Weapon, Tactic or War?

Sometimes I think to myself if it’s a good idea to study gangstalking trying to dissect it and understanding it. If I’m not missing a point itself and going into wrong direction? If it’s a weapon designed to kill/injure just like knife would and someone injures you with a knife in dark alley is it good idea to start studying metal types used in blade manufacturing, knife types, wound types, sharpening stones, knife armor, defense, etc. I guess first thing to do would be to get help with a wound and avoid that dark alley next time, but what if you know that it’s inescapable and traditional request for help will be used to deny existence of the knife and at the same time twist knife, jerk it around and pour salt on the wound?  You will be attacked again and again. So with stalking its all relevant to the amount of suffering it causes. If it didn’t cause any damage you probably would just brush it off and go on with your life without making any adjustments.

A tactic is a conceptual action implemented as one or more specific tasks.
A weapon is a tool or instrument used in order to inflict damage or harm to enemies or other living beings, structures, or systems.
War is an organized, armed, and, often, a prolonged conflict that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually high mortality.

From these 3 definitions I’d say organized stalking is type of war on individual by using different tactics and weapons. This war is not kinetic in a sense that there are no visible weapons. War where success is measured not by amount of blood spilled, but by behavioral changes of the target towards the goal (whatever that might be). I’m not going to touch directed energy weapons here as I really do not know much about them and I’d equate them to invisible bullets and knives.

So if it’s a war declared on you where you don’t even know about it and no way to find about it. No rules, no conventions, any place, any time, completely out of the world tactics. It’s like a game that you’re forced to play and have to figure out the rules. Problem is – there are no rules. Initial rules are based on animal/human behavioral research to target instinctive responses to threat and as time goes modified according to your responses to those attacks. So in a sense you’re in charge of making the rules of the game. I know it’s double speak, but it appears to be like this. The danger of it is illusion of control. As your responses are simply yes or no answers on how to proceed further until soft and vulnerable spot is found to be exploited further.

If we review coping strategies the game tries to enforce us all negative coping strategies, so you’re left with no means to remove embedded invisible knives, stop bleeding and start healing. Most of information on the web is about describing the tactics and methods using sensational and fear mongering language, that helps only so much that at least gives some context. If you look at positive coping strategy of anticipation – it might look somewhat similar to sensitization, but they are very different. As with anticipation you accept coercion as reality and ready to deal with it when it hits you, thus minimizing time spent worrying about individual stressors themselves. Sensitization is about constant worrying about being ready and never being ready to face it. Social support strategy is only partial option as the story is usually quite unbelievable and disturbing where average person is preconditioned to write it off towards mental illness. So it’s important to pick and choose people who have capacity to accept at least part of the story. Meaning-focused coping could be quite dangerous since methods of stress inductions are usually unrelated towards perceived problem and are used only to create negative internal associations with you and yourself by attacking anything that you do at vulnerable times. So first impression could be made “if I avoid doing this or that” it might stop. It never stops and you keep limiting your activities and social interactions until you find yourself confined in your home like a prison. But understanding attack, method and the goal of attack helps to put everything in perspective, unmask true purpose and raise above it.

Being a pacifist by nature its hard to come up with any winning solution to this problem without at first focusing on spiritual and psychological healing, coping, defense and resilience. The only third party support that could be equated and possibly beneficial is institutions that deals with treatment of cult survivors and abusive groups. If we think of abusive community as a cult that tries to coerce and put undue influence on targeted individual you will find a lot of parallels. So first step is to reestablish and repair ties with community at large at the same time exposing rotten elements within it. Is it possible?

Things to consider Richards Heuer (The Psychology of Intelligence Analysis):

  • We commonly solve problems by first forming a conclusion, and then using available evidence to support it. “[We tend to] favor a particular outcome or solution early on in the analytic process…long before we can objectively analyze the evidence and reach a conclusion.” (This is the cognitive bias known as confirmation bias.)
  • We tend to perceive what we expect to perceive We tend to value information that is consistent with our views, and reject or overlook information that is not
  • We can easily become wedded to a pre-existing plan, person’s reputation, etc., which precludes us from continuing to think critically about that plan, person, etc.

Threat Assessment Teams

I’m copy pasting this from here (://www.theblackvault.com/phpBB3/topic4814.html – link resource removed). It is great insight into how you could be targeted in the first place if you really haven’t had any conflicts, no real or perceived crime or terrorism connections. Even though these guidance is for academic institutions and universities it’s possible that local communities and municipalities have similar teams in place. Again no safeguards for accused to clear their name.

Many Targeted Individuals wonder how they could be placed on a list in the first place? Who has the power or the authority to do such a thing? If you live in a country such as the U.K. your local councils have this ability as displayed in the Jane Clift case. If you live in the U.S. or Canada it might be the task of what’s called a threat assessment team.

This team can be comprised of just a few individuals, to a team of many individuals. It depends on the company, educational facility, or community they are representing and what the specific needs are.

Some examples include members of Human Resource, Police Officers, Psychiatrists, Mental Health Professionals, Senior members of the department or division. In some cases there might be just a small team, who then liaison with various other departments. The team members are pre selected, so the team is already in place. The team should generally be trained in assessing workplace violence, violence on campus, what to do, who to call, and they might also be trained in profiling an individual, to enable them to make an assessment of wither an individual is a threat vs a none threat to the environment around them.

The threat assessment teams and who they are comprised of seem to make no concessions or allowances for being evaluated by a team of peers. Eg. In court cases they try to encourage a variety of jurors, so that a person being judged can be evaluated by a peer of their jurors. This in theory allows for fairer trials and outcomes. With the threat assessment teams there are no such guidelines for who the team is comprised of, or what the make up of the team should be. This may or may not account for why the Targeted Individual community has seen an above average targeting of females and minorities. In addition dissenters such as whistle-blowers, extremist site members, and conspiracy site members are also starting to show up above average.

Once in place the team is ready to take tips from the community around them. Generally the team will liaison with Human Resources, The police, Employee Assistance Program, Mental health, and when a report comes in they use these other resources to assist with their assessment of the Target.

Reports can be filed via a form, the reports can be filed anonymously. This means that the person making the accusation need not have any accountability for making a false report. This might not be the case in every area, but in most of the threat assessment guidelines I came across, reports could be filed anonymously. Keep in mind that report are likely primarily initiated by human resources, campus resources, etc. However anonymous reporting of any kind leaves an organization open to abuses of the system that might be difficult to identify or remedy.

http://www.threatassessment.vt.edu/FAQ/index.html#CareTAT (archive.org)

http://rems.ed.gov/docs/EMHETraining_SATX08_ThreatAssessmentTeams.pdf (local copy)
Once a target is chosen, or a concern is forwarded to the threat assessment team it’s time for them to liaison and start to profile and assess if that target is a concern for further evaluation or monitoring, or if the case can be closed.

http://www.nalc.org/depart/cau/pdf/manuals/pub108.pdf (local copy)

Unless otherwise prohibited by law, the duty to inform workers under subsection (1) includes a duty to provide information related to the risk of violence from persons who have a history of violent behavior and who may be encountered by a worker in the course of his or her work.

http://www.wcb.pe.ca/photos/original/wcb_wpviolence.pdf (local copy)

This threat assessment guide from the post office is interesting. Here are some of the criterias it uses to assess if a target could be a threat.

Obsessive focus on grudge — often quick to perceive unfairness or malice in others, especially supervisor.

Especially for males, great concerns or emphasis on sexual fidelity of mate.

Recent stressful events or severe losses.

Perceived loss of options.

Direct or veiled threats of bodily harm toward supervisory personnel, coworkers, or customers.

Physical deterioration (head injuries, cancer, disability, kidney failure, etc.).

Extreme sense of moral righteousness about things in general as well as believing that the organization does not follow its own policy and procedures.

Inability to handle constructive criticism well and projecting blame on others.

Demonstrated disregard for safety or coworkers.

Tendency to be a loner with little family or social support and often having an excessive investment in the job.

Another University uses these criteria for their threat assessment and fit for duty guidelines.

http://www.vpfa.fsu.edu/Employee-Assistance-Program/Workplace-Violence (archive.org)

A. Expression of bizarre and inappropriate thoughts. B. Excessive absenteeism without prior approval or rationale. C. Degenerating physical appearance. D. Acts of insubordination. E. Poor work performance. F. Poor workplace relationships with others. G. Indications of alcohol/substance abuse. H. Excessive complaining.

Once an assessment is initiated information is gathered on the Target in question.

Gathering of information and Investigating

To gather information on the target, these threat assessment teams use a variety of sources. They use the persons friends, family, social networking circles, co-workers, neighbours, and other resources.

Triage questions can include:

• Has there been indications of suicidal thoughts, plans, or attempts?
• Has there been indications of thoughts/plans of violence?
• Does the person have access to a weapon or are they trying to gain access?
• Are there concerns about the well-being of the subject?

• Are there concerns about the safety of the community?
• If yes, a full inquiry is recommended. Gather Information (Full Inquiry)
• Think broadly and creatively about those who might have information:

  1.  Co-workers
  2.  Other staff
  3.   Friends
  4.   Family
  5.   Online friends, web sites, etc.
  6.   Previous schools / employers
  7.   Others?
  8.   Document information and use it to answer the

Key Investigative Questions.

Many Targeted Individuals express concerns often that their families, friends, people online, others are playing a role in their monitoring, or are taking part. That they are somehow in on it, well according to what this threat evaluation guideline dictates, they are often in on it, and asked to be a part of the monitoring and evaluation process.

Need for Collaboration
“Most important, dangerous people rarely show all of their symptoms to just one department or group on campus. A professor may see a problem in an essay, the campus police may endure belligerent statements, a resident assistant may notice the student is a loner, the counseling center may notice that the student fails to appear for a follow-up visit. Acting independently, no department is likely to solve the problem. In short, colleges must  recognize that managing an educational environment is a team effort, calling for  collaboration and multilateral solutions.”

They use a variety of sources in the targets environment, but because reports do come in remotely, there is cause for error, or even false reporting of events. These reports are used to keep targets on monitoring for years to come.

Many people believe that the social networking sites that they use are harmless, but when it comes to being evaluated as to wither you are a threat to your social circle, you will see that these sites have now begun to play a critical and integral role in assisting these teams to make their initial assessments.

If unaware of the guidelines being used to assess them, targets could well be entrapped or tricked into making suggestive statements. Also once those around the target perceive that the target is under investigation, normal everyday behaviours that would have been brushed aside, become significant, and everything the target does is cause for alarm.

2. Have there been any communications
suggesting ideas or intent to attack?
• What, if anything, has the person communicated to someone else (targets, friends, co-workers, others) or written in a diary, journal, email, or Web site concerning his or her grievances, ideas and/or intentions?
• Has anyone been alerted or “warned away”? Source: U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education, (2002) Guide to Managing Threatening Situations and Creating Safe School Climates. Key Investigative Questions

The threat assessment team will also circumvent laws such as FERPA and HIPAA to get around laws that would usually prevent an invasion of the targets rights and privacy.

Information Sharing: FERPA

• FERPA is not an impediment to effective threat assessment and case management.
• FERPA governs records only, not observations,communications, etc.
• FERPA does not govern police records.
• If created & maintained by law enforcement, for law enforcement purpose.
• New guidance from ED encourages information sharing where public safety is a concern.
• FERPA does not permit a private right of action.

Information Sharing: HIPAA
• Check with legal counsel as to which laws govern counseling center records.
• Confidentiality is held by client, not MH provider.
• In cases where privacy laws apply, can try these strategies:
• No legal prohibition against providing information to health/MH professionals.
• Inquire about Tarasoff – type duty.
• Ask subject for permission to disclose.

Record Keeping
• Centralized incident tracking database;
• Document reports and actions – include date, time, subjects, targets, behaviors of concern, witnesses;
• Data;
• Assessment;
• Plan;
• Preserve evidence: Keep copies of email, memos, etc.
Record Keeping
Incident tracking database;
• Incident Information:
• Date, location, nature of incident, means of approach;
• Subject information:
• Name, DOB, sex, description, affiliation, status, etc.
• Target / Victim Information;
• Name, DOB, sex, description, affiliation, status, etc.
• Witness/Reporting Party Information:
• Name, DOB, sex, description, affiliation, status, etc.

Assessing Information and Situation

Once all the reports are in from the eyes and ears around the target, then the assessing of information begins.

Think creatively about resources, as well as
“eyes and ears.”
• Anticipate likely change in the short and midterm, and how the subject may react.
• Monitor using available resources. Who sees the person regularly, inside work/campus, outside, on weekends, online, etc.?

The threat assessment team use the information gathered together to determine if the target should be referred any third parties, this could include law enforcement, Employee Assistant Program, Mental Health Workers or others.

They evaluate if the person might be a danger to themselves or others, if the person is able to take care of themselves. Eg. Do they pay rent on time, do they buy groceries, are the suicidal, a threat to others, etc. If these criteria are not met, they might try to convince a judge or other health care worker that a mental health hold is required, or some other form of intervention.

Information is recorded and reported 24/7 and often stored in some form of centralized database. The records are crossed referenced with police and other contacts.

Now this procedure was in place well before the fusion centers ever came into existence, however it is not out of the question to assume that fusion centers might well be used in future or linked into this process, even if they were not initially used.

Once a Targeted is listed for monitoring, even if they move away from the university, place of employment, or community, if they are still perceived to be a threat to others the remote monitoring, or case management will continue.

While the case is open the team should:

• Continue to monitor and modify the plan as long as the individual still poses a threat

• Recognize that a person can continue to pose a threat even after he/she ceases to be a Closing a Case member of the campus community

• Continue to monitor the situation through its relationship with local law enforcement agencies and mental health agencies, as well as in direct cooperation with the person, if possible

The Target will be monitored as long as they are perceived as a threat. There is no current limit to how many years the state can continue this monitoring, imposition and disruption of the targets life.

If someone who has been reviewed by the Threat Assessment Team leaves the area, do you continue to monitor him/her?

If the situation warrants reviewing the case after the subject leaves the area, the team will continue to do so. It is important to remember that when the subject has relationships in his/her life, there is a lesser chance for violence to occur. A failure to communicate or interact with a subject encourages problems to fester, which could lead to violence.

Also under many of these occupational health and safety guidelines, the Targets information can and will be shared with those that they are likely to come in contact with.

“In the service sector this may require identifying to employees persons who have a history of aggressive or inappropriate behavior in the store, bar, mall or taxi.

The identity of the person and the nature of the risk must be given to staff likely to come into contact with that person. While workers have the right to know the risks, it is important to remember that this information cannot be indiscriminately distributed.

Remember as the case is being monitored, any incidents, perceived threats, strange behaviour, anything at all can be reported to this team for assessment and evaluation. If the team feels that a change in behaviour constitutes a threat the team might upgrade the targets to something along the lines of medium risk, danger to self or others, should only be seen in pairs.

Manage The Situation

The threat assessment team might also add specific quirks of the target to their files, things that the general public might be made aware of, such as if the target starts to pace it could be a sign of imminent attack.

Assessment: Case Priority Levels

PRIORITY 1 (Extreme Risk): Poses clear/immediate threat of violence or self-harm and requires immediate containment, law enforcement involvement, target protection, and case management plan.

PRIORITY 2 (High Risk): Poses threat of violence or self-harm but lacks immediacy or access to target. Requires active monitoring and case management plan.

PRIORITY 3 (Moderate Risk): Does not pose threat of violence or self harm, but exhibits significantly disruptive behaviors and/or need for assistance. Requires active monitoring, case management plan, and appropriate referrals.

PRIORITY 4 (Low Risk): Does not pose threat of violence or self-harm at this time, but may exhibit some disruptive behavior and/or need for assistance. Requires passive monitoring. Utilize case management and referrals as appropriate.

PRIORITY 5 (No Identified Risk): Does not pose threat of violence or self-harm nor is there evidence of disruption to community. No case management or monitoring required.

It can be clearly shown that monitoring is indeed a part of the guidelines that these threat assessment teams do follow.

Once the plan is developed, it needs to be
implemented and monitored.
• Team should include implementation and monitoring responsibilities as part of the case management plan.
• Further referrals may be necessary.
• Team should continue to follow up as necessary.

What targets may wish to do in future is redirect F.O.I.A. (Freedom Of Information Act) requests to these agencies.
Targets may also wish to have their lawyers make a cease and desist request to these threat assessment teams in regards to the overly invasive monitoring that is allowed. In future Targeted Individuals might even be able to come together and aim class action lawsuits or individual, and human rights lawsuits at these teams. Slander suits and others might also be suitable.

What would also be nice is to gain some statistics on who is being monitored via these threat assessment teams. Which case files were closed, vs which are still open. How many years does the average case stay open for? Ages, genders, race, how many were whistle-blowers, or belonged to a dissident, extremist, conspiracy or protest group. How many cases ended in suicide? Incarceration? Institutionalization? Homelessness?

These might be things that future Targeted Individuals look into as they seek assistance in stopping the monitoring, surveillance, and life disruptions, and curtailling the abuses that are being experienced under these programs.

With these threat assessment teams it’s extremely important to realize that if the threat assessment team is composed of one group, and they are assigned to make a threat assessment of another group or individual, you might not have fair and balanced assessments, because these teams than do not take into considerations cultural norms, gender, racial, sexual, or other biases that might be present, or underlying within the assessment team. The assessment team is essentially playing judge, jury, and executioner with their assessments of these individuals, thus if courts are required in many cases to use a fair and balanced jury of peers, should Threat Assessment Teams be morally or legally required to do the same in future?

Effect based operations

I keep looking for something from official literature that could define organized stalking as a tool or a weapon. The closest it would be Effect-based Operations from US military. Problem is that doctrine is so encompassing it could be used to describe Iraqi freedom, police disruption tactics to curb organized crime figure, mobbing, gangstalking, whatever coercive hostile action that might be. Incidentally Military also uses word “human effect” to call reaction to stressors by Non Lethal weapons, both psychological and physiological. As Lt Col J. P. Hunerwadel explains Effect Based Operations is a “a thought process – a set of concepts and a way of thinking”. There are many conflicting opinions about it. Wikipedia provides this definition:

Effects-based operations

As defined by the United States Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM), effects-based operations are “a process for obtaining a desired strategic outcome or effect on the enemy through the synergistic and cumulative application of the full range of military and nonmilitary capabilities at all levels of conflict.” The intent and desired outcome of an effects-based approach is to employ forces that paralyze the enemy forces and minimize its ability to engage friendly forces in close combat.

Rather than focusing specifically on causing casualties and physical destruction resulting in the attrition or annihilation of enemy forces, effects-based operations emphasizes end-state goals first, and then focuses on the means available to achieve those goals. For instance, psychological operations, electronic warfare, logistical disruptions and other non-lethal means can be used to achieve the demoralization or defeat of an enemy force while minimizing civilian casualties or avoiding the destruction of infrastructure. While effects-based operations does not rule out lethal operations, it places them as options in a series of operational choices for military commanders.

Hunervadel (archive.org) gives more info how it could used to target individuals:

EBO focuses primarily upon behavior, not just physical changes. Traditional warfare made destruction of the enemy’s military forces the leading aim. Doing so can certainly accomplish objectives and still remain a vital part of strategy, but an effects-based approach emphasizes alternatives—that the ultimate aim in war is not to overthrow the enemy’s power but to compel him to do one’s will. Sometimes one can accomplish the latter only by an overthrow, but most of the time other choices exist. Careful examination of all types of effects will suggest them. Another aspect of this principle is that “the moral is to the physical as three is to one.”16 That is, we can often achieve objectives more effectively and efficiently by maximizing the psychological impact of our operations upon an adversary—not just on the battlefield but on enemy leaders and other critical groups as well. We can carefully tailor messages to populations in the operating environment, encouraging cooperation or other desired behavior from them. Finally, affecting the behavior of friendly and neutral actors within the operational environment can often prove as important as affecting the adversary’s behavior. When we prohibit strikes on cultural or religious landmarks during operations, for instance, friendly and neutral actors in the operational environment figure just as prominently in our intended target audience as does the adversary.

Effect Based Operations is not just another fashionable buzzword. As a term it’s been around couple decades and in the last decade becoming very fashionable and spreading throughout NATO countries and supporting nations (it had it’s share of critics too) as leading doctrine. Knowing that defense industry pioneers and refines many of innovations with idea on how to commercialize it and apply it to other areas it’s no surprise that “this way of thinking” could be leaking into other areas, like vigilantism and law enforcement. So how do we treat “organized stalking” – method, tool or weapon? How do we define responsibility and accountability for it’s implementation and execution?

Another emerging doctrine is 5th generation warfare (some argue that 5th generation warfare is just 4th generation warfare misinterpreted) and it’s definition is even more perplexing:

The 5GW Educational Institute® offers the following definition for debate:  5GW is an extension of Asymmetrical and Insurgent Warfare, whereby the enemy uses all means – both conventional and unconventional military tactics and weapons; includes political, religious and social causes; incorporates 21st century Global strategic information operations campaigns (internet and 24 hours news cycle); can be conducted by organized or unorganized groups; may be nation state led or non-nation state led – to disrupt and defeat superior opponents in order to achieve their will.


“Effects-based warfare,” that is, methods geared to achieve an outcome and not cause traditional damage lacks the “visually pleasing destruction from an armed bomb.” Brig. Gen. John B. Baker.

Why could individual be targeted in the first place? It’s because you’re part of system of systems as adversary looks at the target (unless it’s personal). So I guess it also helps to examine what systems does targeted individual belongs to: business, family, personal, social, etc. Possible conflicts not only between you and the system, but inter-systems conflicts.

I don’t know what to make out of it. It’s just doctrine. Maybe it could be used as counterargument to people who say “Who would do things like that?”.

Quantum cognition and organized stalking

It is estimated that every 7 years, we replace every cell in our bodies, yet we keep our identities and our shape, if not mentioning wrinkles and less hair. Science tries to reason it with DNR, but many spiritual, behavioral and mind issues are beyond the grasp for science if applying traditional constructs and research methods. Subjective experience of the consciousness is something traditional science is fully aware, but can’t even begin to explain. Science and traditional criminology is all about testability, repeatability and evidence. If we approach organized stalking from criminology perspective it’s almost impossible to create compelling case with evidence since only accumulation of instances can be understood as persecution, but impact still can’t be measured. Impact is only on you and only from your point of view. There is no way to examine real time-line impacts within intent of the crime. Organized stalking is Schrodinger’s cat paradox where it all depends on time, subjective observability and interpretation – it’s alive and dead at the same time. The potential witness could be standing right next to you and wouldn’t notice anything out of ordinary unless you point it to them and even then witness might have his reservations about aversive intent.

How do you create evidence for the ripples in the water that are intentionally created to erode part of the shore. Do you document the ripples or someone who is causing the ripples and monitoring destruction. Who is accountable, ripples or someone making the waves? Ripples could appear completely natural to casual observer since they occur everywhere in the water. So how do you create evidence for the crime that by design has to look natural. Ripple could be anything – degrading rumor, name calling, scratch on the car, etc.. It’s the intent that is threatening and forcing our attention and concern. There is subtle dangerous stage of organized stalking is when all ripples start to look the same: intentional and natural.

So if we presume that human is both particle and wave – body (our physical space) is a particle and wave is our awareness, perception, behavior, cognition and same applies to humanity and use already existing quantum cognition insights to frame organized stalking phenomena. So if we are both particle and wave, lets call unity of both a string and our activity we could call vibration.
So if we agree that quantum models apply to humans (strings) and and conglomeration of particles that we can only interpret as collective vibration energy and potential of ideas where ideas take life of their own and do not belong to anyone who is part of the conglomerate: political parties, school, communities, activism, militaries, etc – anyone can like or dislike anything.. We can imagine them as bigger strings based on vibration through energy of their followers or enemies.

We are all intertwined and entangled in various ways: we are part of culture, community, we are citizens of particular country, belong to party, have hobbies, workplaces, etc.. We are a string and we vibrate creating waves of interaction with outside world and other strings around us try to affect and influence in many different ways where you’re alone and part of everything at the same time. Why are we influenced by something and are indifferent to others. That is subjective matter how we lend importance to something making us feel (vibrate) about something. Some strings force us to behave in one way or another, like law, social norms, peer pressure, work and so on, but we are not necessarily affected by it. Some coerce us to become their followers – like tv program we get intrigued to watch and can’t stop it, favorite brand, viral videos, etc. We resonate positively towards some strings and negatively towards other strings and some issues don’t affect us at all. That is all part of life and we accept it as normal. Now comes in a string that appears to be determined to influence about with sole purpose to affect your with constant ripples of negative waves. It’s ripples of negativity on targeted arbitrative point of view with apparent sole purpose to push right buttons to make you resonate as much as possible with negativity until you collapse like a bridge collapsing from platoon marching through it. How do you fight the energy? If you push pendulum it will swing back with more force. It feeds on your response. When does pendulum stops swinging – when it’s broken or out of energy, or put in different position eg parallel to the floor. Bridge is designed to withstand much bigger load than platoon of soldiers marching through it. If it didn’t resonate to stimuli it wouldn’t have collapsed. What if it’s almost collapsed and got conditioned that walking is a threat. Even few people walking on it might make bridge to resonate with fear under the threat of collapse. Of course you will say bridge is different and I agree it doesn’t have subjectivity. In some ways we don’t too – our basic instincts are exploited that naturally don’t depend on our subjection. But human is the only animal that is capable to controlling his instincts and i want to believe that we do have at least a potential to find way to tackle this.

I’m sorry if it sounds contrived, but I think it’s important to try to look at it from many different perspectives, overlaying onto existing frameworks and we might just stumble onto something. You know that movies are best watched in their original language, same applies for books. So this post is not about trying to find who or why. It’s about minimizing damage by disrupting perception of the problem.

Disrupting Australia and Disturbing Netherlands

Stop me if I’m suffering from pareidolia or apophenia, but i think these tidbits somehow are related to the point of interest. Interesting use of euphemism ”strategy of 1000 cuts” as it’s how sometimes organized stalking is described. So before police used to investigate once they have a tip, now they just go and disrupt since it’s easier than collecting evidence. At least Netherlands cops don’t hide their psychological harassment tactics behind sanitizing descriptions.

The tactics advocated by al-Qaeda and other extremist groups has changed from one of ”big, bad bombs” and violent attacks by terrorists working together in a cell to a ”strategy of 1000 cuts”, in which individuals take short, sharp ”potentially high-impact” action, says Assistant Commissioner Steve Lancaster, the national manager of counterterrorism for the Australian Federal Police.

Secretive types can ”self-radicalise” without communicating with anyone else, making their plans difficult to detect, he says.

”The [traditional] philosophy of police is that people are suspected of committing a crime, you do an investigation and you get enough evidence and you then arrest or summons them and put them through the courts,” he says.

”The idea is to get them when they’re still in the thinking stage. They are starting to give the community clues that they are [becoming] extreme in their views and the most ideal situation is to stop them from taking that quantum leap on doing something … It does rely on information from the community and their participation in trying to identify who these people are.”

http://www.smh.com.au/national/police-use-disruption-to-keep-lone-wolves… (archive.org)

Under investigative procedures recently put in place, investigators and the police have begun to do what they call ”disturbing” people to deter them from joining radical groups. It is a kind of harassment that involves following people at close range, calling them by telephone, parking police cars in front of their homes and approaching them on the street to inform them that they are being watched.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/… (archive.org)

Thoughts about Mobbing research

Again I’m not trying to find and propose ideas from dialectical point of view, rather than to find options to proceed further examinations. If organized stalking is a form of social control against deviancy there should be some sort of pattern or predictability as to when to expect such measure. Even though vigilantes could be well organized, but vigilance doesn’t really explain it, since vigilantes are usually after swift and quick justice. There is always possibility of vigilantism in the case of pervasive and degrading rumors, but that’s more like an expected side effect rather than principle, being that immediate physical destruction of psychological stalking is not the goal.

If talking about organized stalking then level of discipline and motivation to perform certain task by public without immediate observation of reaction as being part of reward for this particular induced stimuli points to some authority figure and understanding of long term goals by those involved (not necessarily intricacies like NLP or behavioral conditioning).  Mobbing is the only phenomena that is very similar, not to mention widely publicized and researched, but it’s definition narrowly limits it to workplace. Extensive mobbing research doesn’t answer questions why and who. Anyone could be mobbed by anyone and most blame is put on workplace institution and organizational mismanagement (situational factors) thus diffusing accountability into collective blame and shifting focus from instigator individual responsibility. Mobbing could be also described by disruption tactics only at workplace. So if mobbing is so unpredictable and can only be suppressed by improving organization itself and raising awareness, could gangstalking be a spontaneous phenomena too? I seriously doubt it. What is interesting that person who is gangstalked is usually is harassed at workplace too, but not necessarily vice versa unless researchers dismiss that part as unrelated as it doesn’t incorporate into definition. I speculate the main reason mobbing is explored, not because deplorable nature of the crime, but it’s negative effects on business itself – and everyone needs explanation of something unexplainable – so here comes shaman to the tribe as prophet and with a gift of charlatanism and embeds deeply into society with the explanation of the method which expected to be also accepted as “solution” since he has courage to “tackle” something that he probably created (by “tackle” I mean spread disinformation). Most likely than not – final solution for those who are not in the know. So if typical scientific approach by multiple dedicated researchers failed to tackle mobbing core issues, what kind of prospect can we see for organized stalking issue? So they looked into patterns, methods, conditions, different forms of mobbing, correlated into sex factor, reactions of victims, consequences on victims life, but couldn’t find explanation of why except situational factors. They defined stages as to how mobbing usually occurs:

  1. The first phase is conflict. Mobbing develops from an unresolved conflict, which gradually loses importance, replaced instead by a personal dispute. Mobbing activities are not yet explicit, but there are first consequences, like irritability, depression, exhaustion, periodical weakness, headaches, sleep disorder, stomach trouble, etc
  2. In the second phase the conflict has been repressed, the victim’s personality becomes the target of the attacks. There are new activities of mobbing, communication is terminated. In this phase the attacked person changes a lot, and for colleagues becomes an “outsider”. There are the first disturbances between the victim and their social environment. The victim starts developing post-traumatic stress disorder.
  3. First disciplinary measures follow (third phase). Due to mobbing the victim becomes problematic, less concentrated, makes mistakes, is often absent- sick. As a result of the numerous disciplinary and other measures in this phase the case becomes public, and everybody gets to know, even those who didn’t know to that time that there is something wrong with the victim. A bad reputation follows them everywhere. In this phase the psychological and physical symptoms increase. There is also an increase in the abuse of medication and addiction to it. Alcoholism is frequent and there are first signs of suicidal inclinations.
  4. The fourth phase, comprises so called wrong diagnoses made by psychiatrists and psychologists when the victims seek help.
  5. The last phase represents termination of employment. After their dismissal many victims are incapable of working and they file for early retirement on medical grounds. If mobbing ends with termination of employment, the psychosomatic disorders are so severe that the individuals are permanently incapable of working and they file for early retirement on medical grounds.

Researchers note another similarities with gangstalking:

  • Most information can still be found on the Internet, and people (usually) do not start acquainting themselves with mobbing until they, or someone close, or colleagues, become victims. (thats not really a similarity, information on organized stalking is virtually non-existent in terms of finding real answers)
  • Superiors are, in many cases, the bullies, and this is the reason that they would not intervene, because it would mean intervening against themselves.
  • Eventually even family members and friends stop believing the victim, which throws them into even greater despair.
  • “mental effects were fully comparable with PTSD from war or prison camp experiences.

A lot of similar themes and outcomes, difference is localization of activity and techniques, not to mention surveillance and possible use of EM weapons. I guess question arises on how to engage researchers to look at this phenomena without prejudice of delusional or other psychiatric symptoms, emphasizing harm it’s causing on society and communities. If you take mobbing template and apply it to community or society it wouldn’t be far fetched to make correlations in many different areas except with wide array of extra harassment tools available to be applied towards targeted individuals.

Psychiatrists are fully aware of conundrum that group idea can’t be perceived as delusion:

The extent of the community, Dr. Bell said, poses a paradox to the traditional way delusion is defined under the diagnostic guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association, which says that if a belief is held by a person’s “culture or subculture,” it is not a delusion. The exception accounts for rituals of religious faith, for example.

http://www.nytimes.com/…. (archive.org)

Sooner or later society will have to tackle this problem, but I doubt psychology can solve it in any form that would lead to some sort of solution as it would probably expose them as complicit in participating of designing many of the methods.

Disruptive options (UN antitrafficking)

I came upon this UN manual that describes objectives for disruption tactics and strategies for law enforcement that is dealing with crime of trafficking. It just helps to gain insight into purpose of such action since it’s so rarely mentioned, but widely employed on many different law enforcement fronts.

The use of the disruptive option may be appropriate in a variety of circumstances:

  •  Where the level of risk to the victims demands an immediate response that precludes the proactive option but may require an immediate intervention and disruption thereafter
  • Where the proactive option is not viable for operational reasons, such as where geographical and/or topographical features make surveillance on target premises impracticable, or where it is impossible to achieve undercover penetration of the network
  • Where legislative, procedural or resource implications preclude the use of proactive tactics
  • Where the disruptive option provides a faster response to specific complaints from local  residents or other interested groups

Irrespective of why the disruptive option may be the most appropriate response under certain circumstances, two key points should be noted. Firstly, disruption may temporarily relieve the situation, but it does not provide a solution and will only displace the problem to another location. Secondly, the key to success with the disruptive option is the use of creative and innovative multi-agency tactics to create so many daily problems as to make it virtually impossible for the traffickers to continue to operate in their current format and location.
There are a number of multi-agency partners that can be harnessed to the disruption effort (the list is not exhaustive): local police agencies; immigration services; customs agencies; ministries of foreign affairs, health, environment and labour; fire services; local municipal authorities; airlines and other carriers.

Whatever type of disruptive tactic is deployed, the following four important points should be noted regarding this type of activity:

  • Disruptive tactics are aimed across a wide front. They may result in complaints by some individuals (e.g. advertisers, property agents or travel agents) about intimidation or improper use of legislative powers. This may occur because the net effect upon them of compliance with law enforcement instructions will be an economic one—it may cost them business. The response to these complaints if they arise is straightforward: the crime of trafficking is a grave abuse of the human rights of the victims and it is the duty of law enforcement agencies to utilize all possible legal means to disrupt and reduce it.
  • If time permits, disruptive activity should be conducted on an incremental basis. It is usually better to seek cooperation in the first instance. If this fails to produce the required result, the disruption can be increased incrementally to reinforce the message.
  • Disruption does not always achieve the desired outcome on the first occasion and may have to be repeated. It is important to have detailed records of what has already taken place in order to strengthen the message if it has to be repeated
  • Disruptive activity always creates intelligence opportunities, so it is important to ensure that all available intelligence is captured and properly recorded. It may become the basis of proactive operations at a later date.

A further measure that can lead to disruption is the use of education programmes. Education campaigns as such are purely preventive measures designed to achieve long-term benefits by educating potential victims of the risks inherent in the crime of trafficking, but they can also play a vital role in disruptive activity in certain circumstances. It may be possible to establish liaison with the organization conducting a programme (e.g. a non-governmental organization carrying out a campaign) in order to include current thematic intelligence and facts in the programme content.

http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Toolkit-files/08-58296_tool_5-5.pdf (local copy)

Third Party Policing

Another little discussed police doctrine is “third party policing” that has been around for quite some time and described as a major shift in contemporary crime control practices. The purpose of it is to shift policing to new state where ” regulation becomes a layered web, with strands contributed by public agencies, professional and community organisations and individuals, and increasingly international organisations as part of globalised regulatory networks (Braithwaite & Drahos 2000). In essence it’s a global network of police informants where person has no choice, but to comply or else. Maybe snitch is not a right word – if it’s a new norm of forced public duty.

Buerger and Mazerolle (1998) first described the nascent doctrine of third-party policing as: police efforts to convince or coerce non-offending persons to take actions which are outside the scope of their routine activities, and that are designed to indirectly minimize disorder caused by other persons, or reduce the possibility that crime may occur. Though the ultimate target of police action remains a population of actual and potential offenders, the proximate target of third-party policing is an intermediate class of non offending persons who are thought to have some power over the offenders’ primary environment. The police use coercion to create place-guardianship that was previously absent, in order to decrease crime and disorder opportunities.

The new regulatory state necessarily affects the policing of crime and social order as a fundamental function of government. Garland (1996) suggests that contemporary governments have sought to re-define their responsibilities in relation to the control of crime by shifting the onus beyond state agencies onto the organisations, institutions and individuals of civil society. The most immediately noticeable effect has been the shift from state dominated policing to the situation where most developed economies have more private than state police (Shearing & Stenning 1987), with the private security market in Australia at least double the size of the public police (Prenzler & King 2002). As private security guards replace police in public and private buildings, community centres, even public space, and as private prison administration proliferates, the role of the state increasingly becomes one of regulating standards rather than actually performing most policing and criminal justice functions.

One logical conclusion of this trend sees the state as putting criminal justice out to competitive tender, with police services competing with private security, local government, community agencies and other bidders for contracted functions. The end result is a ‘…reconstitution of policing as a mechanism of governance oriented to the management of conduct across civil society, and the advent of a loosely coupled network of policing agencies’ (Loader 2000: 333–4) and a partial shift in the control of policing away from the state towards political subcentres (Shearing, 1996). Ericson and Haggerty (1997) describe the impact of compliance-based regulatory enforcement on police as a transformation, centred on the role of police as information brokers, the dissemination of police intelligence becoming a primary form of social control. That is, the function of police becomes essentially one of intelligence-gathering, analysis, and distribution to other agencies and individuals with a capacity to take further action.

http://www.popcenter.org/library/crimeprevention/volume_09/ThirdPartyPolicing.pdf  (local copy)

http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/5027/27003_1.pdf (local copy)


You should read above documents to get accustomed with doctrine. Even though these are academics talking they do give a many examples of how to coerce individuals and politicians and also theorize about circumventing the law or making it fit into this new proposed social order under ongoing implementation. It puts a lot of things in perspective organized stalking paradigm would fit quite well in third party policing doctrine as preventive and punitive measure.

Offender-Based Policing and “pulling levers” strategies

I’m copying this information Bureau of Justice Assistance (archive.org) website as it provides insight into possible framework of this phenomena as “organized stalking” in USA. There is very little information that would put gangstalking in context of current policing practices, methods and strategies. Most of the information steer you away from looking into existing practices and instead divert attention to something exotic or outdated that cannot be examined. I’m not saying that “pulling levers” strategy is “gangstalking”, but it could be especially if abused or misused.

Offender-based policing strategies are used by law enforcement agencies to address crime by focusing efforts and resources on the persons committing the crimes. These so-called “pulling levers” strategies are based on research that has shown that a relatively small number of offenders are responsible for a large number of the crimes that are committed.1 The logic behind these strategies is that violent, gun and drug crime can be reduced by identifying and targeting these offenders. Once identified, the offenders receive a direct and explicit message that is intended to deter them from future criminal behavior. This message is designed to inform the offender that police are aware of their illegal activities and if they continue engage in this behavior, there will be swift and certain legal sanctions. If the targeted offenders respond positively, they are provided with a variety of social services. If they fail to heed the deterrence message, they are subject to an array of enforcement actions. These enforcement actions are the “levers” that can be “pulled” in response to the offenders’ continued criminal behavior. Though these strategies are often considered approaches to policing, they usually involve other actors in the criminal justice system, such as prosecutors. Some of these strategies also fall under the rubric of Smart Policing.

The “pulling levers” strategy has been described as a six-step process. These steps are: 1) selecting a target behavior; 2) bringing together the criminal justice and other agencies that will be involved; 3) delivering a direct and explicit deterrence message to the targeted group; 4) following through with the effort; 5) continuing to communicate with the target group; and 6) selecting a new target behavior once the original behavior has been controlled.2 While specific offender-based policing strategies may vary, these strategies often include some or all of the following elements:

  • Police-community partnerships
  • Interagency working groups (police, prosecution, courts)
  • Partnerships with researchers
  • General and focused deterrence messages
  • Social services delivery


Despite the encouraging results reported in multiple studies, there is much to learn about offender-based policing strategies. These strategies are diverse, encompassing an array of approaches that have many different elements and they target a variety of offender types. Further research is needed to better understand the interaction between these elements and the impact that they have on various groups of offenders.

While evaluation results from these initiatives appear to be promising, it is important to understand that program design and research in this area is evolving. The majority of evaluations to date have employed quasi-experimental designs; as a result, it is not possible to rule out alternative explanations for the observed outcomes. The fact that crime declined in many cities during the period in which these efforts took place further complicates the task of demonstrating a cause and effect relationship between offender-based policing strategies and a decline in crime. Until offender-based policing strategies are evaluated more rigorously, it is impossible to say that these strategies are anything more than a promising approach to addressing specific crime problems amongst targeted groups of offenders.


Many evaluations of offender-based policing strategies employ a time series design. While this method is useful for demonstrating changes before and after the implementation of an intervention, it can present some challenges. To establish a good baseline and to demonstrate the change in the targeted variable, the researcher must examine a large number of data points, which requires collecting data over an extended period of time (for example, monthly data over a period of several years). This data collection process can often be a time and resource intensive activity.

There is posted  1 hour long webinar where police discuss strategies about targeting offenders , making lists, logistics, etc.. Scott Decker, Ph.D., Director of the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University voices concerns about the targeting system, but not because it could be abused, but that it can be challenged from many different points including legal (around 27:00 min into it). They have fully operation program in place, but struggle even with defining criteria for person to be included in the list (around 26 min lady).

http://www.smartpolicinginitiative.com/tta/targeting-offenders-june-2011-0 (archive.org)

The Theory of Positive Disintegration

By trying to find information about methods and tactics of psychological disruption I came upon this little known Polish psychologist, psychiatrist Kazimierz Dąbrowski and his theory of Positive Disintegration. It kind of struck me almost as double speak if looking from targeted individual perspective, but also makes a lot of sense, since his views on psychiatry are so unconventional and probably would be considered almost heretic by most psychiatrists.

Suffering, aloneness, self-doubt, sadness, inner conflict; these are our feelings that we have not learned to live with, that we have failed to appreciate, that we reject as destructive and completely negative, but in fact they are symptoms of an expanding consciousness. Dr. Kazimierz Dabrowski has spent 45 years piecing together the complete picture of the growth of the human psyche from primitive integration at birth; the person with potential for development will experience growth as a loosening of the stable psychic structure accompanied by symptoms of psychoneuroses. Reality becomes multileveled, the choices between higher and lower realms of behavior occupy our thought and mark us as human. Dabrowski called this process positive disintegration, he declares that psychoneurosis is not an illness and he insists that development does not come through psychotherapy but that psychotherapy is automatic when the person is conscious of his development.

To Dabrowski, real therapy is autopsychotherapy; it is the self being aware of the self through a long inner investigation; a mapping of the inner environment. There are no techniques to eliminate symptoms because the symptoms constitute the very psychic richness from which grow an increasing awareness of body, mind, humanity and cosmos. Dabrowski gives birth to that process if he can.

Without intense and painful introspection and reflection, development is unlikely. Psychoneurotic symptoms should be embraced and transformed into anxieties about human problems of an ever higher order. If psychoneuroses continue to be classified as mental illness, then perhaps it is a sickness better than health.

“Without passing through very difficult experiences and even something like psychoneurosis and neurosis we cannot understand human beings and we cannot realize our multidimensional and multilevel development toward higher and higher levels.”

His theory was applied in Poland and USA detect gifted children and promote their further development. His theory is somewhat similar to eastern philosophies that strive of enlightenment, but using language of psychology and applied in context of western world. In his opinion circumstances needed for disintegration of personality hits close to home for me:

Overexcitability. The most evident aspect of developmental potential is over-excitability (OE), a heightened physiological experience of stimuli resulting from increased neuronal sensitivities. The greater the OE, the more intense are the day-to-day experiences of life. (part of life for probably most of TI)

Abilities and talents. The second arm of developmental potential, specific abilities and talents, tends to serve the person’s developmental level. As outlined, people at lower levels use talents to support egocentric goals or to climb the social and corporate ladders. At higher levels, specific talents and abilities become an important force as they are channelled by the person’s value hierarchy into expressing and achieving the person’s vision of his or her ideal personality and his or her view of how the world ought to be. 

The third factor. The third aspect of developmental potential, which is simply referred to as ‘the third factor’, is a drive toward individual growth and autonomy. The third factor is critical as it applies one’s talents and creativity toward autonomous expression, and second, it provides motivation to strive for more and to try to imagine and achieve goals currently beyond one’s grasp.

I believe that all three factors are present in Targeted Individuals. The only thing we can speculate about excitability. Since it’s induced as hypervigilance or amplified artificially.

Dąbrowski called Over-Excitability  “a tragic gift” to reflect that the road of the person with strong OE is not a smooth or easy one. Potentials to experience great highs are also potentials to experience great lows. Similarly, potentials to express great creativity hold the likelihood of experiencing a great deal of personal conflict and stress. This stress both drives development and is a result of developmental conflicts, both intrapsychic and social. Suicide is a significant risk in the acute phases of this stress. The isolation often experienced by these people heightens the risk of self-harm. Dąbrowski advocated autopsychotherapy, educating the person about OEs and the disintegrative process to give him or her a context within which to understand intense feelings and needs. Dąbrowski suggested giving people support in their efforts to develop and find their own self-expression. Children and adults with high DP have to find and walk their own path, often at the expense of fitting in with their social peers and even with their families. At the core of autopsychotherapy is the awareness that no one can show anyone else the “right” path. Everyone has to find their own path for themselves.

I guess authpsychotherapy that he is talking is something similar to what eastern philosophies call meditation or or deeply religious people would call spiritual prayer. Something about stimulating unification of mind, soul, insight and intuition. It’s very hard to put in context such things since they are naturally out of realm of linguistics. So if theory of positive disintegration feels like interesting coping concept and another framework that could be used for personal growth you should look into it as possible opportunity and ideas to transcend energy of gangstalking against them by enriching yourself.


Through Wall Acoustic Harassment

Screenshot from 2012-12-04 14:48:48

Above picture is taken from webspace of Dr. Pam Jackson where someone has been storing what i suppose teaching notes and since has been removed (pjackson.asp.radford.edu/punishment3.pdf).  There are other 80 files of interest on archive.org. I was able to find another copy here.

In quite a few sites mentioned acoustic shadowing where affected person suddenly notices that someone in the apartment above or below starts following you. Noise campaign involves different sounds: as if book being dropped, hitting two metal objects, furniture moved or dragged, heavy suitcase being put down, door slammed, metal object being rolled or bounced on the floor, tapping, squeaking, scratching, stumbling, vacuuming multiple times per day especially near radiators, all construction sounds like drills, hammers, deliberately heavy steps while walking, etc)   that that could be tolerated once in a while, but cumulatively and systematically cause enormous strain and stress.

From my observation first step of such harassment is to make sure target is aware of aversive nature of acoustic intrusions. So it will be louder, noisier and more pervasive until you cannot bear it. The noise transforms to being annoying very fast since it is unwanted and deliberate. If it’s coupled with the awareness that you’re being watched in your presumed private space it surely to create panic, not to mention that usually you’re dealing with multiple types of disruption tactics at the same time. At first you might think that you’re under some investigation and it will stop as soon as this authority is made sure that you’re not guilty of anything. It will take some time for targeted person to realize punitive goal of such measure, meaning there is nothing in targets power to stop it – any of such efforts will probably be utilized against the target.

The reason it’s even more effective is that human ear has evolved to detect direction of sound from horizontal sources. It has trouble pinpointing sound from above or below. Sound coming from above will create appearance of being directly above you or below you. Hard to say how accurate localization equipment is in the hand of torturers, but this points to exploitation of another inefficiency of human perceptive system, thus amplifying effect and making torture easier to execute, not to mention that they are able to create very convincing effect of target being watched as if target is on the palm of someones hand where acoustic harassment shadows target in such sophisticated ways that is impossible to comprehend with any existing to humans approach meaning localization itself is not the key, not to mention other more advanced stages and effects – so just to put it in a perspective the movie “Being John Malkovich” in comparison would serve as very dumbed down fairy tale on par of the shadow of the show “Teletubies” (so put that coffee down – coffee’s for closers only). If you need a hint just think about that CIA rainbow homo (with sham marriage for PR image control) Zuckerberg (i’m not sure if it’s a “he” – kind of smells like another case of hermaphrodite like Bill Gates or Princess Diana) squealing and stonewalling about telepathy. By the word “humans” I was talking about myself – someone who is public school and university educated without ever holding any security clearances or ever being employed by any government or contractor. Forced public education in modern society is another very interesting topic probably rivaling lobotomization where snake oil is being pumped into children under various shiny labels and they are constantly being judged on that b.s. from very young age. In a mildest sense target can be compared to a tree that is being logged or wild animal that has been captured for the zoo or circus.

After a while target becomes aware of noise and sensitized to it. He tries to avoid it by moving to another place or room. Footsteps and banging will follow. There is no escape. If you go to the bathroom they will go there too. Kitchen they will follow. Special attention is paid to sleep and waking time. I’ve read somewhere that it suppose to predispose target in bad mood for the day and disrupt their sleep for the night. It sounds improbable and crazy having in mind how many human work hours are needed to put into this. I guess it depends on resiliency of the target, how much time he spends there and ability of local authority to mobilize and motivate local community. There has to be quite pervasive rumors creating degrading stigma of the target among neighbors in order for it to continue. It is especially interesting the case when there are multiple occupants living in apartment, so target identification becomes priority and situational awareness of other occupants. Most targets theorize that localization is accomplished by using UWB Radar (thru-wall radar, through Wall sensing, through wall detection of moving target and other synonyms used to describe device). I’m not sure about identification of the target with UWB radar if there are multiple occupants. There is another option – strategically placed Thru Ceiling Scope (archive.org ) and Thru Wall Remote Viewing Kit (archive.org). It provides multiple advantages over radar (full video), as well as disadvantages like limited field of view. Drilled micro hole could be quite easily detected by Nonlinear junction detector , but it’s expensive equipment and requires expertise. I doubt there is a viable option to detect UWB radar. There might be some other more exotic or more primitive ways to accomplish target localization eg georadar or groundradar, which is also based on UWB technology. It’s bulky and designed for a different purpose. I’m not into radio-technical stuff so if anyone is intimately understand principles of such devices and can compare their capabilities it would be great to get some input. There could be other options that are described in literature as concepts, but not yet commercialized like passive radars that detect moving targets without emitting any waves only using existing radio waves, GSM or WI-FI signals. Another option would be secret surveillance cctv installed inside the apartment. Maybe there is something notoriously simple that we’re overlooking – as crazy as it sounds it’s more likely than not that apartment above the victim has nothing to do with the perceived harassment and there could be a chance that both apartments are attacked and pitted against each other at the same time if they are trying to kill two birds (targets) with one stone or multiple birds (think of advanced level of Stephen King “Needful things”). The harassment is probably just next generation three card monte or shell game where very advanced weapons are in hands of worst con men and scum of the earth. More likely than not probably there is nothing brought from outside or installed into target’s apartment and if there is – it probably would serve as decoy or decoy of decoy – think of that last scene in the movie “The Conversation” 1974 – the only thing Gene Hackman had left to hang on to was the saxophone after destroying his apartment looking for a bug and he was private investigator (such occupation doesn’t exist – it’s always a cover) top expert in the art of surveillance.

I don’t know if it’s related, but in the bathroom quite often I can hear feint beeping sounds similar to Geiger counter. The frequency of beeping is not uniform, so I’m not sure if it’s part of localization/tagging/tracking system or it’s part of deception to create stronger illusion of covert surveillance. If the system is smart enough to distinguish me from other occupants in the apartment it means: system can evaluate and zero into some biometric identifying  characteristics: like gait, dental work, heartbeat. Just a speculation.

Knowing that all basic instinctive behavior is analogous among mammals (including humans) it was interesting to see if there was some similar research done and what they tried to accomplish and if its applicable in any way to TI.

The mammalian startle reflex is a fast motor response that is elicited if a tactile, vestibular or acoustic stimulus has a sudden onset and exceeds a certain intensity threshold. Over the last four decades the startle reflex arc has become a prime model system for the study of the neuronal basis of sensory-motor integration, emotional processing and the influence of genes on behaviour. However, in spite of the extended research effort on the startle reflex, its evolutionary function remains unknown. Initially it has been argued that its function is to interrupt ongoing behaviour patterns while more recent accounts suggest that it protects the organism from a sudden physical impact. It has also been suggested that it facilitates a flight response, but there are no experimental studies on the connection between startling and fleeing in mammals. In previous studies, animals were not given the opportunity to spatially avoid the startle stimulus and remove themselves from sound exposure so that the relationship between startle and flight responses is not well understood. Furthermore, the startle reflex is commonly used as a measure of emotional processing since the startle magnitude itself is often modified as result of conditioned fear (fear to a conditioned stimulus (CS) formed by linking an initially neutral CS with an unconditioned aversive stimulus (US)). However, it is unknown whether startling noise itself can act as an US in a fear conditioning paradigm.

Information on sensitisation and habituation processes related to startle are only available for parameters that are directly associated with the reflex itself i.e. response latencies and startle amplitudes (strength of muscular flinch). The dual process theory of habituation suggests that a stimulus should induce a habituating as well as a sensitisation component in the nervous system. Habituation constitutes a decreased response to repeated stimulation while response sensitisation represents the opposite process i.e. increased responsiveness as a result of repeated stimulation. In the startle reflex, the magnitude of the startle itself (i.e. the strength of flexor muscle contraction) is subject to habituation while sensitisation is present in the shortening of the response latency to the startle stimulus. However, no study has investigated whether repeated startling causes habituation or sensitisation processes in subsequent behaviour patterns like spatial avoidance or flight. In our study we address this question.

An understanding of long-term effects of the startle responses is important in the context of evolutionary and ecological questions and in the investigation of unexpected reactions to noise. The potential for exposure to repeated startling stimuli for wild animals has increased considerably through the introduction of anthropogenic noise. The effects of noise can range from habitat exclusion to changes in the vocal parameters of communication sounds to extreme behavioural responses leading to death as in mass strandings of beaked whales induced by military sonar. Understanding the underlying mechanisms why mammals exhibit such responses is one of the highest priorities when trying to mitigate its effects. In this study, we investigated the effects of repeated exposure to startle-eliciting stimuli on the occurrence of subsequent longer-term avoidance behaviour and fear conditioning.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/12/30 (local copy)

This research is relevant as it gives direction into related keywords and research that might help to understand the concept of such method as weapon to be used on people. The process of the ongoing harassment has to be monitored for progress – can UWB radar do that? It would be seriously boring to bang on the floor without seeing any kind of response, unless you sure about end outcome and you’re really motivated for this goal, but i doubt it. According to various manufacturers uwb radar (there are many of them – from Chinese to Italians) is capable for capturing heartbeat and breathing, but it’s not clear how accurate these readings are. This video kind of puts in perspective about possible capabilities of UWB radar.  Is there research in animals that might encapsulate whole conceptual plausibility as it’s applied to human? In essence apartment becomes “Skinner box” where “thought stopping” (archive.org) by acoustic stimulus is used to stop critical thinking and continuously disrupt thought process. Similar technique is used by cults to brainwash inductees.

What is interesting about all this is motivational factor of participating public and where does (if it is) collected data goes for evaluation. It’s already clear that it’s not hard to coerce almost anyone to torture fellow human being. Milgram experiment has clearly demonstrated it. It’s easy to make assumption that psychiatrist has to be involved in all this, unless it’s standard operating procedure among coercive suppression tactics and is clearly documented with procedures for average person to understand and interpret targets reactions. Maybe that’s unnecessary? Also the need for radar or some sort of covert localization equipment would require law enforcement authorized to operate such equipment. It’s still hard to wrap mind as to why would such method be used or considered effective. Maybe it’s because it leaves no normal ways of dealing with problem for average person, so they can only adapt or try to escape (including drugs or alcohol). I guess at some moment target will move out (noise shadowing tactic usually follows to new place – it did for me) or start complaining and obviously that’s the stage that they are prepared for with plausible deniability – to portray you as “hearing weird sounds”. So the only way to confront is with witnesses who are able to confirm systematic and methodical acoustic abuse. I haven’t dissected much of it at this post, more like described it as much as i could from my perspective.

According to NATO (local copy): Most audible acoustic systems can be defeated with ear protection. But it’s impossible in continuous or interrupted unbearable acoustic stress.

Various Through Wall surveillance Equipment database.

Acoustic/etc through wall localization equipment

Speculations on other methods and equipment

Keywords: wall radar, thru-wall radar, through wall radar, synthetic aperture radar, apartment as skinner box, through Wall sensing, through wall detection of moving target, through wall harassment, continuous acoustic harassment, through wall surveillance, radar surveillance, uwb human imaging

Confabulation and Dealing with Stressors

Every targeted individual starts to look for some explanation or answers for what is going on. Talking to close ones will give you no answers. You will get some questions like “what have you done?”, “who could do stuff like that?”, “whats the purpose of it?”. All valid questions, but one can only speculate. It’s impossible to put what is happening in layman terms for average person without appearing paranoid or suffering from delusions, especially if trying to talk as if it’s happening to you. The questions are loaded too since they assume guilt on your part. So attempt to answer right away puts in precarious situation, where you’re exploring possibility that you might have done something to deserve be tortured in most medieval fashion. Lack of information and historical context makes it very hard to asses it if viewed from any perspective of intellectual mindset except psychiatry. Most of targeted individuals seems to be just that – average Joes. So next thing is usually browsing internet for related information. That’s there confabulation comes in:

A memory of an event or situation is like a jigsaw puzzle. It is made up of many pieces of information, that when fitted together, create a clear picture of what occurred. Individuals who have difficulty paying attention or encoding information do not have all the pieces for the puzzle, resulting in an incomplete picture or memory. The brain, recognizing that the picture is incomplete, searches it’s memory banks for other pieces of information that look like they would fit and inserts these pieces into the puzzle. A cursory look would lead one to believe the puzzle was whole and therefore the information related by the individual is factual. However, a more careful look would reveal that some pieces may seem to fit, but are really from a different puzzle.

I doubt any of the targeted folks do really know how it works and how it goes and more importantly why. Keeping in mind that disinformation, misinformation and poison pills in all colors of the rainbow (probably produced by those million wise monkeys working in groups of three trained by don’t be evil “deepmind” algorithm trying to discharge out of them works of Shakespeare) are probably scattered around for you to swallow you have to be careful to go easy route and apply everything you read to yourself. You have to come to terms that most of information is not clear. Some historic frameworks like modern Police disruption tactics, Stasi Zersetzung, CIA Mkultra, FBI CounterIntelpro might provide insight into problem, but it still fails to answer many questions. There is a risk of forming new belief system that is not based on evidence or personal experience, but on association and plasticity of the mind. Mind hates vacuum so it’s natural for it to try to answer pressing questions in any way possible. This discomfort of unknown and unexplainable is scary, but should be accepted so you can always reassess the situation and investigate new evidence objectively as it comes into picture. Person tends to be protective of his beliefs and sometimes try to adjust perception naturally in order to fit those beliefs. That is a barrier to being a witness of ongoing crime. Of course for some targeted individuals constant harassment is unbearable and all they can think of is how do I stop it? I’ve yet to see any successful documented method where targeted person was able to win and stop it. I’ve come to terms that you can only expect windows in time where external intrusions (acoustic, visual or other stimuli) into awareness do not exist. I’ve theorized that it could be deliberate since it provides illusion of control where you are provided with multiple fails and disappointments daily. So if you think back that something you’ve done might influenced adversary action and start to celebrate the victory, only to find yourself under another attack. It is important to try to separate stimuli from the overall threat into two separate categories. Even though stimuli itself should be reinforcer and reminder of threat, but in itself is not dangerous. Danger is how it’s perceived and ignition of stress and anxiety. There has been a lot of research into stress, anxiety and PTSD prevention, dealing and coping. No universal method, but it should be important to try reading and trying to help yourself. Your perception and cognition is just as unique as your fingerprint, but some common ground exist among all of us. This research:
Integrating Fast and Slow Cognitive Processes
( local copy) provides quite workable framework on how to separate and deal with threat and stressors.

Human reactions appear to be controlled by two separate types of mental processes: one fast, automatic, and unconscious and the other slow, deliberate, and conscious. With the attention in the literature focused on the taxonomy of the two processes, there is little discussion of how they interact. In this paper, we focus on modeling the slower process’s ability to inhibit the fast process. We present computational cognitive models in which different strategies allow a human to consciously inhibit an undesirable fast response. These general strategies include (a) blocking sensory input, (b), blocking or interrupting the fast process’s response, and (c) slowing down or delaying processing by introducing additional task.

So if you think of slow process as awareness of unknown threat of being persecuted by organized means and fast process as reaction to stimuli that constantly reinforces the overall threat separating the two might be constructive way to reduce of pouring oil into the fire. Blocking sensory input eg putting in earplugs might be a good strategy to start. It’s impossible to block all sound, but reduction of acoustic intrusions will provide some relief and some perceived level of control. You just have to be aware of the fact that after really stressful period human body is almost habituated to these stress chemicals so in a some ways it’s like being an addict that is going through withdrawal. It’s just natural reaction to unnatural stress.

Then there is another research that is quite interesting “The impact of acceptance-based versus avoidance-based protocols on discomfort”:

The experimenter clarified that realizing the presence of the sounds and doing nothing is similar to noticing the pants touching your legs while seating or walking, similar to noticing the watch touching your wrist and doing nothing with that feeling, to noticing the glasses leaning on your nose and doing nothing with it, or to noticing your heart beating and doing nothing with it.

I know it’s sounds crazy and impossible, but It is Gordian knot type situation and minimizing disruption without avoiding unavoidable should be top priority. If you produce positivity instead of negativity you will feel way more power. Instead of being destroyed you will feed on stalking energy. You can’t hate object of your investigation. It’s not possible. So if you notice “perp”, be curious, but not negative. Look at it as if it’s something to be explored. It’s possible that you made mistake. Assess your stress levels. Chemist doesn’t stop experimenting with some materials just because they stink. If it’s hard to generate positivity try imagining adversary as sitting in beach sipping a margarita or anything that he might like. It’s totally unexpected and by being positive you will inhibit disruption process. Maybe that’s what Jesus meant “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you”.  It’s not about helping them, it’s about restoring balance of things, not to mention that whole acoustic assault thing could be just very nasty and military grade illusion of hostile power thousands of miles away that is using some superior technology to play some neurological tricks pitting neighbors against each other.

Disruption tactics

In this post I’m going to put all references to “disruption tactics” that has been mentioned in public speeches by public officials, crime fighting literature and mass media. There is very little information about methods itself and a lot of time you have to read between the lines. No matter what it will ring the bell for many TI and is interesting topic to explore. With current emergence of new modern policing methods that are geared towards social nature of society “intelligence led policing” is based on creating intelligence product in order for police to be proactive in fighting crime. Intelligence comes from many sources – humint (informants), community, social media, statistics, etc… Now we can only speculate about safeguards and control checks for abuse for personal gain or criminal exploitation. How many times do we read about swat teams kicking doors of some wrong house in the middle of the night based on some wrong or coerced intelligence? Here we go:

Grant given by EU to Finland (in conjunction with 5 other European countries including Lithuania Ministry of the Interior (VRM – vidaus reikalų ministerija) as partner) to further pursuit the development of project called “Disruption of the Structures of Organised Crime through the Means of Organisational Psychology” (Reference JLS/2007/ISEC/AG/023 and JLS/2008/ISEC/AG/023). Of course the summary of the project is vague and nondescript, but it would be interesting to read it especially since project leader and her strong academic interest in psychopathy and stalking research.

Another cryptic, but revealing statement coming from Ireland’s Tánaiste (he second-most senior officer in the Government of Ireland). He is talking about Operation Anvil implemented to fight organized crime. Gardai is name for police in Ireland:

As we speak, the Gardaí, in the light of recent developments, have begun an intensified campaign aimed at the disruption of the activities of the persons involved. Deputies will appreciate that it would be counterproductive for me to give precise details of what is involved. What I can say is this: the Gardaí must, of course, act at all stages within the law but if the actions which they have been forced to take to disrupt the activities of these people are represented by the persons affected as harassment or persecution then in my view so be it.

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/SP07000330 (archive.org)

here is this very interesting article by Martin Innes and James W. E. Sheptycki – From Detection to Disruption: Intelligence and The Changing Logic of Police Crime Control in The United Kingdom published in International Criminal Justice Review (local copy)

It is the first publication that i came up where they discuss disruption method in detail even giving examples:

There was a certain person who was a predominant person within a network, but there was no way that an investigation could get close enough for him to be arrested on the criminality he was involved in. But the research of the intelligence unit found that actually on a driving front, on a mundane driving front, he was picking up tickets for speeding, parking on double yellow lines, things like that. So obviously, he wasn’t that clean with regard to his driving situation. So it was assessed that possibly traffic could tackle him. So we had a main person involved in importations of all types of drugs, he had his own network for dealing the stuff. He was also able to provide other items, stolen items for other crime groups, involved in other crimes and none of that we could touch him on. So a week was done by the
motorcycle unit, the traffic department, looking at him, stopping him, checking his documents. Unfortunately he’s got a short fuse and a temper and he lashed out. He was dealt with for assault on police and criminal damage to a motorcycle and put away for three years. . .That was him out of the network, a main player, a main problem for this county anyway. But he wasn’t dealt with on what his core business was. (taped interview, Detective Inspector, County Force, Study Two)

Another interesting quote from “Assessing the Effects of Prevent Policing”, A Report to the Association of Chief Police Officers.

Disruption is emerging as an important tactical policing option for inhibiting the often sub­‐criminal activities of extremists. However, to date the processes of how to design and implement effective disruptive interventions appear to have been relatively neglected. An established tactical menu of options for conducting disruptions has yet to be distilled from practice.

In addition to the entrepreneurial mode of disruption, there is a more extralegal form of disruption used by police, where agents do not even attempt to effect an arrest or submit the suspect to due process. Instead, they design actions intended to prevent or at least make it more difficult for the suspected person or persons to continue to engage in unlawful activity. One simple way to achieve this is to intensify overt surveillance of a criminal target, but there are obvious limitations to the duration of this tactic.

Not limited to Police – SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) also mentions disruption tactics in order to fight crimes against environment:

4.5.1. SEPA will also implement more of a problem solving approach. This is complementary to compliance based regulation and enables the regulator to target its effort to achieve measurable results. For an environmental organisation, it means that sound evidence of harmful impacts or behaviours is routinely gathered and analysed. This analysis is used to diagnose the nature and scale of problems for selection. Solutions are developed that use bespoke and sometimes novel interventions, unique to the problem. Sometimes these interventions are within the organisation’s normal regulatory remit or require regulatory ‘discretion’ to be applied. Novel solutions such as covert tactics, disruption tactics, influencing tactics or partnerships could be used to solve a problem. Through a prioritisation and decision making process, the organisation allocates resources to solve a selected range of problems through start and finish projects or initiatives. Outcomes and clear success measures are set for each one and these are tracked and managed in a portfolio.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/05/6822/4 (archive.org)

Police will use disruption tactics against it’s own if they suspect them of corruption.

The investigation of corruption was seen by PSU staff as different from conventional investigations. In part, this was because achieving convictions of police officers appeared particularly difficult. Further challenges include the demoralisation of forces and bad publicity as a result of investigations, hostility towards PSU staff by force colleagues, and the resource-intensive nature of PSU investigations. Ideas for good practice in investigations were identified, including: The successful use of discipline procedures or ’disruption’ tactics can, in some cases, be achieved more realistically and with fewer resources than convictions. These approaches might be used where the corruption is less serious, or where it may be difficult to achieve convictions. Efficient investigations might also involve focusing resources primarily on those most seriously involved in corruption.

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Exhibit-DOC4-to-ws-of-Denis-OConnor-November-2003.pdf (local copy)


Disruption tactics include strategies such as interdiction, deportation, threatening interviews, or almost anything that would prevent a serious security event from happening. These preventative and largely secretive, policing strategies are seen as more desirable and effective than conventional policing strategies that rely on victim complaint, verifiable evidence, and public arrest and trial. In a conventional policing context, these strategies would be seen as forms of harassment and intimidation and raise a number of serious ethical and legal issues. It was this use of “disruption” tactics in the name of national security that led to the removal of security intelligence functions from the RCMP
and the creation of a separate civilian security and intelligence service (the Canadian Security Intelligence Service: CSIS), establishing the principle, if not the practice, of separating security and public policing in Canada.

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/rcmp-grc/_fl/eng/rthnk-plc-eng.pdf (local copy)

Another interesting sound-bite from Ireland. Really interesting use of word “dissident”:

Minister Shatter added: “Organised crime comes in many guises. It will manifest itself wherever there is the opportunity to make financial gain. It will have no regard to the consequences for our communities, for the pain and suffering caused to those who become its victims or for the disruption caused to, and interference in, our legitimate economy.”

Minister Shatter highlighting the link between organised crime activity in both jurisdictions and the activities of paramilitary gangs said: “All the trappings or orations in the world will not disguise the fact that what we are dealing with are criminal gangs. Like many, I resent the fact that these groups want to characterise themselves as ‘dissidents’. There was a long and honourable tradition of dissidents in totalitarian regimes. But what these people dissent from is democracy itself and the rule of law. They are not just people who ignore the democratically expressed wishes of the people. They are prepared to engage in the most serious types of criminality to fund their lifestyles. They are not dissidents but criminal terrorists.”

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR12000271 (archive.org)


Disruption of perpetrator activity is an important tool in preventing child sexual exploitation.
All agencies need to work together to develop appropriate disruption tactics. Individual
agencies must consider how they can contribute to disrupting perpetrator behaviour (local copy).


And overall, of significant and lasting disruption to criminal networks coming from angles they had never even thought of never mind attempted to avoid. We disrupted the personal circumstances of criminals on five occasions, using intelligence-led information and our links to a variety of partners to impact on
their personal lives. Forcing criminals to sell their houses and taking their cars from them upsets them
and affects their ability to carry out their criminal activities.

Deputy Chief Constable Gordon Meldrum QPM. Director General Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, July 2012. SCDEA annual report 2011-2012

So disruption tactics against organized crime is a measure that we have very little information even though it is deployed in many leading democracies. There should be public enquiry on it’s methodology and possible routes of abuse. What prevents psychopath criminal investigator from doing some extra curriculum activities by using some of his informants to harass inconvenient neighbour of his own or do a favour for someone?


I’ve been procrastinating for a long time in order to start writing this blog. I will skip writing about personal experiences and theories on the reasons why am I under this disruption. Maybe later once i find more conclusive leads in order to disclose my theories. I’ve read a lot personal experiences on blogs written by victims of this new type of social control method mostly called “organized stalking”, “gangstalking”, cause stalking, disruption tactics, etc. No matter what you call it it’s very hard to find any correlating issue or cause that would unify all these people to be targeted. It’s impossible to make sense who might be benefiting out of it and follow money trail, organizational structure. The only thing that unifies most of us is similar tactics of persistent and continuous harassment. But they wary widely from individual to individual. One thing that is certain and present in all of us abnormal stress from external inescapable stressors. That is the topic that I’d like to be explored further. Tactics, methods and stress. Tactics and methods are not unique and could be investigated as tools and templates of deliberate stress induction. Causes of stress is unique for every individual, but stress itself isn’t. Definition of stress is ambiguous:

Stress typically describes a negative concept that can have an impact on one’s mental and physical well-being, but it is unclear what exactly defines stress and whether or not stress is a cause, an effect, or the process connecting the two. With organisms as complex as humans, stress can take on entirely concrete or abstract meanings with highly subjective qualities, satisfying definitions of both cause and effect in ways that can be both tangible and intangible.

Sounds almost like quantum physics – light is a  particle or wave depending on how you look at it. Science and medicine can’t understand stress – they can look at some stressors, measure some biological parameters, like heartbeat or skin conductivity, chemical changes, but they have no tools or methods to assess impact not to mention impact on spiritual part of the person (by spiritual I mean the part of the soul that remains unchanged throughout life; btw I’m not religious, more like agnostic) That is left for individual to observe. That is really the only thing that we can control by understanding through observation – our internal reaction to external stimuli. Reaction to stress is instinctive or conditioned, but always based on threat. I hypothesize that gangstalking phenomena is so scary for modern man since it brings most primal fear that we almost never experience – being stalked like pray.  This threat causes enormous anxiety and hyper-vigilance. This brings me to article that i read recently where mainstream media wrote about electronic harassment. So this group of gangstalked residents organized and got reporter to write about voices in the head that victims assume are caused by new generation of weapons. It’s hard to understand how voices in the head manifest, it is all in the eyes of beholder. It just as easily could be explained by hypervigilance and tinnitus

Tinnitus can be perceived in one or both ears or in the head. It is usually described as a ringing noise, but in some patients, it takes the form of a high-pitched whining, electric buzzing, hissing, humming, tinging or whistling sound, or as ticking, clicking, roaring, “crickets” or “tree frogs” or “locusts (cicadas)”, tunes, songs, beeping, sizzling, sounds that slightly resemble human voices or even a pure steady tone like that heard during a hearing test, and in some cases, pressure changes from the interior ear.

Heller and Bergman (1953) conducted a study of 100 tinnitus-free university students placed in an anechoic chamber and found 93% reported hearing a buzzing, pulsing or whistling sound.

So if 9/10 of normal healthy people hear something in anechoic chamber what would hyper-aroused and anxiety stricken person hear?  Whole being is mobilized to detect threats coming from any direction. So yes hearing becomes more sensitive just like any other perception. But is mind ready to interpret or misinterpret this information? Mind doesn’t care it tries the best to detect threats to save your life. Interesting position of psychiatrist who was asked to consult on voice-to-skull phenomena. Of course he ignored traumatization, tinnitus and went for delusion route. So if any of these people would have walked into his office they’d be declared mentally ill. I bet most of suffering isn’t from “hearing voices”, but from inner reaction to this phenomena knowing that it is one of the symptoms of schizophrenia. This might cause a person to try to suppress these “voices” as they are causing discomfort. This might cause more inner conflicts. But what if person knew  that it’s normal? He could be prepared and just observe this phenomena. I could be wrong maybe there are really such weapons being deployed, but maybe it’s part of tactics to steer people in creating extraordinary and misleading theories to explain these normal reactions to abnormal stress.

p.s. this is how US military defines stress: 10659358_10152714715099578_8924555572291638837_n

It kind of puts things in perspective as there are plenty of people in the world who command the world and never experienced a moment of stress in their lives.