please take a moment to do so, because it does explain a great deal about what is happening and why.

http://www.gangstalkingunited.com/Bridgingthegap.pdf

Oh and I should be glad it also made the witch hunt, so it’s going in the right direction.

April 5, 2009 Posted by | Gang Stalking, Gangstalking | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Use what works for you

What is the correct term to use to describe what is happening in the Targeted Individual community?

https://gangstalking.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/gang-stalking/

https://gangstalking.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/the-witch-hunt/

Some would tell you that the only term that you can use is organised stalking, and if you use the term gang stalking that is bad.

I have addressed this before, but I am going to take the time to address it again because it’s important.

My primary feeling when doing activism is that you need to use the term that works for you. That’s my first recommendation.

There are many people who have been through the former East Germany, many who see what’s happening and use the term Stasi, or they refer constantly to East Germany and the situation there.

Other use the term Cointelpro to describe what’s happening now, and what has been happening to them. It’s like Cointelpro 2, so they use that term.

Some use the term organised stalking to describe what is happening, but this term in my opinion has never truly covered the full concept of what we are facing.

I have liked Community Mobbing because when I first tried to get members of the Stalking Community and the Mobbing community involved in helping us expose what was happening, the mobbing community understood right away, and were willing to help, the stalking community was not helpful at the time.

Snitching, this is a term I don’t think many in the TI community identify with, but after doing the research, this is my finding, those who were promoting the stop snitching message, we more aware of the problem that was ongoing in society with Informants than many Targeted Individuals were. The stop snitching movement as you may or may not realise has been demonized by those who would like to see the informant system continue as it as.

Which brings me to the so called deliberate desire by some to remove the term Gang Stalking and replace it with terms that do not fully describe what has happened to the Targeted Individual community, but to also destroy all the progress that has been made over the last 3-4 years using that term.

As I have stated before when a terms gains popularity and you try to replace it with a different term, there is a process of almost starting from scratch, this means all the previous efforts are almost wiped and the process has to begin again.

You loose ground and that is not good for any movement. The bogus reasons given is that too often using the term Gang Stalking puts people in mind of criminal gangs, but over the last three years, most no pretty much every article written on this subject that people can find in a major newspaper uses the term Gang Stalking, here is a list.

 
Are you crazy or are you being Gang Stalked?
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter78.htm

Also a target herself.
http://www.shoestringradio.net/transcript35.txt

Shoestring Radio by Eleanor White herself. (exhibit B)

Welcome to show #35, recorded on July 14, 2006.

ROAD TO FREEDOM is a show by and about the targets of
electronically assisted vigilante or citizen gang stalking or organized stalking throughout the world.
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/audio/2006/2006-GCN/02-2006-GCN/

February 2006 Szymanski Investigative Journal GCN mp3 archive
Sueann Campbell is a retired electronic technician who has been targeted for many years. She began working as an activist to expose citizen gang stalking and electronic harassment in 2000.

(Greg Szymanski) investigative reporter, and the shows he has covered, from what I can tell, used the term Gang Stalking, consistently, and the people tuning into the shows, don’t seem to have called him back with questions about street gangs.
http://www.mykawartha.com/news/article/2028

Follow-up Article on Gang Stalking
Allegation of gang stalking is again being investigated
Police probe re-opened after This Week story
May 19, 2006

Lance Anderson

City police have reopened an investigation into an allegation of gang stalking.

Sergeant Walter DiClemente says police received a complaint from a woman, sparking them to re-open the case.
Then we had the more recent articles in the New York Times, abc.com, and the Washington post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/NewsSearch?sb=-1&st=By%20Sharon%20Weinberger&

The callers frequently refer to themselves as TIs, which is short for Targeted Individuals, and talk about V2K — the official military abbreviation stands for “voice to skull” and denotes weapons that beam voices or sounds into the head. In their esoteric lexicon, “gang stalking” refers to the belief that they are being followed and harassed: by neighbors, strangers or colleagues who are agents for the government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/fashion/13psych.html?pagewanted=all
Type “mind control” or “gang stalking” into Google, and Web sites appear that describe cases of persecution, both psychological and physical, related with the same minute details — red and white cars following victims, vandalism of their homes, snickering by those around them.

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

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.
The mainstream papers have picked up the term, and local papers, and other sources, but suddenly there is a need to remove the term, and all traces of progress that have been made by using the term. More effective than other means that could have been employed to slow progress, but still the same outcome.
It’s more recently that I recall the full blown effort to eradicate the term Gang Stalking. It’s been played with, changing the name, and this and that, but it’s more recent surprisingly as progress was being made that the absolute need has come up to change the name.

I wonder since Gang Stalking is the term that has served the Targeted Individual community the best, if the real goal is to help the community and to not hinder it, and this really is about activism, why not do what has always been done, which is to present multiple terms?
Why the sudden need to put effort into eradicating the progress that has been made with using the a term that has become familiar to facebook groups, alternative forums, mainstream forums, main stream newspapers, and mainstream audiences at large? Why would you limit yourself this way if the real goal is to help the community and not to hurt it?

I say use what works for you, and stop letting those who might not or who just don’t have your best interest at heart, and the communities best interest at heart, tell you what to think, and use. I don’t think too many people use vigilante stalking anymore, thank God, but if someone did use the term, I would know what they were talking about, and that is the point is that we get the info out to as many people as we can.

There is enough room in the world for the use of the term Gang Stalking, Community Mobbing, Snitches, Stasi, Cointelpro, Organized Stalking, Vigilante Stalking, and a few others. Use what will get the concept across to the audience that you are dealing with, use what will help the community, but do not go along with those who do not have the communities best interests at heart, and eliminate terms, ideas or concepts that have served the community very well over the last few years.

That’s my take on what terms to use and to not use, use what works for you in getting the information across to your audience. Some terms will be better than others, but do not go along with witch hunts, and other efforts to destroy progress that has already been made.

April 5, 2009 Posted by | Community harassment, community mobbing, Conspiracy, Gang Stalking, Gangstalking | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments