It’s most likely going to be my last post. I figured a lot, but it also cost me everything in the end. Was it worth it paying your life for learning the reason for it? I was an idiot for getting myself into some business where I shouldn’t be. At last I learned so much and gained peace of mind. My intuition helped me throughout the ordeal the most, also not fixating on certainty and not making conclusions along the way. Everything is bullshit, but everything is important at the same time. What happened in the very end was surreal and extremely bizarre experience. I can’t even begin to describe what is out there, even people who are targeted will have very hard time understanding it if I told the story and I don’t have enough time. Stage before the last one was most bizarre experience of my life hands down. I can just tell one thing It would for certain debilitate any target, sooner or later.
Reflecting on my blog – quite a bit of content on my blog is the truth, but some of it is probably bullshit. One more thing – term “weapons of mass destruction” should also be considered as NSA linguistic construct to describe and encrypt organized stalking where individual is destroyed by masses. Something like that “Log Cabin Republicans” marketing term – it screams HQ of NSA/CIA (place where surveillance logs are processed, collected, analyzed etc). At the same time in tradition with double plus good times WMD can also describe a weapon that destroys human body weight (mass). Think of the fake scaremongering diseases like cancer/HIV and “abolishment” of death penalty as initiatives that were being used as cover for such scam (weapon). Scam that probably rivals another ongoing scam – global warming. From the looks of the Steve Jobs demise he probably got attacked by weapon of mass destruction. Penn Jillette seems to be under attack. Of course that part also encompasses all those diets and psychiatric traps related to weight loss, healthy eating, organic food, etc. Another option is that WMD can have religious connotations, but it’s hard to say if it’s some secret weapon by those pervertariat NAMBLA card carrying men in black (very interesting story, not to mention that Yokubaitis is lithuanian sounding surname) who hold masses on Sundays or weapon to attack those who hold masses on Sundays or whatever day those masses are held. So it is hard to tell how “Mass Media” is incorporated into this fair of balanced carnival food diet of let them eat yellow cake shaped like loaf of bread and circuses, but you don’t have to be “operation paperclip” rocket scientist to see that it is rotten to the core. Oh and don’t forget that carefully constructed phrase out of GWB mouth “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” – it should be taken more literally. You will not be given time to figure out who is this entity “us” and even if you do figure something you will not be given chance to join “us”. How can you join or be part of something that doesn’t exist or exist only in your imagination – you’re just a potentially dangerous and disposable nut who doesn’t know how things work in real life. Not that any sane and free person would want to be a tool to be used in the hands of others. In caste system you have to be born into it. In mafia (pervertariat) caste system you can be made into it. But it’s probably just a myth. Same as military caste system that is camouflaged as ranks. Nobody really advances in ranks. At the same time in this age of globalization you have to keep in mind that there is only one military in the world (example – they shifted majority of the military industrial complex into private enterprises and contractors so they can share and supply themselves secret military technology worldwide more efficiently) and all those country labels on embassies and consulates doesn’t really mean anything – they are all staffed by that special CIA/UN caste that is above the law. And that caste is being multiplied by algorithm resembling geometric progression – every time they divide or split some country or territory into new entity they establish right away whole new apparatus and staff them with people who have immunity from the law, the practice with embassies seems to be divorced from common sense considering all available advances in telecommunications one of them being full scale holograms. Ambassadors used to be very special people, the position established in the times of uncertainty when no telephones or faxes existed. Their word had as much weight as the king’s. Think about EU countries having embassies in each other countries. Oxymoron-ism on steroids. Same goes for business and world leader travel and meetings, which hasn’t been really reduced at all. So thats seems to be the direction the world is going – serfdom, slavery, etc..
So whole modern history of the past few centuries (maybe all history) should be looked at as something made up to advance some sort of Dr Evil agenda. Complete and utter fraud. In 21st century science, medicine, education has been taken away from people and replaced with con artists, snake oil peddlers, money laundering circuses, degenerate pervertariat attractions and freak shows that is pumped into everyone through MS Windows to your soul. Study history very carefully especially knowing that it has been written by operation paperclip guys, where League of Nations, UN, EU served as cover to coordinate activities. If talking about history one has to realize that Soviet Union collapse shouldn’t be considered the year of 1991 nor 1985 (perestroika), but the year of 1977 when they passed the third constitution and established new class of people (intelligentsia) and started implementing their own version of “British” invasion. Was that constitution by any chance grown in Khrushchev corn field? Don’t worry about repeating anything, worry about that chain on your neck and the chain of command for yanking it. The most obvious thing to start is to dig around that CIA homo Obongos birth certificate and annul all that degenerate change and hope that CIA gestapo continued implementing after that Jeff Gannon lover. Bush, Trump, Sanders, Clintons and any other “doctor” peddling snake oil froth or pride parade from their mouth for the ailing patient – don’t doubt for a second that Lewinsky scandal wasn’t a wag the dog operation to misdirect from his own homosexuality or pedophilia scandal. Gennifer Flowers wag the dog operation was probably concocted to divert attention from very messy Franklin Affair and something resembling homosexual pedophilia prostitution ring in the highest levels of government. Don’t forget that top US politicians and officials quite a few times were photographed sporting strange bruises and black eyes. Notice how neocons shapeshifted and rebranded themselves for Obamas presidency PNAC -> CNAS. Another interesting thing about CIA gestapo linguistics and semantics is the notion that world is bad and needs to be changed and they are some sort of holy prophets, enlightened gurus and saviors that need blank check to work their magic with secret tools, secret operatives and secret operations. Don’t get your hopes up about those dischargers or masked inquisition clowns – they are all part of the dream team gooba-gobble show. Worry about the leaks that pervertariat kept to themselves and at this point in information society one should assume that all those classified secrets are magically synced through rainbows in the clouds over that stonewall – real encryption is something entirely different and all those leaks are just worthless clouds of ink that octopus had to “leak” to get away. One has to look at modern politics and lawmakers as one would look at WWE. It’s not for entertainment purposes if house always wins, unless it’s purpose has been rewired with a goal to entertain the enemy at your expense. So yes – ketchup is not a vegetable no matter what that CIA homo said and at the same time deficits and debts do matter. He and the rest of CIA homos probably studied in that Stalin think tank where they have to learn one and only rule: “Death solves all problems – no man, no problem”, not to mention that it also echoes concepts of that banking system concocted by psychopaths of the land where their hands get red vivisecting little boys private parts. If you think it can’t happen to your kids – it’s wishful thinking for example the overwhelmingly majority catholic country of Philippines has military squads that goes through schools and circumcises boys right in the classrooms while on paper it’s presented as medical mission “charity” sponsored by such CIA rainbow organizations like rotory international or as it rather should be called international organized crime syndicate where it’s just one of the systems in the system of systems and participating CIA wolves in sheep clothing aka Christian missionaries (same case with cover any other faith flavor, charities or NGO’s – there are no charities in the world except Kevorkian inspired grateful deathwish clockwork bloodorange concentrated juice futures trading places machines) and apparently employing some mind control weapons against little children, not to mention bringing heavy weaponry to help market unmarketable. Of course labeling and labels is something that exist only for making a fool of yourself or someone else so be careful of reusing anything you find anywhere. After huge recent influx of Borats into Lithuania they hurriedly passed the law prohibiting female circumcision as if it’s related to refugees, but in reality trying squirt existing laws about protection, mistreatment and mutilation of children or humans all together by using divide and conquer approach. Circumcision is not religious ritual – it’s more like a branding of the herd procedure that is related to very sickening issues. So how about that debt, NASA?
If you are harassed acoustically one thing that you want to do is try document it for proof that you’re not crazy. It’s probably the only thing that target has to hang onto when confronted with undue influence. You shouldn’t divulge any of your methods or ideas to even most closest person you’ve got on this earth – as they will be used to destroy you, before you can complete the puzzle that appears to be unsolvable so far (just like three card monte or cups and balls con). If I appear to be contradicting myself since I’m “divulging” something in this blog – you’re mistaken. Problem is that most of the targets are not technologically savvy, or at least do not even know where to begin looking for help or solutions. I’m not talking about solutions here – it’s about deciphering some aspects of the harassment that are not obvious to average person. There are many many types of microphones, but for what is worth you might already have some tools to begin with. If you own a fairly new computer with a decent multimedia soundcard you can try to make a recording with your laptop. It doesn’t really matter how you acquire the recording: dictaphone, contact microphone, directional shotgun microphone, laptop microphone, lapel pin mic, etc. You also want to get decent pair of headphones that do a good job reproducing lower frequencies.
You will have a sound file that you want to examine. There is a great tool that is free and open source – available for windows, linux and mac: audacity. Audacity can be used to make a recording, to edit it and to listen to the recording. Some things I recorded with my laptop microphone it’s easier to explain as paranormal than harassment, where speech of two or more people were recorded as loud as if the person were in the same room, but strangely enough I heard nothing while it was recording, but object of their conversation was related to the situation. They weren’t trying to create effect of “hearing voices” since conversation was candid, so obviously their equipment was not working as it should and if it did work as expected it means they were trying to create effect I can’t explain. For what we know it could be something like this:
So any speaker in your apartment becomes harassment device and each of us have plenty of them: ipods, tv’s, radios, cellphones, laptops, stereos, clocks, toys, appliances like washers, microwaves, dryers, stove etc…
In my case I discovered that there are multi-layered type of noise harassment: constant and persistent projection of derogatory words along with my name embedded into almost undetectable environment sound. I speculate that it would be detectable by a person that is hyper-aroused and hyper vigilant (as I was at the some point of campaign). It was almost unbearable for me and would drive anyone crazy. I no longer can hear it in the environment, but if I listen through the recording it’s easy to detect. If I enhance current audio recording with audacity effect filters and do some tinkering It’s should be quite obvious even for non-sensitized ear. This hum is projected for most part 24/7. Keep in mind that I’m fully aware of EVP and even though I might be mistaken in some cases I believe for most part I’m correct, not to mention I have a evidence of people making such recording 16 months ago. Only now I’m connecting the dots.
Another interesting thing that I noticed is pairing of two stimuli’s: loud bangs together with derogatory or threatening sound bites and names. In essence you hear a bang, but bang also contains threatening word[s]. So bang serves three purposes: it gets your attention, it masks the message (you can’t decipher it simply by listening at that time), it delivers the message subconsciously, not to mention thought stopping and disruption effects. By recently listening earlier recordings (from a year ago) I noticed the pairing when it was performed by some kids on the street. The banging wasn’t so prominent mostly as attention grabbing and derogatory message followed. Another thing about such bangs is that it’s very easy to perform targeting anywhere without any high tech stuff – TI can be walking on the street and stalker can bang on the fence few times to disturb you even without message making you wonder if it’s natural occurrence or incident of harassment. Of course word “disturb” is something that I used in the mildest sense imaginable in comparison to what person really goes through.
Another thing that I noticed by listening recordings from last year is the way of creation of illusion that everyone is talking about you. My windows are next to sidewalk and if someone was passing by and they are talking between themselves they’d inject some comment into my environment as if people talking about me. I noticed that when kid voice was manning the mic and two grannies were passing by and he injected comment that was suppose to startle me, but his voice didn’t really fit in with their voices. Another thing to keep in mind that if I say kid voice it doesn’t mean it’s a kid who is speaking: voice can be masked and transformed very easily.
By trial and error and pure accident I discovered some interesting things. For one I no longer believe they are using through wall radar as some very specific comments clearly point to hidden cameras, but that again is just pure speculation.
A few pointers about audacity. Selecting portion of audio and pressing CTR-B will create a label that you can name and easily find later. High and low pass filters are very handy narrowing voice frequencies. Noise filter is very useful too.
I’ve been somewhat skeptical about widespread assaults of electromagnetic/microwave weapons, but now this belief got shaken. I’m not really sure what it is, but it doesn’t look like something that would be generated by some sort of normal human activity or home appliance. I was recording acoustical aspect of harassment, but after the night I noticed some very strange and intense blocks of signals in the top channel that wasn’t even supposed to be recording (mono microphone). Bottom channel is acoustic noise that got picked up. Recording device was set up above my bed. It was middle of the night – there was nothing turned on in the room except laptop computer :
I set up recording and went to bed. 15 minutes later something got turned on for about 30 minutes. It was repeated 2 more times. So these 3 top blocks on timeline are very strange. I’ve always was suspect about them waiting for me to go to bed no matter how late I go to sleep only to move something (clearly audible). Before I speculated that it’s related to psychological aspect of creating disturbance related to sleep cycle, but now I’m thinking about some more sinister motives being involved. It didn’t make sense if thinking in terms of payback for effort ratio – where you wait diligently until someone goes to bed (I started to go to bed later and later) in order to move or switch on something only to mess with someone’s head.
SPECTROGRAM (looks pretty)
ZOOMED IN (you can judge zoom level by timeline on top)
It was detected by instrument that is not designed for this task, so it should be considered interference. How to interpret this? The dominant frequency is about 1000 Hz and recording plays as annoying very high pitch signal, although I don’t think it was audible in the room.
Any thoughts? If you need more data or sample, let me know.
Now it’s a bit different as this case study is not about the victim, but about someone who seems to be advocating organized harassment or as he (John Robb) calls “coercive game” to wage new form of disruptive non-violent protest against the powerful, but undemocratic cliques by targeting individuals who belong to these circles, but stay under radar of democratic process. I don’t think the object of the attack matters – it’s the method of the attack what matters. Instead of exposing something they go undercover and “fix” situation as they see it fit their agenda whatever it might be. Since everything in their game is secret they are themselves the definition of word “undemocratic”. His motivation appears to be driven not so much about issues, but his vision for the future of the warfare. He is military strategists, astronautical engineer, “black” counter-terrorism expert, former USAF pilot in special operations. He boasts that government spent $2.5 million on his education.
What could be behind all of this?:
He is spreading these ideas of grassroots terrorism something along the lines like illegal arms trade to his own operatives.
place seeds by giving tools to players that are independent from government/military and watch them misinterpret, mutate, make moves and take advantage of their mistakes or “victories”
diversion – group who uses such tactics could be used as scapegoat and blamed for other instances of similar harassment
clandestine method to transmit of information to operatives and agents
all of the above – tip of the iceberg
He coined a new term for this kind of warfare – open source warfare. It appears as if it’s just another term for fourth generation warfare; other term that are used for this are wikiwar, netwar, irregular warfare, etc. I’d rather call it scumbag warfare or con-ware. He wrote a book on a subject called “Brave New War” that reached 25th place on amazon best seller list. He simplifies the concept to be as adaptable feasible template in form of a game. He is dumbing down advanced academic military concepts for less intelligent paramilitary operatives, thus enabling (his?) movement to target the individual and their family with:
Stalking and harassment. In the street, at a restaurant, or at school.
Identity theft. From financial to professional. Publication of private information.
Denial of communication. Flood phones, e-mail accounts, voice-mail, etc.
In short, any online group of sufficient size could launch an effort like this. However, to really zoom the effort and turn it into a coercive tool, one modification should be made. It should operate as an online game. Here’s a potential template:
Experience points for accumulating information. Pics snapped with a cell phone camera. Points for financial account information. Etc. Experience points translate into basic improvements in status which improves the weight of a contributor’s vote (on the next target, the quests to open, etc.).
Quests. Equivalent to counting coup on a tribal enemy. Draining the target’s bank account. Gaining control of a voicemail system. Tagging the target with paint. Disabling the target’s car. Quest achievement translates into special recognition (emblems, new tools, positions of leadership, etc.).
Competition. Contests between individuals or groups to complete a given task within an alloted time period. As in first to….
Think in terms of this game running as a darknet (not visible to anyone but invited players and only those that have deeply enmeshed themselves in the game).
One only has to wonder how much of his theories is just theory. If any of that he observed in real life? His vision for the future is very bleak:
Security will become a function of where you live and whom you work for, much as health care is allocated already. Wealthy individuals and multinational corporations will be the first to bail out of our collective system, opting instead to hire private military companies, such as Blackwater and Triple Canopy, to protect their homes and facilities and establish a protective perimeter around daily life. Parallel transportation networks–evolving out of the time-share aircraft companies such as
Warren Buffett’s NetJets–will cater to this group, leapfrogging its members from one secure, well-appointed lily pad to the next. Members of the middle class will follow, taking matters into their own hands by forming suburban collectives to share the costs of security–as they do now with education–and shore up delivery of critical services. These “armored suburbs” will deploy and maintain backup generators and communications links; they will be patrolled by civilian police auxiliaries that have received corporate training and boast their own state-of-the-art emergency-response systems. As for those without the means to build their own defense, they will have to make do with the remains of the national system. They will gravitate to America’s cities, where they will be subject to ubiquitous surveillance and marginal or nonexistent services. For the poor, there will be no other refuge.
That part about work being foundation of security sounds like that infamous writing “arbeit macht frei” on Auschwitz gates (the meaning of that Nazi writing is very similar to “freedom is not free” that has been used in USA for quite some time now) .. on the other hand whole modern world starts to resemble that social model – it’s like that caste system from Aldous Huxley “Brave New World”, which seems just to be copied from real life Indian caste system. In reality work itself is not important at all just like any other possible initiator of pride – it’s just a tool of social control for those who are made to follow orders ordered, implied, imagined or otherwise – the security provided by work is illusionary. Caste system follows anonymous rules: it doesn’t forgive, doesn’t forget, expect it. It also follows very secretive and secure protocols – everything is on need to know basis. Don’t assume that if you’re useful to someone at the moment it’s because of something you know or your special skills – it could be just because there is no safe way to get rid of you at the moment. In other words your pride is being worked on by keeping you on shorter leash than those friends that are allowed to roam free.
Another point one has to make is infusion of crematoriums into the culture of western world – eg in Lithuania foreign company recently built a crematorium and started selling it’s stocks on NASDAQ – they already building a next one. Not to mention that they’d changed Lithuanian thermal plants from heating oil to bio-fuel aka wood. So all those hundreds of heating plants can double as underground crematoriums. Of course there is very intensive deforestation policy in play. Look at England – it’s a pale shadow from the times of what has been described in books about Robin Hood. It’s pretty much just dead land slowly turning into Arabian desert. Don’t forget all those leaked documents about those color coded CIA secret prisons in eastern Europe. Lithuania had “violet” color code – coincidentally it was theme color of another hostile CIA military psyop called “the way of courage” that riled whole lithuania with “clockwork orange” eye clamp type stories and imageries of pedophilia. It left lots of corpses behind, not to mention they formed a political party and gained seats in parliament. Nobody could find any of those CIA prisons even though there were the biggest lookers out there looking for them. For what we know those documents could be describing not black site prisons, but safari type concentration camps encapsulating whole countries with locals as free range inmates/targets. Where numbered ID tattoos have been replaced by individually numbered digital communication devices targets pay money to carry with them 24/7.
Another strange point I’d like to make that is related to crematoriums. Not sure about other Lithuanian towns and cities, but there are very strange discrepancies with common sense if I look at our little town’s cemetery and compare the land mass area with graves that it is occupying now and beginning of the independence. During past 25 years of litvicide it has grown 3 times. The town had old german cemetery and this new one was probably started when lithuanians (1918) or soviets (1945) moved in or maybe it was even started by germans themselves. Of course one has to keep in mind that it doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone buried is from local population – it could also be used as dumping ground from other places not to mention soprano type rainbow muscular boys from energy department (there is only one in the world if thats what you’re asking) having tight grip on waste management and landfills. Don’t assume anything, but security related incident or war rape if you see lisping slimies going out with women as one can witness on all those porn tube videos – not a straight man in sight. Those porn tube sites do not make any sense if looking from any point of view except one that is hard to express without compromising some very special operations. So crematoriums is just evasive action – think about modern Japan that cremates 99.9% of all corpses.
There could be a lot bigger fishes being fried eg consider that Kissinger said in 2012 that Israel will cease to exist in 10 years time it means Israel has about 6 years left to go. At the same time lots of functions from Israel are being moved elsewhere and Lithuania seems to being shaped and molded into being one of those places if not the main base. First they modified the core law about citizenship and minister of the interior issued thousands and thousands of Lithuanian passports to foreign nationals. If you look at lithuanian jewish community website – first goal is to bring jew diaspora back to Lithuania. Of course it’s like evil Borat type joke – you would be hard pressed to find a single jew in the whole country of Israel or the world for that matter – labels do not mean anything except deception. You can hardly see Lithuanian sounding name in the business, entertainment, media or politics. Most of the names are foreign, taken from lithuanian dictionary, two syllable surnames (used to be very rare – none of them are of lithuanian origin – at best of nickname origin), lithuanianized made up words, catchy and short porn/MIB/anonymous type names, etc.. If you see some older businesses registered under such names – it’s just magic of Orwellian CIA bookkeeping of KGB archives (they took control of those archives 25 years ago and kept the money (info) to themselves just like all other more recent pervertariat leakers snowballing and stonewalling those discharges between themselves and their operatives as weapon of kompromat until it’s juiced up dry while all along the scam screaming about being not worshiped enough). Not to mention they changed the hundreds years national custom about how married women surnames are called. It appears they are trying to fuse and herd lithuanian and latvian human terrains in this aspect, not to mention it can be used as weapons for various scams and cons including this freshly baked transgender shapeshifting con. Another thing they added new letters (XQW) to alphabet so they can write American last names on Lithuanian passports and documents. At the same time there are “professors” and “experts” that are agitating to stop using some Lithuanian letters. 15 or so years ago they created Balto-Slavic language family group and placed Lithuanian language into it, which was probably preparatory work towards chocholocaust operation in Ukraine. Baltic languages have nothing to do with Slavic languages. They were working very hard in the media and social media create some sort of weird brotherly love communistic associations between two nations. Don’t think for a second that Russia was acting in the interests of Russia. They already proved with their involvement in Syria – they are just another CIA base. If Lithuania was about 90% Lithuanian just 25 years ago, so now it looks like statistics have been turned upside down. Of course militarization of the country is the main priority (it provides solid cover for all the shady business) – they instated mandatory conscription service and just like in Israel they are doing very intensive fear mongering policy. There was a case there vice-minister of culture was caught using forged high school diploma and thrown out from the government. There was one interesting psyop in 2014 that was widely presented in the media – they used NATO airplanes to bring Syrian refugees to Lithuania by using Lutheran church as cover. They explained these are Christians facing prosecution there, but after they brought them to local church every single one of them took off their shoes. They even had a website to document their adventures (sirai.lt), but unexpectedly they dropped it. At the same time military seems to be resembling French Foreign Legion – there was a story in the media where guy who didn’t speak a word Lithuanian, claimed Lithuanian heritage even though he was from Mexico who had Spanish and Mexican passports volunteer for the army – he rescinded his old passports, was issued Lithuanian citizenship and was accepted into Lithuanian forces. Maybe it was just some sort of rainbow psyop where story in the media was used as cover up and at the same time as signal/advertising/marketing campaign for those in the know – the guy looked 100lbs overweight, was speaking in “elegant” manner and was wearing a bow-tie (story is here: 1 and 2 ; for video remove archive.org part from url – notice how they changed the title in 1984 fashion as time progressed). Moved massive quantities of military hardware and foreign troops under cover of constant military exercises. It resembles buildup to Iraq war, only in this case they will probably try to repeat “6 day war” scenario and 50 years of black budget laundering follow up. Notice Israel/Palestine issues no longer an issue as if it’s somehow resembles make believe whack-a-mole type communicating vessels. So boratlandia recently opened embassy and a year later started very massive campaign in the media blaming Lithuania and Lithuanians for holocaust, not to mention they started doing holocaust pride parades, forcing local schools and children to participate in their orwellian events, etc. It’s strange thing since such word didn’t even exist in Soviet history books, not to mention that it goes against that Rest In Peace clause. It was explained in more inclusive manner. Very disrespectful towards dead – they treat them like zombies and ride them like donkeys. At the same time they revealed inside joke that comes with this nasty trick where they can use local population nationalism and Machiavellism to signal and communicate between them anything in the open, just like magic. So called jewish community (who really pocketed the money?) started arranging compensations for the nationalized real estate right away after break up of Soviet Union. They were paid and such scam wasn’t supposed to happen anywhere. Nowadays the israel ambassador comes to our little town and starts explaining how he has some magic Orwellian history records about jews owning 40 prime real estate objects before war even though it was German land for ages, until some weird gang of dozen “Lithuanians” came and annexed it back in 1918. Another interesting troops on the ground evidence is that they secured multi-million Euro funding from Lithuanian budget and started paramilitary nationwide emergency volunteer force modelled after United Hatzalah. I guess it comes in very handy when arranging those death squad suicide psyops, meshing exercises and real life scenarios, not to mention the media articles about Israeli special forces living in Lithuania and waiting for signals to attack Hamas (maybe in internal Mossad or CIA documents Lithuania goes by the name of “Hamas Stronghold” for money funneling, laundering or other purposes?). Lithuanian military started creating psyop batallions in 2008 and by the year 2013 they had 3 of them. Similar story with cimic and humint areas. Of course it shouldn’t be looked at as presented – more like something about Iraq and creating and training national Iraqi military and transferring capabilities to home bred and grown “locals”. If talking about psyop one can’t forget that one factoid about Breivik from Norway who came to Lithuania in person to open bank account in Lithuanian bank Snoras. Bank folded right after Breivik’s terror acts. BTW word “snoras” means falling icicles/snow or avalanche in swedish language. Lots of those boratlandia operatives (should be looked at as biological weapons – they can kill any human with bare hands) here have established martial arts clubs. Of course you shouldn’t make mistake and not look at this as something impossible to look at without transcending it – you can’t grab water without freezing it especially if that water being water that is being used to water-board you. Of course you have to know what you’re doing – you might end up as frozen block of ice yourself. There are unlimited amounts of money stashed all over the world and millions of Alibabas running the world laundering it under various covers. Think of UAE – it’s another CIA “multicultural” base where almost every one of 10 million residents is expat, but using slightly different religion as cover. I just barely touched the geopolitical issues and internal issues that are very obvious for native Lithuanian – in any case they really had to thin out Lithuanian “human terrain” for this operation, at the same time they revealed something about linguistic aspect of this operation. It could be two options – Lithuanian language also used to serve as some sort of internal communication language in CIA or some sort of CIA’s offshoot rogue group aka AL-qaeda; second option is that they have linguistic capabilities that nobody even dreamed of. I think similar operations are ongoing elsewhere. Official statistics and media keep trumping about shrinking Lithuanian population (usually they blame immigration), but reality is entirely different unless they are doing updates about progress of warfare operations by using “us” vs “our” encryption. Lets take my district as example: in Soviet times the population was 40K. During the independence they split the district in two administrative districts and one has population of45K and another 15K. Lets take another CIA scam called Red Cross and their local chapter where they distribute food packages to the needy (Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived ). Each time they do this they have all these photo-ops in the local media and they claim they serve from about 6K to 10K of local people. If you calculate the total weight of the whole shipment that needs to be transported, stored and distributed it adds up to 40-60 tons while in reality they have this little closet space with a few shifty eyed “volunteers” doing photo-ops. Some of them that were captured standing in line I see shopping in local supermarket for food – they do not speak lithuanian language, dressing very sharp (not deprived at all) and using store gift cards as cash. If you use just a bit of math how much time they would need to serve each and everyone of those people it right away blows into your face one more time.
Take one minute and watch this video about this CIA tool describing the way she is working towards some sort of final solution for Europeans:
In another post Robbs further expands on coercion and targeting and homemade microwave weapons. It is as he could always offer plausible deniability saying he is just envisioning possible scenarios on being ready against future of terrorism, but there is no sign he would rather prefer current way of life over this ugly paranoid future where people are being cooked alive by microwaves and it’s hard to tell if his ideas are based on practice/experience. On the contrary he calls current way of life as “failed state of affairs” and appears to imply that his vision is a solution. He doesn’t expand why it will be so dangerous outside the cities and communities. He stresses about bailing out of collective system, but the only way to be safe in his future is to be part of collective system (resilient community). Will there be zombie armies roaming the countryside? Is this future based on prison gang mentality, where inmate is forced to join the gang for protection.
Another unrelated, but interesting factoid – John Robb also claims that he was running company that was the originator of RSS. So he probably knew Aaron Swartz who allegedly committed suicide. Aaron confirms in his blog that John Robb was CEO of Userland software at the time and he was reading and commenting about AAron’s blog.
I don’t know how much of that is true, but if it is – it shows enormous power in the hands of people like that to influence and shape society and future as we know it.
World recognized technology analyst. John led the move to cover Internet technologies at Forrester Research in 1995. His research provided many of the company’s top ideas and his service generated $5 m in revenue during his first year. Every Internet company that launched during those early years met with John.
From his interview on techcrunch (probably most revealing sound-bite about psychopaths with unlimited funds gloating about being free to roam the world unchallenged):
Systems disruption is how individuals and small groups can topple critical networks with very small attacks. These attacks are so successful–I have plenty of examples–they can generate returns on investment over one million to one! This area of my work has lots of fans in US special operations, the CIA, the NSA, guerrilla groups around the world.
Just to recap a bit. This is the first instance of coming up of someone who is advocating organized harassment. His proposed targets are rich/powerful people (just like himself), but how often do rich and powerful get gangstalked, where stalking is solely for disruption. I guess for them it might be form of amusement if someone tries to play this game – having information superiority the only outcome for adversary is something along the lines the goat climbing the steep mountain and eagle watching him ready to push him off the cliff at any moment. So I’m sitting here dumbfounded. Maybe I completely misunderstood something, but why isn’t this guy being housed in Guantanamo? Maybe that Guantanamo place is something entirely different – not a prison, but safehouse for extracted CIA black ops operatives or some sort of black budget medical experimentation laboratory?
Another thing to keep in mind that cyber currency aka bitcoin should also be considered as part of this operation. It’s hard to tell what exactly it represents, but most likely it should be looked at like casino gambling tokens (of course they do represent real money as long as casino says so). It’s hard to speculate how and if the process of “mining” might be connected to financial and banking system – maybe it’s used to tie lose ends – transferring funds into new system. Think of it as financial landfill used to hide lose ends and wash blood from the hands. You have to keep in mind that this brave war of theirs generates enormous loads of second hand clothes, appliances, real estate, used cars, inventory, etc. Imagine those photograph of piles of clothes and jewelry in nazi concentration camps like Auschwitz. Now think of just this particular one logistic center for that CIA organization called “HUMANA people to people” that they built in Lithuania (don’t forget to check their new digs in Mexico – it’s as if Dr. Evil commissioned designers from Scientology department). They process 60 semi-trailer truck loads of used clothes every week. I assume these clothes are brought from abroad. It operates under some enhanced secrecy – at the grand opening the journalists weren’t allowed to take photos inside. There are many such “vintage” logistic/processing centers in Lithuania. Lithuania is also major hub for used cars that serves markets as far away as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, etc.. If you walk down the street in any Lithuanian city – it’s filled with stores that sell used clothes and merchandise. These TV shows (aka Storage Wars, Storage Hunters, Baggage Hunters, etc) about bidding on unpaid storage lockers should also be considered as military psychological operation that is designed to misdirect from what is really going on. Microsoft, Ebay should also be looked as possible tool of this war that was designed with this operation in mind, especially considering Microsoft/Ebay founder’s background and their activities after the exit.
There was the story on the day of 9/11 where some people were caught dancing and celebrating the attack. Of course the public wasn’t allowed to see or examine any real evidence from this incident, considering the reports that they were taking jubilant selfies with burning wtc in background. Don’t make mistake to believe that these people are jewish or israelis or mossad or even that such event ever took place. Think of prequel of Borat who can be all he can be in the army of one. Those moving companies can serve as temporary storage and logistic in brave war like this. Think of that hostile brave war like operation depicting “moving company” in that movie “breakdown” from 1997. Of course thats boots on the ground part. Whole thing is managed with implemented social mechanism that is watched very closely – troopers do not have lots of freedom to operate except follow orders.
You can’t assume anything but military deception in those DIA’s clandestine service promotional posters that were released with very strange slogans “you could be anybody anywhere” and “you speak the language and live the culture” that kind of hints at “gift of tongues” and shape-shifting superpower capabilities. Nobody recruits spies with posters. It was a psyop. Of course there is no smoke without fire, unless we are talking about something unknown, secretive, hostile, deceptive, etc… In that case it could be anything and should be treated as such – someone who is blowing smoke into everyone eyes, of course the fire could be under that cultural melting pot designed to cook you alive where you in grateful dead fashion acquired the kettle from your own savings, chopped the wood from your own backyard, hauled water yourself and jumped in just like in waterpark ride expecting something wonderful to happen.
This case grabbed some public attention since victim (Lawrence Guzzino) was able to generate some publicity for his ordeal. Targeted individual/gang stalking/organized stalking websites like to point to this as evidence of police admitting of being aware of gangstalking. (some assumptions in this post might be inaccurate as I’m doing my best to trying to understand what happened only using info I found on the internet)
After more than a year of being gangstalked Lawrence Guzzino contacted the local media (Foxnews affiliate) and they took him seriously. They published a story and video report (Jan 29, 2011), where they interviewed not only him, but police officer as well who confirmed that “gangstalking” is growing problem and existed before Internet. It’s not clear if there was any police report filed. He said that Facebook and Twitter made it a lot easier to execute such crimes. They didn’t interview any neighbors who allegedly were harassing him or named any names. They used term “gangstalking” to define the phenomena of victim being followed around and systematically terrorized. Lawrence even climbed on the roof demonstrating how he has been harassed even in his own home at night, how he was afraid to go out play tennis or ping-pong. He even started crying explaining how this induced paranoia devastating his life and the relationship with family.
What reporter didn’t do:
Didn’t interview the wife/girlfriend of the Lawrence or children (He mentioned that this ordeal strained his relationship)
Didn’t interview any neighbors if anyone was bothered by the music that Lawrence assumed was the reason for harassment. It appears he had a wife or girlfriend (it’s not clear if they are married since her last name isn’t the same, but some sites mention that she sometimes uses his last name) and 4 kids.
Didn’t contact local neighborhood watch captain (if there is neighborhood watch)
Didn’t check how loud is his music or at what times does Guzzino plays his music. Why does he listen to the music at night? Doesn’t the music bother the rest of Guzzino family? He has small children himself. Was he trying to drown some sort of noise harassment?
He mentioned one of the reasons for his harassment is that he is outspoken. Is he outspoken about some issues, topics, politics, injustice?
I assume police did background check of Lawrence Guzzino at the time of the interview and it probably came out clean as they definitely would have mentioned such fact to the reporter. So how was Lawrence able to gain attention of news reporter? First he was credible – if you look at his resume from 2004 he has masters degree in mathematics, highly skilled programmer and computer security expert. Obviously guy is very intelligent. He likes computers, network security, typical geek. But not geeky – he also mentions working in offshore oil rigs as roughneck, engineer, roustabout, supply vessels, etc. His wife/gf Patrice Theriot principal engineer for the city public works and utilities department, she is successful professional and attractive woman. His father was a veteran of the United States Navy, active volunteer with police department. They live in a nice neighborhood, decent house – according to real estate records they bought it in 2002 around the time their 4th child was born (they moved from multi-family unit). They should be making good money between them two. Maybe wife was unavailable for comment as they were separated at the time? But Lawrence mentioned that they “following us” as if it affects other members of the family too. So news report didn’t try to help Guzzino to patch any differences between the neighbors, but used his story to spread the message of this gangstalking phenomena. Investigative reporting, it wasn’t. He was more like a poster child to put a face on gangstalking.
OK fast forward 11 months and Lawrence arrested and charged of possession of controlled substance. Bails, bonds, paroles, rearrests followed, most recent being just 4 weeks ago on Jan 09, 2013 for probation violation (website down). So now he is convicted felon. Formally processed, in the criminal justice system. What would happen now if he contacted local news complaining of community harassment?
At least one of his arrests (March 21, 2012) also generated media attention since it was described as bomb scare, with bomb squad and explosive detection equipped with X-ray robot dispatched. From these news reports we find that Lawrence is convicted of arson even though none of the booking, mugshot, sheriff sites show any cases of arson. I tried to search news and police reports that would tie Guzzino to any sort of arson in that time-frame in that area – I couldn’t find anything. The only charge is “controlled substance” (alcohol) and apparent parole violations. If you read all these reports on the event – it seems that Lawrence Guzzino was traveling in his Honda CRV (I guess same Honda we see in the first video), full of personal items and probably camping gear – was he already homeless? He stopped on the side of the road for the nap. Someone reported him to police as suspicious. Police responded and found in the car stuffed with personal items: “anarchist cookbook”, tied road flairs, camping gas canisters and capped pipes. He also had warrant for his arrest, some reports only say he was on probation and was arrested for possession of shotgun shells. Some reports only say that he was taken into custody. Maybe it wasn’t arrest afterall as there are no mugshots from that time? Various local news media sites reported the incident painting it as apprehension of dangerous felon on the run. Few news sources also mentioned pile of lacy women’s lingerie giving impression of him not only being anarchist in preparation of planning terror attack, but implying he is a pervert too. Overall news reports are quite conflicting on this particular incident. Maybe they try to make it interesting and relevant, but nobody asked Guzzino’s any questions. As convicted arsonist Guzzino would be dangerous to community. Was he placed in some sort of community protection program? Was he under surveillance?
It is very hard to judge the story without Guzzino’s personal take on the story, but if looking from criminology point of view it confirms labeling theory if examining case superficially: once labeled as deviant by society Guzzino adopted criminal lifestyle and became a felon, even though he was a family man with children, wife, living American dream, multiple interests, hobbies, extended family and so on. After first news report Lawrence joined facebook, but he didn’t take part or try to document anything that was going on in his life. His wife’s facebook is just as blank.
I wonder if he ever set up any surveillance him being tech savvy and all. Did he provide any of the evidence to the news reporter?
This article on two competing Watsonville neighborhood watch groups is interesting to read even though there is nothing that would put Guzzino as possible target on their list.
I have to admit I like concept of symbolic interactionism that sociology/criminology uses as one of the theories to describe and peer into any social situation without prejudice. The mind that was able to come up with had to be free. If I didn’t know better I’d say Mead was watching stars in the night sky and feeling minuscule or doing some sort of drugs. Symbolic interactionism is just a theory, enlightened mind trying to convey something. I guess this brilliance rubs off in some way providing a glimpse into how relative is the meaning of it all where we struggle with pain. None of the theories can encompass gestalt of life, but they can be useful for understanding (self) imposed shackles of life. If just for a moment mind is able to shed constrains of roles, history, education, customs, culture, religion and be free – it’s a great moment.
Following is excerpt from “The Person in Social Psychology” by Vivien Burr.
In order to carry out a role within any social situation, a person must first have some conception of what kind of situation is at hand, since different situations contain different potential roles for participants. The person must therefore define the situation. The definition of the situation is a key concept for symbolic interactionism. People can be expected to behave differently according to whether they define a situation as, for example, ‘a chat with a friend’ or ‘a consultation with a therapist’. But the definition of the situation as it is used in psychology has a one-sided, intra-psychic character. It appears as a cognitive quality of the individual, rather like an attitude or opinion, and is represented as a discrete event; the individual takes a view on ‘what is going on here’ and then acts accordingly. For symbolic interactionism, situations can only ever be mutually defined by the participants involved in them. Furthermore, this definition is constantly under production by all parties, constantly monitored and liable to breakdown. Because of the reciprocal nature of roles, no-one can be sure of acting appropriately or of being allowed to play a particular role unless all share the same definition of the situation. This does not mean that all parties in an interaction somehow mysteriously find themselves agreeing about ‘what is going on here’. There may be conflicting definitions in operation. But if one’s own definition is at odds with that of other participants, this will necessarily have implications for the viability of the roles that they are attempting to play. Thus there will then usually ensue a good deal of effort directed at establishing and maintaining a mutually agreed or negotiated definition, including the use of role-distancing described earlier. is used in psychology has a one-sided, intra-psychic character. It appears as a cognitive quality of the individual, rather like an attitude or opinion, and is represented as a discrete event; the individual takes a view on ‘what is going on here’ and then acts accordingly. For symbolic interactionism, situations can only ever be mutually defined by the participants involved in them. Furthermore, this definition is constantly under production by all parties, constantly monitored and liable to breakdown. Because of the reciprocal nature of roles, no-one can be sure of acting appropriately or of being allowed to play a particular role unless all share the same definition of the situation. This does not mean that all parties in an interaction somehow mysteriously find themselves agreeing about ‘what is going on here’. There may be conflicting definitions in operation. But if one’s own definition is at odds with that of other participants, this will necessarily have implications for the viability of the roles that they are attempting to play. Thus there will then usually ensue a good deal of effort directed at establishing and maintaining a mutually agreed or negotiated definition, including the use of role-distancing described earlier.
Thus, if we encounter a situation in which it is not clear who occupies what positions and plays what roles, we turn our attention to figuring out these matters. We decide who around us has authority over us, to whom we are supposed to address a question, as well as who we are in the eyes of others. And if we find ourselves in a situation that is so ambiguous that there is no structure to it, we create one. A newly formed group, for example, may be quite undifferentiated, but before long some people become leaders and others followers, some are active and some are not, some take on this task and others that one. In short, we look for structure, and where we do not find it, we create it.
But roles and the definition of the situation exist in a chicken-and- egg relationship, so that, although our definition of the situation indicates to us our possible role and its attendant expectations, we also define the situation through our observation of the roles apparently adopted by others. We ourselves help to create that definition through our own adoption of certain postures, in the way we present ourselves – through the role we claim for ourselves in that interaction. A situation is therefore necessarily a socially negotiated event; it cannot exist simply at the level of an individual’s psychology. Roles, too, are never simply prescribed and then enacted. Symbolic interactionism refers to role-making as well as role-taking to emphasise the fluidity and adaptability of the roles we play
I decided to compile a list of through wall listening devices that theoretically could be used to carry out human localization for through wall noise harassment. With multiple contact microphones placed in each room above or below target apartment approximate localization could be accomplished. Human ear can’t accurately detect direction of sound coming from above so effect of being followed in your own apartment could be similar. Microphones probably have to be wireless or multiple people employed. I see a few problems with such devices:
Learning curve (a lot of manpower has to be put into this BS)
Problematic identification of the target among multiple occupants
Probably boring without some sort of visual feedback, at the same time could be advantageous as ambiguity could be used against the target
harder to conceal, messier to implement, more variables to consider
own generated noise and background noise interference – I feel this is the biggest drawback for acoustic sensors. I guess it could be circumvented if sensors are not in the same apartment that carries the noise harassment campaign, thus it becomes even more complicated. Another way to avoid interference is to use doppler stethoscopes/contact microphones.
More affordable and less challenging to acquire such equipment, but still such technology is expensive
Probably possible to defeat with white noise generator
Through wall micro video scope solves a lot of above issues, but its invasive and leaves a chance of discovery. I guess covert cameras/microphones/bugs placed inside apartment would also make such harassment possible, but once again it would be a risky. I speculate that targets apartment probably shouldn’t be compromised so goal of creating illusion of mental illness would be the most obvious conclusion.
This post is just looking at the purchase of through wall radar by town of Frisco, Texas. Town didn’t need to spend any of their own budget money – bill got covered by department of homeland security. Proposal states:
Background Information: The Frisco Police Department submitted and was awarded a grant from the North Central Texas Council of Governments and FY2011 Homeland Security Grant, Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) for a Covert Intelligence Through- Wall radar unit. The acceptance of the UASI (Urban Area Security Initiative) grant will allow for the purchase of a covert intelligence through-wall radar unit(s). The unit(s) will be utilized primarily by the police department’s special operation unit for high risk operations. The unit uses radar technology to see through walls to give covert intelligence of the location and movement of people in situations where it would otherwise be impossible to gain such insight.
Grant is for $45.000 so it’s probably Xaver 400 as it’s FCC certified and in that price range. It’s not the radar purchase that is interesting, but next resolution submitted at the same time for different government grant – agenda resolution 21288 (radar) and 21289 (citizen contact patrol). The only connection between the two are by association, since they’ve been submitted the same day by the same department.
Program proposal sounds very simple. Dedicate officer to area who interacts with residents, learns their problems and helps to solve them. Criminology researcher will conduct surveys at various stages of the project to measure success of the program.
Program is part of Smart Policing Initiative overseen by Center For Naval Analysis. Smart Policing is based on Problem oriented policing and adheres to SARA model: Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment.
Instigating or Precipitating Events: For most of 2009, two of Frisco Police Department’s (FPD) officers conducted an experimental “place-based” policing (in another article is also called “informal”) program at a major problem apartment complex, Stonebrook Village Apartments, resulting in a 22% reduction in crime. That officer was awarded “officer of the year”.
They do not mention what kind of crime he was fighting, but SPI report states that current project is about property crime.
It is section 8 housing projects for low-income residents and naturally such area faces many various problems where officers have their work cut out for them. In their first meeting residents identified many various problems – most about criminology’s “broken windows theory” like public urination, inadequate street lighting, safety of the children, rummaging through garbage, pet waste not picked up, etc. Not criminal issues, more like concerns about livability in the area. It is just as social project as it is police project and hopefully Frisco finest are doing great job to improve that area of the town. You can read documents related to program and there is very little details of substance – the only real crime that they mentioned was identifying and deporting some illegal immigrants. If looking strictly from OS/GS I could think of a few issues with the program, but it would be conspiratorial mindset. One somewhat suspect issue that was raised in the first meeting with residents was “Some concerns expressed about sex offenders and how to identify them and their locations”. Many TI’s are targets of unsubstantiated rumors and it’s not clear who raised these concerns – officers trying to engage the residents to be on the lookout for perverts or some resident who felt as if there are sex offenders in the complex, but they can’t find them. It is interesting how officers answered that question – as answer could be easily shaped by the power of suggestion to create and embed in the minds of attendees profile resembling of someone living in the complex. It is easy to rally people behind threatening causes like this and create a cohesion of a group. But again it just as well could be valid concern raised by some resident.
So the purpose of this post? Just to raise awareness of through wall radar presence in Frisco, TX.
The only journalist that exposed this community protection program was Ruth Teichroeb of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. She wrote series of articles about it. Obviously similar programs exists in other states and countries. Rest of the post consist of selected quotes from articles about this program. Most of the articles are only available through archive.org.
DSHS doesn’t advertise the Community Protection program. The names of residents and their histories are confidential. Even their addresses are confidential. Workers aren’t supposed to tell anyone about the program, according to most company guidelines.
In such cases, Community Protection, when it works, seems appropriate. But one of the state’s criteria in identifying candidates for the program is “other,” which includes “any behavior, which the case manager may feel places a danger to the person or others.”
So some people in the program have no history of any offense whatsoever. Others might need help – but not necessarily this program. One 18-year-old resident, a victim of sexual and physical abuse as a child, is described as “has humor, likes to help.” But there’s nothing else, according to state records. “Real nice guy, but is addicted to drugs & alcohol,” stated another person’s offense description.
But critics of the program say it, in effect, places people under house arrest for something they might do in the future.
“We do have people out there who are essentially under involuntary commitment,” said Ed Holen, the executive director of the Developmental Disabilities Council, a federally mandated watchdog agency. “They haven’t been charged. They haven’t been prosecuted. That’s not fair. And it certainly violates the person’s civil rights.”
Federal officials are investigating reports in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer of abuse of clients and insufficient oversight of the state-run Community Protection Program, which pays contractors an average of $93,000 a year per person to closely supervise dangerous developmentally disabled adults.
The $42 million annual state program contracts with 16 residential vendors to provide 24-hour supervision of 381 clients who need monitoring because they are sex offenders, physically aggressive or set fires. All but two of the contractors are for-profit companies.
The state’s intent is excellent. The Department of Social and Health Services contracts for intensive supervision of developmentally disabled clients whose behavior poses a risk to the community, especially sex-related offenses. Care in the community avoids impersonal institutions.
Louis, the mildly retarded young victim of a sexual predator in Washington State, was put under 24-hour supervision with a for-profit residential care company, partly to protect the community in case Louis’ abuse turned him into an offender, says the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. He never had been in trouble with the law. He’d never threatened the safety of others. Yet the state placed him in the $42 million annual Community Protection Program — the closest thing Washington has to a prison without walls.
Roberts is one of 13 Community Protection clients who have died in the past four years. All but one of the deaths has been blamed on natural causes. An Aacres Landing client died in June 2001, a few months after accidentally setting himself on fire.
DSHS officials refused to release names of those who died, citing federal and state privacy laws, making it nearly impossible to investigate their deaths. Roberts’ death came to light because his co-workers took up a collection to put his obituary in a local newspaper.
The state pays for-profit companies to closely supervise dangerous developmentally disabled people in the community. While the costly program does protect the public in many cases — most of the clients are sex offenders — it has left vulnerable adults at risk of abuse and neglect.
Attack therapy, verbal attack therapy, emotional haircut, confrontation/confrontational therapy, milieu therapy aka intensive peer pressure therapy, synanon “game”, group truth-telling session – these are synonyms of same thing – highly confrontational interaction between the patient and a therapist, or between the patient and fellow patients during group therapy, where the patient may be verbally abused, denounced, ridiculed or humiliated by the therapist or other members of the group. Many of the individuals under such therapy need therapy afterwards for PSTD, depression, anxiety and so on.
What caught my attention is not so much therapy itself as I can see how it could be beneficial in some cases as self-reflection tool, but how wide-spread it is in historical context and forced upon unwitting people – to the point that even religion started solely on such therapy (church of synanon).
It comes from invention of therapeutic community concept during WWII in England military psychiatric hospital during Northfield Experiments. The idea was to try something radically new to enable more veterans to return to battlefield by moving away from monopoly of healing by doctor to healing by communitarian social order. Northfield experiments didn’t seem to use attack therapy, but started the trend of community as doctor where focus shifted from sick person to the group social psychology. Doctors from Northfield went on to work in Tavistock Institute (which is the source of many crazy Internet conspiracies).
Therapeutic communities (sometimes also called rehab) sprung up as a method to deal with those who abuse drugs and alcohol, mental illness and behavioral problems. Many of them are faith-based initiatives, enjoy tax exempt status and do not have to face government scrutiny. Even with overwhelming evidence of abuse it is very hard for survivors to bring them to justice as such institutions are considered “last-ditch” approach to those who go there for help. People making accusations have less credibility and power than those being accused. At the same time we can’t put blank blame statement on all therapeutic communities – some of them in fact might be helpful. I guess it’s important to see linguistic manipulation of how something horrible could be presented and portrayed as humanistic and beneficial. Some of the concepts like lifetime rehabilitation concept – meaning you have to stay in the treatment for life goes against the main idea of therapy itself (red flag).
These initiatives are huge businesses and corporations, enjoying huge profits. The organization that used attack therapy to extreme was Synanon. It was successful corporation, enjoying healthy profits, drawing federal funds and there were many others who based their “therapeutic” model on synanon. Control over members occurred through the “Game”. The “Game” have been considered to be a therapeutic tool, likened to a form of group therapy; or else to a form of a “social control”, where members humiliated one another and encouraged the exposure of one another’s innermost weaknesses, or maybe both. I couldn’t find a single video of attack therapy or synanon game on YouTube, so I’m not sure how it looks like in the real life. Here is one persons account on how attack therapy drove him to suicide (wasn’t synanon game – it was group therapy in the therapists office):
Things then took a dramatic turn for the worse after I attended a type of group therapy which comes under the general name of ‘Attack Therapy’. It is perhaps difficult to see how a therapy session could trigger psychosis. As you can guess from the title, this type of therapy is where the therapist actually attacks the client. In the intensive therapy sessions I attended, and with the tacit approval of the group, the therapist attacked me hoping to bring about a crisis point in me that would then clear the way to a dramatic ‘improvement’ in my personality. Unfortunately this improvement could only be reached by making me fully realize how fake and pathetic my current personality was. Such an approach perhaps wouldn’t affect a confident person too much, but it affected me, as at the time I was looking for some way to change my personality, and I desperately lacked self-esteem and confidence.I would normally feel very tentative about applying any blame to an external event or person, as this is something that as a person I very rarely do. I am much more likely to blame myself entirely for things going wrong rather than other people.Unfortunately, I think that sort of thinking made me the worst client for this course, as it really affects people like me, who deep down think that everything really is their fault. The effect of the course was so comprehensive that 2 weeks afterwards I tried to kill myself despite never having had a suicidal thought before that day. The message I suppose is twofold. Firstly you need to be careful if you tend to blame yourself for everything that goes wrong as this sort of behavior can lead to sudden bouts of powerful depression. Secondly, avoid any groups or individuals that offer any sort of ‘Attack Therapy’, as it is dangerous for your mental health. This style of therapy is apparently still quite popular in America, even though studies have been done which back up my belief that they can be very damaging to a certain percentage of the population, and show no overall benefit
Attack therapy so far has only been used in institutionalized settings – therapeutic communities, group therapy and so on. It must be like controlled meditation on social stigma and self-esteem. Therapist who doesn’t understand his client could easily become “the rapist” if he prescribes such therapy when client is not ready to face such “treatment”. There are no accounts of Synanon employing their “game” on outside folks – they resorted to real violence, sometimes resembling scenes from the movie clockwork orange. Former synanon residents started various other organizations: Narcotics Anonymous, Delancey Street, Walden House, Samaritan Village in Brooklyn, Amity Foundation, Marvins Corner in Miami or Phoenix House, etc..
I have strange feeling about such therapy. One one hand it could be useful, although it could be extremely damaging especially in the forced settings. Modern society has moved away from institutionalization and growing number of voices are vocal about alternatives to incarceration as methods to deal with issues related to social and behavioral problems are more and more implemented and intertwined into community itself. Something could be labeled in many ways, but the object of the label is never the label.
Looking into theories of academic criminology what caught my attention is that it overlaps so much with sociology and even psychiatry as they all deal with deviants, deviancy and deviant behavior – aka something that is rejected by society as abnormal. Another issue is that they try to look at the object of their research as if one would look at the ant colony trying to explain one ant’s behavior. Even though those theories are interesting and powerful, but they are somewhat incomplete as they treat human only as social animal with emphasis on communitarian principles.
Labeling theory” or Social Reaction theory deals with formal and informal labeling and it’s influence on criminal, delinquent or deviant behavior. It is described as “one of the most important approaches to the understanding of criminality”. Labeling theory has been used by sociology and also applied in mental health sciences. What is labeling theory?
This theory states that the label of ‘deviant’, and the stigma that comes with such a label, is more a product of society than it is of the individual committing the deviant act. What is considered deviant in one society, or at one point in history, may not be considered deviant in another; ‘deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather the consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an “offender”’. Labeling theory also suggests that once a person is labeled a deviant, he will be denied essential life opportunities because of this stigma, and thus will have a greater propensity to repeat his deviant behaviors. Finally, labeling theory holds that those fettered with an obdurate, stigmatizing label often find it easier to act in accordance with that label than to shed the deviant label. The effects of being labeled, then, are external, with constraints being imposed on the deviant by society.
It’s true – if there is no society there is no deviancy. Imagine the world where you are left all alone. No matter what would you do, there would be no-one left to judge you or your actions. It’s striking how similar are accounts of formally labeled criminals about their perception of formalized label stigma and informally targeted individual accounts. We practice labeling theory all the time from the moment we are born – this is bad and this is good. It’s not so much about linguistics it’s about emotional meaning of labels.
Modified labeling theory applied to mental patients, which deals with labeling from different perspective – how it affects the perception of being labeled and subsequent interaction with the society aka self-stigmatization:
Modified labeling theory indicating that expectations of labeling can have a large negative effect, that these expectations often cause patients to withdraw from society, and that those labeled as having a mental disorder are constantly being rejected from society in seemingly minor ways but that, when taken as a whole, all of these small slights can drastically alter their self concepts. They come to both anticipate and perceive negative societal reactions to them, and this potentially damages their quality of life.
Labeling theory is largely about formal labeling, dealing with real criminals and mental patients, but the stigmatizing invisible social processes that affect these people seem to apply to targeted individuals as well. The only difference is absence of formal label. At least criminal or mental patient is aware of his formal label (they’ve been arrested, sentenced or served time, institutionalized, etc) and can attribute negativity towards them as natural and spontaneous reaction for that label. Targeted individuals have no such luxury and have to deal with multi-layered social punishment directed at them, absent apparent cause or formal label. So self adoption of “targeted individual” label is interesting as to what purpose it serves. I guess such label helps to make sense of what is going on, but doesn’t really explain anything. It’s less stigmatizing than potential label of serious mental illness, terrorist, child molester, snitch, criminal, etc.. It also fulfills prediction where shunned person adopts alternative point of view and joins deviant subculture that shares these views as a lot of targeted individuals seek others that are in the same boat – organized stalking forums, blogs and communities of targeted individuals, so on.
Labeling is closely related to concepts of shaming, stigmatization (disintegrative or reintegrative) and discrimination and recently has been used as debasement penalties by judiciary. Debasement penalties are designed to lower the status of the offender in the community through humiliation. This can include the performing of menial and degrading tasks.
Labeling theory posits that a person’s sense of self and behavior that stems from self-concept are directly related to the labels and perceptions imposed on the individual in societal and institutional interactions. Such interpretation is closely related to symbolic interactionism theory and looking glass self concept.
Symbolic interaction theory analyzes society by addressing the subjective meanings that people impose on objects, events, and behaviors. Subjective meanings are given primacy because it is believed that people behave based on what they believe and not just on what is objectively true. Thus, society is thought to be socially constructed through human interpretation. People interpret one another’s behavior and it is these interpretations that form the social bond. These interpretations are called the “definition of the situation.” Another premise of Symbolic Interaction theory is the pygmalion effect. In Symbolic Interaction theory, Mead establishes the notion of the “looking-glass” self. This idea is that an individual will behave and act according to the view that society and others have for them. The pygmalion effect also leads into the idea of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Ethnomethodology, an offshoot of symbolic interactionism, questions how people’s interactions can create the illusion of a shared social order despite not understanding each other fully and having differing perspectives.
Another theory that some criminologists use to explain deviancy is affect control theory or ACT. Affect control theory (hereafter ACT) offers a dynamic model of social action that focuses on how people’s attitudes toward identities, behaviors, social settings, and emotions (i.e., the key aspects of social interaction) inform the actions that individuals take toward one another. As an interactionist theory, ACT views social situations and the cultural context within which they occur as important determinants of behavior, including its conventional and deviant forms. Specifically, ACT’s mathematical model of attitudes gives formal rigor to the basic interactionist principles that people act toward things on the basis of the meanings that these things have for them. ACT can predict how people will react in various situations. It is very thorough (archive.org): they talk about events like “grandfather rapes granddaughter” as an example of a social situation or “I attend a party and think that the Host is ignoring me” is a social situation too.
Targeted individual is at interesting position where he has insider perspective on a stereotyped or stigmatized experiences and beliefs and is active interpretor/creator of such reality while being an involuntary target of negative attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs that shape this reality. They have to make sense of what a hell is going on while breaking up old and adopting new concepts of society, community, humanity and possibly even self-identity.
Some insight into power of labeling and encouraged punishment provides infamous Stanford Prison experiment, which had to be cut prematurely. The participants adapted to their roles well beyond expectations, as the guards enforced authoritarian measures and ultimately subjected some of the prisoners to psychological torture. Many of the prisoners passively accepted psychological abuse and, at the request of the guards, readily harassed other prisoners who attempted to prevent it.
Consider the use of the label slut as described by Tannenbaum (1999). Tannenbaum writes that nearly every high school has a “designated slut.” This label, according to Tannenbaum, gets applied to some poor girl, based on a widely circulated, frequently false story of sexual activity. These make up the “facts” that qualify her for the label, stating that she has met the rules of application. She is ever after known school-wide by that appellation. Tannenbaum learned that, many times, the slut label and its accompanying story had been deliberately and maliciously circulated by another girl. The acceptance of the label by the community meant that the labeled girl4 had to endure being treated as a slut (a bad, weak, active person5); people felt free to harass, scorn, and abuse her publicly. This is clearly the process of stigmatization (Goffman 1963). It is remarkable, however, that it is regularly done through hearsay and innuendo alone (by a person who might be termed a labeling entrepreneur) but is universally and unquestioningly accepted by the community.
Another thing to consider is that just like few decades ago deinstitutionalization was initiated and largely transformed to community mental health programs, there is growing debate of various scholars about alternatives to incarceration including various community punishment alternatives, shaming, stigmatization and so on . There are a lot more theories that criminology, sociology and social psychology uses to explain and make sense of the same topic of “deviancy” and “deviant behavior”.
Thomas Szasz is Professor of Psychiatry. His classic The Myth of Mental Illness (1961) made him a figure of international fame and controversy. He believes that there is no such thing as “mental illness”. The following is a quote from Thomas Szasz’s Mental Illness: Sickness or Status?
“Being the member of a community, a religion, a nation, a civilization entails joining the cast of a particular national-religious-cultural drama and accepting certain parts of the play as facts, not just props necessary to support the narrative. Thus, we in the West today accept as facts that the earth is spherical, that lead is heavier than water, that malaria, melanoma, and mental illness are diseases. As against this perspective, I maintain that while there are mental patients, there are no mental illnesses. There is no mental illness or madness either — in the bodies of the denominated subjects or in nature. Instead, there is a mental illness role into which a person is cast by his family and society, which he then assumes and plays, or against which he rebels and from which he tries to escape. Occasionally, individuals teach themselves how to be mental patients and assume the role without parental or societal pressure to do so, in order to escape certain unbearably painful situations or the burdens of ordinary life ( Szasz, 2006).”
All these things mentioned are labels. We accept them as a society because it’s what we are taught when we are growing up but who’s to say that we are right. By labeling these people mentally ill, gives them a negative on themselves and others have a negative view as well. By doing so, it causes people to be isolated and act as they are labeled.
This is a new report – released on October 2012. It is related to devices available and marketed in United States although some foreign devices are mentioned even though they are not used by US law enforcement or military. Situation is probably different in other countries. Report right from the beginning splits thru-wall radars into two categories: FCC certified and non FCC certified. Military through wall imaging technology doesn’t have to be FCC certified.
The FCC governs TTWS use and generally requires devices to be certified prior to use by law enforcement and first responder agencies.
The FCC also distributes licenses for the use of frequency bands to individuals and to organizations, if required. TTWS fall under the categories of intentional radiators and radiolocators; some TTWS are also governed by UWB requirements. Key regulations from Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for TTWS include:
1. [Parts 15, 90] Intentional radiators are required to have FCC certification. FCC-certified devices will have an FCC Identification (FCCID) number associated with them and shall be labeled as such.
2. [Part 15] UWB TTWS Operation is limited to law enforcement, emergency rescue or firefighting organizations.
3. UWB TTWS Operators (or the organization by which the operator is employed by or volunteers for) must have a license in the Public Safety Radio Pool under Title 47 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 90.
All three restrictions can be waived by the FCC under an Experimental License, which must be obtained by the operating organization. Companies conducting research and development (R&D) of TTWS and performing third-party testing and evaluation often require an FCC Experimental License.
Very few restrictions and rules governing use of such technology, especially knowing that detection of such radar is almost impossible. So chances of being caught for using it for unlawful purposes is pretty much close to zero.
Report also mentions of one through wall sensing product that is consumer oriented – Rex Plus Electronic Watchdog (STI) (archive.org): “device designed to be placed inside a residence and detect motion outside. The device demonstrates what can be achieved with basic components. It costs around less than $100 and is comparatively low tech. When placed on one side of a wall, the device uses radio waves to detect motion on the other side. The device puts out a continuous signal at 2.4 GHz and will alarm once reflected energy is received. The alarm frequency and volume increase as the target gets closer.” Here is a consumer reports (archive.org) article about it. From first glance device doesn’t appear threat to privacy, but in theory with a few strategically placed devices partial through wall monitoring, tracking and localization could be accomplished from apartment above or below. It wouldn’t be that practical for harassment, but who knows? I’m only looking at it since it was taken in this report seriously. Newer version of Rex Plus (II) is also available on the website.
We also learn about pricing of these devices:
Range-R L3 – $6,000 (with wireless monitoring $9000)
Xaver 100- $9,000
Xaver 400 – $47,500
InSight $10,000 -$15,000
TiaLinx product pricing was withheld at the request of the manufacturer
SuperVision 1600 – $100,000
Range-R 2D – $15,000
So it’s not cheap and not affordable for just anyone. What about devices that are issued in the war theater? Are they tracked in any way. How many are missing?
We also learn that some products that are sold in the United States like ACU-CPR4 and CPR3 do not appear to be FCC-certified for domestic law enforcement use. So who buys them? Military?
Interesting idea on how to defeat through wall technology posted on this blog post (archive.org). But I wouldn’t bank on it – its most likely just someone who is thinking aloud about something that has not yet even been substantiated. Even if you implement something like that and it will appear for you as solution – it will serve only as some sort of next level torture aid.
My intention was to try to investigate if I can find more victims of deliberate noise harassment. I was surprised how widespread are noise harassment complains among neighbors. Most of them involve common noise: little children, exercising equipment, inconsiderate activity like partying and so on. Sometimes it’s a simple misunderstanding, but it’s always a huge concern for the victim. It also shows that it’s very tough to deal with noisy neighbors, not to mention intentionally inflicted terror campaign as it appears out of ordinary and kooky. I’m posting only links to experiences of noise harassment that is similar to mine – intentional, systematic, methodical and apparently employing some sort of through wall localization. None of the victims speculate about localization aspect and if they do – they think it’s something to do with some sort of listening device.
I have trouble imagining using some sort of stethoscope listening device as localization tool – you can’t really listen and observe the movement of the person below while you banging on the floor. By accident you could rupture your eardrums.
These threads have no victims complaining of further harassment outside their apartments, such as labeling themselves as targeted individuals or victims of organized stalking or gangstalking. They are about people that notice or perceive patterns of noise and being followed from upstairs. Most of them can’t state any reason, motive or cause for such abuse.
Most common advise is to move. Of course such advice is not really an advice as dumb as it sounds those people would already be packing their stuff and not looking for some solutions online. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to realize that moving is very expensive procedure, not to mention that it’s always traumatic and very stressful. I read somewhere that noise is the primary reason for moving – ahead of crime, schools, infrastructure, etc.
This Russian lady living in Brooklyn, NY videotaped her abuse and put it on youtube. From the sounds she has documented it looks like a very similar abuse to mine. This is the video where she confronts her abuser. If you understand russian it’s interesting exchange. She doesn’t try to find common ground, to solve the problem or find any answers. I guess it’s way past that. It appears as some sort of feud between neighbors.
New York the city with portion of stabilized rent control real estate – such tactics could be used by landlords to get rid of dormant cheap rent paying tenants. Her Russian upstairs neighbor is like a twin brother of one of my neighbors.
Examples of how complaining about such harassment can be used and designed for victim to be made appear as mentally unstable
I don’t know how truthful are these posts. I learned already that It always can go both ways.
Above links point to pretty much the same situation, but complains are from upstairs neighbors being wrongfully accused for harassment by delusional people living downstairs. So it all boils down to credibility, evidence, witnesses. The same story can be presented in many different ways.
As crazy as it sounds there is a good chance there are very advanced modern day weaponry in play where both apartments are attacked simultaneously and pitted against each other – it’s a huge mistake to assume anything. As impossible as it is not to assume something and if you somehow manage to not assume anything it would probably mean something to them as well. Think of next level of some sort of evil game of Stephen King’s “needful things” or that catchy tune about “something strange in the neighborhood” of movie “ghost busters” from the 1980s (keep in mind that it coincided with “going postal” era) which has recently been remade by using another (artificial) flavor of CIA fight club pervertariat. Hard to tell what is that slime supposed to symbolize, but most likely it’s byproduct of all that rainbowing (racketeering) activity behind those stonewalls. So the idea of the movie is they are such immeasurable treasure that they are heroes for wiping their own snot. It all boils towards “need to know basis” stonewall fight club knowledge that is probably distributed to chosen ones (most likely by rainbows) by using the first stonewalling rule of “fight club”. I have this weird feeling that vow of silence rule is one part of 3 wise monkeys multidimensional security algorithm (don’t make mistake that it’s three part algorithm)… You have to keep in mind that it’s probably cemented as double edged kompromat by using something unspeakable: pedophilia, homosexual acts, cannibalism, torture, rape (porn), murder, snuff, “don’t be evil” digitized Hippocratic oath for the brave new world CIA pervertariat snake oil peddlers aka Kevorkian keyboard warriors (“alphaBet inc” is probably some sort of NSA encrypted reference to evolutionary or as it rather be called eugenic miracles of alpha homos betting, gambling and casinos where activities are very ethical on paper, but in most evil fashion imaginable in real life (probably with extensive usage of deep mind endless loop algorithms) – they did the little dance here in Lithuania as well – created the gambling company Tonybet and the rainbow CIA homo with fake name used it as stepping stone to gain seat into EU parliament), etc (thats what probably bible has in mind about eye of the needle and camels).. It’s safe to assume that all those secret societies, fraternities and clubs were just cover for homos to gather and feel at home (think of the lands where men dance with men as precursor to lemon parties, sauna dates, kamasutra olympics, but have harems of women for breeding purposes to produce tabula rasa bio material for various experimentations with humans one of them being circumcision). At the same time it’s a gang weapon that can be used with Machiavellian tricks to select and eliminate any inside or outside threats. Nowadays we already have this slime woven into “war is peace” society, thanks to CIA/UN initiatives like “open society” which probably means letting that genie out of the “skull & bones” type secret societies bottles that must be overflowing with rainbow slime. Another thing to assume is that worldwide prison system is another human terrain layer that is probably tapped by these degenerates – any NGO that is in business of “integrating” people into society should be target of some sort of inquiry – it’s a serious signal that civilization has ceased being civilized if even one charity has to exist in the world (eg have quite a few of them here in lithuania that pretends integrating gypsies, “lithuanians” from foreign lands and prisoners into society, but reality is something entirely different). Just think of possibility where Putin placing Khodorkovsky in prison was not a punishment, but safety precaution organized by Khodorkovsky himself or one of his handlers like Putin – keep in mind that real billionaire would never participate in such b.s. – everyone without exception public billionaire is just WWE style CIA homo: something along the lines of Paris Hilton chihuahua guarding pile of dirty CIA money stolen from public and waiting for orders to be followed to launder it under pretense of charitable/educational/public interest/etc activities – eg Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, Omidyar, Trump, Clintons, Soros, Forbes, Murdock, Ikea guy, Virgin Group slimy douchebag, Pepsi, Coca Cola, Nestle, Tesla/Alibaba degenerates, etc. Think of US law enforcement – it’s been under homo rule since at least 1920s (talking about J. Edgar Hoover). In that case all those intelligence and military humint, miso, psyop, cimic, etc activities is something entirely different than implied. It’s hard to tell if rainbowlution of degenerate psychopaths was part of organized stalking or gangstalking is part of never ending rainbowlution of degenerate psychopaths as undetectable implementation of pogrom for 21st century.
If we look at organized stalking as a social phenomena that is similar to bullying or mobbing only in different settings we will see a lot of parallels. If we can’t really observe organized stalking, we can only try to look at some hard data that organized stalking might have generated. I know it’s completely unscientific at this point, just some thoughts. Suicide is tragic outcome where individual decides to take his own life intentionally due to being unable to manage despair and frustration .
Organized stalking / gangstalking (OS/GS) victims are attacked on many fronts so if they take their life it could be attributed to most believable issue. I’m not saying that all suicides are product of OS/GS, but some of them probably are. Loss of social status and mental health issues identified as one of the main causes of suicide. Same issues are also closely related with organized stalking.
How would you classify Aaron Swartz suicide? Who’s to blame? Mental issues? Life crisis? Loss of social reputation? Government oppression? Cumulative troubles?
Along with suicide there are suicide attempts and suspicious deaths that also should be considered. The reason I thought suicide statistics are relevant is because I’m from Lithuania – the suicide capital of the world.
I understand that there are many factors to consider about trying to extrapolate such data out of statistics. Another thing that would make this exercise futile is the possibility of manipulation and shaping statistics, incompatible standards, inaccurate reporting. Numbers can lie too.
Right away we see abnormalities in the chart. Sharp drop in suicides in the period of 1985-1992. After early nineties suicides jumped through the roof. This whole period was very turbulent if looking from geopolitical perspective. Gorbachev came to power in 1985, perestroika, soviet republics fight for independence, etc. One could attribute such drop in suicides to some sort hope for better life in population at large. Economic factors can be pretty much discounted. Perestroika period wasn’t easier for population – rationing, coupons, empty shelves in the stores, uncertain future, layoffs, hold-up wages. Glasnost and all – it was still hard core communism at that time. Another argument could be made that some repressive mechanisms of the communist regime got loosened. Political oppression decreased as attention shifted to new threats, opportunities for power grab, privatization, setting your life for upcoming new dawn, emerging organized crime structures, etc. If looking from high policing perspective – weakened regime means weaker high policing. During that time use of psychiatry for political purposes also dropped dramatically.
After new independent states formed, new governing system came to place. Hard to tell about high policing mechanisms that regime uses to cement it’s existence. So if thinking from “hope” standpoint, the suicides should have had continued to decrease as new era of independence brought all these exciting freedoms and opportunities provided by the democracy. On the contrary – suicides rose dramatically. I remember that period. Life didn’t change overnight. Some only saw change in labeling. Some longed for old times, even though most were highly patriotic. Could it be related to formation of new secret police and surveillance apparatus? I can only speculate, but they probably were quite weak at the beginning, but that was compensated with morally justified motivation against communism ideology and hatred towards previous regime.
Another strange thing: “historically, suicides among Rome Catholics occur less often than among representatives of other religions and faiths. However, currently this assumption is refuted by a traditional Catholic country Lithuania, where the suicide rate is the highest in the world.”
I might be shooting blanks into the space, but I think suicide statistics should be lower in any country’s transitional period between regimes then state security apparatus is weakened as idealogical threat definition becomes less clear.
Lets take East Germany and it’s transition to unification. We know about feared Stasi secret police and infamous Zersetzung (lots of organized stalking victims see similarities in tactics). Problem is that GDR was very protective of such statistics as they could tarnish it’s international reputation. Even now I had trouble finding such statistics.
Looking at this chart drop isn’t as sharp as expected, but it continued on the downward trend in coming years (only local copy as file has been censored elsewhere).
Stasi regime influence on suicides is inconclusive, but unlike in Baltic states suicides continued to decrease. Transition to unification was different and perestroika didn’t affect Stasi as it affected KGB.
My case is weak. Perestroika was interesting period in Soviet Union and If you have a better theory why suicides dropped sharply during that period I’d like to hear about it.
Darpa’s new research into narrative influence on violence. It is closely related to behavior modeling and simulation and non-obvious warfare, but ultimately the concept is more detailed:
Identify and explore the function narratives serve in the process of political radicalization and how they can influence a person or group’s choice of means (such as indiscriminant violence) to achieve political ends. Identify and explore how narratives influence bystanders-to-conflict in terms of shaping their attitudes and perceptions. Identify and explore how narratives shape the process of negotiation, especially between key stakeholders. Identify and explore the relationship between narratives and the mechanisms that generate and reinforce psychiatric or clinical conditions. Develop methodologies that enable assessment of the impact of narratives on attitudes and perceptions.
Program has no set budget limit. Reading program presentation files there is little that would indicate anything related to violence, radicalization, extremism, etc. One paper called “A Computational Model of Narrative Processing in Schizophrenia” tries to afflict symptoms of schizophrenia in computer and succeeds. Such claim doesn’t really make sense, unless they have some sort of quantum type computer. Another option they treat modern man as binary computational biological object who’s perception is reduced to the process of labeling and cognition which is good vs bad judging based on set of behavioral survival and security algorithms that would define someones range of freedom/comfort to navigate the society. So it’s not that far fetched to assume that such program is about calculating what you know and who you know and trying to distill unspeakable that they probably already know so button pushing would appear legit for button pushers. Computers is something that was supposed to help humanity with such Orwellian “problems”. Mad scientists behind this schizo project. One has to wonder if all this computer scumware, adware, trojans, viruses are somehow related to this bs. Considering how computing evolved to the point where search results, ads, news are targeted and catered individually it’s no wonder that a person could be targeted by “intelligent” design that is part of a sentence. Others papers and program itself mention human experimentation. Concept is not new as this dutch paper from 2000 explores narratives networks that create a nazi (archive.org)
If you think about organized stalking in terms of narratology it’s all about the target trying to explain and find a meaning in the process. Connecting dots between narratives, struggling to answer question – “what a hell is going on?”. This paper provides (local copy) insight why it’s impossible for targeted individual to tell a story about systematic harassment that would be interesting to others. We as humans are hardwired to be receptive only to certain stories:
Most “stories” have no effect on receivers.
No one responds to “story.” They respond to specific elements and their pattern.
Your brain is hardwired to think & to make sense through a specific story structure.
Effective stories rely on Eight Essential Elements.
“What the main character needs or
wants to do or get in this story.”
NOT what they DO;
NOT what they ACCOMPLISH;
But what they are AFTER!
Conflicts & Problems
Anything that blocks a character (even temporarily) from reaching a goal is a PROBLEM. If the problem places a character in opposition to some other entity in the story it is a CONFLICT.
Risk & Danger
The magic ingredients: Risk is the probability of failure. Danger is the consequences of failure.
To struggle: “to contend, to engage, to exert a great effort, to fight, to stand against, to oppose”
• Create all images and PICTURES
• Create reality
• Allow listeners/readers to “see” a story
• Serve as spot lights for a story
• Explain why a goal is important
• Create suspense
• Give characters a reason to face conflicts, risks, and dangers
Character and Character Traits (that make characters interesting)
To summarize: THE EIGHT ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS Of Every Story/Narrative
Who is the MAIN CHARACTER?
What CHARACTER TRAITS make them interesting?
What do the character need to do or get (GOAL)?
Why is that goal important (MOTIVE)?
What CONFLICTS/PROBLEMS block the character?
How do they create RISK & DANGER?
What does the character do (STRUGGLES) to reach goal?
What sensory DETAILS will make the story seem Real?
Targeted individual can’t explain what is happening by following these essential characteristics. According to this theory If they could they would be able to generate some sort of attention.
Scientists have known for some time that narratives – an account of a sequence of events that are usually in chronological order – hold powerful sway over the human mind, shaping a person’s notion of groups and identities and even motivating them to commit violence.
When it comes to security, little consideration is given to ethics. Now, while I’m somewhat partial to this approach on account of its bloodlessness, I have to admit that the potential for abuse is astonishing. Once these narrative networks reach full maturity they could be used to indoctrinate not just enemy populations, but more familiar ones as well. The very ways in which domestic affairs are perceived could be colored by a security department hoping to create a docile and abiding population.
Information is scarce, so it’s easy to translate, but at the same time makes it difficult to asses it: 56 year old small town resident (from Krakes, Kedainiai) went to regional police headquarters (Kedainiai) and asked to see the chief of police. He wrote a complain where he claimed he is being followed or under surveillance (hard to translate without context could be either one or both), he hears strange voices and he has a micro-chip implanted. Man was calm/collected, but police called the medics anyways since they weren’t convinced of his sanity. In hospital it was decided to commit him to psychiatric hospital. While preparation of documents was taking place police and man were waiting in the hospital hallway. Knife was already taken from him, but nobody even thought that he might have a gun too. He asked to go to the bathroom. After he entered the bathroom there was a gunshot. After police entered the bathroom they saw man laying on the floor with a gun shot wound to his temple. They found unlicensed revolver next to him. Man was known as one who wrote many unsubstantiated complains and frequent visitor to police headquarters.
It’s hard to tell if he was frisked and police missed the gun. Did he surrender knife voluntarily and police didn’t think about frisking him? Maybe something else?
What about “strange voices”? Is he complaining about people harassing him in subtle manner or is he really hearing voices.
To examine the case properly we need more information about it: what kind of complains man was writing before? Was it about harassment?
There was no further interest in the case by the media. Nobody asked questions or made any inquiries.
Lets assume he was targeted individual who tried to get help. It’s hard to tell where he looked for relevant information trying to understand the problems he was facing as it shaped subsequent definition of the issue and decision of going to police to file a report. On what grounds police decided to force him into hands of mental health professionals? Was he threatening to harm himself or others?
Another interesting factoid (archive.org) is that little Krakes town was elected as the safest community in 2011. It also mentions police preventive program about creating safe environment and community adherence to the rule of law. So irony of the story is that even it’s the safest community, his opinion would probably be the opposite.
This tragedy just incremented sad suicide statistics – Lithuania is suicide capital of the world. What is strange that virtually identical countries like Latvia or Estonia have dramatically lower suicide rates. They also have much lower surveillance rates if judging by cellphone wiretap requests.
This time I’m looking at another case of self described political dissident and targeted individual from Lithuania who got sent to psychiatric ward for more than 2 years after he sprayed tear gas onto one of his alleged perpetrators. What is interesting is how media describes event, how court of law dealt with it and targeted individual’s side of the story.
He always comments on news and blog articles using his real name -Jurijus Radovicius. It makes it easy to follow timeline of events. In comment from 2007 (by the year 2015 comments have been wiped out by orwellians) from this article he describes typical gangstalking case that points to paranoia, hypervigilance and hyper-alertness. Hard to tell how much of that surveillance, harassment and threats are real and how much is taken from various internet gangstalking definitions and applied to his life, but lets assume that Jurijus was under punitive surveillance as his interpretation of it is flawed, but not necessarily 100% false.
This article from 2009 m. Oct. 8 d (archive.org) describes event where former President of the Constitutional Court Egidijus Kuris (Kūris)(at the time of attack was working in Law Faculty in Vilnius University and from 2013 serving as Lithuanian justice to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg) got attacked with tear gas by his neighbor Jurijus Radovicius. Jurijus Radovicius described as infamous because of his weird statements on the internet. You have to keep in mind that it must be nice area, safe neighborhood and decent apartment building since former constitution court judge lives there. So Jurijus Radovicius can’t be some sort of low life bum. Actually it is very exclusive building on Vasingtono aikste (washington square), Vilnius. You have to keep in mind that Jurijus Radovicius is also one of the signers of re-establishment of lithuanian independence after break up of Soviet Union, so you can’t assume that he is not someone who doesn’t know anything about games of three letter operatives and isn’t part of the game to introduce and adapt the game into lithuanian human terrain. Neither his name or surname is lithuanian origin.
According to judge he was going out to walk the dog and met his neighbor in the staircase. Radovicius asked “would you like some tear gas?” and right away started spraying him onto the face. Everything was witnessed by another neighbor, who helped judge back to his apartment. Radovicius said “don’t try to sic your kid on me”. Kid was 11-12 years old at the time.
Radovicius is described as someone who constantly post statements of persecution by various secret services and officials. That he is being followed by half of Lithuania. Sprayed judge commented “I hope now police and psychiatry will do the job”. It’s a literal translation. I guess better translation would be “will take care of it”. To police Radovicius said that judge installed micro cameras everywhere and following him.
Radovicius himself participates in discussion where readers comment on the article. He describes the event where kid “terrorized” him. The situation where he notices two kids on opposite sides of the street. Both of them stood in “agent position” and he had to enter their field of vision. He started screaming so people would pay attention to this situation. He kept screaming while walking. Girl didn’t budge. Boy started following him. Strange seemingly non threatening situation, where he was so threatened that reacted by screaming and consequent retaliation by spraying boys father with tear gas.
Fast forward to 2010-05-20 and anonymized criminal court judgment (archive.org). Only initials are provided “J.R”, victim “E.K” and event that matches newspaper article. We also learn that Radovicius is unemployed, university educated, without criminal record. Judge and neighbor’s testimonies that are entered into the case pretty much identical to the newspaper’s. In addition judge claimed that he resides in current apartment for 4 years and hadn’t had anything to do with attacker before. He also said that on a few occasions Radovicius approached him claiming (It’s not apt word since in lithuanian it sounds more like accusation) that someone is following him. From judge statement given to police on the scene: “I think Radovicius could be mental case, since his behavior is not comprehensible”. Judge also claimed that Radovicius on numerous occasions accused him of being a criminal and constantly conflicts with other neighbors.
Police protocol also states that Radovicius didn’t open the door so statement was taken through closed door and audio recorded by a cell phone. He introduced himself as J.R and sprayed gas in self defense since nobody likes to be terrorized. To police question if there was a real threat to his life and health, J.R. replied that terrorism is not necessarily about threat to life and health.
On 2009-11-02 investigator went to the apartment building and talked to a few neighbors about Radovicius. They all confirmed that Radovicius is accusing them of being agents, etc..
Protocol mentions video of Radovicius that is entered into the case by M.S. What kind of video is unclear. When was it taken? Before or after accident? Is it some sort of surveillance video?
Court decided on involuntary psychiatric treatment as expert decided that Radovicius is suffering from delusions. Radovicius wasn’t present in the court as he is unable to understand his actions (according to experts).
Fast forward to 2012-10-29 (not all pages of comments have been archived), after 2,5 years Radovicius is out of mental hospital. Now he reflects on events that transpired 3 years ago. It appears he resorted to spraying provocateurs on the streets as some sort of strategy. He used tear gas, bug spray or even water. Nobody complained until he sprayed his neighbor. He also mentions that he was treated with Haloperidol anti-psychotic drug that was also used in Soviet Union psychiatry as punitive or will breaking measure. He also describes various street theater, gangstalking, mimicking and other organized harassment tactics that allegedly are used to overtly harass him. Psychiatric treatment doesn’t appear to have changed anything if looking at it from “delusional thinking” standpoint. He says he would spray perpetrators again, but judge in Rokiskis (I assume there are some sort of arrangements for a judge in the mental asylum) told him if it happens again he would be institutionalized for 5 years. He doesn’t mention if harassment continues after his release from the ward.
Hard to tell how Radovicius felt about it – apparently he decided to go through some sort of “eye for an eye” route hoping to deter attackers, where he dishes out his own “justice” to perps. One has to understand that surveillance overt or covert will cause a lot of stress and anxiety so hypervigilance and augmented alertness will ensue. This could take any direction as provocation and disruption of cognitive process was successful where even non-threatening bystanders come under TI’s scrutiny. That is important part where whole environment transforms into possible threat.
Now we can only speculate how it all transpired (he says it started in 2005 – coincides with judge moving into apartment building), but one has to look at sort of trauma associated with early surveillance and follow-up search for answers to questions. Answers that helped him model his situation into some sort of frame of reference. In this case gangstalking sites could be harmful as victim might try to perceive his situation according to huge list of symptoms of gangstalking. Nobody can claim that he dealt with situation in rational matter.
Can word “cat” scratch you? Yes it can. That is the danger of gangstalking sites where they play devils advocate to increase paranoia helping to model uncertain, ambiguous and nonthreatening situations into aversive stimuli. Nobody is mentioning or examining 3 years of alleged abuse. The end result matters for abusers. Ultimately every case is unique.
update [2015/april/02] Jurijus wrote a book : pdf is comment section from lithuanian online daily newspaper (comments about the book are bottom two). He mentions that he printed 50 copies, book sellers refused to sell it and that on book presentation he will give away 15 copies. He uses promotional tone language and no longer mentions any kind of ongoing stalking or surveillance.
Through-wall surveillance (TWS): Even more intriguing is the invention of equipment to see through walls, such as infra-red cameras, thermal imaging, and through-the-wall surveillance technologies that can detect activities behind walls and in darkness (my note – infrared and thermal imaging can’t see through walls), thereby providing information on the location and movement of people inside buildings and homes (Bush 2006; Hunt, Tillery and Wild 2001; Miles 2007). Through-the-wall radar devices, which are lightweight, portable and able to focus up to twenty or thirty meters ahead, are increasingly available to municipalities and law enforcement agencies (Jones 2005).
RadarVision, built by Time Domain Corp. of Huntsville, Alabama, and Prism 100 made by Cambridge Consultants Ltd. in Cambridge, England can detect the presence of inanimate objects through the wall, but only moving objects (in the form of a moving blob of color on their built-in color screens) are shown to the user. The product – for use by emergency and security services – weighs about six pounds including a lithium-ion battery pack. Since both these devices can be used from outside a residence or an office, such as from a neighboring home or building, they pose a challenge for targeted persons to know and prove that they are being monitored (Jones 2005). Researchers at Atlanta’s Georgia Technical Research Institute have made a flashlight that can see through doors and walls, thereby detecting a stationary person’s presence through solid wood or an eight-inch block wall from four feet away (Sanders 2001). The flashlight uses simple microwave technology. It emits an invisible beam of electromagnetic radiation similar to automatic door sensors that sense movement. A commercial version is no larger than a police flashlight and costs less than $500 (Scott 1997). Little is known about the government’s hushed Celldar project that originated in Britain in 2002. The Celldar uses radar technology to allow surveillance of anyone, at any time, and any place where there is a phone signal. It uses mobile phone masts to allow authorities to watch vehicles and individuals almost anywhere. A report published in Britain’s newspaper The Guardian mentions that this equipment has ‘X- ray vision’ potential – the capability to see through walls and look into people’s homes (Burke and Warren 2002). Although through-the-wall-surveillance (TWS) technologies are touted as life-saving measures (see Miles 2007), the secrecy of these gadgets and their introduction without widespread public consultation or judicial oversight increases the likelihood of their misuse. While these technologies are mainly available only to military and law enforcement agencies, to date there is no legislation regulating their use or ensuring transparency or accountability on the part of those entrusted to use these devices for emergency, crime prevention and disaster relief purposes.
Threat to life is way bigger than threat to privacy if such technology is in wrong hands – and it’s impossible for such hands not to exists. Author is right – when these products emerged media wrote about them, since it was interesting technology, but later on nobody is ever mentioning them as to how and if they ever were used. Where are the stories of through wall radars saving lives? Technology got advanced to the point that it’s capable displaying 3d picture of the situation behind the wall.
Lots of times TI’s speculate that they are on some sort of list aka no fly list and that what makes them a target. Targeted individuals might be placed on some lists, but i doubt they are targeted because of being on the lists.
While reading Eileen’s blog (only available through archive.org) she mentioned BOLO (Be On the Look Out) list:
When I was last in Afghanistan at the COIN Academy, military intelligence issued daily BOLO lists of suspicious activity to look out for. (BOLO stands for “Be on the lookout for”.) Men in white corollas always made the list. This was of course problematic and indicative of the vague and often inactionable intelligence the Americans collected, since half the population drove white Corollas, but that’s for another post
This funny tidbit prompted me to check if anything of this sort exists in western world. It’s been around for a long time as demonstrated in this Miami newspaper article from 1971 (as of june 2016 it appears google orwelled it – here is local screenshot). Something like “wanted list”. NJ has one (local copy), but it’s related to automatic license plate readers (ALPR):
D. BOLO list – (also known as a hot list) is a compilation of one or more license plates, or partial license plates, of a vehicle or vehicles for which a BOLO situation exists that is programmed into an ALPR so that the device will alert if it captures the image of a license plate that matches a license plate included on the BOLO list. The term also includes a compilation of one or more license plates, or partial license plates that is compared against stored license plate data that had previously been scanned and collected by an ALPR, including scanned license plate data that is stored in a separate data storage device or system.
The BOLO list itself is one thing, but the data gathered from the field is another issue as it can be used to build activity profile of the person over the time.
So who has access to your location data (archive.org)? Anyone who asks for it, according to Bob Sykora, chief information officer for the Minnesota Board of Public Defense. Sykora warned in a memo this June that location data retained by police is currently public. That means it could be obtained via record requests by data miners or other members of the public, he wrote, enabling burglars to learn someone’s daily routine or ex-spouses to track former partners.
The article talks only about Minnesota as policies are not set and differ from state to state and city to city. It is clearly big problem and has high abuse potential (archive.org):
“Now that we see someone’s patterns in a graphic on a map in a newspaper, you realize that person really does have a right to be secure from people who might be trying to stalk them or follow them or interfere with them,” said Bob Sykora, chief information officer for the Minnesota Board of Public Defense, who recommended the reclassification.
On May 27, 2007, Sergeant Aaron Zimmaro of the Springboro Police Department was on patrol when he heard on his radio a discussion among fellow police officers regarding a nearby suspicious vehicle. This vehicle, driven by Dixon, was of particular concern to officers because it was on a “be on the lookout” (BOLO) list due to Dixon’s possible drug activities.
Performs program promotion duties by preparing and hand delivering to deadline weekly “Warrant of the Week” and monthly “Crime of the Week” media releases to media outlets through the Region of Waterloo. Prepares monthly Stolen Vehicle List advertisement to deadline for inclusion in various medium and publications by collecting theft and vehicle information from the Be On The Lookout (BOLO) list and CPIC.
6-8. Be-on-the-lookout (BOLO) alerts are routinely sent out by Army and civilian LE agencies. BOLO alerts are used to provide information to, and request assistance from, military and civilian LE organizations, military units, and, at times, the general public about specific individuals, vehicles, events, or equipment. These alerts are typically used when the subject matter is time-sensitive and a heightened awareness by all available personnel is requested to facilitate the appropriate action. BOLO alerts may be distributed in a printed format, over appropriate information networks, or transmitted over radio nets, depending on the breadth of distribution, time sensitivity, or other mission and environmental factors.
6-9. BOLO alerts may be general or very specific, but they should contain, when possible, enough information to prevent numerous “false positive” reports and should provide reporting and disposition instructions. These instructions should include any known dangers associated with the subject of the BOLO alert. For example, a BOLO alert for a grey BMW automobile to all military police units operating in Germany or an orange and white taxi in Iraq would be ineffective and would likely result in an extremely high number of “sightings.” This type of general information might also be ignored by military police personnel for the same reason. Additional information about the driver, body damage to the vehicle, or other specific details would reduce the false positives and increase the value of what is reported. In some instances, the amount of known information is limited to one or more identifying data points. This is common in expeditionary environments where a list of names may be the only data available or immediately following a crime or incident when only rough descriptions of suspects or few witnesses are available.
Organized crime can be anything. Once I investigated a gang of students who regularly used public transportation without paying the fare. This, too, was organized crime, because they had developed a system for insuring their members against fines; everyone paid some amount into a common pot, and if they got caught, the organization would pay the fine.
Covert agents do not merely react to criminal organizations; they shape them, or at least shape how the organizations are described. In this way, agents can define the threat that needed to be solved with infiltration. They can make the crime fit the investigation. This not only makes it difficult for judges and politicians to assess the effectiveness and accomplishments of undercover policing. It also diminishes the extent to which deep cover operations can be confined to the investigation of organized crime.
Although criminal association is our only organized crime offense, it’s almost never used. Mostly, we charge it only for terrorism offenses. When we do use that section of the code, it’s mostly to get approval for telephone tapping and other covert tactics; but that’s pretty controversial, because everyone knows we won’t actually charge the offense.
This control over the concept of “organized crime” also allows investigators to circumvent constraints imposed by the 1992 statute. The statute tried to legitimate undercover operations by limiting them to a list of enumerated crimes and to a residual category, the “serious crime.” The police can justify a covert investigation by styling the target as an “organized” entity, which suggest that its crimes are sufficiently “serious” to qualify under the statute. A prosecutor explained that “cigarette smuggling is not actually a predicate offense of deep cover operations. But you can still get approval if you can show that the smuggling operation is an organized endeavor, with some of the characteristics listed in the regulation.
Police not only interpret the definition of organized crime to justify their covert investigations but occasionally also manipulate the targets so that their activities look more like those of “organized” criminals. One indicator of organized crime is its ability to forge links to lawful realms of society. Undercover agents sometimes supply those links. “The solid citizens, they help you make yourself [the agent] useful to people in the scene. The criminals come to see you as their connection to that normal, outside world. Now you can make yourself useful to them, offer them services.” Deep cover agents could make themselves interesting to targets by pretending to have friends inside the Customs Service who could help people avoid border controls. Others offered referrals to banks, lawyers, tax consultants, foreign contacts, and special airport access.
The link between gangs and lawful society that suggests “organized” criminal capacity can sometimes be an artifact of the investigation.
From the perspective of the police, forging connections between gangs or between gangs and lawful society helped undercover operatives avoid direct participation in the crimes they investigated. But these links help create the organizational complexity that the investigation was designed to prove and that justified the operation.
The police shape organized crime not only to justify covert operations under the 1992 statute, but to match their investigative strengths. Because organized crime potentially includes so many phenomena, the police can target those that they are best able to detect.
Given that police, at their discretion, can broadly interpret the definition of organized crime and can manipulate targets to better resemble “organized” criminals—what follows? If the government can shape the phenomena, and the description of the phenomena, to justify their investigations, what implications does this have for the way in which the police operate? To begin with, it means that undercover operations do not confine themselves to criminal milieus. They bring within their ambit both lawful society and criminal networks. Deep cover agents (and informants) are permanent fixtures in cafes, bars, restaurants, hotels, and other ordinary establishments, particularly those frequented by immigrants, where they rub shoulders with law-abiding citizens along with the assorted mopes, hangers-on, occasional offenders, and committed criminals whom they collectively designate as “targets.” The inclusion of many low-grade offenses in the category of “organized crime” necessitates the creation of an infrastructure of surveillance networks much more comprehensive and integrated into lawful civil society than one would infer from rhetoric about targeting “tightly knit” criminal organizations “closed off” from mainstream communities.
The pressure for “stats” and quick results encouraged police to charge discrete, easily provable offenses. But undercover investigations often yield far more information about criminal organizations then the government needs to prove these mundane, relatively unsophisticated offenses at trial. If covert agents and informants identify the structure of a criminal organization that fails to qualify as a “criminal association,” they need not, and may not, be able to present a complete picture of these findings in a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, criminal prosecutions were often a byproduct of covert operations whose main accomplishment was the gathering of intelligence. The very simplicity of these prosecutions keeps out of court much of the intelligence laboriously collected by deep cover agents.
A very different sense in which undercover policing may be described as a “necessary evil” emerges from the tendency of such investigations to blur the distinction between the “preventive” and the “repressive” functions of police work, and, beyond that, between the pursuit of intelligence and the collection of intelligence.
The greatest vulnerability of the post-1992 German regulatory system emerges from an internal tension. On one hand, the reforms tried to tame deep-cover investigations as evidence-gathering tactics; and on the other hand, the system, as implemented, pushes undercover agents back into more shadowy pursuit of information not geared towards presentation in court.
However, courts are unlikely to learn about undercover activity that preceded the prosecutor’s application for judicial approval to conduct repressive operations. As one judge reported (and others confirmed), “preventive undercover operations are never mentioned when the police seek approval for some evidence-gathering sting. These preventive operations should really be in the application, to provide factual support for the request; but in fact, they never are.”92 Accordingly, cover-building operations may generate intelligence without judicial or even prosecutorial scrutiny.
One of these tactics, which one might term “strategic insulation,” is to separate the deep cover agent from the target whenever the police gather information that they expect to use as evidence in court. The police avoid using deep cover officers in ways that will make them direct witnesses to the crimes the government hopes to prove. “We use the undercover agent’s information in such a way that its source remains hidden; we won’t even use the hearsay testimony of his handler.” Thus the police often assign deep cover agents supporting roles in criminal investigations in order to keep their activities out of court.
Though the east German public might regard undercover policing as an illegitimate form of social control, the police themselves view comparisons with the Stasi primarily as a public relations challenge requiring them to communicate the differences between their own methods and those of the Stasi.
In almost every interview, the police described ways in which they designed undercover operations to differ from those of Germany’s domestic intelligence agencies (the APCs). While the police aimed not to act like intelligence agencies, they merely sought not to be misperceived as resembling the Stasi.
Among other tactics, the FBI “falsely and anonymously label[ed] as Government informants members of groups known to be violent, thereby exposing the falsely labeled member to expulsion or physical attack” and “provoked target groups into rivalries that might result in deaths.”
But the close involvement of prosecutors in covert police operations does not always ensure compliance with the substantive norms. Prosecutors’ expertise in legal interpretation—in casuistry—can justify covert investigations that strain against the spirit of the substantive norms without violating the letter of the norms. Prosecutors and police officials who specialize in covert operations increasingly see themselves as responsible for providing a legal framework that allows undercover agents to obtain evidence. In part, this means permitting borderline practices while imposing constraints that would conform them, more or less, to legal requirements. In part this means reinterpreting the law to lift legal constraints (or finding that they did not apply in the first place). When neither of these strategies is promising, prosecutors and police officials sometimes quietly subordinate the substantive norms to other institutional goals, such as preventing crime and protecting undercover operatives. Prosecutors have become adept at suggesting ways for covert agents to pursue favored tactics without running any realistic risk of criminal liability. Since undercover investigations often produce not evidence but intelligence (which does not get into court), judges have little opportunity to curtail the “creative” interpretations of prosecutors. As one judge put it, “undercover agents don’t testify; if they break the law, we have no way of knowing it.”
What makes the success of undercover investigations so difficult to assess is that infiltrators influence the organizations they infiltrate, and possess power to define what constitutes organized crime and thus to fit what they find to what they were looking for. Under the model of legitimacy-as-fit, the legitimacy of a regulated practice depends on the extent to which it serves the ends—such as fighting organized crime—in whose name the practice was authorized.
At the same time, the secrecy surrounding deep-cover operations, and the likelihood that covert agents will never have to testify, decrease the likelihood that abuses will be exposed and corrected. In the United States, covert policing periodically produces scandals like that which erupted only recently, when a single Texan undercover agent sent 46 residents of a single town to jail on fabricated claims that they had sold him narcotics.
That undercover policing was promoted as a tool against organized crime also made sense in a political climate where the implicit and often explicit accusation against surveillance tactics was that they were being turned against society as a whole. Organized crime—which was characterized as hermetic, and thus safely sealed off from society—formed a safe target for such highly contested tactics.
I want to direct you to a term High Policing – new way to look at modern policing methods and emerging organizational changes in law enforcement. High policing of all sorts is still viewed by scholars, judges, and politicians as “corruption,” “deviance,” and or “scandal” and dealt with by illusion and impression management. If we look at harassment endured by targeted individuals as enhanced mobbing overseen by authority of the law (local, state, federal) it points to pre-existing conflict at some level (most likely personal derived from monetary or influence issues) where public resources are used to eliminate one party for the benefit of the other. No template exists as to how and why harassment was initiated or by whom as there is no viable ways to counter or expose the abuse. If it were thoroughly exposed it would certainly generate as scandal. Common man thinks about law enforcement as street policing – helping citizens, responding and solving crimes. There is another hidden side of policing. It examines the phenomena in various contexts without fear eliciting or sensational language like tyranny, police state, new world order, dictatorship, etc – it’s not something new – it’s been around for ages. It’s another way to define organized stalking – as one of the examples of high policing.
The term “high policing” was introduced into English language police studies by Canadian criminologist Jean-Paul Brodeur in a 1983. The term “high policing” refers to the fact that such policing benefits the “higher” interests of the government rather than individual citizens or the mass population. It also refers to the fact that high-policing organizations are endowed with authority and legal powers superior to that of other types of police organizations. There is no conventional designation for this category of policing in liberal democracies, however, and it should not be conflated with secret police, although secret police organizations do use high policing methods. Calling it “secret” or “political” policing is too vague since all police work is somewhat secret. High policing has an extremely high potential for abuse. There is a tendency, even in democratic countries, for high policing organizations to abuse their powers or even to operate outside the law because many organizations involved in high policing are granted extensive legal powers, including immunity from prosecution for acts that are criminal under normal circumstances.
Jean-Paul set a high standard for shaping a theory of policing and articulated important questions in this regard. The 1983 paper contained the core of Jean-Paul’s theory of policing, including the discordant themes and contrasts between the visible, legal, public face of policing and the secret, powerful, unacknowledged, hidden, quasi-legal face. Jean-Paul’s theory of policing aims to be inclusive, comparative/historical and to include antinomies or self-contradictory arguments. This includes the role of high policing in which the state as protector defines itself as a victim, or in effect works against its own claims to protect and preserve the rights of its citizens. Further, the state can be the citizen’s most powerful enemy.
We now know something about the architecture of secret policing, how it is built, but little about its actual functioning: how it is done, by whom, and why. The fact of agency secrecy, legally and by tradition or convention well protected, is well known. Nevertheless, the futile study of “accountability,” “corruption” and “police deviance” remains alive and well. There can be no accountability when the organization is shielded for its high policing functions and where the most important support, financially and politically lies with the central government of the day. The true and durable nature of high policing is unstudied.
Brodeur (1983) saw high policing as consisting of political surveillance and low policing as law enforcement (holding apart the overlaps between security services and police and the gathering of intelligence and taking action).
In 1983 he identified four features of high policing:
The preservation of the existing political regime was its primary goal (it is true for any regime or political force)
Conflation of separate powers
We traditionally distinguish between legislative, judicial and executive power. In democracies, these powers are exercised independently one of the other. In Westminster-style democracies where all Cabinet ministers also sit in Parliament, there is less of a distinction between the executive and the legislative branches of government than in the US ‘checks and balance’ model. Notwithstanding these differences of emphasis, all democracies condemn government interference in judicial proceedings. Things are noticeably different for high policing. Under the continental monarchies of Europe, the police magistrate enjoyed all three fundamental powers: he could establish penal statutes that even carried the death penalty; he would also preside at trials; finally, he exercised, by definition, all forms of executive powers. The concept of the political ‘coup’ had an original meaning from the 17th to the 19th century that directly contradicted its present sense: a political coup was a decisive action of the State against its enemies and not an action perpetrated against the State by its opponents in order to change the regime, as the concept is presently understood. The high police magistrate had the prime responsibility for such governance through executive coups. I will argue in a further section of this paper that we may be experiencing a resurgence of this mode of governance in the post-9/11 era.
Protection of national security
This is the raison d’être of high policing. The mandate of many security intelligence agencies explicitly mentions that their prime objective is to protect the security of the nation. There are two quite different variants of this feature. In its democratic variant, high policing agencies are tasked to protect the nation’s political institutions and constitutional framework. In its nondemocratic variant, high policing is devoted to the preservation of a particular political regime that may consist in the hegemony of a political party or the rule of a dictator. Distinguishing these variants of national security is necessary to avoid falling into the leftist fallacy that intelligence services are by nature unpalatable to a democracy. It must, however, be understood that the immediate object of high policing is the protection of the state apparatus (e.g. protecting the head of the state against assassination), although protecting the state may also result in protecting its citizens (e.g. against terrorism).
The use of informants
In police parlance, an informant is called a human source. When the high policing paradigm was developed, human sources were the main instrument of covert surveillance . We now have created a massive arsenal of technological tools for the purposes of surveillance . All of our natural senses—eyesight, hearing, smell, touch (lie detectors) and even tasting (poison detecting devices)—now have multiple technological surrogates. Despite the fact that we use a comprehensive array of stealthy technical sources, I still single out human sources and undercover operatives as the hallmark of high policing. As shown by the public release of the East German Stasi archives, the extensive infiltration of human sources is the culmination of high policing. Not only is it the most intrusive instrument of surveillance, but it is also the most destructive of the social fabric as it thrives on betrayal and fosters mutual suspicion and demoralization.
In 2011 he noted five additional characteristics implicit in the above:
The state as intended victim
The utilization of criminals
High police reminds us that the police are above all political actors. Two meanings of this can be noted. The low police on the street were concerned with protecting individual victims and with order maintenance. High police, in contrast, were concerned with protecting a corporate entity—the political regime. A major question is whether in protecting the sovereign, police are also protecting the broader (civil) society. In a democratic setting when police protect the leader they ideally are also protecting the society’s democratic constitution and institutions. In an authoritarian or totalitarian setting high police act as a private police insuring the power of the rulers, (whether a king or political party) apart from the broader society. That does not preclude disingenuous legitimating claims about acting on behalf of the people. While knowledge can be a form of power, self-serving power may oppose knowledge, at least that which can be empirically validated. While it is a truism central to social control that knowledge is power, it does not follow that power is necessarily knowledge in any scientific and empirical sense. Indeed the contortions and denial of knowledge that can be associated with asymmetries in power is among the ugliest consequences of inequality.
Thus, many of the elements of high policing are seen in current policies such as intelligence led (data-base based) and community policing and specialized police unites such as those involving intelligence, undercover, internal affairs and planning. Detectives, and even uniformed police, make use of traditional (informers) advanced tools of surveillance (thermal imaging).
Under the US umbrella of a delusional state of war proclaimed by the George W. Bush administration, high policing combines all powers: it makes covert executive orders that supersede the law, keeps suspects in unlimited preventive custody, wants them tried by Star Chamber commissions and applies the sentence under the most punitive of conditions. Second, there is a wishful quality to the withering-of-the-State resurgent neo-Marxian utopianism, where nodal governance takes the former place of the dictatorship of the proletariat. In fact, the State has never been as arrogantly unilateral as it is now behaving in the United States, the United Kingdom and in Canada.
The police are the most conspicuous symbol of the law (indeed, they are referred to in familiar language as ‘the law’). This is particularly true in respect to its lower policing arm, the patrol persons in uniform, who use their visibility to produce a great deal of their deterrent/reassuring effects. High policing agencies symbolize the power of the state, at times in its most arbitrary aspects. In contrast with the police, the intelligence services base their symbolic power on their low visibility, thriving on rumors, innuendo and fear.
On December 17, 2010, a Tunisian street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire to protest repeated harassment and humiliation by the police and confiscation of the produce he was selling. The unrest that followed his act, facilitated by Facebook, quickly led to the resignation of the Tunisian president. More uprisings followed in near- by countries, including Egypt, where long-time president Hosni Mubarak was forced out of office. These revolutionary events took much of the Western world by surprise, and effects of the several uprisings and regime changes continue to ripple across the region.
Premise of this post is not to accuse anyone of conspiracy to engineer such event it’s about pointing obvious interest in engineering or exploiting such cascading events. Variations of trolley problem can be used to justify and takes care of ethical side of employing such tactics. You sacrifice one average Joe and change lives of millions. Hard to say what exactly Tunisian police did to that poor man. Was it some sort of deliberate disruption tactics or just normal operating procedure of Tunisian law enforcement? Was it driven by some personal issues? He was so disturbed by law enforcement to the point that he took his own life. Why did police zeroed on him? Lets say corruption is rampant in Tunisia and such social order is part of everyday life, but it appears as if he felt that he was singled out for special treatment.
How does one start approaching this behavior modeling animal in terms of organized stalking, gangstalking and targeted individuals? While engineering cascading butterfly effect, butterfly itself is important, but not crucial. Looking from strategic point of view disrupting a butterfly is not the main target, the important part is timing of breaking point in relation to social network, circumstances, consequences, effects and the message. The goal of harassment itself is almost always speculative from targeted individual’s perspective. Every disruption in the society can be used as catalyst to initiate, shape or support a social transformation. Strange and expensive cultural research million EUR grants like The Principle of Disruption. A Figure Reflecting Complex Societies (archive.org / local copy) somewhat starts to fit into this picture. Cultural workshops in fear (archive.org) and fear gaming (archive.org) (german language).
I have to be clear – I have trouble understanding social cultural behavioral modeling. The concept is so new that it’s almost like trying to understand 4th dimension in terms of 3 dimensional world, like trying to relate to quantum physics when all you did before is working at the shoe shine stand or sweeping streets. Even though you polished Einstein’s, Jesus, Buddha’s or Gandhi’s shoes daily, the enlightenment will not rub to you from that process. I’m pretty sure the concept would be hard to understand even for highly educated as it requires a lot more than a narrow expertise in some particular field. Report sort of agrees with me:
In the simplest circumstances, human behavior defies easy understanding or reliable forecasting. In the context of contemporary mission demands, that behavior—driven by a variety of social and cultural variables—engenders complexity in situation awareness and the military decision space that an unaided human cannot process.
The important key is “unaided human”. Most organized stalking victims agree with a fact that community harassment manifests in forms that can’t be invented by common man ingenuity. Subtle and indirect ways of stress, threat and fear induction in organizational manner directly points towards limitations placed on that behavior which is not self determined. At the same time it doesn’t mean that you’re being harassed by the military or secret intelligence agency as research field is largely outsourced to academic and private field. Plausible deniability is the key, and infinitive monkey theorem suddenly might come to reality as there is a hidden hand guiding the monkeys.
DoD researchers often coordinate or partner with other Federal Departments and Agencies that conduct research in sociocultural behavior. These organizations include the Intelligence Community, the National Laboratories, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). A leading sponsor of relevant R&E is the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA), which supports cutting-edge research that has the potential to provide the United States with an intelligence advantage over adversaries. Much of IARPA’s sociocultural behavior work comes out of the Incisive Analysis Office, which focuses on maximizing insights gained from data. This work includes developing tools and methods that incorporate sociocultural and linguistic factors into analyses. One significant program sponsored by the Incisive Analysis Office is Socio-cultural Content in Language (SCIL). SCIL explores and develops novel designs, algorithms, methods, techniques, and technologies to extend the discovery of the social goals of group members by correlating these goals with the terminology they use.
Report states that most of the sociocultural models available today come from a non-military frame of reference. Language and jargon is used to describe processes in general manner that could be applied to individuals, groups, communities, societies, cultures interchangeably. At this point we can only speculate, especially considering that such research could be used for common good as well – eg ergonomics, efficiency, etc
First step would be to get to investigate neutral and neutered language, jargon and keywords used for behavioral modeling and simulation and find how/if they relate to harassment techniques of targeted individuals. Problem is this research is huge – encompassing cultures, cyberworld, politics, societies and the whole humanity.
I’ve been getting hits on my blog with keywords of Adam Lanza and Sandy Hook and other keywords related to organized stalking, mind control, gangstalking, mkultra and so on. I guess some of targeted individuals suspect that he was a victim of such harassment. What is important to realize at this point there is nothing to tie Adam Lanza tragedy to organized stalking or anything related to mind control. One can only speculate about motives, injustice or pressures Adam was facing before the tragedy. Information that is available on the shooter himself or his behavior is so scarce that it’s almost impossible to assess him as personality or individual. Information that is presented can’t be validated or confirmed, not to mention a lot of information is contradictory or conflicting. We have some pieces of the puzzle where we’re expected to fill the blank spaces ourselves.
Focus has been placed on the guns, not Adam’s life as if somehow guns influenced the tragedy. Logically it doesn’t make whole a lot of sense. If Adam didn’t have access to guns he could have used machete, chefs-knife, box-cutter, hammer or any other instrument to deliver his vengeance. Aggression is almost always expression of frustration, but we do not have information what was causing real, imagined or perceived obstructions in Adam’s life. If guns are evil hardware that kills people – this premise should apply to military or any authority figure as well.
So whatever it is we can look at it as effect based operation, where focus is to implement changes leading to second order effects (like a tighter regulation of guns or population mental health screenings). I don’t want to speculate about third order effects that this tragedy might lead to.
Strangely enough nobody tried to tie the tragedy to terrorism, lone wolf theories, violent extremism or rapid radicalization. Focus is not on the individual who caused the tragedy, but the push of dialectical thesis and antithesis (pro-gun and anti-gun) that had nothing to do with the tragedy itself. At the same time debates about social issues can’t be dismissed as tactic to divert attention from the core issue – why Adam Lanza felt so wronged that the only way for him to express his point was to kill little children and mother who raised him, not to mention all lose ends in the story.
Trying to explain the tragedy based on “evil gene” is just funny and at the same time very scary as it portrays people as instinct driven soulless robots who’s cognition and reasoning is product of genetics.
Another issue that is being raised – Adam Lanza mental health. It’s also purely speculative, based on unnamed sources and hearsay. Blame game is therapeutic, but can never be transcending as its usually just manifestation of preexisting stereotypes. Of course no rational person would agree that actions attributed to this person Adam Lanza (who we can’t even verify that he existed to begin with) would fit in “normal behavior” category.
One has to pay attention to that snake oil psychiatrist who claimed being his doctor. That trail leads to CIA’ s Men Who Stare at Goats department.
So my question – was tragedy catalyst for debate about social change or debate serves as distraction from tragedy (as it fills the void of uncertainty)?
One doing research into organized stalking can’t dismiss psychiatry as it’s very closely related to the core of the problem as persistent psychological harassment is hell bent to drive you crazy or make you appear as mentally ill if you try to describe the abuse. Psychiatry could be called as one of the gatekeepers of the problem. Not to mention they will be drawing public funds to care for manufactured psychiatric symptoms (if it gets to the breaking point) for the rest of targeted individual’s life.
The difference between what it is in reality and what we think it is could be hard to measure by observable criteria if looking only from targeted individual’s perspective. Coercive nature of psychiatry was used and abused by democracies and dictatorships alike throughout the ages. So at this point it’s not important what you do – what is important what others (referenced by someone who has a motive) think/interpreted/misinterpreted that you do that made you a target.
Interesting new trend where number (full report local copy) of state hospital beds in America has plummeted to 1850 levels and number of state psychiatric beds decreased by 14% from 2005 to 2010, falling to 43,318 beds in the United States, less than 5% of the beds available in 1955, the peak year of psychiatric hospitalization. It would be interesting to compare overall spending for mental health care if it’s decreasing or increasing as to relation to inpatient treatment statistics. Maybe it somehow related to gangstalking/organized stalking, which appears to be gaining traction.
Maybe it’s relevant to examine outpatient and community psychiatric care programs that exist in liberal democracies. Initiation algorithm into one of these programs is explained in Locus Training Manual (used by community psychiatrists) (local copy), which is not prescriptive, but descriptive in terms of resources and level of intensity for care needed for mentally ill according to real or perceived symptoms.
“This would allow clients to be assessed without regard to diagnosis and regardless of their presenting problems, thus making this a particularly advantageous tool for use with the co-occurring disorders.”
Sentence particularly ambiguous. Various levels of care only describe intensity or resources that will be dedicated towards “client” who needs them. One of intensive community type programs is Assertive Community treatment. It is especially relevant as one of the negative effects, possibly related to the coercive elements of the treatment, is the increased incidence of suicide rates. It’s for people that are seriously mentally ill and even though none of the targeted individuals smear feces on their walls one has to consider possibility of being portrayed or projected into such category. Reading into Assertive community treatment (ACT or PACT) it’s hard to understand what exactly does it do, but some critiqued coercive aspects of program (local copy) (The Origins of Coercion in “Assertive Community Treatment A Review of Early Publications from the “Special Treatment Unit (STU) of Mendota State Hospital”). Following excerpts that sounds exactly like mobbing is from “treatment” from one of the founders of program earlier work. I’m not even posting their work on experimenting with electric cattle prods as punishment devise. It displays the attitude towards fellow human being. What is strange is the predisposition that mobbing will be occurring outside of the treatment.
During the first session heavy canvas mittens were placed on the patient. … The staff (five or more) people would sit very close to patient with a young female within striking distance. The patient was required to sit in an armchair throughout. …. During the base rate week the staff quickly developed a consistent provocative approach in order to ensure a high frequency of behavior from the patient and be generalizable to the frustrations she would encounter outside of treatment. This consistently involved:
1) ignoring the patient in conversation;
2) refusing to give the patient candy or snacks when others were eating them;
3) denying all requests, for example, during the session if she asked if she would be able to go for a walk that afternoon, she was immediately told, “No you can’t.”;
4) refusing to accept her apologies or believe her promises of good behavior;
5) The above mentioned female sitting next to her often leading the provocation;
6) using provocative labels for her behavior, i.e., “animalistic, low grade”;
7) discussing family related frustrations, i.e., her mother’s refusal to write or visit, how her dead grandmother would be displeased with her present behavior if she were alive. It should be noted that throughout the program the patient was kept in a seclusion room at all times except when involved in a baseline or treatment session.
In sum, rude, aggressive, artificial incitement by the staff was used to provoke an angry response from the patient; this elicited behavior then was used as a representation of the allegedly natural unprovoked, “baseline” assaultive behavior of the client.
Now a bit of insight into treatment Program at the STU (special treatment unit) called “provocative therapy” that also sounds like form of mobbing or gangstalking:
Although brainwashing procedures at first appear alien to healing practices, they are indeed often similar in terms of techniques and desired goals. … Given these considerations, we have formulated a group designed to produce the maximal amount of emotional response and arousal in patients. In general, the group leader openly confronted patients with taboo topics and voiced criticisms of an unsympathetic society toward their deviant attitudes and behaviors. The crazy behaviors of patients were parodied and caricatured. Patients were badgered, pestered, confronted, challenged, derogated, ridiculed, and belittled in an effort to provoke protest, anger, irritation, discomfort and self-assertion.
The ACT inventors have continued to resist seeing their so-called treatment as the problem itself. In fact, against published evidence to the contrary (some of it quoted in the present article), they deny ever-using coercive methods in ACT.
It’s hard to tell if such programs of aggressive community treatment is used as a tool to designate, stigmatize and institutionalize people behind their back, but considering the complexity of the issue and subjectivity of what is normal and what is not, you have to look into practice of the program:
What does the PACT program look like in practice? Stein (1990) explains: The ACCT (the team) serves as a fixed point of responsibility … and is concerned with all aspects of their (the patients) lives that influence their functioning, including psychological health, physical health, living situation, finances, socialization, vocational activities, and recreational activities. The team sets no time limits for their involvement with patients, is assertive in keeping patients involved. In addition to the day to day work … the team is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
It still doesn’t explain the organized stalking or gangstalking as devil is in details, and every situation is unique. RAND article (archive.org) about involuntary outpatient treatment is vague and lacking any details about the treatment techniques itself.
“This may be the social science equivalent of the Manhattan Project,” says Gary LaFree, the University of Maryland criminologist who will direct the new center of excellence. “Too often, policy-makers have had to counter terrorists on the basis of assumptions and guesstimates. Our job will be to give them more solid information to work with.” The new center of excellence will be built around teams of social scientists drawn from many fields. “It’s an unusual way to do social research, but it fits the challenge,” La Free says. “We know a lot more about violence, group psychology and international conflict than has been brought to bear on this problem. Our teams will be more inclusive so we can tap this expertise.”
It’s a attention grabbing claim to equate new project to potential of nuclear bomb. It could be pompous statement based on nothing, but hot air. It’s not clear if he is talking about this particular center research or social/behavioral terrorism related research in general. Such bold statement warrants further investigation especially if it’s coming from such reputable source (director of Homeland Social and Security Behavioral Research Center). If new weapon promise such huge potential maybe some oversight is warranted or at least explanation what is it that they are doing?
In the first year, one working group will study how terrorist organizations form and recruit, focusing on specific organizations that pose a clear and present danger. One line of research, for example, will ask whether terror groups inspired by religious zeal are more likely to use weapons of mass destruction than their secular counterparts. Another will look at the way terror groups have exploited the 9-11 attacks to expand their base of popular support. Yet another will examine U.S. prisons as recruiting grounds for terror groups.
In all these studies, researchers will look for ways to intervene and disrupt the process. “We’ll be a kind of academic rapid-response team,” LaFree says. “Part of our job will involve getting timely advice to homeland and national security professionals in government.”
A second working group will study the internal dynamics of terror organizations looking for patterns of behavior or other predictors of what groups may do next. A third team will study how to warn of terror risks, prepare for attacks and limit the damage once launched. “The strength of this center lies in the collaboration,” says Gansler. “Through teamwork the assets of each of the partners will be amplified.”
The researchers will draw on a variety of tools including major global databases of ethnic struggles over the past 60 years and the most comprehensive open data set on terror incidents. As part of his prior research, LaFree has been assembling the terror database and will begin to mine it for clues about the roots of terror and effective counter-measures.
The center will also have a strong educational component, helping to train a new generation of researchers in the field of terror-related social science.
CVE: Empirically proven process(es) by which an individual becomes extremist, and capable of violence.
It’s ambitious goal, that seems almost unattainable. Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. It’s not like you can take some volunteers, put them in controlled environment (lab) and apply some external pressure until that person snaps out killing a puppies or bunnies or starts harming himself and call it “radicalization”, unless they have access to federal/private prison system and can use the inmates as their research objects. If you accept shanking as incident of radicalization you have yourself a thesis. Even though data generated would indicate violence, but it wouldn’t reflect or be useful in real life. One way to achieve such empirical evidence would be total population surveillance that would generate enough data to examine history behind some dramatic violent event and create compelling case explaining circumstances that influenced individual’s life leading towards that event (like recent case of Adam Lanza). It doesn’t seem nowhere near feasible or even probable in the near future and it wouldn’t provide information on exact process of radicalization itself. I guess what is possible is partial surveillance of the population that would identify worrying patterns and zeroing onto these individuals for further investigation.
Of course Military has lots of people living under quasi caste system (there is really no need to differentiate between various countries – there is only one military in the world – the rest is military deception), where they are free to do with them pretty much anything. So hazing, sexual assault, suicide, etc incidents should also provide some idea about what is going on. If you look at some stats – they are simply heartbreaking: there is a rape each hour in US military. Thats what gets reported. I assume most of the rapes stay under radar. I wonder what percentage of those rapes are same sex rapes that in reality serves not only as sexual assault, but is used as psychiatric weapon of pervertariat to lobotomize someone. Equality my ass.
Another very suspicious Military program that sounds like Nazi-Gestapo-Kevorkian brainchild is “Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training” (ASIST). They train people to be suicide detection “specialists” that can be part of community and keep that community under surveillance. Imagine some asshole identifies you at suicide risk and unbeknown to you initiates some sort of crazy protocol getting everyone around you to behave in some “special” way towards you. Of course that specialist (or bio sensor) probably keeps tabs on your “suicidal” progress.
Most of the mind control, gangstalking, TI, conspiracy websites point to MKultra data on CIA covert behavioral engineering, but nobody’s talking about human social and cultural behavior modeling (archive.org) field that has been exploding in the past decade with multiple governmental, educational bodies and private companies participating, proposing solutions and methods and bidding for contracts in fighting of global war on terrorism, influencing and shaping of societies, irregular warfare, cultural warfare, etc. If MKultra was a carriage drawn by a horse, HSCB modeling seems to be Lamborghini as focus has not limited to individual, but groups and whole society. NATO has similar program called Virtual Institute on Human Behavior Representation (HBR) (archive.org). I’m having hard time comprehending the purpose of these programs, but in generic terms it seems that modeling and simulation helps you peer into the future as simulation predicts what will happen in the future, how will adversary act or react. It helps to test “what if?” question. In a way behavioral, social and cultural modeling is quasi time machine where modeling and simulation can predict how will individual, group or society will react to some sort of change in their life (stimuli). These are very complex issues that I’m trying to talk about. I could be making complete ass out of myself…
Human behavior modeling (local copy) is the process of developing computable representations of human actions and/or cognition that occur in response to stimuli (both internal and external to the human). Human behavior models require, as a basis, an accurate portrayal of the modeled users’ knowledge and interactions in a process called user modeling. User modeling can be effectively utilized to make explicit the reasoning about the purpose of system adaptations and decisions, to take into account user motivation, and to present a unified model of collaborative, cooperative, and adverse behavior. In addition, employment of a user modeling approach allows the direct incorporation of knowledge derived from cognitive task analysis techniques into the knowledge processing structure of the user model. The main objective of user modeling is to determine what the user intends to do within an environment.
If you look at the picture organized stalking achieves a lot of objectives of radicalization process – augmented self isolation of individual. Of course absolute majority of victims (at least those who went their frustrations on the Internet) will not attack anyone, but some will lash out in some way. Some will harm themselves – suicide is violent act too.
Nobody knows what a hell organized stalking is, but HSCB and HBR programs could be used to model individual life to the second after they become person of interest, including cognitive and emotional domains thus generating behavioral personality patterns and template. If computer simulation plays out some sort of crazy scenario where you’re threat – you will become a target. Just a speculation. Scenario editor would create changes based on that profile and situation.
So capability is there. At least I think it is. So if TI is forced to play chess match against Deep Blue computer where computer knows all his possible moves in advance, the way to defeat it is to break patterns and do things completely out of character. Problem is the template would be updated with new information, so artificial intelligence would start thinking about it too.
Of course it doesn’t mean that every TI is being chased by CIA or DIA. Some of these methods are simply templates and could be copied and applied by copycats or law enforcement as disruptive measures without actual modeling of the situation.
1) Unconflicted adherence (UA) in which the risk information is ignored and the decisionmaker (DM) complacently decides to continue whatever he has been doing.
2) Unconflicted change (UC) to a new course of action, where the DM uncritically adopts whichever new course of action is most salient, obvious, or strongly recommended.
3) Vigilance (VG) in which the DM searches painstakingly for relevant information, assimilates it in an unbiased manner, and appraises alternatives carefully before making a choice.
4) Defensive avoidance (DA) in which the DM evades the conflict by procrastinating, shifting responsibility to someone else, or constructing wishful rationalizations and remaining selectively inattentive to corrective information.
5) Hypervigilance(HY) wherein the DM searches frantically for a way out of the dilemma and impulsively seizes upon a hastily contrived solution that seems to promise immediate relief, overlooking the full range of consequences of his choice because of emotional excitement, repetitive thinking, and cognitive constriction (manifested by reduction in immediate memory Span and simplistic ideas). In its most extreme form, hypervigilance is referred to as “panic.”
All but the third of these coping patterns are regarded by Janis -Mann as “defective.” The first two, while occasionally adaptive in routine or minor decisions, often lead to poor decision-making if a vital choice must be made. Similarly, the last two patterns may occasionally be adaptive but generally reduce the DM’s chances of averting serious loss. The authors note, vigilance, although occasionally maladaptive if danger is imminent and a split-second response is required, generally leads to decisions of the best quality”.
If organized stalking is based on behavior modeling experimentation at least Targets could pat themselves on the back that they are doing great job by providing valuable data helping their countries fighting global war on terror or organized crime. The sad thing is the data from your experiment will probably be used to attack someone just like you only more efficiently.
Another idea to explore is all those hidden camera tv/youtube shows that rely on making people snap and calling it pranking or social experimentation. Some of the earlier shows were Jamie Kennedy Experiment, Punk’d, Boiling Points that were presented as Candid Camera type shows, but with very different approach with very carefully designed, fine tuned and prepared social situations. Nowadays on youtube they have complete psychopaths operating multiple channels designated on “pranking” where they put people into situations that can be considered as assault or a lot worse – inflicting person psychiatric symptoms and if caught red handed – oh we are just joking. They seem to be connected and operating under legal umbrella provided by porn industry (what isn’t these days?) which is of course leads us to sugar daddies in intelligence industry. Don’t forget that some of this “science” is probably used and applied when designing and crafting such foreign NGO programs as StopHam, StopZlob, Hrushi Protiv, Lev Protiv, Федеральный проект “АГЕНТЫ”, Трезвые Дворы, etc. I’m giving examples of programs in Russia as it’s the language I understand and I’ve been following the development of them on youtube for a while now. So here you have it. If you look at it from this perspective Russia is in huge trouble as it’s being destroyed from inside by multiple trojan horses who siphon local budget money for foreign warfare operations. Not to mention experts can review youtube videos and finetune and coordinate actions accordingly by using whatever method is agreed among them. I’m sure in other countries and localities exists similar programs and NGO’s which can appear completely innocent driven by nationalistic pride, fight for human rights, livability, justice or similar psychiatric weaponry, but in reality it’s something else. You have to keep one thing in mind – there are no NGO’s in this world – they all are used as cover for activities that need cover by people that prefer to stay undercover.
I tried to see if a single TI website would link John Boyd OODA Loop to gangstalking or organized stalking. I couldn’t find a single one, even though it’s a apt description of the framework and method of environmental and situational behavioral control with expectation of target confusion to increase until disorder approaches chaos— death. Considering that it’s been for around 40+ years and quite broadly (albeit without original depth of the author) have been used in military, law enforcement and economic domain for various purposes – defense and offense, it’s quite reasonable to examine OODA loop as behavioral model for executing organized stalking. I always struggled to see the reasons why would organized stalking methods be effective or reasonable to employ. Attack on OODA loop (aka control warfare) clearly explains the organized stalking process which is in essence non invasive occupation of individual’s freedom aka mind control, it is also could be employed as theoretical framework for police “disruption tactics”.
Boyd thought that one could “collapse the enemy’s system into confusion and disorder by causing him to over- and under-react to activity that appears simultaneously menacing as well as ambiguous, chaotic, or misleading.”
The key is to obscure your intentions and make them unpredictable to your opponent while you simultaneously clarify his intentions. That is, operate at a faster tempo to generate rapidly changing conditions that inhibit your opponent from adapting or reacting to those changes and that suppress or destroy his awareness.
What is OODA loop (for observe, orient, decide, and act)?
John Boyd created an enduring legacy for those involved with describing, affecting, and compelling the behavior of others. Encapsulated in his model of the OODA Loop, Boyd’s framework represents the foundation for examining, and affecting, the actions of people, groups, and nations.
For the case of organized stalking we are only concerned about OODA loop in a sense of individual behavior (as they call it type I), unless you’re somehow important in affecting some group, organization or even nation. In that case the target might not be you, but the organization you belong to (suspected, perceived or real). Most of the victims of organized stalking doesn’t appear to be high value targets (HVT), high value individuals (HVI), PONI’s (persons of national interest), etc. So one possible benefactor would be mental health apparatus as they’d draw benefits directly from the state while taking care of targeted individual’s manufactured psychiatric symptoms. Now one has to evaluate cost/benefit ratio. How much does psychiatry industrial complex gets for “caring” for person in and outside the asylum? No matter what – psychiatry benefits directly from gangstalking so they could be considered at least tacit supporter of it.
At the systemic level, the OODA Loop provides a coherent framework for describing human and organizational behavior. People and groups observe what is occurring around them; they fit these observations into a general expectation regarding the environment; they make decisions as necessary or appropriate; and they take action when needed. Externally, it is a very neat and orderly process.
Unfortunately, such a model is also quite vague. Aphorisms like “operate inside the enemy’s decision loop” or “expand the enemy’s decision loop” are expressions of the broad strategic tasks that emerge from this general model. They are rich in metaphor and short on meaning, primarily because they say little about what needs to be done. A closer examination of the entire system reveals the true objective of this approach. The goal of behavioral modification at the systemic level is to reduce the flow of information to the enemy, or to increase the amount of time that it takes the enemy to act on whatever information he possesses. Systemic attacks against an enemy’s OODA Loop strive to isolate the various tasks of observation, orientation, decision, and action from one another. Systemic attack is not about getting inside the enemy’s head. It is about preventing the enemy’s head from getting useful information, and if that fails, preventing the enemy from acting on that information in a timely, relevant manner.
Boyd also uses quantum physics, entropy and the laws of thermodynamics to predict and explain cognitive effects of uncertainty, confusion, incompleteness, suspicion, destruction and creation.
As you can see the purpose is to delay the behavioral loop of the target, where response is needed and at the same time impossible.
Naturally, as we go through life we develop concepts of meaning (with included constituents) to represent observed reality. Can we not liken these concepts—and their related constituents—to the domains and constituents that we have formed in our imagination? Naturally, we can. Keeping this relationship in mind, suppose we shatter the correspondence of each domain or concept with its constituent elements. In other words, we imagine the existence of the parts but pretend that the domains or concepts they were previously associated with do not exist. Result: We have many constituents, or particulars, swimming around in a sea of anarchy. We have uncertainty and disorder in place of meaning and order. Further, we can see that such an unstructuring or destruction of many domains—to break the correspondence of each with its respective constituents—is related to deduction, analysis, and differentiation. We call this kind of unstructuring a destructive deduction.
So targeting somebody’s OODA Loop in essence translates into shifting ones attention and cognitive resources towards a task that is unsolvable with current state of mind. Important element of it is orientation and thats where internet gangstalking sites come in to play. Even though they provide definition, but clearly no solutions whatsoever.
There are a lot more of the theory of OODA Loop in the links you can find below, but the important part is the Boyd’s own suggestion to dealing with such attack:
Fortunately, there is a way out. Remember, as previously shown, we can forge a new concept by applying the destructive deduction and creative induction mental operations. Also, remember, in order to perform these dialectic mental operations we must first shatter the rigid conceptual pattern, or patterns, firmly established in our mind. (This should not be too difficult since the rising confusion and disorder is already helping us to under- mine any patterns). Next, we must find some common qualities, attributes, or operations to link isolated facts, perceptions, ideas, impressions, interactions, observations, etc., together as possible concepts to represent the real world. Finally, we must repeat this unstructuring and restructuring until we develop a concept that begins to match-up with reality. By doing this—in accordance with Godel, Heisenberg and the Second Law of Thermodynamics—we find that the uncertainty and disorder generated by an inward-oriented system to talking to itself can be offset by going outside and creating a new system. Simply stated, uncertainty and related disorder can be diminished by the direct artifice of creating a higher and broader more general concept to represent reality.
However, once again, when we begin to turn inward and use the new concept—within its own pattern of ideas and interactions—to produce a finer grain match with observed reality we note that the new concept and its match-up with observed reality begins to self- destruct just as before. Accordingly, the dialectic cycle of destruction and creation begins to repeat itself once again. In other words, as suggested by Godel’s Proof of Incompleteness, we imply that the process of Structure, Unstructure, Restructure, Unstructure, Re- structure is repeated endlessly in moving to higher and broader levels of elaboration. In this unfolding drama, the alternating cycle of entropy increase toward more and more dis- order and the entropy decrease toward more and more order appears to be one part of a control mechanism that literally seems to drive and regulate this alternating cycle of destruction and creation toward higher and broader levels of elaboration.
So it’s not a solution, but cyclical process of expanding ones cognitive space so attack has no effect on ones goals, intent and freedom.
I’ve been posting various research, essays and academic thesis from government, military, behavioral, social and policing domain. One has to understand that academic papers do not reflect operational reality or reality of the individual in question. Usually it’s just a push from above to describe/influence the existing order/method (one has to keep in mind that every single area of our economy operates under unwritten rule that there are no irreplaceable employees even if they are nobel laureates with IQ of 1000) , but at the same time it provides a glimpse of reality from the “pusher/insider” position. Almost all targeted individuals share the notion that only government could organize and execute such operations, but at the same time it’s almost impossible to understand why would these individuals pose a threat to the state. So analyzing government/military intellectuals defining the threat, reality, methods could at least give some indirect insight into bigger picture why is it reasonable for them to attack seemingly random people. Argument could be made that defense and policing apparatus became so paranoid/disoriented that they started attacking their own people that they are supposed to be protecting. Another argument could be made that it’s no mistake and state has some very logical/strategic reasons like research, exercise or training on people that they consider disposable for whatever reason anyways. One can only use the information for analytical purposes when overlaying it over your existing perception of reality.
There are few very important paragraphs in this article titled “The Specter of Non-Obvious Warfare” by Martin C. Libicki. It shows that even states have serious problems dealing with attack that they do not understand where it came from or by who and for what reason. Some solutions.
Ambiguity is the heart of non-obviousness. If the victim is unsure of who carried out an operation, it may hesitate to respond in the same way as if it were certain. Alternatively, the rest of the world might have doubts even if the victim is certain, leaving the victim wary of responding as it might have if others were very sure of matters.
Non-obviousness is enhanced if the events in question can themselves be questioned. Nevertheless, some non-obvious warfare incidents would clearly be acts of war if they were obvious—in which case, the key ambiguity is the actor not the act. Some forms of warfare are non-obvious because the relationship between the attacker and a state is unclear;
Exactly how the target state acquires the confidence that another specific state carried out an attack will also vary, but one cannot go very far wrong by considering means, motives, and opportunity. Opportunity—in the form of some traceable delivery vehicle—often best distinguishes obvious from non-obvious warfare.
So what can be done with non-obvious warfare? One use is general coercion or dissuasion. Instead of signaling, “if you do this we will do that,” the signal is, “if you do this then bad things will happen to you.” Because the act of signaling itself may implicate the attacker, it helps if the signals come from someone else.
The advantages of starting in a non-obvious mode are twofold. First, if the initial attack were obvious the target might counter move in ways that would make the attack harder to pull off. It may know where to point its defenses, so to speak; it could rally others to pressure the attacker; or it could even counterattack. Second, if the attack falls short of its objectives, the attacker may cancel the overt attack and remain obscure in hopes of eluding punishment. Correspondingly, a non-obvious attack may be a test to see if the particular technique works, what the target’s defenses are, and where improvements should be sought. It would be an expensive test if the target itself should learn something about its vulnerabilities and thereby have cause to work them and evidence on how to do so.
Non-obvious warfare can also be carried out for narrative effect. Normally, in warfare the attacker and the target are both part of the narrative, and unless the attacker’s actions are totally baseless, the contest over narratives is likely to be two-handed with each side’s fans supporting their own side. However, if the attacker is unknown, or at least unclear, then the focus of the story is necessarily on the target, and the theme is likely to focus on why the target was attacked—and may well dwell on what the target did that merited the attack or why the target could not secure itself. That, in fact, may be the attacker’s motive: to create a crisis of confidence in the target state, either weakening it outright, creating fissures in its body politic, or at least making it more amenable to concession. Finally, if an attacker can persuade the target that it was hit by a third party, it may catalyze conflict that will be to the attacker’s advantage.
Mostly, though, targets would simply want such attacks to stop—but how? Defense is clearly an option and one that would logically assume greater importance the less it can lean on not hitting back because it is unsure about who committed the offense. Another option is to help create pressure from the world community to end the possession of the requisite attack technology, but most of these cannot be effectively banned. The weapons of sabotage, special operations, and insurgencies are small arms. More broadly, it is how such weapons are used rather than the weapons themselves that determines the characteristics of non-obvious warfare. A variant on the second approach is to develop a global consensus that the covert use of warfare is far more heinous than its overt use. Thus, if such weapons are used—something that may not always be apparent— the world community would support efforts to pressure potential users into allowing investigations that would clarify which state was at fault. After all, most forms of warfare are universally held to be crimes if carried out by those outside the military; thus, even the accused state should have an interest in finding and rooting out its dangerous criminals, assuming it would wish to shift the blame. Where states use proxies and such acts are crimes, they may be pressured to cooperate with international police in investigations. Satisfaction for the aggrieved party, however, assumes police actions can establish reasonable levels of certainty. More problematically, the closer the trail of investigation comes to the doors of military or intelligence establishments, the greater the reluctance of states to allow matters to proceed. Such reluctance would not be unfounded—if purported acts of non-obvious warfare allow investigators to peer into covert operations, states may go to great lengths to interpret the need for evidence in ways that would also allow them to uncover the secrets of their rivals. The last recourse is for victimized states and their allies to respond to suspected warring states as if certain they did it. In doing so, they must factor in how certain others are that the accusation is correct and, to some extent, whether the purported attacking state believes it is guilty. Many non-obvious warfare techniques can be carried out by rogue elements. As noted, some responses, such as chilling relations between the target and the purported attacker, do not require anything close to conclusive proof; mere uneasiness suffices. Other responses, such as retaliation, normally require high levels of confidence. In the end, the victimized state has to weigh the risks associated with false negatives (doing nothing in the face of aggression) and false positives (retaliating against the innocent). Note further that “plausible deniability” is hardly an absolute in this case.
Would the spread of non-obvious warfare be a good thing? Even if wielded solely in pursuit of good aims, such techniques corrode both military values and diplomatic norms. Non-obvious warfare, almost by definition, has to be the work of small teams that must isolate themselves from the larger community, much like intelligence operatives, lest word of their adventures leak out. The efforts of the small non-obvious warfare teams would leave the mass of the national security establishment quite uncertain about what exactly was going on and who exactly was behind all the activity (only some of which would appear to be accidental). Non-obvious warfare is also a poor fit for democratic states and a far better fit for authoritarian or failing states in which the intelligence community has become decoupled from its legitimate governance structure. States with long-term reputations to manage are likely to see the downside from having to lie about their warfare activities when so confronted.
I was reading another targeted individual’s account and it got me thinking about community as another element of organized stalking/gangstalking, but I couldn’t really identify it as unifying factor for every TI – as abuse continues even after TI moves to new place, another country, even continent. One has to keep in mind that TI might be anchored/conditioned to some common stimuli and without deprogramming it doesn’t matter where he moves as torture becomes internal.
Community is very important aspect of “organized stalking”, but looking at it from a distance it’s not the community, but synthetic albeit informal aspect of this crime what makes it so hard for TI to pierce the veil the bubble of isolation. Community itself can’t be at fault as responsibility is diffused, but emerging organizational structure of community that is almost by design can be exploited to invert position on one of their members by attaching stigma to targeted individual to gain necessary level of legitimacy for systematic abuse. It is also strange that not a single instance of “organized stalking” got revealed by so called “perps” or witnesses, who are supposedly operating around TI’s in the throves. Especially having in mind all the modern communication, social media, safe community policing initiatives, etc. One can say that it’s expected as with mobbing or bullying, since the fact of revelation wouldn’t be self-beneficial, but altruistic if revealer of conspiracy understands the conspiracy. So for conspiracy to be revealed for the benefit towards TI by casual observer in the community:
observer has to be certain of conspiracy
It is altruistic – as observer understands the unethical effects it’s supposed to have on TI and community at large, so helping TI would be about “fixing something broken in the system”
There are limits on how far one can influence another’s ideas and actions. Attempts to assert total control are likely to be met with ingenuity to circumvent it towards freedom. People tend to rely on their own, those who share a common identity, for they most closely share values and interests. If community is a part of a system where TI or number of TI’s can be seen as outsiders by some sort of criteria and “organized stalking” is just one of the augmented mechanisms for the system to deal with targets by informal repression – it means system isn’t broken. It works like a clock. One can look at it as incapacitation as alternative to incarceration, where augmentation of existing fears and neurosis (that to some degree exists in everyone, except psychopaths) to the level requiring psychiatric attention. Whatever it really is – it is form of eugenics and modern day community can almost be perceived having cult characteristics where members aren’t even aware of top-down manipulation.
Co-operative punishment together with pro-social behavior produces a self reinforcing system that allows the emergence of a ‘Darwinian Leviathan’ that strengthens social institutions.
Pro-social behavior is not ethical or non-ethical – according to research it simply means “behavior that favors the group”. Subjects of punishment are called freeriders. It’s hard to tell what they mean by that, but I guess ones that exhibit behavior that doesn’t favor the group. They even seriously discuss mobbing as one of the forms of cooperative punishment towards a goal of promoting pro-social behavior.
The core of the problem, we believe, is the assumption that the punishment required to enforce pro-social altruism has to be applied individually-without possibly coordinating efforts with other group members-as in a prisoners’ dilemma situation. We fail to see why members of a social group could not apply punishment co-operatively-instead of individually-which would enable them to distribute the costs of punishment evenly among all group members. And if such costs can, in fact, be distributed among group members, the cost to each individual is minimized and the theoretical problem of the understanding the evolutionary dynamics of pro-social behavior may actually be solved (Zaballa 2006). Co-operative punishment is a fundamental part of human society -as exemplified by human bands, Indian tribes, slum mobsters, the police, law enforcement, taxation and most modern social institutions- and might occur in other animal societies although we could not find any published evidence for this. Another route to co-operative punishment is mobbing. Although as described originally it is aimed at predators, it is used to harass co-operatively something that represents a threat to them, mobbing against conspecifics would classify as co-operative punishment. Unfortunately experimental evidence for behaviors like mobbing or other cooperative strategies to punish intra-specific free-riders among animal societies is very scarce or totally absent.
So they have formulas and ran simulations with three different types of societies – no collective punishment, altruistic punishment and cooperative punishment. The key conclusions:
Co-operative punishment may reduce the costs of punishment as a consequence of the synergy that typically results from co-operation. For example, when various individuals punish someone co-operatively, resistance may be expected to fall dramatically reducing the cost for punishing and thus increasing the ratio: cost to punished / cost to punisher
Co-operative punishment may increase the effectiveness of punishment as a result of the combined capacities of many society members in monitoring individual behavior, making it possible to detect infractions in a way that freelance punishers could never match.
Social enforcement of rules is less subject to forces affecting the individual, such as a lack of immediacy, or immediately available resources for punishment, etc., and thus more efficient by itself, irrespective of all advantages cited above
Co-operative punishment may involve additional costs in terms of observations, evaluations, and discussions required to reach an agreement. In constituted societies punishment costs may actually lie for the most part in these necessary proceedings rather than in the execution of punishment itself, thus reinforcing its power to exert a consistent selective pressure leading to the evolution of pro-social behaviors.
In any case, humans enforce pro social structures by co-operative punishment following the same basic pattern as mob-beatings, for society members carefully avoid assuming the costs of punishment individually, but press for public resolutions that divide the costs of punishment among all society members. One way to achieve this is reputation through moral gossip, by which individuals make public their private knowledge of other people’s antisocial behavior until there is a consensus to apply some form of punishment. If after a series of antisocial acts people agree, for instance, that the offender should be ostracized-a common punishment in band societies that in practice may amount to death penalty-the costs of such punishment, which consist mainly of loosing the co-operative capacities of the offender, are practically nil. This kind of cooperation might be especially important in keeping religious groups together . Another way to socialize the costs of punishment is to appoint punishers (police among humans; individuals specialized in tackling social corruption among social insects and compensate them with public resources-the common pile of food in our modeled society-so that the costs of punishment are ultimately borne by all society members, whether they actually participate in punishment or not.
This research is purely theoretical, but sort of scary to think about it as foundation for pro-social society where cooperation is enforced by mob rule. Social scientists have a lot of intriguing games: dictator game, ultimatum game, prisoner’s dilemma game, trust game, cooperation game, social trap, public choice, etc
So maybe it’s incorrect to look at organized stalking from TI’s position alone as it is probably modeled with community in mind. It might also be helpful for TI to distinguish real perps from average community member who is only cooperating without realizing the bigger picture.
Another quote from research into Social Norms. Website gondapeter.sk/files/social_norms_presen_gnd.pdf disabled no pdf archive available. There is archive of his diploma. It seems it’s just quotes taken from other works – this and this:
Large percentage of subjects are willing to enforce distribution and cooperation norms even though they incur costs and reap no economic benefit from their sanctions and even though they have not been directly harmed by the norm violation.
Research shows that punishment is a human universal. “We used two behavioral experiments, the ultimatum and third party punishment games, among 1762 adults sampled from 15 diverse populations from five continents, representing the breadth of human production systems.” “All populations demonstrate some willingness to administer costly punishment as unequal behavior increases”
So here you have it. Social research explains how organized stalking, harassment and disruption tactics can be tolerated and even supported by community at large as long as it’s defined as punishment for behavior that is detrimental to the group. Thoughts?
“Personality based targeting” has certain ring to it making targeted individual to pause and pay attention, even though it’s a part of big counterinsurgency military targeting doctrine that includes lethal and non-lethal options. There is little information about personality based targeting on Google – less than 100 hits if you discount unrelated information. Some of the hits are on resumes and intelligence analyst hiring sites requiring top secret clearances. Military sometimes uses shortened version “personality targeting” – it has more hits, but less than 10 on .mil domains. The F3EAD (Find-Fix-Finish-Exploit-Analyze-Disseminate) model was developed for personality-based targeting (local copy) and has been widely adopted as the principal targeting process for AtN (attack the network) targeting HVI (high value individuals). A high-value individual is a person of interest (friendly, adversary, or enemy) who must be identified, surveilled, tracked and influenced through the use of information or fires. A lot more information is available on F3EAD model as it’s not used only for personality based targeting, but regular counterinsurgency. So personality based targeting and F3EAD are not interchangeable. Also lets not dazzle ourselves with “high value” labels as changes in technology over the years changed a lot of things – if 20 years ago cell phone was affordable only to selected few, now every chav carries one.
Targeting networks include not only addressing threat capabilities, but also creating conditions for success among the population as a whole. Because networks exist and operate among the general population, target engagement requires a much greater level of precision to be successful. Conventional forces need to target individuals and populations in much the same manner as SOF have in the past. This approach is called personality targeting; other targeting concepts, such as time-sensitive targeting and high-value targets/individuals are related to this subject.
The intent of personality-based targeting is not always only kill/capture. Instead, this method focuses on identifying the individual as well as the population, determines his role within a network, and then seeks to influence him through all means available to the MAGTF.
Personality targeting increases the detail and amount of intelligence that must be produced in pursuit of a target. Managing this information requires categorizing targets in a standardized way so that actions on a given target can be synchronized across the echelons of command. The level of precise information required to operate effectively at attacking a network requires organizing the information in useable chunks. An effective method is to characterize personality targets by their functions in the network, the relative importance of those functions, and the target’s accessibility. Personality targeting reduces the opposition to its smallest form—the individual. Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Operations – file removed no archived copy available. File was hosted on USMC small wars center for irregular warfare server. I guess Orwell works in mysterious ways. There are two other files that got archived: Multi-Service Concept for Irregular Warfare (local copy) and District Stability Framework (local copy).
The exploit and analyze steps are often the “main effort” of F3EAD because they provide insight into the threat’s network and may offer new lines of operations. The information collected during the exploit and analyze steps restarts the cycle by providing leads to an observable and traceable network. (intelligence officer handbook (local copy))
Anyways I have very little understanding of military science and one also have to keep in mind the possible differences of theory and practice. The reason it’s interesting to explore these theories is because occupying army is not only fighting war on terror, but they are responsible for nation building as well, so they use all these strategies to fight (organized) crime, keep population stable and shape society by various means like irregular warfare, culture warfare, information operations, psyops, etc. We live in the times of global war on terror and war on drugs and organized crime so it’s not far fetch to assume that analogous softer mechanisms might exists in western world eg fusion centers, etc.. Knowing far reaching anti-terror laws are in western world and widespread abuse of them one can only wonder as to what we know and what we don’t know.
What caught my attention was a thread on gamers forum that mentioned “personality based targeting” (archive.og). Thread author (OP) sort of makes fun of another intelligence analyst’s resume. The picture above about military intelligence is actually from one of his posts signatures. He is intimately aware with the term and sort of brags about it. He wouldn’t have posted it if he didn’t know that at least some of the members would understand what is he trying to say. Some members were dumbfounded so it’s a mixed bag forum and apparently some intelligence analysts do like playing computer games – they are young people:
lol hipster line in resume:
golson3 | Posted on Feb. 1, 2012, 4:11 p.m. “While assigned to 2-136 IN BN at Camp Taqaddum, Iraq, created a streamlined personality based targeting process resulting in the development, capture, prosecution, and conviction of 15 high value targets, before warrant based targeting was standard procedure.”
Blackjack946 | Posted on Feb. 1, 2012, 5:10 p.m. So what are you trying to say? Are you saying that the military based its intelligence program off your design or it was just simply a coincidence and you were doing this before the military was?
If its the latter, don’t worry about including it on your resume. It won’t make a difference. That’s something to mention in an interview instead.
golson3 | Posted on Feb. 1, 2012, 5:12 p.m. Not really a coincidence. I just realized that this was a better course of action in the long term before the rest of the community caught on to it. Taking dirtbags off of the battlefield (semi) permanently instead of just detaining them with no evidence and letting them be released 4-5 months down the road, right back into the fight, and with many new connections and knowledge gained during their incarceration. Maybe it is best left for an interview, but I gotta put something in the “selected achievements” area. Oddly, the ones I have from normal day to day operations in the US are much more impressive.Think I might add how I kept them locked up as well. I even blocked one guy from getting out 5 months after I left Iraq. Little bastard spit in my face, so I was kind of personally invested in it.
One can only speculate what kind of methods are used to take “dirtbags off battlefield (semi) permanently”, but he also mentions about day to day operations in US. It’s hard to say what he meant – if it’s about him being on US soil and working on Iraq intelligence or working on US targets. But for analyst his own location isn’t important – target’s location is the key. It is candid conversation that can easily represent something completely different.
In another thread (archive.org) he shares funny labels for targets. He is not naming operations as they are classified, but target label apparently isn’t:
golson3 | Posted on Nov. 29, 2011, 5:20 a.m. Just got “Objective Stanky Leg” approved. The commander is not amused, but its too late, as its been approved by higher.
golson3 | Posted on Nov. 29, 2011, 7:01 a.m. Neptune Spear is a reference to the SEALs. Naval Special Warfare’s emblem has an eagle on an anchor holding a pistol and a trident.
Also, I’m not naming operations. Objectives in this sense are personality based. Because the bad guys use so many different aliases, and many of them use the same name, its become standard practice to give them an objective name. Names have to be kind of out there these days, as we’ve been at this for 10 years and we’re not supposed to use the same one twice.
golson3 | Posted on Nov. 29, 2011, 7:19 a.m. On deck:OBJ Chicken Noodle Soup
OBJ Harlem Shake
OBJ Laffy Taffy
OBJ Cupid Shuffle
OBJ Crank Dat
OBJ Lean Wit It
OBJ Rock Wit It
OBJ Walk It Out
Also:OBJ Put a Ring on It
OBJ Movin Like Bernie
OBJ Cha Cha Slide
OBJ Tootsee Roll
OBJ Cabbage Patch
OBJ Humpty Hump
Professional Troll | Posted on Nov. 30, 2011, 1:41 a.m. BalisticWarri0r posted…These must be pointless objectives. No commander wants to sign off on a high profile objective name that is stupid. Especially if said objective is being monitored by brigade or division level.Code names are used specifically so that they can be mentioned without fear of revealing TS/SCI information.
golson3 | Posted on Nov. 30, 2011, 6:43 a.m.
Or any classified information, really.
In the thread about clandestinely fighting splinter terrorist groups (archive.org) he gives this cryptic message – not clear if he is talking about his targets or war on terror itself:
When you pick crappy friends and don’t think about 2nd and 3rd order effects of your actions, you kind of dig yourself into a hole, and climbing out of that hole is expensive.
Again it’s hard to describe the process or goal of intelligence analyst preparing Powerpoint slides on targets (his job) and if it’s in any case related to targeted individuals at large. He is just a little, but important bolt that is part of this big mechanism. But it’s interesting to look at F3EAD cycle with nonlethal effects and see how it applies to TI’s as it suffers from few flaws that can apparently result in targeting for the sake of targeting (local copy). There are also voices that promote using F3EAD as process in law enforcement: 1 – dead link since National Policing Improvement Agency has been dismantled and absorbed into other departments. There are 186 other scary documents archived: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.npia.police.uk/en/docs/* . If you look at missing persons intelligence officer job “competencies” you have to be in some sort of parallel universe not to think that UK police resembles psych-wards something along the lines “one flew over cuckoo’s nest”.
So I downloaded and watched this Jesse Ventura show called “conspiracy theory” about Targeted Individuals (Brain Invaders S03E07). You can watch it here: https://vimeo.com/56215921 or on youtube, bittorent, etc… I know TI’s will be rejoiced that at least someone on TV is talking about it, but as far as I can see the show didn’t crack any eggs, unless you consider that slime on Ventura’s face as an egg.
The show didn’t even touch organized stalking and harassment issue. Targeted individual problem was framed mainly about hearing voices through microwaves, radio frequency or some other high tech means. I’m not saying that such narrow definition is deliberate misdirection, but it right away discredits large portion of TI’s as “not fitting in” this frame.
So approach was mapping all the targeted individuals on the map (where did they get these statistics?), subsequently clusters appeared in specific areas and it gave them some sort of clue about GWEN towers – cold war relic communication system. This approach doesn’t really make sense as it would imply that people are targeted based on location of residence.
They interviewed some ex CIA guy. Interview is a strong word – Jesse was doing most of the talking. Another black ops guy in a white wan was interviewed by Jesse’s team member, who also didn’t say anything of substance except saying don’t look at the present – look at the past. Finally ex-CIA scientist “star witness” (Robert Duncan) who claims to have invented the system, but couldn’t really give any details or evidence. He also speculatively assumed that GWEN towers have capability, he didn’t confirm that it’s the towers that are behind this. None of these witnesses confirmed that they work for government – from OSI it appears they been out of government work for years if not decades. So show pretty much made an impression that:
1. Targeted individuals are ones who hear voices in their head through rf/microwaves
2. The reason for this is criticism of government
3. There are a few bad apples in the government who are behind this at the same time it’s systematic and mainstream (self contradictory)
4. There is nothing that could be done
You have to understand that main purpose of the show is to make it interesting for the wide audience. The show didn’t uncover anything new what’s already out there. It only rehashed some points, made some assumptions, quickly jumped to conclusions, got a few TI’s, dubious field experiment, flashy graphics and a lot of undeserved patting on their own back – typical low budget military psyop. I speculate that black budgets are misused and mishandled in cases like this and money laundering becomes the issue. Jesse Ventura didn’t do any favors to TI’s with this fear mongering, agenda driven show. He didn’t use his own government or military connections to bring at least an ounce of credibility into the issue. If you want to create effect – how about using some Michael Moore style confrontational tactics on these “bad apples” in dark crevices of the government? Even Borat was able to gain access to some very high members of the government.
Maybe Jesse Ventura will take on organized stalking as separate topic to investigate? Hopefully…
These are discussions in EU parliament that describe issues of profiling predicting a possibility of innocent people being put under microscope of repressive measures. It’s not so much about terrorism, muslims or islam – it’s about a crime too, where having enough boxes marked next to a person’s profile will mark you as person of interest and possible affects it might have on that person; not to mention the motivation of secret services of “creating appearance” of a threat by manufacturing cases, to justify huge monetary and humanitarian resources allocated to fight undefinable terrorism, dangers of radicalism, organized crime, drugs, etc. If those in power do not know what are they looking for except the constant cult like babbling about how a threat exists – it’s surely will cause weird analytical misnomers. Problem is not about making mistakes, problem is about the reasons of why mistakes are not viewed as the source of possible learning experience, instead the denying any wrongdoing seems priority.
Sarah Ludford, rapporteur. (archive.org)− Madam President, over the past decade, laws and practices have been introduced enabling the retention and exchange of huge volumes of personal data. Currently the EU itself is proposing a number of measures that facilitate profiling, a technique of pulling together data from various sources in order to make a sort of template against which are identified those people whose characteristics, behaviour or associates seem suspicious and who merit further screening as likely perpetrators of crime or terrorism. There has also been a move in policing towards a predictive and preventive approach which, while not without value in some circumstances, can lead to repressive measures against innocent people based on stereotyping, often on the basis of race or even religion. The reason I am concerned about profiling and data-mining is because they depart from the general rule that law-enforcement decisions should be based on an individual’s personal conduct. The danger exists that an innocent person may be subject to arbitrary stops, interrogations or travel disruption. Then, if that flagging of them as a person of interest is not promptly removed, longer-term restrictions could follow, such as refusal of visas and entry, bans on employment or even arrest and detention.
N. Whereas ‘predictive profiling’ (archive.org), using broad profiles developed through cross-referencing between databases and reflecting untested generalisations or patterns of behaviour judged likely to indicate the commission of some future or as-yet-undiscovered crime or terrorist act raises strong privacy concerns and may constitute an interference with the rights to respect for private life under Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 7 of the Charter(29);
P. Whereas the ECtHR’s above-mentioned finding in S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom, of a ‘risk of stigmatisation’ from the fact that persons not convicted of any offence are treated in the same way as convicted criminals in the UK DNA database must also raise questions about the legality of profiling operations based on processing of personal data of persons not found guilty by the courts(31);
T. Whereas the inverse problem is the possibility of missing perpetrators who do not fit the profile, an example being the ringleader of the 7 July 2005 London bombings who “had come to the attention of the intelligence services as an associate of other men who were suspected of involvement in a terrorist bomb plot…but …was not pursued because he did not tick enough of the boxes in the pre-July 2005 profile of the terror suspect”(34);
While reading into NATO behavior and social research I came upon mentioning of a “wicked problem“. While it sounds a lot like double bind, it’s a little more generalized as it’s not oriented towards a person. Just like double bind it accurately describes the situation that TI is experiencing.
There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem (defining wicked problems is itself a wicked problem).
Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse.
There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
Every solution to a wicked problem is a “one-shot operation”; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempt counts significantly.
Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.
Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution.
The planner has no right to be wrong (planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate).
Conklin later generalized the concept of problem wickedness to areas other than planning and policy. The defining characteristics are:
The problem is not understood until after the formulation of a solution.
Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong.
Every wicked problem is essentially novel and unique.
Every solution to a wicked problem is a ‘one shot operation.’
Wicked problems have no given alternative solutions.
As you see it’s quite accurate description of the problem. You can read about possible solution scenarios on wikipedia, but I’m not sure if it’s helpful. Nato psychologist notes that wicked problems are typically solved (as well as they can be) through group efforts. According to them psychological support to military is a wicked problem.
Wicked problem environment…
Problem space is ill-structured
No “right” solution, only “good enough”
Problem-solving ends only when you run out of resources
Unique/novel set of conditions and factors
No second opportunities to do it again
No obvious alternative solution
look at the animated gifs above that display animals in situations where they appear having “problems”. Those problems are very tough to solve on their own. It’s a cause of major distress, where your own freedom is used to enslave you in multi-layered trap. Lets assume artificial intelligence folks (deep mind, Palantir Technologies, etc) gains enough power to look after people, surveillance logs, video security, behavioral health, community health, etc. How do you think AI would classify a person who has happened to be trapped in situation like this? Absolute majority of the humans don’t really understand what is their purpose on this planet Earth so everyone right away is a solid candidate for this cornerstone symptom of schizophrenia or as we should start looking at psychiatry and medical establishment as assassination weapon in hands of those who have power. Any social support institution (which is definition of the government in the civilized world) for that matter should be looked at as such. Power is no longer in the hands. It’s diffused. What is even more troubling that in this day n age there was major shift to move that power to so called NGO’s (there is no such thing – it’s just cover), faith based groups (it’s just cover), charities/foundations/institutes/think tanks/etc (just cover for the worst scum of the worst) and private sector (which right away ceases to be private sector). So task of following money and paper trail gets even more complicated (think of the kitty with santa hat that has objective to catch a mouse that is trapped in the bottle). The problem is that most likely AI is already doing such things and is probably being used in very evil eugenic fashion – eg look at this company business description from the year 1998: if you use double speak translator it sounds as death squad for hire 123 . Every tool can be used for good and evil – any sharp object eg knife can be used to cut the ropes and free someone, at the same time it can be used to slaughter someone. This new startup doesn’t hold any punches – they are covertly monitoring population and employing proactive solutions with personalized approaches.
What if such recently revealed high tech advancements in real time video augmentation capabilities like face2face are in fact weapons of cyberwarfare, classified computer viruses. Imagine hostile power hijacking your video, skype, livechat, internet feeds and outdoor sensors that track you and mess with your likeness making you appear insane to the automated or human analyzing party thus marking you for elimination or separation from the “healthy” herd. Simplest case scenario – imagine talking on the skype with your relative and someone hijacks your feed and face and starts making subtle, but noticeable grimaces, blinking, smirking, twitching, etc. Your relative will start noticing something and start treating you as if you’re “different”, leaving you dumbfounded what a hell is going on. Think about explosion of that cybersex trade and so called “camwhores”. With real time video augmentation technology you will never know who is doing what, not to mention that all that sex trade is not really a business or profession, but a weapon.
New crime policing strategies in law enforcement domain are geared towards lowering crime rates and at the same time making communities more “livable”. This study (archive.org) exposes unethical methods that police use to cook books in order to create favorable statistics. Problem with crime control in general is the overall measurement of performance as motivational force. We have to discount high profile cases that shape public opinion of police where police are forced to put all their resources and focus on day to day work. “Observations had identified four distinct categories of perverse behaviours designed to improve performance by unethical means, or give the false impression performance had improved. Such behaviours are referred to colloquially as “fiddling the figures”, “cooking the books” or “good housekeeping”.
In the academic literature they are referred to as “gaming” behaviour and there is a body of theory on the subject”. One has to wonder and question if new policing methods truly lower crime or they just create better circumstances for crime rates to appear lower?
The report calls this unethical behavior as “gaming”:
The four categories of “gaming” behaviours identified are defined as follows:
Cuffing: The under-recording of reported crimes, the term being derived from the magician’s art of making objects disappear up the sleeve or cuff.
Nodding: This involves collusion between officers and suspects to admit to large numbers of offences, usually whilst in prison after sentence, in return for favours such as reduced sentences, access to partners, drugs or alcohol. The term is used to describe the act of a prisoner pointing out or “nodding” at locations where they claim to have committed offences.
Skewing: This involves moving resources from areas of activity which are not subject to performance measures in order to improve performance in areas that are monitored for control purposes
Stitching: This includes a variety of malpractices designed to enhance the strength of the evidence against a suspect in order to ensure the desired criminal justice outcome. Fabricating evidence or stitching someone up are forms of this behaviour.
Of course gaming is not related to organized stalking directly, but you have to keep in mind the numbness of institutional authority as to what is going on in their backyard. It’s hard to imagine that they are unaware of it with all the surveillance and intelligence. You have to give props to UK for at least being transparent with FOIA.
I think it’s important for TI or anyone for that matter to get acquainted and understand the modern policing and how it defines its own role in society. Remember the saying “if you’ve done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about”? The premise of that saying is that police will only react to the crime or criminal behavior. Modern day policing is different animal all together where the emphasis is placed on society as a whole having to self-police through self-governing informal and formal social norms, implied and learned behavior and police have tools resembling invisible strings to influence communities through various newly baked doctrines (at least thats what they think). Community is treated as a unit, who’s needs and problems can be addressed through multi agency cooperation, monitoring and intervention. Implied assumption is that community knows whats best for it. I guess this model would work if everyone participated in the closed knit community as in primitive democracy aka one household so information flow is distributed evenly and openly to everyone (at least in theory). Now this model lowered from above and it’s implementation is not self-organizing, the structure is not self-serving and it does not really represent a community, but something community as a whole doesn’t even know exist. Communities exist only on paper, only as units of appearance. Is it a form of control by hidden hand where benefits outweigh possible quirks and abuses? It looks like a shift from individualism that free society is supposed to value, defend and respect towards something free society isn’t. Maybe issues raised by anti-communitarian activists are worth looking into?
Community policing is a value system which permeates a police department, in which the primary organizational goal is working cooperatively with individual citizens, groups of citizens, and both public and private organizations to identify and resolve issues which potentially effect the livability of specific neighborhoods, areas, or the city as a whole. Community-based police departments recognize the fact that the police cannot effectively deal with such issues alone, and must partner with others who share a mutual responsibility for resolving problems. Community policing stresses prevention, early identification, and timely intervention to deal with issues before they become unwieldy problems. Individual officers tend to function as general-purpose practitioners who bring together both government and private resources to achieve results. Officers are encouraged to spend considerable time and effort in developing and maintaining personal relationships with citizens, businesses, schools, and community organizations.
Rather than merely responding to demands for police services, the department employees a Problem-Oriented Policing (POP) approach: identifying emergent problems, gathering data, bringing together stakeholders, and implementing specific strategies targeting the problem. The police response to an on-going or repetitive problem seldom involves only police resources. The police are concerned not only with high-visibility crimes, but with minor offenses which contribute to fear of crime, and negatively effect public perception of city or neighborhood safety
Problem-oriented policing (POP) is a policing strategy that involves the identification and analysis of specific crime and disorder problems, in order to develop effective response strategies in conjunction with ongoing assessment. This strategy places more emphasis on research and analysis as well as crime prevention and the engagement of public and private organizations in the reduction of community problems.
Intelligence-led policing (ILP) is a policing model that has emerged in recent years which is “built around risk assessment and risk management.”ILP is “a strategic, future-oriented and targeted approach to crime control, focusing upon the identification, analysis and ‘management’ of persisting and developing ‘problems’ or ‘risks.’” In simpler terms, “it is a model of policing in which intelligence serves as a guide to operations, rather than the reverse.
Community policing serves also as a source of third party policing and intelligence policing. It’s strange how many definitions and arguments exists in criminology literature of these strategies and disciplines knowing how widely are they implemented. It just shows that interpretation and evolution is ongoing just as society is catching up to them. One thing is clear – these strategies do not help to solve the crime – the idea is for them to help to prevent and reduce crime. Maybe it’s because of realization that punishment for the crime isn’t effective measure – it’s expensive and changes little apart of isolation of the criminal. Each of new policing strategy implementation and transition is gradual and doesn’t show the whole picture. Modern and old methods coexists hand in hand. Now police gets involved not in solving crimes, but in solving problems. So what if you haven’t committed a crime and unexplained authority is paying attention to you? Who defined you as a problem? Is it a rumor? Or rumor is a pretext? If you have no or little reputation (like someone who just moved into the area) you can be on extremely shaky ground and very vulnerable.
The shift from evidence based towards intelligence based policing also fits into bigger picture of global war on terror where assumption is that intelligence is the key in preventing incidents of terrorism. Where am i going with this? The recent highly controversial and very expensive DOD program called Human Terrain Systems that is being widely employed in war theater in the Afghanistan and Iraq. The name itself is something causing a pause as if people are something to be walked over. Controversy is basically coming only from progressive anthropologists themselves as they argue that “asking an anthropologist to gather intelligence that may lead to someone’s death or imprisonment […] is like asking an army doctor to kill a wounded insurgent”; it goes against their code of ethics and is wrong in many different levels. Why I’m making connection with community policing or policing in general? Not me:
Although the past shows incidents of the abuse of this information (local copy), the current human terrain system has been used effectively to allow communities in Iraq and Afghanistan to self govern through informal forms of social control, while teaching organic law enforcement agencies to provide the more formal forms of social control (when needed). This environment is similar to the development of the community policing model in the United States. Community-oriented policing is not a new phenomenon in the history of policing; however it, too, has had a questionable history at times, which has led to the current form of intelligence-led, problem-solving policing.
Basically what they argue that occupied culture already has informal community policing models in place that is just different than of ours. So we need an interpreting/analytical tools to understand these mechanism in order to influence and exploit them for everyones (occupiers and occupied) good.
Information on social groups and their interests, beliefs, and leaders, and what drives a group of people to adhere to a commonly held set of rules for conduct is a core necessity for maintaining social order in both a domestic law enforcement setting and on the foreign battle field through human terrain systems. The social order of a community is maintained largely through the influence and enforcement of informal social controls which can be supported by the presence of agents that support both governmental and non-governmental partners within the community
Successful implementation of the community-oriented policing would have involved the citizenry in identifying problems and allowed for an open relationship with law enforcement where these problems could be addressed”. Most glaring was the assumption of many agencies that they could adopt the mantle of community-oriented policing without tackling the most important aspects of the movement; fully engaging the community in the co-production of public safety.
So in essence it’s all about compliance and effective mechanisms to enforce it under guise of self-governance. Another sentence that could be applied to organized stalking: “community-oriented policing does not take into account the development of the community into self governance, which comes as a result of the individuals within the community taking responsibility for controlling those that deviate from the social norm”. It doesn’t mean that TI’s are targeted because they are deviant from social norms (although it might be – idea of normalcy is pretty much oxymoron term). This quote just points to informal social control mechanisms that exists without us even noticing them as we have learned to fear and respect them, but how do you exploit them? Is it possible to amplify them towards a targeted person by using existing dynamic environment? Hard to say. But looking at screen shots of software used to generate and analyze “human terrain” in Afghanistan/Iraq it doesn’t look like far fetched idea. If you map non-aversive patterns that targeted individual experience daily and inject aversive element to sensitize him/her to these elements through association, the task is not that hard. Most of the work would be done by TI themselves.
Law enforcement around the world in fight against crime and terrorism is adopting convergence strategy (archive.org) – very complex and wide reaching options to fuse and analyze information to detect, prevent crime and enforce the law in fight against terrorism.
Policing must be a convergent strategy that fights crime and disorder while creating hostile environments for terrorists. The theme of convergence illustrates the coupling of local resources, namely police, with the ability to recognize ordinary crimes that terrorists have been known to commit in preparation for their operational attack: committing traffic violations, obtaining fake identification papers, smuggling, human trafficking, counterfeiting, committing piracy, drug trafficking, or participating in any other criminal enterprise that intersects with terrorists’ needs. Local police serve as the eyes and ears of communities; as such, they are best positioned to observe behaviors that have a nexus to terrorism. It has been the LAPD’s goal to institutionalize the idea of counterterrorism efforts throughout the department and the communities it serves—not to make counterterrorism measures the priority, but a priority. Converging community policing and counterterrorism strategies and implementing them under the guiding philosophy of intelligence-led policing will focus law enforcement efforts and better equip agencies to partner with communities in the pursuit to make the United States safe. Ultimately, the success of all of these convergent strategies will be measured by the prevention of terrorist acts, the countering of extremist ideologies and their local influence, and the resiliency of U.S. communities in the face of man-made and natural disasters.
Again it blurs the line between ordinary crime and terrorism as to justify the use of new surveillance and enforcement powers against population. So if human terrain system is a missing link in policing Iraq and Afghanistan through community policing system and if you pretend that occupying army is police and local tribe is community – what is analogue of human terrain system in democratic world? Is our free world human terrain mapped? Do TI’s stick out like a sore thumb according to some predefined criteria in that software? Community liaison police officer would be something similar to human terrain team member. Crimemapping would be somewhat analogous to human terrain mapping.
Check this abstract where human terrain social scientists propose the solution to Iraqis to prevent IED’s. It’s hard to say if Stanford Prison Experiment used as a model to explain IED’s or as a model to influence prevention:
Akers (1998 and 1985) posits that learned behavior forms the behavioral prerequisites for both normative and deviant actions. Swidler (1986) argues that in unsettled times, individuals return to their ideational toolkits, their definitions, and focus on those elements that will let them survive. Zimbardos (1973) Stanford Prison Experiments clearly demonstrated that the weakest of identities, differential associations, specifically those randomly assigned, become not only strong but destructive under stress. Tajfel (1978), Tajfel and Billings (1974), and Tajfel et al (1971) further demonstrated these concepts. During OIF6/2008 Human Terrain Team Iraq 6 (HTT IZ6) was presented with an educational and learning problem set by the 2BCT/1AD: how to help local Iraqi educators develop a supplementary curriculum in order to promote, teach, and inculcate definitions unfavorable to engaging in suicide bombings and improvised explosive devise (IED) emplacement. The purpose of this paper is to present the theoretical development and implementation of the supplemental curriculum, utilizing social learning theories, by members of HTT IZ6.
Many private contractors are participating in Human Terrain program (archive.org), but it’s not the program itself, but it’s focus on using anthropologists and social scientists and subsequent usage of their generated data for kinetic and non-kinetic actions. War on terror is global so all these methods should be used along the lines of normal law enforcement only in less obvious manner as monitoring, surveillance and threat interpreting apparatus is already in place. So question is once again what is the definition of the threat? Most of TI’s have no idea why are they targeted, just like most of the people on no-fly list have no idea why they were put on it.
There is a book by Tomo Shibato about Organized stalking: The Invisible Maiming Torture Enterprise of Organized Stalking Assaults. I haven’t read it, maybe someone did?
Contrary to popular belief Netwar is not about Internet. If you take organized stalking as some sort of psychological war against individual at least military should have some sort of label for this kind of war. Society stepped in an era of 4th generation warfare, where lines between military, law enforcement and civilian operations get blurred and at least from military point of view any conflict on any scale becomes point of interest and possible way to influence the outcome for own purposes. Average person will have no idea how these theoretical ideas are implemented in real life, neither do I – I might be talking out of my butt. World is constantly evolving and any new modern concept could be another new way of looking at existing things and the next day it could be outdated. So labels are important to the point as to track similarities in concept design. It doesn’t connect dots to individual situation, but it helps in a different way – it shows at least some authority is taking such phenomena seriously. Are they benefactors (by proxy or directly) or as dumbfounded as you are as to how to respond to it it’s hard to say.
Netwar is a term developed by RAND researchers John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt to describe an emergent form of low intensity conflict, crime, and activism waged by social networked actors. Typical netwar actors might include transnational terrorists, criminal organizations, activist groups, and social movements that employ decentralized, flexible network structures.
So if we assume that TI is attacked by a network or organized group where deception plays key part can we call it a netwar? We have no idea what kind of network it is or what is the ultimate purpose of such attack. TI is able observe only the edge of the network through implied and imposed actions. Are all TI’s attacked by same network or every situation is unique and there are as many networks as there are TI’s. Nobody knows and it’s impossible to answer such questions. Is TI attacked because he belongs to some competing social network or simply because of personal reasons?
Networks with many leaders, or no leader, may maintain coordination through a combination of powerful doctrine, ideology, shared beliefs, and/or common interests. This allows all the members of the network to maintain a common objective despite great personal or group autonomy. In other words, this provides an “ideational, strategic, and operational centrality that allows for tactical decentralization.
As Richard Szafranski (1994, 1995) illuminated in his discussions of how information warfare ultimately becomes “neo-cortical warfare,” the challenge for governments and societies becomes “epistemological.” A netwar actor may aim to confound people’s fundamental beliefs about the nature of their culture, society, and government, partly to foment fear but perhaps mainly to disorient people and unhinge their perceptions. This is why a netwar with a strong social content – whether waged by ethnonationalists, terrorists, or social activists— may tend to be about disruption more than destruction. The more epistemological the challenge, the more confounding it may be from an organizational standpoint. Whose responsibility is it to respond? Whose roles and missions are at stake? Is it a military, police, intelli- gence, or political matter? When the roles and missions of defenders are not easy to define, both deterrence and defense may become problematic.
I’m not sure what they tried to imply by the word “epistemological”. Is it about belief and knowledge?
“One of the most common human failings is to examine a complex phenomenon from only one perspective and claim to make definitive conclusions based on that limited perspective.“ (Benjamin I. Higginbotham)
This quote is taken from Higginbotham master thesis on irregular warfare “On Deceiving Terrorists” (local copy). Lots of wisdom in that sentence. It’s like trying to solve a Rubik’s cube by looking at only one face. Either you’ll get extremely lucky by solving it by chance and still be wrong on how it works or you’ll be making moves and evaluating that single face and will be going nowhere, except towards frustration.
Even looking at Rubik’s cube from all planes it’s impossible to solve it without realizing some guiding logic on how it works when you move one face and how other faces are affected by that move. Now imagine the infinite system that is made out of inter-connected Rubik’s cubes where you’re just a sticker on a face of the smallest piece (to make it harder stickers can belong to multiple cubes at the same time). How do you approach solving it? There are forces in place that limits your observation. You have to rely on intuition, assumptions, hearsay, interpretations, correlations, history, etc. How much truth can you distill from that? Is end result belief or knowledge?
Detecting not only deception, but probability of deception is important where you know it maybe crafted to influence your decision making. You can appreciate Copperfield magic trick without projecting that “knowledge” into your real life. Only other magician can tell intricacies of magic tricks. They can detect misdirections, see sleight of hand and follow the routine. They know most of the principles on how illusions works. They can evaluate success or failure on many different criteria. In any case the main point of value of magic trick is not so much the deception, but effect it will cause. Sometimes the simplest trick will cause bigger reaction than most elaborate grandiose magic act. New magic trick is usually just modified old one. Now we are not talking about magic, but deception of actions in real life that directly influence targeted individual to project it into self-harming misleading decisions. Sometimes inaction is better than action, sometimes inaction is deadly.
Further are quotes and excerpts from these thesis as I see a lot of parallels of what is organized stalking all about. Knowing the state of militarization of law enforcement and civilian institutions you can only guess who, how and why would implement such deception operations. The thesis advocates using deception operations against terrorists. Incidentally it is main focus of current state of affairs around the world. Could you be perceived as an enemy if you opposed Iraq war? You know famous Bush quote “you’re with us or against us”? What if you vocalized it in public or in the internet? Who knows how does paranoid authority define an enemy. Another option is leaking of the method and tactics itself into wrong hands and that group adopting to their own purposes. Another option is field research for testing hypothesis, simulated deception wargaming, or just for shits and giggles etc… Every situation is unique so in reality even helping hand could be something entirely different. One has to realize that probably a lot of material on the internet is part of deception (if we assume organized stalking is systematic problem) so to satisfy at least some level of explanation and leading to belief system of self indoctrination, which doesn’t really solve anything.
Deception—the distortion of reality to gain a competitive advantage—is deliberate and results in a specific action. Moreover, deception has two common variants—confusing and misleading—and appears to have utility at multiple levels. First, deception is a deliberate act—never an accident, unintentional deception is not deception but rather misrepresentation. This is significant because it implies that deception requires both intent and effort on the part of the deceiver to deceive. Without intent and effort on the part of the deceiver, an adversary may still draw the wrong conclusions or may be surprised, but those outcomes are not the result of deception. Intent to deceive without some specific resulting action on the part of the deceived party is generally pointless, however.
The third characteristic of deception that merits attention is the fact that virtually all deceptions can be distinguished as one of two variants: ambiguity-increasing or misleading
Ambiguity- increasing deception “confuses a target so that the target is unsure as to what to believe”. Such deceptions seek to ensure that “the level of ambiguity always remains high enough to protect the secret of the actual operation”.
Misleading deceptions, on the other hand, reduce ambiguity by “building up the attractiveness of one wrong alternative”. The ultimate goal of such deceptions, according to Barton Whaley, “is to make the enemy quite certain, very decisive, and wrong”
In practice, most elaborate deceptions tend to employ deception ruses of both the ambiguity-increasing and misleading variants. However, although it may be closely related, deception is not synonymous with propaganda, psychological operations (PSYOPs or MISO), operation security (aka secrecy or OPSEC) and camouflage. PSYOPS normally target large groups that do not necessarily have any decision-making power, whereas deception typically targets specific individuals or groups empowered to make decisions. The distinction between propaganda and PSYOPS is a fine one, often depending on one’s perspective. If the target is general perceptions and the message is the truth, the appropriate means is probably PSYOPS. If the target is general perceptions and the message consists of selected truths or even lies, the appropriate means is probably propaganda. OPSEC seeks to limit an adversary’s ability to detect or derive useful information from friendly activities called indicators. By way of contrast, deception generally seeks to increase the likelihood of an adversary’s detection of only certain indicators, usually while hiding others, in order to paint an ambiguous or misleading picture. The relationship between OPSEC and deception is thus a close one, since both generally require the management of indicators. Finally, camouflage consists of efforts by individuals and units to hide, blend in, or disguise in order to prevent enemy observation. Camouflage is, by its definition, conceptually distinct from deception; the goal is almost invariably protection as opposed to provoking a desired response, while the target is an enemy’s sensors (from eyes to high-technology sensor systems) as opposed to enemy decision makers.
Deception is a powerful “force multiplier,” magnifying “the strength or power of the successful deceiver”. Reducing the cost for the deceiver, implies increasing the cost for the deceived.
One means of gaining perspective into how deception works is to break it down into its component parts, defining those activities which, when taken in sum, make up the act of deception. Every deception operation, whether of man or nature, is comprised of only two basic parts: dissimulation and simulation”. Simulation, on the one hand, is that overt, part of a deception presented to the target. The task of simulation is to “pretend, portray, profess” the false: to tell one’s adversary a story sufficiently believable and compelling to cause him to ultimately take some action that will lend the deceiver a competitive advantage (p. 183). Dissimulation, on the other hand, is “hiding the real”. Both simulation and dissimulation are always present together in any single act of deception. Nothing is ever ‘just’ hidden; something is always shown in its stead, even if only implicitly.
The three procedures by which false things are shown [simulation], are mimicking, inventing, or decoying.
Mimicking typically misleads the observer and shows the false by having one thing imitate another. Mimicking is accomplished by duplicating a sufficient number of the distinctive characteristics of the object or activity to be imitated to passably approximate its distinctive pattern. Inventing, the second means of simulation, “shows the false by displaying another reality”.
As opposed to mimicking, in which one object or activity imitates another already existing, inventing “creates something entirely new, albeit false,” by crafting enough new characteristics “to create an entirely new pattern”.
Decoying, the third means of simulation, “shows the false by diverting attention”. Decoying is accomplished by “creating alternative false characteristics that give an additional, second pattern”. In this manner, decoying is “a matter of feints and diversions, literally misdirection”.
The three methods or procedures by which objects or activities are dissimulated, on the other hand, “are masking, repackaging, or dazzling”.
Masking, either interposes a screen, shielding [the real object or activity] from senses (and any intermediate sensors) of the ‘deceivee’ so it is truly covert, or integrates it with its environment so it is unnoticed, blending into its background, literally overlooked, hiding in plain sight”.
In contrast, repackaging, the second means of dissimulation, “is simulated metamorphosis,” which works to hide the real by disguising it. Repackaging modifies the appearance of an activity “by adding or subtracting characteristics to transform them into a new pattern that resembles something else”
Dazzling, the third method of dissimulation, “bewilders, confounds, baffles, perplexes, reducing certainty about the real nature of a thing” in order to hide the real by confusing the observer.This is accomplished by “randomizing or otherwise partially obscuring the characteristics of an object (its precise location, size, color, etc.) or an event (its exact timing, method of operation, etc.) in order to blur their distinctive pattern”
Negative And Positive Deception
Negative deceptive acts are essentially dissimulation: acts undertaken to “prevent the enemy from deducing” the deceiver’s true capabilities and intentions. The negative side of deception is the protection of certain portions of the real operation and plans for future operations. Positive deceptive acts “persuade the enemy to deduce” something other than the ground truth concerning the deceiver’s capabilities and intentions
Passive And Active Deception
Passive deception,” says Handel, is based primarily “on secrecy and camouflage, on hiding and concealing one’s intentions and/or capabilities for the adversary. By way of contrast, “active deception normally involves a calculated policy of disclosing half-truths supported by appropriate ‘proof’ signals or material evidence” which must be picked up by the adversary.
Perception answers the question: what do I see?”. Cognition, on the other hand, tackles the subsequent question: what does it mean?. In both processes, “the mind follows certain rules of convenience, sometimes called biases, which are not always optimal ways of sorting out information. Often these biases favor the deceiver”. Perceptual biases “result from the way the world is perceived and they limit the accuracy of [subsequent] perceptions”. Cognitive biases “result from the way the mind works,” and tend to hinder accurate interpretation. Moreover, “they influence the way that a person treats evidence, attributes causality, and estimates probability.
Taken together, theories on perceptual and cognitive biases may offer an explanation for how and why deceptive messages are ultimately interpreted the way they are. If deceptions can be designed to take advantage of enemy perceptual and cognitive biases, the target will theoretically do much of the work of deception for the deceiver.
To successfully deceive, “The overall activity must not only provide believable indicators of the false operation, but must deny believable indicators of the real operations”. Deceptions are “well coordinated, when directed from one central point—that being the highest headquarters” or lead agency controlling assets “directly benefiting from the deception” or when the activities of the various agencies are coordinated sufficiently to prevent the compromise of the deception. This ensures that all instruments of power are integrated into deception planning, and all actions are consistent with the deception story. Deception must be well organized and well coordinated, else leaks may occur and deception unravel. A deception operation must be directed and controlled by a single element” in order to avoid confusion, compromise, “and to ensure that the various elements involved in the deception are portraying the same story and are not in conflict with other operational objectives Knowledge of what the enemy will accept as plausible and what degree of confirmation is necessary before he will believe, is a firm requirement for a successful deception. If the target has no observable preconceptions regarding a particular activity or if sufficient intelligence information is not available to ascertain the target’s preconceptions, it is possible to create certain expectations on the part of the target. “Here, the deceiver sets up the target for a future surprise by conditioning him to expect something he hadn’t considered before”. The deception must be able to change as reality changes”. “Cover stories, communications channels, and specific initiatives require fine tuning to take advantage of unforeseen opportunities or problems”. As a result, adaptability is a necessary component of every successful deception. “An adaptable deception,” in turn, “requires the ability to react to change and also requires knowledge about when to react. Adaptability allows the deceiver to continue deceptions for a longer time, to react to unforeseen changes in the situation, to take advantage of unforeseen or unpredictable enemy actions and reactions, and to protect valuable intelligence and deception resources by ending the stratagem if the deception wears thin or is compromised. If adaptability is a necessary component of every successful deception, feedback is the mechanism that makes adaptability possible. “The ultimate asset that allows deceivers to adapt their scenarios” to changing situations, “is feedback from the target” . One of the most basic problems of deception is creating a story and indicators that the target will accept as valid.
A key component of plausibility is confirmation. “A lie is made more plausible, when it has been confirmed by a variety of credible sources” or means. Confirming details are necessary because virtually every target of deception continues to seek information to support his conclusion. Given the role of perceptual and cognitive biases, a target is far more likely to accept data that confirms his hypotheses: “the target is likely to ignore, twist, or explain away those details that do not fit, and often those are the incongruities on which the deception hinges. If there is no confirming data, however, the target is likely to receive sufficient contradictory information to overcome his cognitive biases and see through the deception more easily. If the strictest secrecy is not observed, all deception projects are condemned to failure from the very start. There are two levels on which such secrecy must be maintained. “One tries to protect the truth about what a side [actually] intends to do in an impending operation,” while the other tries to “protect the truth about the existence of the deception itself”. Breaches of security…need not be fatal to deception’s success. Some leaks may not catch the target’s attention, and, if they do, may only increase his ambiguity.
Finally, in order to guide those who will conduct deception against terrorists, more research is needed to suggest the role that psychology plays in deception. Since there is no universal psychological profile for terrorists, some other means of predicting the vulnerabilities and reactions of terrorists to deception is necessary. One possible starting place for that research is in the area of influence psychology—the study of how we all are affected by what amount to universal influence principles, such as reciprocity, commitment and consistency, liking, and others. Terrorists are, after all, human, and are—within reason—predictably subject to the same psychological principles as everybody else.
This is from Moving the Work of Criminal Investigators Towards Crime Control (2011): Findings of Seminal Research Studies on Police Investigation of Serious Crimes. Many TI’s have some sort of hope and expectation that law enforcement might help them throughout ordeal, but is the system capable to deal with such crime as organized stalking?
3.Contrary to fictional portrayals, detectives do not work from facts to identification of suspects; they work from identification of suspects back to facts that are necessary to prosecute and convict them. The primary job of detectives is not to find unknown suspects, but to collect evidence required for a successful prosecution of known suspects. Although fictional detectives are constantly warning against the danger of forming a hypothesis too early, that is precisely what real detectives do most of the time. For all the drama of novels, movies and television, the fact is that criminal investigation is largely a matter of processing paperwork. This does not make it easy. Knowledge of the law and of people is critically important. But it is work that does not rely on the skills of Kojak or Dirty Harry. Instead, it requires the steady discipline and persistence of an accountant or bank examiner.
1.The vast majority of crime that police investigate is brought to their attention by the public. Police discover very little crime on their own. Except for a few proactive investigations into corruption, vice, and organized crime, most criminal investigations involve crimes that have been committed, not those in progress or not yet committed.
2.The essential ingredient in solving almost every crime is the identification of the suspect by the public. If the offender is not caught on the spot, success depends on the victim or witnesses providing information that specifically identifies the likely suspect, such as a name, address, license plate number, or relation to the victim. If an offender has not been identified by the public for detectives, the chances of solving any crime fall to about 10 percent.
4.More crimes are solved through information provided by arrested or convicted offenders — called “secondary clearances” — than are solved by the original work of the police. Indeed, the major opportunity for raising clearance rates — the ratio of solved crimes to reported crimes — lies in having the police work more systematically to encourage criminals to confess to previous criminal acts.
5.Detectives generally have more information about particular crimes than they can assimilate and use. Furthermore, physical or forensic evidence makes only a small contribution to either detection or prosecution.
6.Neither the way in which criminal investigation is organized nor caseloads of detectives affect the success police have in solving crimes.
Even though police adapting all different kind of revolutionary strategies to fight crime crime clearing statistics confirm Dorothy Guyot who famously described, creating change in police departments can be like “bending granite.”
Of course above statistics doesn’t reflect the volume of crime:
So if we assume that these statistics are consistent and clearly represent the real world and have not been intentionally interpreted in a ways to represent data so it’s favourable to the presenter we can say that crime rates have been dropping since 1992. After 2000 they stabilized and didn’t veer too much off the course (no pun intended GWB), but overall crime situation has been “on the wrong foot” to say it mildly. Crime clearing rates doesn’t really appear to be a priority – they always remained pretty much the same independent of the volume of the crime. So obviously police will always stress the statistics that are favourable to them as in second pic. Besides statistics doesn’t matter much to TI, but understanding how crime is perceived and battled is important to finding the ways to address the issue. Some of these statements also explain why it could be hard to solve this crime (assuming organized stalking is not part of the unwritten and existing system of social control) – even if police set up a surveillance and catch a perpetrator or two they can only implicate them on the particular harassment instance which would be no real help in uncovering bigger picture. It’s quite possible that most perpetrators are not aware of the whole picture and they know only what they need to know. If you tried to ask low level employee like newspaper delivery boy about some organizational issues of Washington Post (the newspaper he delivers) – he will not know and he doesn’t care. He might not even be employed by Washington Post.
It is interesting article about prospects of policing towards proactive and preventive policing. They argue that average cop doesn’t have deep knowledge much about intricacies, methods, technologies and tactics of crime investigation. They are law enforcement front line on the streets and they could benefit of expertise that criminal investigator has amassed throughout his specialized education and career in the field.
It come to my attention a few articles describing egregious RIPA law abuses in UK. RIPA was enacted to provide powers to law enforcement to fight threats to national security: terrorism, internet crime, serious organized crime, paedophilia, etc. I’m no law or national security expert so my impressions based on news reports might be superficial. The point is intentionality of the law. Even after numerous abuses surfaced in the press over the years – not much has been changed or has there? I don’t think anyone was held accountable. So one would make an assumption that public outcry generated wasn’t enough to curtail it’s abuses since it’s not really an abuse.
It’s just a tool that can make targeting crime easier, terrorism or not. Crime is crime. At least in the eyes of the ones who are able to use it. If you can solve a problem why not, right? So the important part of these articles is not so much the description of abuses, but the framing of defence by accused. Some avoided to disclose the usage at all. Others justified it after being confronted. Between 2000 and 2009 the Tribunal setup to investigate abuses has only upheld 4 out of 956 complaints.
Council chiefs – while refusing to reveal where the tree was – have defended using RIPA, stating that nearby residents were concerned the tree was being “attacked”.
Alarmingly, seven public authorities refused under the Freedom of Information Act to disclose why or how often they have used the powers. They included the BBC and Ofsted.
The spies are called ‘covert human intelligence sources’. In many cases they will be council employees, such as dog wardens or trading standards officials, but school children are sometimes recruited to test for the sale of underage alcohol or cigarettes.
‘Despite nearly ten thousand investigations in three years, most resulted in no action being taken, reinforcing the need for a comprehensive review.’
He said: “This legislation is what we are required to use if we want to carry out surveillance on suspected fraudsters, con-artists, cowboy builders and flytippers and catch them red-handed. We make no apology for using all the powers Parliament has given us to try and catch people who rip off consumers and taxpayers.”
Common misconception that these laws were reaction to 9/11 attack. In fact they were enacted in 2000 and expanded multiple times in later years.
Nowadays, however, for reasons unfathomable, every authority of whatever kind, from local councils and trading standards – and that latter one can still be understood – over the Milk Marketing Board equivalent and the one responsible for eggs and whatever else, aside from police, security services and HMRC, that is to say Customs and Excise, are given such covert surveillance powers. (archive.org)
One can only speculate how professional are these spies who are using these newly obtained powers to investigate their targets. It’s not far fetched to imagine that it will not take long for innocent person to notice that he is being followed and spied upon. Getting paranoid. Going on the internet finding some info about gangstalking “brighting”, “red cars” and ball starts rolling as it’s easy to apply situational environment to new belief structure. I’m not putting every targeted individual in that category, but I believe some cases might be stemming from situations like this. The real issue is that public resources can be abused for personal gain as long as you’re able to define and frame the problem as requiring authority attention on the target. Knowing the cooperation and information sharing across all agencies one can only speculate how it goes from there.
Now looking at England you have to assume that something similar is going on in most other liberal democracies on bigger or smaller scale, since law structuring and layering has to be more or less compatible around EU in order to effectively cooperate and participate in common goals in defending from terrorist threat. I guess UK is more transparent with it’s Freedom of Information Act so these “abuses” surface to public attention. Abuse is only in the eyes of beholder.
None of these articles try to investigate affect the targeted covert spying had on people in question, how it affected their lives.
You’ve got to balance it against their human rights as well because if we say ‘ok this person is a non statutory prolific offender and we’re going to visit them every day for the next three months’ if there’s absolutely no intelligence or no indication that they’re committing crime you can’t really say that that is proportionate.
POLICE are targeting the homes of persistent offenders in a bid to drive down crime.Cops are targeting known offenders in Dewsbury and Mirfield on a daily basis with the aim of keeping them on the straight and narrow. More than 20 repeat offenders, known in police jargon as ‘red nominals’, are currently subject to the so-called ‘disruption visits’ across Kirklees. Neighbourhood Policing Teams call at the homes of the criminals – sometimes up to twice a day – to check what they are up to, and who they are associating with.Information on the clothes they are wearing and the vehicles they are driving is also then fed into the police intelligence network. The scheme is being co-ordinated by the Kirklees Integrated Offender Management Unit and as well as the police other agencies are heavily involved, including the Drugs Intervention Project (DIP), the Probation Service, Lifeline, Job Centre Plus and housing agencies
If you are aware of a hotspot, say a particular hotel or café, you can educate the staff. “Are you aware that [this area] has a particular problem with adults taking advantage of young people? People are using your premises and so you can help us to stop that.’ In some areas hotels and taxi offices have been provided with information about exploitation: ‘not accusing them, but the approach was this is the sort of thing that happens, if you know about it, let us know.’
An important aspect of targeting offenders is their arrest and conviction for burglary offences, but evidential limitations mean that this is not always possible.Consider sending persistent offenders Christmas or birthday cards as a reminder of police attention;
UK also created restricted Police OnLine Knowledge Area – POLKA, sort of online forum where police will be able to share knowledge, best practices and crime fighting tactics. Now lets look at US Gang Unit tactics to target suspected gang members by using suppression and psychological warfare methods. This is from the book called “Into Abyss” (or local pdf copy here) 2002 by Mike Carlie. The description of endless cycle is interesting:
This tactic is more significant than it first appears. I will discuss the premise this is founded upon. Citizens with information or concerned about gangs were directed to me. I often arrived at work and found thirty to forty voice mails on my telephone. I listened to their messages then contacted those with the most promising information. All the messages with potential gang information were forwarded to our department’s Crime Analyst. She sorted through and summarized their content then provided a report with the most significant information underlined. I distributed the reports to the rest of the gang unit. The officers then starting driving by the locations from which the calls originally came and wrote descriptions of vehicles in the vicinity, their license numbers, etc. I contacted the citizens discretely and provided them with the cellular phone and pager numbers for my unit’s officers. That way the citizens would not get the normal run around by calling 911. The citizens became our eyes and ears. We had so few officers that this was a necessity if we were going to be effective. When citizens called and got immediate service they were happy. Since we started showing up at just the right time (when trouble was brewing), the gang members thought some of their cronies were snitching on them. This sometimes caused distrust and dissention – they never really knew who they could trust. When we were alerted that something was going on, we moved into the area wearing our POLICE vests, jackets, and insignia. We stopped cars using our red lights, and talked to interested people in the area. They were possible future information sources. The troublemakers thought “Holly cow the cops are all over us – they know what we are doing!” Hopefully they would move to another area then it would take a few months for the new neighbors to identify the trouble makers and the process would start again. (Personal correspondence, police Lieutenant, department gang unit, November, 2001)
Same report officers talking about psychological tactics trying to induce paranoia:
Some gang unit officers attempt to instill paranoia in gang members’ minds in hopes of turning gang members against one another. A gang supervisor told me “Sometimes I get information about gang activity from local residents. I may use that information and, if it leads to arresting a gang member, he’ll say ‘How’d you know about that? Who’s been talkin’ to you?’ Then I tell him ‘I have snitches. You know that. Do you really know your friends?’ Then he starts getting paranoid and starts wondering which one of his own are talking to the police. It works. We keep them off balance like that.” That’s a form of psychological warfare. Field Note: A gang unit member said “Sometimes I get dropped off in an alley, behind some gangster’s house or where there’s some gang activity taking place. The other officers drive up in front of the house, maybe slam on the brakes and make a little noise.Then they throw the car door open, I run from behind the house and jump into the car and we take off. Scares the hell out of ’em! They get paranoid thinking that cops are hiding everywhere. ‘Hey, look up there. Inside that street light! I see a camera. They’re watchin’ us from everywhere!'”
The absence of strong departmental oversight and the physical separation of gang units from the rest of the police force — three of four units operated from “secret” off-site facilities that were known only to gang unit officers — contributed to a “decoupling [that] led gang unit officers to isolate themselves from the rest of the police organization and from the community and its citizens.” Although gang units are supposed to afford an opportunity for officers to develop specialized expertise, the authors found that the officers were poorly trained and had little direct exposure to gang members: an average of just one to three contacts per eight hours worked.
Estonians (link siseministeerium.ee/2766/ has been removed no alternatives available – it’s ironic that estonians are such great leaders in information technology and still fall for modernized ancient orwellian methods of information destruction. Probably North Koreans are less orwellian in this department.) also adopting disruption tactics or measures, but they call them “disturbance tactics”. Maybe something got lost in translation, maybe they felt that its more appropriate title for such operations:
In the middle of November a new tactics of maintaining law and order was implemented in Tallinn and this concerns the increasing of the number of street guards in Tallinn, the application of the disturbance tactics of criminals which has been internationally used, paying more attention to the lawbreakers who are foreigners and controlling the legitimacy of pawnshops-purchasing agents.
A more recent example are the intelligence/investigative programs that develop tactics of disruption; national security can be protected without such practices. Ways are needed to enforce laws without violating standards of decency and fairness. All of us with criminal justice responsibilities need to examine and reexamine every aspect of our work for both legality and fairness. Our measure should be fairness, justice, and effectiveness.
This is interesting article as it shows then government is forced to look at organized stalking seriously since it’s used as one of the tools as part of influence campaign for destabilizing the political order by designated terrorist organization ETA in Basque Country. The name is very appropriate and most targets from around the world would agree with such label – psychological terrorism. Of course the most obvious culprit is CIA (or as some refer to it as organized crime, mafia, alqaeda, etc having examined only little bit information of what is allowed for them to examine), but Spanish government can’t really do much as it’s probably heavily infiltrated and compromised by CIA as is the case with the rest of EU/World.
This paper defines and analyzes the harassment perpetrated by ETA’s terrorist network in the Basque Country, providing a taxonomy of its strategies of psychological violence. The usefulness of this taxonomy has been tested and contrasted by means of a content analysis of 19 testimonies of persons who were the victims of violence by the terrorist network. The taxonomy of strategies of psychological violence is made up of four dimensions that emphasize the actions on the context of the persons affected, and on their emotional state, cognitions, and behaviour. Results show the predominance of emotional and cognitive strategies. Second sub-category is formed essentially by different forms of verbal abuse: «I find myself walking past a particular bar (refers to bars which ETA sympathizers frequent), and hearing somebody say —there goes that bastard—». Stigmatization consists of acts perpetrated fundamentally in a public space with the aim of marking out a person. This may involve graffiti, pictures, banners or other forms in public places, designating the person as an «enemy» and as a «target» of the terrorist network: «I frequently received insults in the street…». Though these acts can entail other strategies, as a threat, they have a wider impact because the person is stigmatized in the presence of neighbours, workmates or classmates, and society: «My name was written in insulting banners at the Faculty in which I studied». With Control-surveillance of daily activities the target is usually informed by the Security Forces that he/she has appeared on a list of targets of the terrorist network. Some collaborators or even sympathizers may obtain information on the target which could be used to aid future acts of violence. These collaborators may be from his/her neighbourhood or work, among others. This, together with being a potential target of the terrorist network, may cause uncertainty: «Some of my neighbours try to get information on potential targets to pass onto the terrorists. The police told me that a shop assistant of a greengrocer’s close to my home was doing this». Restrictive acts of freedoms may also include elements of other strategies, but here the nuance consists of putting pressure on the target through the presence of people. This pressure may be applied by a public demonstration or protest march in front of the person, thus restricting their freedom. «The radicals (referring to ETA sympathizers) gathered in front of my home»; «…A dozen or more young radicals arrived, and they insulted and threatened me, and placed a banner against the doorway of my home». A strategy of isolation and social exclusion, attempts to ostracise the target and encourage his/her isolation in society. Sometimes by means of intimidation of persons of his/her socialenvironment: «We often went to a bar. We thought they were friends…, we used to have a good time, we used to drink a few beers there… the night began there… and then one day, we were taken to the back room of the bar. They told us they had received a letter threatening to burn down the bar if they continued to sell us beers». The frequency of this was the lowest. It is important to point out that in small towns or villages where the terrorist network’s sympathizers may be predominant, it is easier to control and encourage the isolation of the person The evolution of ETA’s structure -both its cells and its network has facilitated a new form of violence in the Basque Country. This aggression has changed towards continual harassment reinforced by selective physical violence. According to De la Calle (2007) the new terrorist network strategy of kale borroka violence including PV now plays an alternative role as a complementary tool to terrorist murders. From here, new groups have been victimized by pressurising Basque society and creating insecurity and fear. The terrorist network has tried to discourage people who express their opposition to the organization, using a legitimation discourse of intimidation and blackmail (Van den Broek, 2004). This makes terrorism a social communication mechanism, aimed at modifying behaviour by combining coercion and persuasion (Schmid, 2004).
Have you seen this new documentary “Top Priority: The Terror Within” about Julie Davis (ukrainian born immigrant – i’d like to someone to double check her own immigration history and steps she has undertaken to obtain legal status/green card/citizenship), the Border and Custom control agent who reported the serious security issue to FBI and got to experience blow-back of crazy proportions by DHS and ICE. In the end she persevered and got cleared from all charges in the court of law and wrote a book and had a documentary made about this ordeal. Reviews are mainly supportive as far as the cause being investigated although the style of telling the story doesn’t bode well with any of them. It doesn’t appear to be investigatory documentary rather than visual story telling as it leaves lots of raised questions unanswered. I haven’t seen the movie, but my impression so far that they are trying to capitalize on the story (most likely totally made up) by stressing elements that are not so much about the issue, but about how to appeal to general public. Anyhow if you consider her as targeted individual who’s been vindicated in the court of law it would be interesting to find out if there are some lessons to be learned from this case. She never mentions any of the psychological harassment tactics – it’s all about hard disruption tactics.
A total of 54 retaliatory investigations have been commenced in an attempt to discredit Julia as an upstanding law enforcement officer and a staunch American patriot. Julia Davis, her family members and witnesses who dared to support her were subjected to land and aerial surveillance, to the tune of millions – at the expense of American taxpayers. This included warrantless aerial surveillance with fixed-wing airplanes and Blackhawk helicopters, vehicular surveillance, OnStar tracking, Internet monitoring, wiretaps, warrantless searches and seizures and series of other outrageous, unwarranted retaliatory measures.
Incorporating dramatic re-creations, computer simulations, hysterical graphics and the seemingly incessant sound of helicopters, “Top Priority” tells the story of Julia Davis, a Ukrainian immigrant-cum-U.S. Customs officer stationed at the San Ysidro border-crossing in San Diego. There, Davis reported a seemingly critical lapse in security that occurred July 4, 2004: Twenty-three citizens of “special-interest countries ” — aka terrorist nations — managed to cross into the United States without the required interrogation or paperwork, at a time when Homeland Security had fixed the Fourth of July as a likely time for an Al Qaeda encore to 9/11.
She makes some interesting observations on her blog (archive.org) (why would you take a photo of yourself with Karl Rove?)
Leakers and whistleblowers are often incorrectly placed in the same category by the press. The main difference between the way the government approaches these two distinctly different groups is that leakers are prosecuted for their leaks to the media, while whistleblowers are usually attacked in more covert ways and accused of unrelated ”offenses” as a pretext for retaliating against them through the use of our legal system that was supposed to protect them. They get transferred, demoted, reprimanded, accused of sexual offenses or misconduct and eventually fired, prosecuted, crushed. Very few come out intact on the other side of the whistleblower grinder, while the government cranks up the handle faster than ever.
The press tends to profile the leakers more often than whistleblowers. There seem to be two prevailing reasons for that: (1) leakers are often the sources for some of the best stories and (2) their stories are more straightforward, since they’re charged with offenses surrounding their disclosures. Retaliation against whistleblowers often morphs into completely unrelated accusations and prosecutions that on their surface are not related to their whistleblowing disclosure (but at heart are the very reason for the persecution in question). Those are more complex stories that are being left up to the authors and filmmakers to untangle, while the mainstream media concentrates on Weinergate, celebrity break-ups and similar trivial pursuits.
In this post i want to look at organized stalking from psychiatry, anti-psychiatry and Zen view. Psychiatry would most likely define organized stalking claims as schizophrenia, where depending on the description of situation by the victim(patient) the diagnosis would be narrowed further down with persecutory delusions, auditory hallucinations, etc. At the moment it’s not important the definition itself, but the conditions that would precipitate such point in time where victim is pushed to the stage where he might even think that he deserves this label or the pain is so unbearable that he might capitulate in form of surrendering towards mental help professionals. Psychiatry and science is aware that schizophrenia is not a brain disorder – there is nothing wrong with the brain of the patients – all kind of advanced scans do not show any differences between ill person and healthy individual.
Schizophrenia can’t be tested and confirmed in a lab. If it’s a cognitive disorder it’s logical to think that environment could be artificially arranged so that necessary defining patterns of the thinking will be induced into victim to manifest in diagnosis. Schizophrenia with it’s all encompassing symptoms is hard to define – before PTSD was accepted as valid illness – soldiers from Korea war and WWII used to be given schizophrenia label. As Gregory Bateson (local copy) said “I’m not sure that I’ve ever met anybody that doesn’t suffer from “schizophrenia P” more or less”. He also articulated a related theory of schizophrenia as stemming from double bind situations. What is double bind and how it might apply towards targeted individuals?
In a somewhat modified and expanded definition, the ingredients of a double bind can be described as follows: (1) Two or more persons are involved in an intense relationship that has a high degree of survival value for one, several, or all of them. (2) In such a context, a message is given which is so structured that (a) it asserts something, (b) it asserts something about its own assertion and (c) these two assertions are mutually exclusive. Thus, if the message is an injunction, it must be disobeyed to be obeyed . The meaning of the message is, therefore, undecidable . (3) Finally, the recipient of the message is prevented from stepping outside the frame set by this message. Therefore, even though the message is logically meaningless, it is a pragmatic reality: he cannot not react to it, but neither can he react to it appropriately. A person in a double bind situation is therefore likely to find himself punished for correct perceptions, and defined as “bad” or “mad” for even insinuating that there should be a discrepancy between what he does see and what he “should” see.
Double binds are often utilized as a form of control without open coercion—the use of confusion makes them difficult to respond to or resist.
A double bind generally includes different levels of abstraction in orders of messages, and these messages can be stated or implicit within the context of the situation, or conveyed by tone of voice or body language. Further complications arise when frequent double binds are part of an ongoing relationship to which the person or group is committed.
I don’t know about you, but i feel double bind closely describes the state that targeted individuals find themselves trapped in. So at this point is not so much about denying or accepting psychiatry as valid science – it’s about finding a way that would transcend into solution. Neither psychiatry nor anti-psychiatry can provide answers – they can only provide insights and labels as to why specific stimulus is used to create discomfort and stress. Psychiatry research can’t be discounted since they are official gatekeepers of the problem either they realize it or not. So their interpretations and field notes could be valuable as to how organized stalking is used as social control.
Strangely enough similar technique is used by Zen Buddhism as a positive tool to achieve enlightenment, where student is given self-contradictory question and has to find an answer eg:
If you say yes, I will beat you. If you say no, I will beat you. Go and find out the answer, find out whether a dog has a Buddha nature or not. And whatever answer you come back with, I am going to beat you!
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
So how does one solve a puzzle that is impossible to solve without transcending it into higher level of understanding? Zen Buddhism rejects the notion that the problem can be solved with the mind, logic and thinking alone, but in organized stalking case I think it’s important to learn and understand the construct of the problem since it comes from western bureaucratic and technological model of thought instead of eastern way of thinking geared towards enlightenment. Of course you might say Zen students are not trying to survive and their lives are not threatened if they don’t find the answer to the question and you’ll be right (the most they risk of losing is time and money – they are taken for a ride by scammers they like it or not)… At the same time you have to understand that driving force for Zen student to reach enlightenment is similar as it’s existential kind. By Zen students i had in mind westerners who try to better themselves, the situation might be entirely different for all those Tibetan little children abducted by force from their families, imprisoned in these monasteries as some sort of tabula rasa material cattle and raised with these evil dogtooth methods, probably with good dose of bacha bazi pedophilia mixed in.
Operation Leopard is the latest weapon in the fight against antisocial behaviour to receive government backing. Pioneered by officers in Essex policing difficult estates, it deploys forward intelligence teams (FITs) – units trained to gather evidence at foxhunts, protests and football matches – in areas suffering from crime.
FIT officers target a hit list of individuals who are “known to police”, and subject them to repeated surveillance.
Although officers claimed targets could choose not to be filmed, none of those stopped in the presence of the Guardian around 15 suspects and associates were given that choice.
Lee, 19, said he had been stigmatised. “I admit I was a little shit back in the past, but who ain’t?” he said. “I’ve grown up now I’m chilled these days. The old bill don’t let us move on. They keep on classing us as criminals.”
For civil rights groups, the operation is an Orwellian technique that persecutes individuals who have committed no crime. But for police, the “in your face” approach works and, unlike covert surveillance, it requires no special authorisation.
For civil rights groups, which have complained about Operation Leopard, this is precisely the problem. Some activists have launched a counterattack, subjecting FIT officers to surveillance. Turning their own cameras on FIT, activists have started posting officers’ names, faces and badge numbers online.
Back at the station, the officers logged on to one of the websites, Fitwatch, and vented their frustration at “revenge attacks”. One said being filmed felt “unnerving”.
video of operation leopard (videos have been removed):
In Experiment 1 we examined the effect of the insult on the immediate emotional reaction o f the participant and on subsequently expressed hostility during the rest o f the experiment. Subsequent hostility was assessed with a word-completion task, a face-rating task, and a neutral scenario-completion task to see if the participant would project his anger onto these stimuli. We also assessed hostility by having the participant complete the ending o f a scenario that involved affront and sexual challenge. These procedures allowed us to examine whether (a) relatively neutral stimuli would bring out aggression after priming by the insult or (b) only subsequent stimuli that also involve affront or challenge would bring out aggression.
Experiment 1: Students came to the laboratory of the Institute for Social Research, where they were informed that the experiment concerned the effects of “limited response time conditions on certain facets of human judgment.” After an initial introduction to the experiment, participants were told to fill out a short demographic questionnaire and were asked to take it to a table at the end of a long, narrow hallway. As the participant walked down the hall, a confederate of the experimenter walked out of a door marked “Photo Lab” and began working at a file cabinet in the hall. The confederate had to push the file drawer in to allow the participant to pass by him and drop his paper off at the table. As the participant returned seconds later and walked back down the hall toward the experimental room, the confederate (who had re opened the file drawer) slammed it shut on seeing the participant approach and bumped into the participant with his shoulder, calling the participant an “asshole.” The confederate then walked back into the “Photo Lab.” Two observers were stationed in the hall. They appeared to be working on homework, paying no attention to the goings-on in the hall. One (male) observer was seated on the floor in a location where he could glance up and see the participant’s face at the moment he was bumped. The other (female) observer was sitting at the table at the end of the hall where she could glance at the participant’s face if he turned around (which occurred about 86% of the time across Experiments 1 and 3 ). Both observers could hear everything the participant said and could read his body language (though from different perspectives). Immediately after the bumping incident, the observers rated the participant’s emotional reactions on 7-point scales. The reactions of anger and amusement were the ones of greatest interest, but observers also rated how aroused, flustered, resigned, or wary participants seemed.
In Experiment 2 we explored whether, for southerners, responses to insult go beyond annoyance and mere cognitive priming for aggression and are accompanied by physiological changes of a sort that might mediate genuine behavioral aggression. We also attempted to test whether insulted southern participants would be motivated to demonstrate their toughness.
In Experiment 3 we tried to extend the results o f Experiments 1 and 2 by exploring whether southerners would perceive an insult as damaging to their status and reputation (consistent with a culture-of-honor worldview) and would actually behave in more aggressive and domineering ways after an insult. We examined three major sets of variables.
Method 2 and 3 becomes more refined and they start looking for more subtleties. So the question arises if the research really about the difference between the southerners and northerners males or it’s under guise to test some stress induction methods and get some data. Of course everyone knows that calling someone asshole would pretty much insult any person be it from south, west, east or north. What is unknown how much stress it generates. It’s common knowledge that southerners are more temperamental than northerners, but this experiment is just strange as I’m not sure what they gained by insulting almost 500 people. Their reward for the trouble: $5-10.
I try to look at the phenomena from many different angles and it’s hard to put it in an existing framework that would describe it in non authoritarian language. What bugged me was the multiple use of words “research” and “researcher” in Offender-based Policing and Pulling Levers strategies that I blogged about some time ago. So I assumed there had to be some experimental and scientific methods involved in this crime control framework. Again at this moment it’s all but presumptions and information gathering that might fit the profile of gangstalking at hand. Since organized stalking is for most part social issue (if we look at how much of it observable to TI) we have to look at the practices and research methods that would we could correlate with that discipline. Now looking at quantitative research approaches and methods a lot of it could be applicable towards gangstalking phenomena:
Qualitative research aims to understand how people think about the world and how they act and behave in it. This approach requires researchers to understand phenomena based on discourse, actions and documents, and how and why individuals interpret and ascribe meaning to what they say and do, and to other aspects of the world (including other people) they encounter.
Some qualitative studies extend beyond individuals’ personal experiences to explore interactions and processes within organizations or other environments. Knowledge at both an individual and a cultural level is treated as socially constructed. This implies that all knowledge is, at least to some degree, interpretive, and hence, dependent on social context. It is also shaped by the personal perspective of the researcher as an observer and analyst. As a result, qualitative researchers devote a great deal of attention to demonstrating the trustworthiness of their findings using a range of methodological strategies.
The section below provides a summary description of the general approach, as well as methodological requirements and practices, of qualitative research, some of which may also apply to quantitative or other types of research involving humans.
Phenomenology, in Husserl’s conception, is primarily concerned with the systematic reflection on and study of the structures of consciousness and the phenomena that appear in acts of consciousness. This phenomenological ontology can be clearly differentiated from the Cartesian method of analysis which sees the world as objects, sets of objects, and objects acting and reacting upon one another.
We have to keep in mind that qualitative research is very encompassing (even peeping tom could say he is doing covert observational qualitative research into disrobing practices in bedrooms by females), but if we dissect organized stalking by it’s defining characteristics and assume some of that data itself is important, collected and assessed by scientific approach then we can predict that at least some of the aspects of it will be hidden in plain sight in criminology, psychology and sociology research. In this case qualitative research (field study, covert) would be more into community behavior itself rather than into TI. The research into TI would be something along the lines of “case study” eg perception of injustice. TI’s need to realize that community is also disrupted during process of abuse as they also have to shift focus from their daily lives to address this new concern. I don’t know what could be the possible purpose or measurable indicators of the research – maybe cohesiveness of community towards a threat, under guise of building community label or similar. So keywords to start looking for something would be covert field study by using qualitative research, ethnographic, phenomenology, phenomenological research and narrative research.
In some ‘covert’ participant–observation studies, social researchers defend their omission of informed consent on the basis of a need to protect subjects from apprehension, nervousness, or even criminal prosecution. In other instances, researchers contend that deception is rampant in society, and that their methods are no more immoral than the behaviour that ordinarily prevails. These defenses of covert methods fail to appreciate the range of risks that may be involved, and in the latter case, fail to show that these methods are in fact morally indistinguishable from the ‘deception’ that people typically engage in. Ultimately, these proposed defenses of covert methods succeed only in arousing greater concern about informed consent in social research, and the researcher’s privilege in bypassing it.
In this post I want to look into gossip mechanisms, effects and influence on our perception and behavior if looking from organized stalking target, populace and exploiter position.
Almost every targeted individual mentions pervasive gossip and rumors behind their back that have been overheard or assumed to be going on based on first time encounters with stranger and sensing undeserved negative attitude and energy towards them. So gossip and rumor has to be very influential for gang stalking process if we assume that organized stalking is not a spontaneous occurrence based on other factors. We also have to take into account the option of the nature of the rumors to take life of their own and evaluate the incident knowing that attack could be disciplined or natural occurrence based on preexisting natural curiosity and nosiness of people in others around them. Gossip has been around as long as humanity existed, so we have to take in account it’s natural role in shaping our behavior and culture. So this posts not so much personal view of the issue, but rather academic definitions and insights. I think it’s important to weigh in gossip as natural social mechanism of any community in order to distinguish so called “perps” and those who are just receptive for information, etc. Even negative behavior towards a target by third party could be not so much as aversive measure, but rather defensive/protective based on nature of rumor and it’s interpretation. So in the end it’s not the gossip itself that matters, but who concocted and spread the rumor. I’ll be using “Research on Gossip: Taxonomy, Methods, and Future Directions” (local copy) (2004) that reviews half century of gossip research from multiple disciplines. It is very interesting article and I would recommend it to read for any targeted individual.
Strong evidence that evaluations traveling through the network tend to stop short of their targets, concluded that a norm seems to exist “to keep people from learning too much about what others think of them”, in this issue, also acknowledge that gossip affords one the benefits of various veins of social comparison while avoiding the risks of embarrassment or confrontation. Thus, gossip, far from violating privacy, may be construed as a protective social norm.
Slade (1997) distinguished five types of informal conversation and reported that about one seventh (14%) of the time spent in workplace coffee-break conversation consisted of gossip. However, because she limited her definition to negative gossip, the percentage would presumably be higher with positive remarks included.
Gossip about others who are present is probably better labeled public disclosure or ridicule (Kuttler et al., 2002; which may or may not be made innocuous by other facets of the situation). For the most part, authors agree that day-to-day gossip refers to talk about absent third parties.
Although the surface of a gossipy conversation may appear casual, idle, or trivial (Rosnow, 2001), the meta-communicative value is of quite a different kind when we include the evaluative components, implied or explicit, that usually accompany such communications.
Mettetal (1982) observed positive and negative gossip among adolescents, although exchanges among younger peers were likely to be more negative, suggesting that maturity may play a part in developing a more subtle and complex form
The situational aspect of gossip cannot be entirely separated from the content of the gossip, any more than the functions of gossip can be separated from the form; the inherent meaning of the content depends on these other factors.
She remarked upon gossip as socially beneficial in that it facilitates information flow, provides recreation, and strengthens control sanctions, thereby creating group solidarity. Yet, it also can be “an outlet for hostile aggression” (Stirling, 1956, p. 263). Stirling thus implied the four social functions of gossip encountered repeatedly in gossip literature in the years since her article: information, entertainment, friendship (or intimacy), and influence.
Gossip as entertainment can be readily inferred by observing conversationalists passing the time gossiping. Although the gossipee might certainly be sensitive about the information being passed, this does not obviate the fact that gossip can exist solely for the entertainment or recreational value of the gossipers. It is “the sheer fun which for most gossipers explains their involvement”
Establishing friendship at the dyadic or group level is closely related to boundary enforcement and gossip’s influence function, widely discussed by gossip writers. As a means of corralling (or expelling) the wayward and eccentric, gossip is acknowledged to be an efficient social mechanism. The aim of gossip could be either to reform or to stigmatize the sinner. Enquist and Leimar (1993) and Dunbar (2004), in this volume, maintain that gossip is a kind of informal policing device for controlling free riders and social cheats. In fact, these authors posit that, evolutionarily, this is the most important function of language in general and gossip in particular. It is not much of a deductive leap to realize that what one hears about others can just as easily be said to others about oneself; in this way, we can learn how to behave—what to do and what not to do—from listening to gossip.
Much of Gluckman’s (1963) research focused on the coercive aspect of gossip from the perspective of the group. Paine (1967) countered that it is “the individual who should be taken into account in forwarding and protecting individual interests” (p. 278). Building on the work of both Paine (1967, 1970) and Goffman (1959), Cox (1970) wrote that gossip occurs when a person “directly interferes in another’s impression-management, hence forcing the audience to redefine his victim’s role”
Conformity is essential for the survival of the group as a whole, which may account for the particularly vitriolic form of gossip observed in groups under pressure to survive and in open competition with one another
Gossip’s potential to restrict freedom motivates people not only to minimize their eccentricities but also to minimize gossip about themselves whenever possible. People might try to be present, for example, when they sense they may be being talked about, or they may try to ferret out the sources of gossip about themselves. Haviland observed that although people are intensely and often indiscreetly curious about their neighbors, they go to considerable lengths to hide details of their own daily lives.
Netherlands police already admitted to using tactics that would be very similar to gangstalking to prevent suspects from adopting radical and extremist views – they call it “disturbing”. Another attempt to put gangstalking in perspective as to how it would be used in broader context as to war on terror, radicalization and AL-queda. From the bat I just want to put on the record that these ideas are foreign to me and don’t pass any legitimacy test described as a threat to our way of life. And I’m not trying to be oppositional and anti-authority, rather strictly speaking from “evidence based” logic. I’m no expert in geopolitics or military matters and do not try to push any agenda, simply try to look at it critically. Up to this point there is struggle to even prove existence of so called vast terrorism network called “AL-queda”.
Of course legitimacy of the claim got achieved over time throughout extensive propaganda by constantly ingraining the belief into public mind by reinforcing it through hysteria and effects on terrorism incidents. It’s pretty much a label or brand, with little to back it up. Yes you can point to some acts of terrorism and claim it as a evidence, but it just as well could be isolated incidents and not related to each other. So my counter argument is similar to what gangstalking victims experience when pointing towards evidence of organized harassment. Terrorism purely as ideology just doesn’t pass any test of cognitive motivation or psyche. Even most insane psychopaths kill with some sort of motivation, not just for joy of killing. Terrorism is just one of the military tools to achieve some sort of goal in destructive fashion and used on both sides of conflict, except in this case another side is undefinable in conventional sense. So am I ignorant about a threat and should investigate more into it as media can’t deliver complex issues without reducing it to digestible content that loses much of the sense. One could say that it appears that western world is experiencing organized stalking of geopolitical proportions where stressors(terrorism) are used to achieve some sort of goal to transform society through incremental steps (if we assume that Al-queda exists and doing it with some sort of logic). If looking from terrorist point of view I have trouble understanding what they achieved and how it’s could be useful for them and what are long term goals. As far as I can tell the only benefactor (profit wise) is military industrial complex. Western society just kept going on apart of being shocked from time to time, the only changes to the way of our lives came from above in a form of protective and restrictive measures. Being killed in terrorism attack statistically is so low that in comparison with other threats (like traffic accident) it’s clearly hyped for political purposes.
Yesterday I was reading into theory of lone wolf radicalization threat along with counter-radicalization studies that comes along with it. Again myriad of contrived and conflicting research. The struggle to understand and define the threat in a way that would make any sense. Most of the focus is on circumstances, triggers and factors that influence violent act, not radicalization itself. I’ve read 70 pages of these thesis (local copy) and last paragraph caught my eye:
Another central question that perplexes students of the radicalization phenomenon is how it actually happens. If efforts are made to understand receptivity to violent ideology, rather than just the ideology itself, the process by which radicalization occurs assumes great importance. What is the biological, specifically neurobiological, process that occurs as people come to adopt new radical views? Does radicalization reduce individual use of traditional rational choice cost‐benefit trade‐off in favor of an emotional response, or does the nature of the cost‐benefit trade‐off itself change? Do people use different parts of the brain in responding to stimulus as they radicalize, or are the parts they use rewired with this new information? How does social validation facilitate these changes? These are just a few of the issues that lie at the heart of the radicalization puzzle.
It kind of strange to raise questions like this as to what they could be gaining from knowing such thing. So how do you define radicalization itself? Wikipedia provides this definition: Radicalization (or radicalization) is a process by which an individual or group comes to adopt increasingly extreme political, social, or religious ideals and aspirations that reject or undermine the status quo. OK this definition is subjective and any individual has objections and rejects certain aspects of status quo. Military is only interested in radicalization from the point of violent action. How to detect it for purposes of prevention – imagine being able to scan brains of a crowd of people and detect one with violent destructive intent. Or maybe another option – how it could be triggered and how to exploit it to their own purposes. Imagine making subtle changes in multiple dispersed actors in enemy country where they simultaneously go postal. How is that for a weapon of mass destruction and mass effect? I know it could be misinterpreted and rejected easily, but if you wanted to research radicalization process under controlled conditions gangstalking could be one of the ways to achieve as person is forced to reject status quo by going through intense rejection and social isolation as it’s something that is so unfair and undemocratic, but in a democratic society that is supposed to be safe and caring. So chances are for violence and lashing out are elevated. Who would benefit from lone disenfranchised person desperate act? The problem with the military might be not the perceived threat itself, but defining and shaping the perception of the threat according to changing capabilities and technologies to justify the use of emerging exotic weapons.
4th generation warfare has been thrown around among military thinkers for 30 years. There are as many definitions as there are people who try to define it. Language used somehow is very interesting, since it describes something organized stalking victims struggle to describe, but from the academic point of view. I know he is talking about other states, but wikipedia definition is also revealing: The simplest definition includes any war in which one of the major participants is not a state but rather a violent non-state actor. Fourth generation warfare is defined as conflicts which involve the following elements:
Are complex and long term
A non-national or transnational base—highly decentralized
A direct attack on the enemy’s culture
Highly sophisticated psychological warfare, especially through media manipulation and lawfare
All available pressures are used – political, economic, social and military
Occurs in low intensity conflict, involving actors from all networks
Non-combatants are tactical dilemmas
Lack of hierarchy
Small in size, spread out network of communication and financial support
Use of Insurgency and guerrilla tactics
This is from Indian Military Academy Journal (local copy) (2010): The fourth generation warfare will be highly dispersed in nature. The battlefield would expand to include the enemy’s whole society. The battlefield itself would be difficult to define or delineate. Expansion of battlefield from land to sea to air, will now go into the realms of ideologies, culture and values of the target society. Psychological manipulation will assume primacy. The lines dividing the combatants and civilians will get further blurred. In fact the combatants would not be the traditional soldiers. They may well be civilians with specific areas of expertise which will extend beyond conventional military matters. These would be applied for comprehensive disruption, degradation and destruction of enemy society. Nations are defined not only by their geographic boundaries, but because of their culture, traditions and ideological cohesiveness. The quest to target the vulnerabilities of the adversary will prompt the warriors of the next generation of warfare to destroy the very fundamentals of enemy’s nationality. The target would be its society, unity, national spirit and identity. The ultimate goal would be to create such conditions that the adversary’s society will cease to exist as a coherent entity. All the rules and norms of traditional war fighting will disappear, to the extent that it may be difficult to call it war. Consequently the intelligentsia will be forced to coin new terms to define such acts. Since the basic characteristic of this generation of warfare is its lack of form or boundaries, such definitions and terms will appear confusing, imprecise and inaccurate. Terrorism, militancy, insurgency, asymmetric warfare and a large number of other terms, with overlapping scopes, will come into being. Delegation of executive powers will lead to operations being undertaken by small teams or individuals operating alone, making identification and targeting difficult. Fourth generation warfare will be fought in multiple strata, in different forms and methods, seemingly without a robust command and control architecture. It will also use tactics and techniques from earlier generations of warfare. The indefinable nature of battlefield, highly dispersed, specialized teams/ individuals and defiance of all norms will lead to ostensible chaos. As the stress of earlier warfare has shifted from manpower to fire power to maneuver, it will now further shift to this “apparent chaos”. This will be the strength of the fourth generation warrior, since it will make it difficult to identify its centre of gravity and target it. The “quest for profit” will drive the proponents of fourth generation warfare also. The goals would be money, territory, power or could go beyond to amalgamation of entire societies into own cultural / religious folds or its destruction to eliminate a perceived threat to own existence. International aversion to war, economic concerns and huge losses of lives will make the prospects of waging war more and more impractical to states. Intelligent methods of war fighting like war by proxy and by stateless actors will replace wars waged by nation states. The fourth generation warfare will use technology as a tool to wage an efficient and effective war with a wide reach, while exploiting the technological dependence of the target society to create mayhem. Having analysed the drivers and likely contours of the fourth generation warfare, certain basic questions need to be answered to further clarify fourth generation warfare.
It’s hard to understand what it is and if he is describing threats, adversary or process. As far as I can understand military role in globalized world should become less and less significant. It becomes harder and harder for military to justify it’s self-existence. So it’s really interesting how the new threat will be defined and how popular support will be achieved. What will be new boogeyman?
Just some movies that I’ve seen recently. If you need a distraction and reflection – these were pretty good. Any others?
Micmacs. French movie about organized stalking. Quirky cinematography. Morally justified cause where goal justifies the means to defeat the villain by using all kinds of surveillance, coercive tactics and methods. After watching it I was left with weird aftertaste.
He loves me, He loves me not. Another French movie about stalking with elements of appearance of organized stalking. The beauty of the movie is how it’s split in two parts focusing on subjective perception as the key.
12 months of Summer. Swedish masterpiece about individuals who are used to work in most dangerous places in the world, but this time its something completely different. It’sa paradise at the first glance, but the looks are deceiving. It’s really interesting usage of hyperbole where person who underwent severely traumatic experience acquires completely different language. As if no matter how hard he tries to explain something – nobody around him can understand what is he trying to say.
Nowhere Man. Not a movie, but 25 part TV cult series from 1995-1996. Each part has different flavor and follows new ideological message against injustice. From imdb: Photographer Thomas Veil who, in the course of one evening, seemingly has his whole existence erased. It appears as if some mysterious and powerful entity has coerced Veil’s family and friends into cooperating in a clandestine plan to annul every trace of him. Veil is all alone with no option but to begin a desperate, dangerous quest to find out how and why this has happened and most importantly, who is behind this torturous scheme.
This is not my life. 13 part TV series from New Zealand about future. Focuses on personal identity that you no longer own as it’s exploited for the greater good. Lots of allegories with current ideas of the war on terror, safe communities, psychiatry as form of social control, etc…
Cache – Another French movie that depicts stalking from different angle where you’re forced to look at stalking in completely different way.
Martyrs – French again. Are there limits to ethics if you’re after some important answers for the greater good? Very cruel and twisted, but not to the point as to loose the plot.
Dogtooth – If you look at it from sociology perspective – it’s a greek version of matrix. Otherwise it’s a sick, twisted, incestuous, bizarre, revolting movie. What is reality? what is normal? What we believe, what we know or something else? If you consider that humanity has abandoned nature and nature has abandoned humans it can serve as answer to that loaded question about nature or nurture. Homosexuality doesn’t exist in nature (except maybe cases of enron like science book cooking of that CIA department where CIA homos use magical powers of “men who stare at goats”) or humans, it’s something incomprehensible to any normal person. Psychopaths look at children as frankenstein looks at stem cell – they can create monster of monsters that will hunt and kill kittens with bare hands while being under impression that they are being saviors of mankind and just cape away from superman. Pedophilia is not mental disorder – it’s a weapon of the pervertariat.
Bad Boy Bubby – How does one adapt to new social world and rules after the old one is destroyed? Is it genuine unbiased curiosity? Even though ending somewhat “hollywoody”, be prepared for stomach churning imagery.
Trading places – X-mas story that everyone knows and doesn’t really give a second thought about it. Good triumphs over evil. Really? How could it be that two mens lives were turned around as experiment with social tools that you couldn’t even dream of. One man was driven to commit suicide in just a few days. Does it happen only in the movies?
Calvaire – How does one deal with society that is self sufficient, 100% sustainable, eco green, but bat shit crazy. They get raped, tortured and killed. You won’t know about them unless your car breaks down in their village. There shouldn’t be such thing as first impression as all evil in the world rides on it.
Me, Myself & Irene – Beginning of the movie shows the guy who is treated very unfairly everywhere by everyone around him. It doesn’t matter that he is a cop. Think of it as that movie “Truman Show”, but instead of having everyone behave nice around the target – everyone is mean and nasty and sick of you as if that target were the reason for their problems.
Seinfeld season 8, episode 5 called “The Package“. It’s an episode that aired in 1995 depicting where Elaine Benes accidentally notices being marked “difficult” in her medical file and right away she makes mistake assuming it was for not following some nurse’s order from years ago. All her efforts to get rid of the label and the “special” treatment (although it doesn’t appear she noticed anything out of ordinary before being aware of that label) that comes with it just shows how naive she is – she is just digging herself deeper into the hole. There was paranoia inducing moment where American Medical Association called her in the middle of the night to confirm her name. Of course it’s not about labeling. The rash itself is psychiatric symptom and she was just asking for it. So she completely missed the point how she was forced into the “game”.
South Park season 19, episode 1 called “Stunning and Brave“. Little boy becomes a target of terror group (similar group to that group depicted in that movie “fight club”) for saying something that doesn’t worship filthy degenerate CIA psyop trannie. CIA ANGLE club (LGBT officers from intelligence community) was probably depicted in that “fight club” movie and that’s what whole idea of PC principal and his pervertariat crew all about – bunch of loudmouth “alpha males” (comic book invention comes along with concept of superhero – all those muscular drawings also serve as pin up models for homosexuals) living together and instilling terror into everyone around them to hide their own homosexuality, while pretending to be “saviors”, “problem solvers” and “fixers”. Similar hazing tactics that exist in military, prisons, frat houses, etc. It’s very complex and multi-layered plot.
“Fight Club”. Again it’s probably depiction of some adventures of CIA ANGLE organization (LGBT officers from intelligence community) where core of security is based on Stonewalling rule of conduct . They revealed lots of organizational psychological tactics among them the terror tactics to engage civilians on the streets, make them snap and entice them into the uneven fight. Don’t forget to google the single frame of male genitalia that was inserted into last scene of that movie… Of course keep in mind that movie was released before 9/11 and those two WTC lookalike towers that fell down in that last scene. Keep in mind how they portrayed the “leader” of the seemingly spontaneous movement and at the same time fall guy who ended up with schizophrenic like symptoms even though he wasn’t really even allowed in the back war/situation room – unless that part of the narrative doubles as his safety net. All he had left according to that narrative was just some dumb scar on his hand that would self-incriminate the mental tendency towards self harm. He was “in” just for bromance and acceptance of that flamboyant and very charming alpha male who left no real trail.
“Hot fuzz” (2007) – Tough to describe it. One way to look at it – depiction of how modern day community organizing and policing doctrines should be a subject of public scrutiny as it’s nothing, but building blocks of instruments that can be used to take over any territory, institution or zone of influence in liberal democracy and run it by using ancient mechanisms of serfdom, slavery, caste system (with an iron fist) without raising any suspicions by incrementally eliminating anyone who has an ounce of grey matter to be suspiciuos. It’s a movie depicting events that happened in 1995. This movie is part of trilogy.
The Event season 1, episode 14 called “A Message Back”. The show is relevant as it uses new narrative to portray the ongoing rainbowlution “perestroika” of the world by using concept of aliens which could also serve as another layer of military deception. Extensive usage of “you are with us or against us” semantics reminiscent of the Lost “the others” for divide and conquer warfare inspiration. In that particular episode president office had church building under surveillance and president asked how many people are inside. One of the guys pulled and split some satellite feed into infrared signal that enabled him to see everyone inside the building through the roof. It’s something that contradicts the science – maybe they don’t have any labels for technology that is classified hence stonewall rules. screenshots: 123