Draft Copy of a fact sheet on organized stalking / gang stalking

Please leave comments! This is in draft stage – I will be adding references to it. Thanks!

What is organized stalking?

Organized stalking refers to a coordinated effort to stalk, harass, and surveil an individual. Hundreds of individuals, composed of people the targeted individual (TI) comes into contact with, whether routinely (friends and family) or occasionally (places the target frequents or visits), participate in organized stalking. Authority figures may also rely on parolees or snitches. The TI is under surveillance so that participants know where to find him or her at all times. Once encountered, participants may:

  • Mirror or parrot the TI
  • Attempt to annoy the TI
  • Follow the TI
  • Say something that would make the TI believe the person had been listening to their private conversations (directed conversation)
  •  Perform street theater/skits
  • Make loud noises
  • Use trigger words (anchoring)
  • Make abusive phone calls
  • Tail or cut off their vehicle on the road
  • Vandalize the home

Many TIs believe organized stalking is a covert FBI program similar to one called Cointelpro (1956-1971) that used similar methods referred to as gang stalking or ‘dirty tactics.’

How is organized stalking accomplished?

Organized stalking is managed by ‘handlers,’ who then coordinate a very wide network of stalkers. Most communication is by cell phone. In order to get individuals to participate, the handlers use positions of authority, threats, and/or lies and slander to paint the TI as a pedophile, maniac, or violent person.

Who is targeted in organized stalking?

Anyone can be targeted, but many whistle blowers, activists, and lawyers (National Lawyers Guild) have been victimized. Women, minorities, and patients (mental and physical health) are also more vulnerable.

Stalkers are often members of civic groups, religious institutions, or neighborhood watch programs.

Where does organized stalking happen?

Organized stalking can happen anywhere people go: retail stores, coffee shops, gas stations, gyms, parks, doctor offices, condo buildings, etc. It occurs worldwide.

When does organized stalking occur?

Organized stalking is 24/7 and can last for years, even decades.

Aren’t targeted individuals paranoid schizophrenic or conspiracy theorists?

It is possible some TIs have a mental illness; however, there is a difference between mental illness and hypervigilance. One illness, schizophrenia is typically diagnosed between the ages of 16-30 and is rare after 45. Also, it simply is not possible for thousands of individuals to have the same or similar delusions.

What can I do to help?

First, do not participate in organized stalking. Second, call your elected officials, and ask them to oppose non-consensual human experimentation, torture (“no touch torture”), and surveillance without a warrant. Third, ask Congress Members to investigate organized stalking and its potential link to intelligence agencies.

Where can I get more information?

Many TIs have blogs to read, but a disinformation campaign makes it difficult to determine fact from fiction. YouTube videos and books are other sources. While stalking centers do not yet have information, bullying organizations may.

Have you been called schizophrenic? Guess what? It only affects those 16-30 and is rare after 45.

If someone is calling or diagnosing you as paranoid schizophrenic, here is information you can share with them:

1. Here is information from a bullying site that distinguishes mental illness from hyper-vigilance (from bullying, stalking, harassment, etc.). Overcome bullying

2. According to NIH, schizophrenia occurs between ages 16 – 30. After 45, it’s RARE.

When does schizophrenia start and who gets it?

Schizophrenia affects men and women equally. It occurs at similar rates in all ethnic groups around the world. Symptoms such as hallucinations and delusions usually start between ages 16 and 30. Men tend to experience symptoms a little earlier than women. Most of the time, people do not get schizophrenia after age 45.3 Schizophrenia rarely occurs in children, but awareness of childhood-onset schizophrenia is increasing.4,5

3. Here is evidence from NSA whistle blower John St. Clair Akwei that the NSA developed technology – in the 90s!!! – that can be confused with schizophrenia –

John St. Clair Akwei vs. NSA

Mind games – Washington Post, 2007

This article is from 2007, but it stills sounds relevant and it does not write TIs off as mentally ill. Also, it’s from the Washington Post, so if you need a credible source, you can use this. (Why not send the article to your Congress Members with a summary of your experience?)

Mind games

But, given the history of America’s clandestine research, it’s reasonable to assume that if the defense establishment could develop mind-control or long-distance ray weapons, it almost certainly would. And, once developed, the possibility that they might be tested on innocent civilians could not be categorically dismissed.”

and

Concerns about microwaves and mind control date to the 1960s, when the U.S. government discovered that its embassy in Moscow was being bombarded by low-level electromagnetic radiation. In 1965, according to declassified Defense Department documents, the Pentagon, at the behest of the White House, launched Project Pandora, top-secret research to explore the behavioral and biological effects of low-level microwaves. For approximately four years, the Pentagon conducted secret research: zapping monkeys; exposing unwitting sailors to microwave radiation; and conducting a host of other unusual experiments (a sub-project of Project Pandora was titled Project Bizarre). The results were mixed, and the program was plagued by disagreements and scientific squabbles. The “Moscow signal,” as it was called, was eventually attributed to eavesdropping, not mind control, and Pandora ended in 1970. And with it, the military’s research into so-called non-thermal microwave effects seemed to die out, at least in the unclassified realm.

But there are hints of ongoing research: An academic paper written for the Air Force in the mid-1990s mentions the idea of a weapon that would use sound waves to send words into a person’s head. “The signal can be a ‘message from God’ that can warn the enemy of impending doom, or encourage the enemy to surrender,” the author concluded.

In 2002, the Air Force Research Laboratory patented precisely such a technology: using microwaves to send words into someone’s head. That work is frequently cited on mind-control Web sites. Rich Garcia, a spokesman for the research laboratory’s directed energy directorate, declined to discuss that patent or current or related research in the field, citing the lab’s policy not to comment on its microwave work.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed for this article, the Air Force released unclassified documents surrounding that 2002 patent — records that note that the patent was based on human experimentation in October 1994 at the Air Force lab, where scientists were able to transmit phrases into the heads of human subjects, albeit with marginal intelligibility. Research appeared to continue at least through 2002. Where this work has gone since is unclear — the research laboratory, citing classification, refused to discuss it or release other materials.

another quote…

GIRARD’S STORY, HOWEVER STRANGE, reflects what TIs around the world report: a chance encounter with a government agency or official, followed by surveillance and gang stalking, and then, in many cases, voices, and pain similar to electric shocks. Some in the community have taken it upon themselves to document as many cases as possible. One TI from California conducted about 50 interviews, narrowing the symptoms down to several major areas: “ringing in the ears,” “manipulation of body parts,” “hearing voices,” “piercing sensation on skin,” “sinus problems” and “sexual attacks.” In fact, the TI continued, “many report the sensation of having their genitalia manipulated.”

and another…

In general, the outlook for TIs is not good; many lose their jobs, houses and family. Depression is common. But for many at the rally, experiencing the community of mind-control victims seems to help. One TI, a man who had been a rescue swimmer in the Coast Guard before voices in his head sent him on a downward spiral, expressed the solace he found among fellow TIs in a long e-mail to another TI: “I think that the only people that can help are people going through the same thing. Everyone else will not believe you, or they are possibly involved.”

Government surveillance on law-abiding citizens

Source: Wikipedia

Too many people have been spied upon by too many Government agencies and too much information has been illegally collected. The Government has often undertaken the secret surveillance of citizens on the basis of their political beliefs, even when those beliefs posed no threat of violence or illegal acts on behalf of a hostile foreign power. The Government, operating primarily through secret and biased informants, but also using other intrusive techniques such as wiretaps, microphone “bugs”, surreptitious mail opening, and break-ins, has swept in vast amounts of information about the personal lives, views, and associations of American citizens. Investigations of groups deemed potentially dangerous—and even of groups suspected of associating with potentially dangerous organizations—have continued for decades, despite the fact that those groups did not engage in unlawful activity.

Groups and individuals have been assaulted, repressed, harassed and disrupted because of their political views,social believes and their lifestyles. Investigations have been based upon vague standards whose breadth made excessive collection inevitable. Unsavory, harmful and vicious tactics have been employed—including anonymous attempts to break up marriages, disrupt meetings, ostracize persons from their professions, and provoke target groups into rivalries that might result in deaths. Intelligence agencies have served the political and personal objectives of presidents and other high officials. While the agencies often committed excesses in response to pressure from high officials in the Executive branch and Congress, they also occasionally initiated improper activities and then concealed them from officials whom they had a duty to inform.

Governmental officials—including those whose principal duty is to enforce the law—have violated or ignored the law over long periods of time and have advocated and defended their right to break the law.

The Constitutional system of checks and balances has not adequately controlled intelligence activities. Until recently the Executive branch has neither delineated the scope of permissible activities nor established procedures for supervising intelligence agencies. Congress has failed to exercise sufficient oversight, seldom questioning the use to which its appropriations were being put. Most domestic intelligence issues have not reached the courts, and in those cases when they have reached the courts, the judiciary has been reluctant to grapple with them.[74][75]

Responding to authority (or, the perils of obedience)

Community based harassment has also been referred to as “harassment by proxy,” meaning the harassment is carried out by others for the person coordinating the attack. When I wonder why someone would follow these orders, I think of the Yale experiment (or Milgram’s experiment). In it, subjects were asked to give electric shocks to learners who did not answer questions (word pairs) correctly. The shocks were from mild to severe. Milgram found the majority of subjects “willingly” shocked the learners (who were actors that did not actually receive electric shocks). He believed this was due to their strong obedience to authority figures, which overrode their morality and provided them with a sense of not being responsible for their actions, and their desire to leave decision-making to a group or its hierarchy (Wikipedia).

I’m posting information about this study to help TIs understand why folks may participate in community-based harassment and, perhaps, as a tactic to stop harassers. Here are excerpts from a blog (link below):

This is, perhaps, the most fundamental lesson of our study: ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.

Many of the people were in some sense against what they did to the learner, and many protested even while they obeyed. Some were totally convinced of the wrongness of their actions but could not bring themselves to make an open break with authority. They often derived satisfaction from their thoughts and felt that — within themselves, at least — they had been on the side of the angels. They tried to reduce strain by obeying the experimenter but “only slightly,” encouraging the learner, touching the generator switches gingerly. When interviewed, such a subject would stress that he “asserted my humanity” by administering the briefest shock possible. Handling the conflict in this manner was easier than defiance.

The situation is constructed so that there is no way the subject can stop shocking the learner without violating the experimenter’s definitions of his own competence. The subject fears that he will appear arrogant, untoward, and rude if he breaks off. Although these inhibiting emotions appear small in scope alongside the violence being done to the learner, they suffuse the mind and feelings of the subject, who is miserable at the prospect of having to repudiate the authority to his face. (When the experiment was altered so that the experimenter gave his instructions by telephone instead of in person, only a third as many people were fully obedient through 450 volts). It is a curious thing that a measure of compassion on the part of the subject — an unwillingness to “hurt” the experimenter’s feelings — is part of those binding forces inhibiting his disobedience. The withdrawal of such deference may be as painful to the subject as to the authority he defies.

Duty without conflict

The subjects do not derive satisfaction from inflicting pain, but they often like the feeling they get from pleasing the experimenter. They are proud of doing a good job, obeying the experimenter under difficult circumstances. While the subjects administered only mild shocks on their own initiative, one experimental variation showed that, under orders, 30 percent of them were willing to deliver 450 volts even when they had to forcibly push the learner’s hand down on the electrode.

and

The problem of obedience is not wholly psychological. The form and shape of society and the way it is developing have much to do with it. There was a time, perhaps, when people were able to give a fully human response to any situation because they were fully absorbed in it as human beings. But as soon as there was a division of labor things changed. Beyond a certain point, the breaking up of society into people carrying out narrow and very special jobs takes away from the human quality of work and life. A person does not get to see the whole situation but only a small part of it, and is thus unable to act without some kind of overall direction. He yields to authority but in doing so is alienated from his own actions.

Even Eichmann was sickened when he toured the concentration camps, but he had only to sit at a desk and shuffle papers. At the same time the man in the camp who actually dropped Cyclon-b into the gas chambers was able to justify his behavior on the ground that he was only following orders from above. Thus there is a fragmentation of the total human act; no one is confronted with the consequences of his decision to carry out the evil act. The person who assumes responsibility has evaporated. Perhaps this is the most common characteristic of socially organized evil in modern society.

Source: PaulGraham.com

The Milgram study was a landmark study. It was set up to try to answer why so many people “blindly” carry out evil. Most folks believed the number of individuals who would actually use the maximum amp of shock to be low. In actuality, it was quite high (60-some percent). Milgram believed this was due to conformity and obedience. Part of this is because if each individual has only a small role to play, he or she views this as innocuous; although, it plays a small but vital role in producing the overall inhumane outcome.

I mentioned this study to somebody who was playing a part in community harassment. It stopped her in her tracks. She didn’t have an issue with me – in fact, we didn’t know each other. But I knew she was a lemming being used to get to me by my cowardly ex psycho bosses. Some say these folks are given a script to follow – so use fire to fight fire – and use this in your script. Good luck!