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.