I was reading another targeted individual’s account and it got me thinking about community as another element of/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.
One discipline that looks at “organized stalking” seriously is social research and simulation. Only they call it Co-Operative Punishment. This research paper called Co-Operative Punishment Cements Social Cohesion (archive.org) makes interesting theoretical case for organized stalking:
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?