Gang Stalking World

United we stand. Divided they fall.

Voice to skull

Voice To Skull otherwise known as V2K.

Now let me state this before I go further. I am not an expert on this topic. I have never been a target of this practice. My knowledge is limited, but I do get questions in regards to this from time to time, so I am going to try to tackle this in a small way.

This is not advise, a professional opinion, or legal feedback in anyway shape or form.

I also want to say to true targets of this practice, I think you are very brave discussing this stuff. It can not be easy, and I hope that technology can be found to counter what is happening.

Some targets legitimate targets complain about hearing voices. If you are from outside the community and someone tells you that they are hearing voices you assume that they are crazy right?

Well the more you know the better able you are to make informed choices and opinions.

Now after watching this video, do you think that everyone hearing voices is crazy?

What about after watching this clip from Real Genius? It’s a 1980’s movie staring Val Kilmeer, where they get someone to hear voices via a tooth implant.

They put the person to sleep, do a bit of drilling in his tooth, and he wakes up thinking that he is hearing the voice of God. This was a cheap 80’s trick. Actual technology has come a long way.

The clip will not be posted here, but if you really look for it you can find it. Or just rent the movie.

You can even watch the movie control factor. Where they also use technology to get people to hear voices. In an apartment not too far from where the target lives.

[quote]”The American people have been kept in the dark about the true scientific progress in this country. Technologies of mass-control exist that the public would never dream off. I know because, I helped developed them. They call it psychotronic warfare, a research program dealing with mind-control. They can control everything what a person does, voices, that is how they get ya. This is not the elected government, this is the national security empire, the dark vaders of the 21st century.” –Control Factor

Credit Source:
This short video clip was taken from the movie “Control Factor(2003) by Universal Studios”

More Mind-Control Sources:

Mind Control The Ultimate Terror:

Psychotronics: ia_psychotronicweapons.htm

Mind Control with Silent Sounds & Super Computers: ithsilentsounds24jun05.shtml

Digital TV – Mind Control by sound of silence: /esp_sociopol_mindcon40.htm[/quote]

Now control factor is just a movie, but the concept of the technology is very real.

This silent sound technology was patented years ago. Microwave hearing, which would allow a microwave to send voices directly inside the human head.

The microwave auditory effect, also known as the microwave hearing effect or the Frey effect, consists of audible clicks induced by pulsed/modulated microwave frequencies. The clicks are generated directly inside the human head without the need of any receiving electronic device. The effect was first reported by persons working in the vicinity of radar transponders during World War II. These induced sounds are not audible to other people nearby. The microwave auditory effect was later discovered to be inducible with shorter-wavelength portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. During the Cold War era, the American neuroscientist Allan H. Frey studied this phenomenon and was the first to publish (Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 17, pages 689-692, 1962) information on the nature of the microwave auditory effect; this effect is therefore also known as the Frey effect.

Dr. Don R. Justesen published “Microwaves and Behavior” in The American Psychologist (Volume 30, March 1975, Number 3).

Research by NASA in the 1970s[citation needed] showed that this effect occurs as a result of thermal expansion of parts of the human ear around the cochlea, even at low power density. Later, signal modulation was found to produce sounds or words that appeared to originate intracranially. It was studied for its possible use in communications. Similar research conducted in the USSR studied its use in non-lethal weaponry.[citation needed]

The existence of non-lethal weaponry that exploits the microwave auditory effect appears to have been classified “Secret NOFORN” in the USA from (at the latest) 1998, until the declassification on 6 December 2006 of “Bioeffects of Selected Non-Lethal Weaponry” in response to a FOIA request.

The technology gained further public attention when a company announced in early 2008 that they were close to fielding a device called MEDUSA (Mob Excess Deterrent Using Silent Audio) based on the principle.[1]

So if a target starts to hear voices how do they know if they are crazy or being experimented on with one of the above technologies or even something more advanced?

This is a hard question to answer. The targeting that we experience I fully believe is capable of driving a perfectly sane person, mentally unstable. However I do believe that some targets are being played with, using some of the above technologies.

If I was a target in this situation, I would use a very scientific method to investigate.


Are you hearing the voices at all times, or just in specific locations?

Does it happen under water? Is the effect increased or decreased in anyway?

Have you tried to record the voices? Remember we can not hear dog whistles, but they do work. Many sounds are outside of human hearing, but other technology might be able to pick it up.

I am not sure if a microwave would block the sounds out, but if I was a target in this situation, and thought microwave hearing was being used, I would try to see if the noise could be eliminated by testing out a microwave. Eg. Unplugged a microwave, if you place your head/skull inside for a few seconds, do the voices stop? I know this sounds extreme, but honestly it’s something that I would check, takes about 30 seconds and this may or may not be something that could be attempted.

I mentioned recently that they are working on technology to give the world an invisible cloak, should be ready in the next three years or less. Yes an honest to goodness invisibility cloak. Think Harry Potter.

The materials they are using, are designed to bounce off microwave rays and this might help targets in the future if microwaves are being used. However the materials are expensive, but for targets with money to burn, then this could be something to look into.

Underground bunkers, deprivation chambers? I don’t know if any of these would work. Climbing a high mountain? Just to test out different locations, to see if it is something high tech vs low tech, vs something that is with you 24/7.

Again the above may or may not prove or disprove anything but it’s something that I would look into if in the same situation.

Why I believe some targets who say this is happening to them? Well in part because of the above examples posted, but the targets that I do believe, they were really specific.

Ruth Goodman, said it was men that she had dated, who worked in the intelligence industry. She said it happened to her after she was drugged and put under anesthesia. She thinks some form of micro surgery was done. She says they tried to keep her off the internet and prevent her from writing. She died shortly after, so I can’t confirm this one way or another, but her example fits what others have said.

A man I think his name was Tracy said that he could hear people like they were fighting over a microphone, and he knew at least one. To me based on what he said, it sounded like they were close by where they could see him, and the stuff they said, sounded like hicks who really wanted to mess with someone.

Gloria Naylor from what I recall said that her voices prevented her from writing. Now in her case I don’t know if they were with her all the time, or just when near the computer.

I like what Naylor did in the sense that she tried the traditional method, was given medication, it did not work, so she looked around for other answers.

I think this is logical, but as a target, I know that I would do a lot of research, experimentation and troubleshooting first.

So I spent a large part of the last few days brainstorming trying to figure out what things targets have done, and what they could do.

Remember these people who are doing this to you are not God, they would like to be, but they are not.

[quote]They are trying to develop a beam of light, it would be projected onto your forehead, go a couple of milimeters into your frontal cortex, and then receptors would get the reflection of that light, and you would not know. [/quote]

They even have laser microphones.

[quote]The main type of laser microphone is a surveillance device that uses a laser beam to detect sound vibrations in a distant object. The object is typically inside a room where a conversation is taking place, and can be anything that can vibrate (for example, a picture on a wall) in response to the pressure waves created by noises present in the room. The object preferably has a smooth surface. The laser beam is directed into the room through a window, reflects off the object and returns to a receiver that converts the beam to an audio signal. The beam may also be bounced off the window itself. The minute differences in the distance traveled by the light as it reflects from the vibrating object are detected interferometrically. The interferometer converts the variations to intensity variations, and electronics are used to convert these variations to signals that can be converted back to sound.[/quote]

The world is changing at a rapid pace. If a target today goes to the doctor to complain of hearing voices, they are still automatically in most cases diagnosed as mentally unstable, but the reality is, if a psychiatrist or other health care professional is not upto date on the latest technology, or even aware of secret technologies, they run the risk of making a faulty dignosis, where someone might actually be telling the truth. The science fiction of yesterday, is science fact today.

January 9, 2010 Posted by | Awareness, Brain reading device, changing vibrations, conspiracies, control, driving-crazy, Electronic harassment, Gang Stalking, Gangstalking, Gaslighting, High technology, Insane, Mind Reading, Monitoring, psychological harassment, Science, Surveillence, Targeted Individual, Voice to skull, youtube | , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Truman Show Delusion

Truman Show Delusion.

I know some people in the TI community have mentioned that they are going to be keeping an eye on this new syndrome.

So I just had a couple of quick suggestions about questions that you might want to ask.

Since some suspect that this might be in part designed to have the public think that anyone complaining about 24/7 surveillance is delusional or crazy, here are some things you might want to look at when checking into this further.
Start with the doctors in question who are researching this. The Doctors Gold Ian and Joel.
First you always want to check out the credibility of these individuals. Make sure that there are no military ties. This has played a role in the past, so this is something that you would want to look into. Too many people remember Ewen Cameron and his experiments. This is not in anyway to compare the doctors Gold to him. The point however is, Dr Cameron was a doctor with good credibility that conducted illicit Mind Control experiments.
Donald Ewen Cameron (1901-1967) was a Scottish-American psychiatrist. Born in Bridge of Allan, he graduated from the University of Glasgow in 1924.

Cameron lived and worked in Albany, New York, and was involved in experiments in Canada for Project MKULTRA, a United States based CIA-directed mind control program which eventually lead to the publication of the KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation manual.

Cameron was the author of the psychic driving concept which the CIA found particularly interesting. In it he described his theory on correcting madness, which consisted of erasing existing memories and rebuilding the psyche completely. After being recruited by the CIA, he commuted to Montreal every week to work at the Allan Memorial Institute of the McGill University, and was paid $69,000 from 1957 to 1964 to carry out MKULTRA experiments there. The CIA appears to have given him the potentially deadly experiments to carry out, as they would be tried on non-US citizens. However, documents released in 1977 revealed that thousands of unwitting, as well as voluntary subjects were tested on during that time period. These subjects included United States citizens

Assuming that our esteemed doctors are what they say they are and what they appear to be, you would want to next look at the patients. Joel Gold has said that in 2002 in New York, he saw 5 patients, white males that were complaining about this delusion. Three specifically mentioned the Truman show. They felt their families were reading from a script and that their actions were being watched 24/7 and that the whole world was part of this. It encompassed their lives.


Joel Gold, who is on the psychiatric faculty of New York’s Bellevue Hospital and serves as a clinical assistant professional of psychiatry at New York University’s School of Medicine, first began to see the symptoms dubbed Truman Show delusion in 2002 with patients at Bellevue Hospital. He initially treated five white male patients with middle-class upbringing and education, all who likened themselves to actors on reality TV shows. Three specifically referenced the movie The Truman Show, giving rise to the disorder’s name. 
We have thousands upon thousands of people complaining about Gang Stalking, Electronic Harassment and Mind Control, but 5 White male patients of upper middle class backgrounds say they are part of a reality show, and that’s enough to get a study done on the Truman Show Delusion?

So with what we know about Cointelpro, we went to look into the credibility of the patients. Make sure that they have no military ties. Look at their past histories make sure that there is no reason to believe there was any financial motivation, or that they were not couched or exposed to influences that lead them to this belief.

This is not to insult or make aspersion’s about anyone. Doctor Gold could really just have come across 5 patients out of the hundreds that he saw, and decided this would be a good study. The patients might really have these delusions and might really feel this way, but with what we have seen of Cointelpro, some of us were waiting and watching for a similar new illness or something similar to come out.
We have seen people pretend to be targets, who’s only goal is to make other targets look delusional. We have seen people pretend to be targets who’s only goal was to further harass real targets, etc.
To not ask the questions would be unwise and well.

Since this summer for some reason, the doctors now in 2008, cause that was 2002, shared their findings this summer, and other doctors have said they have seen similar cases about 40-50 more. What is not clear is are their patients complaining about Truman Show as well, or just about being watched, about their families reading from scripts? The related case information that I could find was pretty sparse, if anyone is looking into this, maybe they can update this information.

Beyond that, I am going to be continuing on with looking into Gang Stalking, but these are some questions that I thought might be nice to ask for those looking into the Truman Show Delusion.

November 29, 2008 Posted by | CIA, Cointelpro, Electronic harassment, Gang Stalking, Gangstalking, male, Mind Control, society, Targeted Individual, White | , , , , , , , , , , | 15 Comments

Mind Hacks

Is there a pattern forming?
I asked this question after realising that an article about Truman Show delusion, Internet delusion and climate change delusion came out back in August 29, 2008. It was written by Sarah Kershaw and in the article she mentioned Joel and Ian Gold, both brothers. Both psychiatrists, one out of New York, one now in Toronto, who are writing about Truman show delusion.
The second article which you might be more familiar with is the New York Times article again by Sarah Kershaw, November 13, 2008, with mentions of Vaughan Bell, Dr Hoffman and unnamed concerned health professionals.

The third article is by Jennifer Peltz, where she writes about Truman Show Delusion, this came out 11/24/08. She also references the brothers Gold and Vaughan Bell again in the article.

Now wither or not it’s a new trend to write about delusions or as some suspect an actual attempt by the system to give society the impression that people claiming to be watched are delusional is anyone’s guess. 
I was going back over my writings and I did want to make one thing clear. When I first read the Sarah Kershaw article, I wrote about it. Now the pen or in this case my typing fingers might have been a bit faster than my mind. What I mean is, I was looking back at what I wrote, and it seemed to be critical of the article. I never meant to be critical of the article, and I apologize if it came across that way. What I was actually concerned about was the new “syndromes” that had appeared in the article. Specifically the Internet Delusions and to a lesser extend the Truman show delusion.
The first article by Sarah Kershaw was actually an interesting, informative and insightful read. It was a pretty well written article, I didn’t mean that I wanted the article to fail. What I meant was that I had really specific concerns more specifically, about the findings that had been exposed in the article. 

Here is some background information about my concerns. Since coming across the David Lawson book Terrorist Stalking in America and his conclusions that this is being done by vigilante groups and then his follow up book which claims this is being done by terrorist or anti-government groups, I have long suspected the work to be a disinformation piece that was meant to destroy and harm the credibility of targets should they go to the police or health professionals with his conclusions.
This is what I wrote about David Lawson back in December 2006.

If what he says about these stalking crews are true. These crews are illegal, dangerous, well connected and you would not want to be writing a book about their activities without consent. Members stay in the group out of fear, blackmail, the sense of power it gives them. The reason they work so well, and have become so powerful is because they work in secrecy. Secrecy, and yet he was allowed to write a book about them and go on his merry way?

No reprisals? No revenge? He is either really brave, and lucky. Really deceptive and wrong. Or maybe somewhere in between?
Since then David Lawson has reappeared, his book is off the satellite stealing website, and it’s now widely available at amazon, with the new conclusions, that this is being done by terrorist, and anti-government groups.
David Lawson claims to have been a detective for 12 years, then he claims that he was a part of these stalking groups for several more years. My question has always been, why was he allowed to write the book if they are so dangerous? He claims to have been one of them for several years, so how do we know he can be trusted? Later after doing my own research and talking to others, I realised that his conclusions were false and that a detective of 12 years could not have come to such false conclusions easily, especially one that claims to have travelled with them for several years. I have maintained that I think the book is disinformation.

I wondered if at some point the establishment would have an illness similar or one that matched his conclusions. After reading the article and doing some research, I came across this.

This paper analyzes four case-reports and notes that, contrary to the traditional view, the cases are examples where an internet-theme has particular clinical implications.

In one case, a patient began to have paranoid thoughts and used an internet search engine to investigate suspicions about an ingredient on a chewing gum packet.

Her searches led her to believe she had discovered a secret terrorist network, and was therefore being personally targeted by the authorities using phone taps and hidden cameras.
I read over the case study, and the first case study presented was unrelated. My concerns however with these new findings is that they don’t take current factors into consideration when making their diagnosis. Eg. The real danger that people’s concerns about surveillance could have some basis in truth. 

The other concern is the fact that there might be disinformation material being deliberately distributed to the public by specific sources. I am sure this is a foreign concept for many members of mainstream society, but practices such as Cointelpro have shown us that, false Media Stories, Faked dirty letters, poems, and satirical comic books were among the FBI’s many devices for pitting activists against one another. 

In the past it was used to discredit dissidents, today it could be providing a similar function.

November 27, 2008 Posted by | Gang Stalking, society, Stalking | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


Just a quick update on the New York Times article.

I have just spoken to Vaughan Bell, one of the key psychologists mentioned in the article and he was kind enough to clarify that he has never studied Gang Stalking.

The research that he did, fully focuses on Mind Control sites. He has never studied Gang Stalking or the Gang Stalking World website more specifically.

I think one of the things that Sarah Kershaw did in the article, that many people do is that she lumped in Gang Stalking, Electronic Harassment, and Mind Control, all together.

For the record I do believe that all three happen and are happening to Targets. I know about Mk Ultra, the experiments that happened, the law-suites for mind control. I am familiar with Electronic Harassment. How many times have I gone into the shower to have patches of my skin peal off from the burns of the night before?

I do however focus on the Gang Stalking aspect of it, because it comes down to what can you prove? Over the last two years, I have spoken to enough police officers, (who are no longer mentioned), health professionals, social workers, crisis centers, lawyers, Investigators, Human Rights, etc to find out what I could about what was happening with the Citizen Informants, and the programs that they are being used for.

I have enough people offline and online that I have spoken to, to know that I know what I am talking about with the Gang Stalking stuff.
Since the only psychologist thus far that I could find who mentioned extreme communities was again Vaughan Bell, he has not identified the Gang Stalking websites as such, since he has never studied them.

The article also does make it clear that in relationship to Dr. Ralph Hoffman, his patients have “told him of visiting mind-control sites, and finding in them confirmation of their own experiences.”

So we have two named professionals, one psychiatrist and one psychologist, both who have not it would appear studied, or actually made mention of the Gang Stalking Websites.

It seems the confusion and the lumping together of the terms might be coming from the author of the article Sarah Kershaw, and it is an easy error to make, if you are not familiar with the three phenomenons. We are all Targeted Individuals, but just because you experience or are a target of one, does not mean that you are a target of all.

I just wanted to clarify this factor for anyone who still had questions about this article or how the conclusions came about. I might do a bit more follow up, on this article with at least one more person, but these are important details that I thought should be clearifed.

November 21, 2008 Posted by | Electronic harassment, Gang Stalking, harassment, mobbing, society | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The reactions are in

As many know, I have been tracking the New York Times article to see what kind of reaction it’s getting across the board.

It’s gotten a lot of various reactions. I have come across people who now say that it’s trendy to think that you are being followed around. Gang Stalking trendy? I don’t know about that one.

We have people who think that we are paranoids getting together and sharing stories, but getting the help we need and that’s a good thing. I didn’t stop to find out if the person was Martha Stewart or not, but apparently it’s a good thing. LOL.

I came across one person who is researching the Jeremy Blake and Teresa Duncan suicides, or what they termed Gang Stalking by Scientology, and this person was a little bit concerned for their own well being after starting this research. I mean a general research is one thing, but any time you did deep like Gary Webb did, you do have to be careful.

I have had to join Digg, Reddit, Slashdot, and so many other places to track this article down, and the reaction to it. Cause it’s nice to know the pulse of the Internet.

So Gang Stalking has become a household name. Which is good. It’s not in the way we wanted it, in many cases, but the term is out there and that was a goal. Everyone has to start someplace. I see this like starting in the mail room. We have our foot in the door, it’s our choice what we make of it.

We still have a lot of people who read the article, did not go and visit any of the websites mentioned, and formulated an opinion strictly based on the article. I found at least one person who tried to check out the website, but who said it was down. I know my website shows 100% up time over the last few weeks, so I suggested he try again.

My email is not working properly so if you do email me, and don’t get me, please use the WordPress blog to try for access. It’s just within the last 72 hours that it’s not working correctly. Email is either not arriving, or it’s being delayed for several hours.
Also in tracking the article, I found a copy of it at this forum. I wanted to be able to respond to the article, because as you know, I have written a response.
I used the user name gangstalking, because it’s what I use all over the Internet, when speaking out about what is happening. Have a cause, use the name that goes with the cause, just common sense. Well after waiting to be approved. (We are not worthy, we are not worthy. Sorry flash back to Wayne’s World the movie.)

Anyways, I received this response.

[quote]”Given the sensitive nature of the Psychlinks Forum, your chosen username, “gangstalking”, is likely to be a trigger for certain members.

I have deleted this account. Feel free to re-register with a less triggering username.

Dr. David J. Baxter, C.Psych.”[/quote]
So I wrote to him to find out what kind of trigger this was likely to be? It has not been a trigger for anyone over the last two years, but suddenly, it’s going to be a trigger, because you are going to make it so perhaps?

So I wrote back to find out what kind of a trigger this was going to be? It seem a little neurotic to me. See my feedback below.

[quote]”I registered the user name gangstalking, because you had an article on this forum that I wanted to comment on.

I was told that I could not use the user name gangstalking, because it might be a trigger word. I am wondering what type of pre-conseived notions this forum has regarding the user name gangstalking.
 show details 8:39 AM (12 hours ago)”[/quote]
Apparently it takes a long time to be approved for this forum. 12 hours ago. I really do think people create neurosis themselves, at times. Anyways he writes back.

We have members who have experienced a variety of trauma, including sexual assaults and ex-partner stalking and violence. You need to understand and be sensitive to these issues if you are going to be a member of this community.That is a very strict forum policy.
On your second registration, I changed your username to GS when I approved it.
Dr. David J. Baxter, C.Psych.

Ok I can understand his surface concern, but remember associating with people who have been through these types of situations is not new for me or different. In the last two years, I have encountered and associated with a variety of people. So I wrote back.

[quote]So Dr Baxter, to understand you correctly. Even though I have used the user name on the Sexual Harassment Support forum, the Stalking Victims Sanctuary forum, and several other related forums of that type, you now feel that it would be insensitive to use this user name on your forum.

I am well aware of the sensitivity of these issues, having championed and dealth with these issues on a peer to peer support basis. I have conversed with several of these other support sites, and they did not come to the same conclusions that you have, thus I am trying to understand what is behind this concern with the user name.

I respect your forum guidelines, I however am still not clear why you personally feel that the user name will have a negative effect on your members, when it has not on other forums thus mentioned. I am just trying to understand what is at the heart of this matter.

At this stage I am going to trust that Dr Baxter understands his community better than I do, and they may be more sensitive than other communities of a similar nature, and so I am going to decline to be a part of his community, because if my user name would offend, then what might my commenting do? Since the term Gang Stalking is likely to come up? Also if the term is so offensive that I can’t use the user name, then why have an article with this on your forum?

I don’t want to be mean, but I am thinking that there are people coming across this article on that forum, seeing the name and wigging out. Either way, so that I don’t risk offending, I am going to refrain from posting on this forum and responding to the article.

I really wanted to respond to the article, as I have on several other Internet websites, to help facilitate a better understanding of our community and what we are about and why we felt some portions of the New York Times article were unbalanced, but I feel at this stage, anything I write there, might be construed as harmful to the members. So out of respect for that, I will refrain from posting my article response, which many of you have now seen.

For better or for worst the term Gang Stalking is now a household name, offline and online. The question now is how do we as a community help facilitate further understanding and awareness to the general public, who still get their information from the mainstream media, in many cases without any relevant  questions being asked?

November 20, 2008 Posted by | Gang Stalking, harassment, society, Stalking | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Extreme assessments and paranoid conclusions

After giving the New York Times article a little bit more time to settle there are three points that I wanted to review further.

The first was how the article came to use the term extreme communities. I did read over the Vaughan Bell article where a reference is made to such communities.
<blockquote>Extreme communities

One feature that has garnered relatively little attention in the clinical research literature is the
existence of what might be termed ‘extreme communities’. Owing to the difficulty with which
material can be effectively censored or suppressed online, views considered extreme or
unacceptable to the mainstream can be expressed relatively freely, with online communities often
formed by those who share similar opinions. Some of these are of particular interest to mental
health professionals, as they attempt to reframe what would otherwise be classified as ‘mental
disorder’ in an entirely different light.</blockquote>
According to what Dr Bell wrote in the article it was views considered extreme or unacceptable by the mainstream. Using this definition I wondered if things such as the 9/11 truth movement would be an extreme community? Their views are not considered mainstream. I also wondered who else might fall into this list based on Dr Bell’s definition?

Websites that cover conspiracy topics might well meet his definition of extreme communities. Many of the subject matters covered on websites such as would fall into this category. They would be a website of mini patches of extreme communities.

Another factor that I thought should be calculated in when defining a community as an extreme community is the obvious, is the community helpful vs harmful? What kind of purpose do they serve? If I go to a website that has what by some is considered an extreme view that encourages me to kill myself, then that should be considered different than going to a website that expounds none traditional views, but steers the website viewer away from inflicting harm to themselves?

There are lot’s of websites that conform to traditional or more traditional mainstream views that in my opinion are probably fairly harmful to some aspects of society, but we turn a blind eye, because it does pass mainstream muster.

The definition as is, in my opinion is fairly broad, and the references to the term were limited except for references to Dr Bell’s work and the New York Times article.

The other point that I am wondering about is who or what now defines what is mainstream or normal? In today’s society we have so many different variables to consider. At one time spending all your time online might have been considered the actions of lonely desperate people. Now with websites such as Facebook, and much of web 2.0 culture, being online is considered normal, and spending many hours online as long as it’s spent socialising is considered a fairly normal and healthy activity.

According to a report from Mediamark Research in a 30 day period 2.5 million adults participated in online dating. I am sure they find this to be completely normal and mainstream, but I am sure there are patches of society that do not agree with this.

World of WarCraft reached 11 Million monthly Subscribers. Many of them sane individuals who go online to take part in these roleplaying games. For that community, I am sure they consider themselves normal and mainstream, just by their sheer numbers. I am sure there are still many in society who would not however consider going online to roleplay normal, mainstream or even healthy.

Thus what would be considered as abnormal or extreme view offline is often a normal and accepted view online, in many different circles. Eg. 9/11 conspiracy offline, might still be considered anti-government or none traditional, but online they are a fairly regular part of web culture and discussions. When defining mainstream and referencing the Internet, we might have to start finding different ways to do so.

Eg. I just read an article today, that talks about a real life couple getting divorced because he is cheating online with a virtual girlfriend. Traditional definitions are having to be adapted and redefined to accommodate an online culture.

A second woman in Japan was arrested because she killed her online husband. She killed his virtual self. That’s right, she did not kill him, or have any intention of killing the real him, but when his online virtual self divorced her, she got even and killed him. She was arrested for hacking into the computer and other things, and now if she is formally charged, she could face up to 5 years in jail.

It is becoming more and more clear that it is the offline world that is having to adapt to the new online realities and not often the other way around. Therefore what we considered traditional and mainstream yesterday for an offline reality, in many ways is being redefined, and it does not seem as if some offline structures are keeping up to date with this reality.

The third point of concern with the New York Times article is that people were being considered paranoid with simple offline assessments. Are these offline assessments adequate for some of the challenges that people are facing in the modern day world to define Targeted Individuals as paranoid?

Recent research has unearth a great deal of information to show that when people are being termed as paranoid, it might not be the case.

Research is showing that there are in fact networks of individuals being hired by the state in various countries to track and spy on average citizens. The spying includes email and phone taps. Being followed around in public by hired Covert Human Intelligence Sources. Having these same Informants move into the houses around the target when possible. Following them around in vehicle and foot patrols, plus many other forms of intrusive surveillance.

Individuals and Families under these types of surveillance are often not aware, and if they do become aware and go to seek help, they are often written off by the establishment as paranoid, psychotic, or crazy. The modern day reality is that without proper investigations, Freedom Of Information Act requests, and other proper forms of inquiry a true assessment might be impossible to determine. The secondary problem is that many of these investigations are ending up in secret databases, which the public has no access to. F.O.I.A. requests are no longer a sure fire way to determine if an individual is under surveillance.

I think it’s fair and safe to say that before a community is considered extreme many factors should be considered, and the definition itself should factor into consideration what’s considered normal online as well as offline. Assessing if a community or individual is paranoid or psychotic in today’s modern surveillance society should be done with care and caution. It’s been shown time and time again that anti-terror laws are being abused, National Security Letters are being handed out left right and center, with over 30,000 being issued per year, and many groups and individuals are being spied upon and placed on watch lists, unfairly.

In a society as the one described above, it is not only normal to have concerns about surveillance, but when there is a suspicion of such, the job of therapists in the future might not be first subscribing the patient to medication, it might be first asking if they have placed a F.O.I.A. request.

Society might even have to make it a mandatory law for psychiatrist to be notified if a person is under surveillance so that they are not falsely labelled, committed or medicated. This does not happen, the culture and society have changed within the last decade, but the methods used for determining paranoia, psychosis, and mental illness, in regards to the belief that one is under surveillance are still fairly antiquated in many cases, and might not pass muster for the realities of a modern day surveillance society.

November 18, 2008 Posted by | Gang Stalking, Laws, mobbing, society | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment