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.