Psychological Warfare ( Manipulation)

PSYCHOLOGICAL MANIPULATION

Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the perception or behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive, or even abusive tactics. By advancing the interests of the manipulator, often at the other’s expense, such methods could be considered exploitative, abusive, devious, and deceptive.

Social influence is not necessarily negative. For example, doctors can try to persuade patients to change unhealthy habits. Social influence is generally perceived to be harmless when it respects the right of the influenced to accept or reject it, and is not unduly coercive. Depending on the context and motivations, social influence may constitute underhanded manipulation.

REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESSFUL MANIPULATION

According to George K. Simon, successful psychological manipulation primarily involves the manipulator:

–          concealing aggressive intentions and behaviors.

–          knowing the psychological vulnerabilities of the victim to determine what tactics are likely to be the most effective.

–          having a sufficient level of ruthlessness to have no qualms about causing harm to the victim if necessary.

Consequently the manipulation is likely to be covert (relational aggressive or passive aggressive).

HOW MANIPULATORS CONTROL THEIR VICTIMS

According to Braiker

Braiker identified the following basic ways that manipulators control their victims:

–          positive reinforcement – includes praise, superficial charm, superficial sympathy (crocodile tears), excessive apologizing; money, approval, gifts; attention, facial expressions such as a forced laugh or smile; public recognition.

–          negative reinforcement – includes nagging, yelling, the silent treatment, intimidation, threats, swearing, emotional blackmail, the guilt trap, sulking, crying, and playing the victim.

–          intermittent or partial reinforcement – Partial or intermittent negative reinforcement can create an effective climate of fear and doubt. Partial or intermittent positive reinforcement can encourage the victim to persist – for example in most forms of gambling, the gambler is likely to win now and again but still lose money overall.

–          Punishment

–          traumatic one-trial learning – using verbal abuse, explosive anger, or other intimidating behavior to establish dominance or superiority; even one incident of such behavior can condition or train victims to avoid upsetting, confronting or contradicting the manipulator.

According to Simon

Simon identified the following manipulative techniques:

Lying: It is hard to tell if somebody is lying at the time they do it although often the truth may be apparent later when it is too late. One way to minimize the chances of being lied to is to understand that some personality types (particularly psychopaths) are experts at the art of lying and cheating, doing it frequently, and often in subtle ways.

Lying by omission: This is a very subtle form of lying by withholding a significant amount of the truth. This technique is also used in propaganda.

Denial: Manipulator refuses to admit that he or she has done something wrong.

Rationalization: An excuse made by the manipulator for inappropriate behavior. Rationalization is closely related to spin.

Minimization: This is a type of denial coupled with rationalization. The manipulator asserts that his or her behavior is not as harmful or irresponsible as someone else was suggesting, for example saying that a taunt or insult was only a joke.

Selective inattention or selective attention: Manipulator refuses to pay attention to anything that may distract from his or her agenda, saying things like “I don’t want to hear it”.

Diversion: Manipulator not giving a straight answer to a straight question and instead being diversionary, steering the conversation onto another topic.

Evasion: Similar to diversion but giving irrelevant, rambling, vague responses, weasel words.

Covert intimidation: Manipulator throwing the victim onto the defensive by using veiled (subtle, indirect or implied) threats.

Guilt tripping: A special kind of intimidation tactic. A manipulator suggests to the conscientious victim that he or she does not care enough, is too selfish or has it easy. This usually results in the victim feeling bad, keeping them in a self-doubting, anxious and submissive position.

Shaming: Manipulator uses sarcasm and put-downs to increase fear and self-doubt in the victim. Manipulators use this tactic to make others feel unworthy and therefore defer to them. Shaming tactics can be very subtle such as a fierce look or glance, unpleasant tone of voice, rhetorical comments, subtle sarcasm. Manipulators can make one feel ashamed for even daring to challenge them. It is an effective way to foster a sense of inadequacy in the victim.

Playing the victim role (“poor me”): Manipulator portrays him- or herself as a victim of circumstance or of someone else’s behavior in order to gain pity, sympathy or evoke compassion and thereby get something from another. Caring and conscientious people cannot stand to see anyone suffering and the manipulator often finds it easy to play on sympathy to get cooperation.

Vilifying the victim: More than any other, this tactic is a powerful means of putting the victim on the defensive while simultaneously masking the aggressive intent of the manipulator.

Playing the servant role: Cloaking a self-serving agenda in guise of a service to a more noble cause, for example saying he is acting in a certain way for “obedience” and “service” to God or a similar authority figure.

Seduction: Manipulator uses charm, praise, flattery or overtly supporting others in order to get them to lower their defenses and give their trust and loyalty to him or her.

Projecting the blame (blaming others): Manipulator scapegoats in often subtle, hard to detect ways.

Feigning innocence: Manipulator tries to suggest that any harm done was unintentional or did not do something that they were accused of. Manipulator may put on a look of surprise or indignation. This tactic makes the victim question his or her own judgment and possibly his own sanity.

Feigning confusion: Manipulator tries to play dumb by pretending he or she does not know what you are talking about or is confused about an important issue brought to his attention.

Brandishing anger: Manipulator uses anger to brandish sufficient emotional intensity and rage to shock the victim into submission. The manipulator is not actually angry, he or she just puts on an act. He just wants what he wants and gets “angry” when denied.

VULNERABILITIES EXPLOITED BY MANIPULATORS

According to Braiker manipulators exploit the following vulnerabilities (buttons) that may exist in victims:

• the “disease to please”
• addiction to earning the approval and acceptance of others
• Emotophobia (fear of negative emotion)
• lack of assertiveness and ability to say no
• blurry sense of identity (with soft personal boundaries)
• low self-reliance
• external locus of control

 

According to Simon manipulators exploit the following vulnerabilities that may exist in victims:

 

• naïveté – victim finds it too hard to accept the idea that some people are cunning, devious and ruthless or is “in denial” if he or she is being victimized
• over-conscientiousness – victim is too willing to give manipulator the benefit of the doubt and see their side of things in which they blame the victim
• low self-confidence – victim is self-doubting, lacking in confidence and assertiveness, likely to go on the defensive too easily.
• over-intellectualization – victim tries too hard to understand and believes the manipulator has some understandable reason to be hurtful.
• emotional dependency – victim has a submissive or dependent personality. The more emotionally dependent the victim is, the more vulnerable he or she is to being exploited and manipulated.

Manipulators generally take the time to scope out the characteristics and vulnerabilities of their victim.

According to Kantor the following are vulnerable to psychopathic manipulators:

• too trusting – people who are honest often assume that everyone else is honest. They commit themselves to people they hardly know without checking credentials, etc. They rarely question so-called experts.
• too altruistic – the opposite of psychopathic; too honest, too fair, too empathetic
• too impressionable – overly seduced by charmers. For example, they might vote for the phony politician who kisses babies.
• too naïve – cannot believe there are dishonest people in the world or if there were they would not be allowed to operate.
• too masochistic – lack of self-respect and unconsciously let psychopaths take advantage of them. They think they deserve it out of a sense of guilt.
• too narcissistic – narcissists are prone to falling for unmerited flattery.
• too greedy – the greedy and dishonest may fall prey to a psychopath who can easily entice them to act in an immoral way.
• too immature – has impaired judgment and believes the exaggerated advertising claims.
• too materialistic – easy prey for loan sharks or get-rich-quick schemes
• too dependent – dependent people need to be loved and are therefore gullible and liable to say yes to something to which they should say no.
• too lonely – lonely people may accept any offer of human contact. A psychopathic stranger may offer human companionship for a price.
• too impulsive – make snap decisions about, for example, what to buy or whom to marry without consulting others.
• too frugal – cannot say no to a bargain even if they know the reason why it is so cheap
• the elderly – the elderly can become fatigued and less capable of multi-tasking. When hearing a sales pitch they are less likely to consider that it could be a con. They are prone to giving money to someone with a hard-luck story. See elder abuse.

MOTIVATIONS OF MANIPULATORS

Manipulators have possible motivations, including:

–          the need to advance their own purposes and personal gain at virtually any cost to others,

–          a strong need to attain feelings of power and superiority in relationships with others,

–          a want and need to feel in control (aka. control freakery),

–          and gaining a feeling of power over others in order to raise self-esteem.

Organized Stalking Described

Organized Stalking is a crime thats not accepted or addressed by law enforcement. It is a framework of social control. This is used by government to control some targeted individuals without doing anything that’s illegal in the control framework. It includes combination of bogus covert investigation and systemic harassment that involves intelligence agencies, law enforcement, businesses and communities. Organized stalking is a set of techniques used to destroy unwanted persons both mentally and physically without doing anything illegal in the process. The people involved in organized stalking know about law enforcement. The actions in organized stalking are designed considering the loopholes within the law to achieve the goal of destroying the person.

Oftentimes organized stalking is initiated after an informant or Covert Human Intelligence Source flags the targeted individual. Other times profile information of the targeted individual places them on government black lists and community notification lists.

The crimes committed through Organized stalking on an individual are covertly done, hence little in evidence is left behind of the crime, and the target is left with little in the way of recourses to defend himself or herself. The systemic harassment is illegal and the bogus covert investigation provides means to keep the target under surveillance 24/7.

Isolation, through disrupting socio-familial ties in an intense slander campaign, is usually achieved once the actual stalking begins. A pervasive slandering campaign takes place, painting the target as an unstable individual, child molester, a person with hidden dark secrets, or a person prone to psychopathic behavior. All the perceptions of the targeted individual’s life are turned negative. The Organized stalking is done in such a way that all aspects of the targeted individual’s life remain negative permanently and is never given time for cure.

The criminals planning a Organized stalking endeavor study the target long before the stalking begins. Psychological profiling is done, and this is to assist in the overall campaign that includes intense psychological harassments and demoralizations. Tactics used go well beyond fear, demoralization and psychological harassment.

The tactics used have been the protocol in campaigns against common people implemented by the KGB in Soviet Russia, Nazis of Nazi Germany, and the KKK in the early to middle of last century in America.. The accumulation of all the tactics and events in this dangerously hurtful organized crime against an innocent human being can led to trauma and will emotionally bankrupt the targeted individual, and may lead to death, as suicide is often induced through the assaults.

The perpetrators of organized stalking are serious criminals who do great damage, and the acts done are very serious crimes by any measure. Organized stalking is a highly criminal campaign, one directed at a target individual, and one that aims to destroy an innocent persons life through covert harassments, malicious slander and carefully crafted and executed psychological assaults.

Organized stalking deprives the targeted individual of their basic constitutional rights and destroys their freedom, setting a stage for the destruction of a person, socially, mental and physical, through a ceaseless assault that pervades all areas of a persons life. What drives such campaigns may be revenge for whistleblowing, or for highly critical individuals, as outspoken people have become targets. Other reasons why a person may become a target individual for stalking: ex-spouse revenge, criminal hate campaigns, politics, or racism.

Organized stalking may be part of a larger phenomena that may have loose threads that extend into a number of differing entities, such as intelligence agencies, military, and large corporations, though it is certain that organized crime is one of Organized stalking’s primary sources, or origins.

The goals of Organized stalking are many. To cause the target to appear unstable mentally is one, and this is achieved through a carefully detailed assault using advanced psychological harassment techniques, and a variety of other tactics that are the usual protocol for Organized stalking, such as street theater, mobbing, and pervasive petty disrespecting.

Targets experience the following:

1. A total invasion of privacy
2. Pervasive and horrific slander
3. Isolation through alienation that is caused by the slander
4. Destruction of, or alienation from all things that the target holds dear.

A discrediting campaign is initiated long before the target is actually stalked. They, the criminal perpetrators, twist and fabricate reality through such a campaign, displaying lies that paint the target as a child molester, a person with hidden dark secrets, a highly unstable individual who may be a threat to society, a prostitute, or a longtime drug user, etc. The slandering or discrediting campaign sets the stage for the target to become alienated in just about every social-familial- work environment, once the actual stalking begins.

This slandering campaign is instrumental in eliminating all resource and avenue of defense for the target, before the actual stalking begins. This stage is one that sees people close to the target, family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers recruited by the perpetrator criminals, who will pose as law enforcement officials, private investigators, or groups of concerned citizens.

The Organized stalking is aimed at achieving one or all of the follow:

1. Induced suicide
2. Financial devastation
3. Homelessness
4. Institutionalization in psyche wards.

Once actual stalking begins:

The target will endure a vast array of tactics: gaslighting, street theater, drugging, gassing, scent harassment, mobbing, subtle but frequent destruction of property, killing of pets.

Psychological profiling will be done so as to initiate an intense psychological harassment assault. Staged happenings and planned or directed conversations will take place around the target in public or places of work, and serves not only to undermine the targets psychology, but also may be used to cause the target to thinking that he or she is under investigation for horrific crimes.

Stalkers will have studied the target to such a level that they know and can predict the persons behavior. Again, often the target will think that they are being investigated for crimes that would be absurd for the target to have actually commited. Not knowing what actually is happening, the target is isolated and lives through a never ending living nightmare.

Once the target finds out that they are a target individual for Organized stalking, or multi stalking, they may have some relief, but from what I have read, the stalking simply changes dimensions a bit, and continues.
Identifying the exact people who initiated Organized stalking campaigns is difficult, or near impossible, and this makes it very difficult for people researching this phenomena to discover, in certainty, the roots and genealogy of the crime. Investigation of a Organized stalking crime would require a great deal of resources, and intensity similar to murder investigations.

What are the motivations for the targeted individual organized stalking system?

1. Organized stalking system is used by the government as a virtual jail for the targeted individual. The O.S. system isolates targeted individual from the community and creates barriers for the targeted individual within the community.

2. The targeted individual’s actions are severely limited to survival. He/she loses confidence in the community and cannot do anything dramatic or revolutionary to impact his/her environment or the community.

3. The targeted individual thinks about the problem of O.S., other pressing life issues are ignored or planned the least.

4. The O.S. system destroys the ego and identity of the targeted individual and stops him/her from pursuing successful life or influential life that cannot be controlled.

5. If the targeted individual complains about O.S. system, he/she will be misdiagnosed with mental illness as the O.S. techniques used mimic the symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. The intelligence agencies have perfected this technique of using the mental health system to destroy targeted individuals after 50 years of research. Thus the intelligence agencies achieve perfect deniability in their crimes.

Zersetzung (Ministerium für Staatssicherheit)

Zersetzung (Ministerium für Staatssicherheit)

Die Zersetzung als vom Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (MfS) der DDR eingesetzte geheimpolizeiliche Arbeitstechnik diente zur Bekämpfung vermeintlicher und tatsächlicher politischer Gegner. Die im Rahmen einer 1976 erlassenen Richtlinie definierten Zersetzungsmaßnahmen wurden vom MfS vornehmlich in den 1970er und 1980er Jahren in Operativen Vorgängen gegen oppositionelle Gruppen und Einzelpersonen eingesetzt. Zumeist konspirativ angewandt, ersetzten sie den offenen Terror der Ära Ulbricht. Durch gezielte Beeinträchtigung oder Schädigung versuchte das MfS Gegnern die Möglichkeiten für feindliche Handlungen zu nehmen. Als repressive Verfolgungspraxis beinhaltete die Zersetzung dabei umfangreiche Steuerungs- und Manipulationsfunktionen bis in die persönlichsten Beziehungen der Opfer hinein. Das MfS griff hierbei auf das Netz an „Inoffiziellen Mitarbeitern“ (IM), staatliche Einflussnahmemöglichkeiten sowie „Operative Psychologie“ zurück. Durch die Offenlegung zahlreicher Stasi-Unterlagen in Folge der politischen Wende in der DDR ist der Einsatz von Zersetzungsmaßnahmen durch das MfS besonders gut dokumentiert.
Inhaltsverzeichnis

* 1 Begriffsherkunft und MfS-Definition
* 2 Politische und gesellschaftliche Rahmenbedingungen
* 3 Praktische Anwendung
* 4 Zielgruppen für Zersetzungsmaßnahmen
* 5 Gesellschaftliche und juristische Aufarbeitung
* 6 Literatur
* 7 Film
* 8 Weblinks
* 9 Siehe auch
* 10 Einzelnachweise

Begriffsherkunft und MfS-Definition

Neben der chemischen Bedeutung des Verbs zersetzen bezeichnet Zersetzung auch die Zerstörung einer Gemeinschaft, Ordnung oder politischen Partei.[1] Die Herkunft des Wortes im MfS-Gebrauch stammt aus der Militärsprache: „Zersetzung“ bezeichnet eine strategische Maßnahme aus der psychologischen Kriegsführung, um die Kampfmoral gegnerischer Soldaten zu schwächen. Während der Weimarer Republik wurde der Begriff für die gegenseitige Unterwanderung politischer Organisationen sowie der Reichswehr mit dem Ziel ihrer inneren Schwächung gebraucht.[2] Das MfS verwendete den Begriff erstmals umfassend in ihrer als „Geheime Verschlusssache“ eingestuften Richtlinie Nr. 1/76 zur Entwicklung und Bearbeitung Operativer Vorgänge (OV). Diese beschrieb auf insgesamt vier Seiten die „Anwendung von Maßnahmen der Zersetzung“.

Eine Definition der Zersetzung einschließlich deren Ziele und Methoden lieferte das MfS im Rahmen der zweiten Auflage ihres 1981 erarbeiteten und 1985 erschienenen Wörterbuchs zur politisch-operativen Arbeit. Die erste Auflage aus dem Jahr 1970 enthielt diesen Begriff noch nicht.[3]

„[Die operative Zersetzung ist eine] operative Methode des MfS zur wirksamen Bekämpfung subversiver Tätigkeit, insbesondere in der Vorgangsbearbeitung. Mit der Z. wird durch verschiedene politisch-operative Aktivitäten Einfluß auf feindlich-negative Personen, insbesondere auf ihre feindlich-negativen Einstellungen und Überzeugungen in der Weise genommen, daß diese erschüttert und allmählich verändert werden bzw. Widersprüche sowie Differenzen zwischen feindlich-negativen Kräften hervorgerufen, ausgenutzt oder verstärkt werden.

Ziel der Z. ist die Zersplitterung, Lähmung, Desorganisierung und Isolierung feindlich-negativer Kräfte, um dadurch feindlich-negative Handlungen einschließlich deren Auswirkungen vorbeugend zu verhindern, wesentlich einzuschränken oder gänzlich zu unterbinden bzw. eine differenzierte politisch-ideologische Rückgewinnung zu ermöglichen.

Z. sind sowohl unmittelbarer Bestandteil der Bearbeitung Operativer Vorgänge als auch vorbeugender Aktivitäten außerhalb der Vorgangsbearbeitung zur Verhinderung feindlicher Zusammenschlüsse. Hauptkräfte der Durchführung der Z. sind die IM. Die Z. setzt operativ bedeutsame Informationen und Beweise über geplante, vorbereitete und durchgeführte feindliche Aktivitäten sowie entsprechende Anknüpfungspunkte für die wirksame Einleitung von Z.-Maßnahmen voraus.
Die Z. hat auf der Grundlage einer gründlichen Analyse des operativen Sachverhaltes sowie der exakten Festlegung der konkreten Zielstellung zu erfolgen. Die Durchführung der Z. ist einheitlich und straff zu leiten, ihre Ergebnisse sind zu dokumentieren.
Die politische Brisanz der Z. stellt hohe Anforderungen hinsichtlich der Wahrung der Konspiration.“

– Ministerium für Staatssicherheit: Wörterbuch zur politisch-operativen Arbeit, Stichwort: „Zersetzung“[4]

Politische und gesellschaftliche Rahmenbedingungen

Während der ersten zehn Jahre der DDR wurde politische Opposition überwiegend als Kriegs- und Boykotthetze mit Methoden des Strafrechtes bekämpft.[5] Mit der Abschottung der DDR in Folge des Mauerbaus wurde ab 1963 auch der justizielle Terror aufgegeben.[6] Vor allem seit Beginn der Ära Honecker 1971 verstärkte das MfS seine Bemühungen, oppositionelles Verhalten ohne Anwendung des Strafrechtes zu sanktionieren.[7] Wichtige Anlässe hierfür waren das Streben der DDR nach internationaler Anerkennung und die deutsch-deutsche Annäherung ab Ende der 1960er Jahre. So hatte sich die DDR sowohl im Grundlagenvertrag mit der BRD[8] als auch mit dem Beitritt zur UN-Charta[9] und der Unterzeichnung der KSZE-Schlussakte[10] zur Achtung der Menschenrechte verpflichtet beziehungsweise diese Absicht bekundet. Da letztere auch im Neuen Deutschland publiziert wurde, stand deren Umsetzung – insbesondere in Bezug auf die beschlossene Verbesserung der Ausreiseregelung – auch innenpolitisch zur Diskussion. Zudem versuchte das SED-Regime, die Zahl politischer Häftlinge zu reduzieren und hierzu die versprochenen Konzessionen durch Repressionspraktiken unterhalb der Schwelle von Verhaftung und Verurteilung zu kompensieren.[11][12]

Praktische Anwendung

Das MfS setzte die Zersetzung vor allem als psychologisches Unterdrückungs- und Verfolgungsinstrument ein.[13] Es nutzte die an der Juristischen Hochschule der Staatssicherheit (JHS) gewonnenen Erkenntnisse der „Operativen Psychologie“ gezielt,[14] um das Selbstvertrauen und Selbstwertgefühl der Opfer zu untergraben. Diese sollten verwirrt oder verängstigt, permanenten Enttäuschungen ausgesetzt und durch Störung der Beziehungen zu anderen Menschen sozial entwurzelt werden. Auf diese Weise sollten Lebenskrisen hervorgerufen werden, die politische Gegner verunsichern und psychisch belasten sollten, sodass dem Opfer die Zeit und Energie für staatsfeindliche Aktivitäten genommen wurde.[15] Das MfS als Drahtzieher der Maßnahmen sollte hierbei nicht erkennbar sein.[16][2] Der selbst betroffene Schriftsteller Jürgen Fuchs sprach deshalb auch von „psychosozialen Verbrechen“ und einem „Angriff auf die Seele des Menschen“.[15]

Wenngleich sich bereits für die späten 1950er Jahre Methoden der Zersetzung nachweisen lassen, wurde die Zersetzung als Methode erst Mitte der 1970er Jahre „wissenschaftlich“ definiert und vornehmlich in den 1970er und 1980er Jahren angewendet.[17] Die Zahl der betroffenen Personen kann nur schwer ermittelt werden, da die Quellenlage wegen bewusster Verschleierung oft lückenhaft ist, die angewendeten Methoden jedoch vielfältig und die beteiligten Abteilungen zahlreich waren. Insgesamt dürften eine vier- bis fünfstellige Zahl an Personen in Gruppen, sowie eine dreistellige Zahl an Einzelpersonen mit Zersetzungsmaßnahmen belegt worden sein.[18] Andere Quellen gehen von etwa 5000 betroffenen Personen aus.[19] An der Juristischen Hochschule wurde eine zweistellige Zahl an Dissertationen zu Themen der Zersetzung vorgelegt.[20] Zudem existiert ein etwa 50 Seiten umfassendes „Lehrmaterial“ zur Zersetzung mit zahlreichen praktischen Beispielen.[21]

Angewandt wurden die Maßnahmen von nahezu allen Abteilungen des MfS, vor allem jedoch von der Hauptabteilung XX des MfS in Berlin sowie den Abteilungen XX der Bezirksverwaltungen und Kreisdienststellen des MfS. Mit der Überwachung von Religionsgemeinschaften, Kultur- und Medienbetrieben, Blockparteien und gesellschaftlichen Organisationen, des Bildungs- und Gesundheitssystems sowie des Sports deckte die Linie XX praktisch das gesamte öffentliche Leben in der DDR ab.[22] Das MfS nutzte hierbei die Möglichkeiten, die sich aus der geschlossenen Gesellschaftsform der DDR ergaben. Durch politisch-operatives Zusammenwirken besaß das MfS umfangreiche Eingriffsmöglichkeiten wie beispielsweise berufliche oder schulische Strafen, Ausschluss aus Massenorganisationen und Sportvereinen, zeitweise Verhaftungen durch die Volkspolizei[2] sowie die Nichtgewährung von Reisegenehmigungen ins sozialistische Ausland bzw. das Zurückweisen an den visafreien Grenzübergängen zur Tschechoslowakei und Volksrepublik Polen. Zu den „Partnern des operativen Zusammenwirkens“ zählten ferner die Räte der Kreise, Universitäts- und Betriebsleitungen, Wohnungsverwaltungen, Sparkassenfilialen oder unter Umständen behandelnde Ärzte.[23] Wichtige Grundlagen für die Ausarbeitung von Zersetzungsmaßnahmen lieferten die Linie VIII (Observation) sowie die Abteilungen 26 (Telefon- und Raumüberwachung) und M (Postkontrolle) des MfS, notwendige Technik beschaffte die Abteilung 32.[24]

Das MfS wendete die Zersetzung vor, während, nach oder an Stelle einer Inhaftierung der „Zielperson“ an. Die operativen Vorgänge verfolgten hierbei in der Regel nicht das Ziel, Beweise für eine strafbare Handlung des Opfers zu erbringen, um ein Ermittlungsverfahren zu eröffnen. Vielmehr betrachtete das MfS Zersetzungsmaßnahmen als eigenständiges Instrument, welches zum Einsatz kam, wenn strafrechtliche Maßnahmen aus politischen oder „politisch-operativen“ Gründen (beispielsweise um das internationale Ansehen der DDR nicht zu gefährden) nicht erwünscht waren.[25][26] In einigen Fällen versuchte das MfS jedoch einzelne Personen bewusst zu kriminalisieren, indem es beispielsweise Wolf Biermann Minderjährige zuführte, mit dem Ziel ihn später strafrechtlich belangen zu können.[27] Als Delikte für eine derartige Kriminalisierung wurden unpolitische Vergehen wie Drogenbesitz, Zoll- und Devisenvergehen, Diebstahl, Steuerhinterziehung oder Vergewaltigungen angestrebt.[28]

Als bewährte Formen der Zersetzung nennt die Richtlinie 1/76 unter anderem:

„systematische Diskreditierung des öffentlichen Rufes, des Ansehens und des Prestiges auf der Grundlage miteinander verbundener wahrer, überprüfbarer und diskreditierender, sowie unwahrer, glaubhafter, nicht widerlegbarer und damit ebenfalls diskreditierender Angaben; systematische Organisierung beruflicher und gesellschaftlicher Misserfolge zur Untergrabung des Selbstvertrauens einzelner Personen; […] Erzeugung von Zweifeln an der persönlichen Perspektive; Erzeugen von Misstrauen und gegenseitigen Verdächtigungen innerhalb von Gruppen […]; örtliches und zeitliches Unterbinden beziehungsweise Einschränken der gegenseitigen Beziehungen der Mitglieder einer Gruppe […] zum Beispiel durch […] Zuweisung von örtlich entfernt liegender Arbeitsplätze“

– Richtlinie Nr. 1/76 zur Entwicklung und Bearbeitung Operativer Vorgänge vom Januar 1976[29]

Mit dem durch Bespitzelung erlangten Wissen erstellte das MfS Sozio- und Psychogramme und wendete diese für persönlichkeitsorientierte Formen der Zersetzung an. Dabei wurden gezielt persönliche Eigenschaften und Neigungen sowie charakterliche Schwächen der „bearbeiteten Feindperson“ – beispielsweise berufliches Versagen, Vernachlässigung elterlicher Pflichten, Homosexualität, pornographische Interessen, Ehebruch, Alkoholismus, Abhängigkeit von Medikamenten, Neigung zu kriminellen Handlungen, Sammler- und Spielleidenschaften sowie Kontakte zu rechtsextremen Kreisen – aufgegriffen, oder diese wurden zur Bloßstellung des Opfers als Gerücht in dessen Umfeld gestreut.[30][31] Aus Sicht des MfS waren die Maßnahmen umso erfolgreicher, je persönlichkeitsbezogener sie angewendet wurden, jeglichen „Schematismus“ galt es zu vermeiden.[30]

Im Namen der Opfer schaltete das MfS Kontakt- oder Kleinanzeigen, löste Warenbestellungen aus oder setzte Notrufe ab, um diese zu terrorisieren.[32][33] Zur Drohung bzw. Einschüchterung sowie zur Erzeugung von Psychosen verschaffte sich das MfS Zugang zu den Wohnungen der Opfer und hinterließ dort offensichtliche Spuren der Anwesenheit, indem Gegenstände hinterlassen, entfernt oder verändert wurden.[28]

Freundschafts-, Liebes-, Ehe- und Familienbeziehungen manipulierte das MfS durch anonyme Briefe, Telegramme und Telefonanrufe sowie (oftmals gefälschte) kompromittierende Fotos[34]. Auf diese Weise sollten Eltern und Kinder systematisch entfremdet werden.[35] Zur Provokation von Beziehungskonflikten sowie außerehelicher Beziehungen unternahm das MfS mittels sogenannter Romeo-Agenten gezielte Umwerbungsversuche.[27]

Für die Zersetzung von Gruppen wurden gezielt (auch minderjährige[36]) IM innerhalb der Gruppe angeworben und eingesetzt. Oppositionelle Gruppen wurden in ihrer Arbeit behindert, indem durch IM permanent Korrekturen und Gegenvorschläge in deren programmatische Diskussionen eingebracht wurden.[37] Um Misstrauen innerhalb der Gruppe zu erzeugen, erweckte das MfS gelegentlich nur den Eindruck, einzelne Gruppenmitglieder seien als IM tätig. Neben der Verbreitung von Gerüchten oder manipulierten Fotos[38] fingierte das MfS hierbei Indiskretionen über angebliche IM-Treffen oder lud einzelne Gruppenmitglieder zu staatlichen Stellen vor, um den Eindruck einer IM-Tätigkeit zu erwecken.[2] Auch durch die gezielte Gewährung von Privilegien – zum Beispiel bei Urlaubs- und Reisegenehmigungen oder der Zuteilung von Wohnungen oder PKW – sollte der Eindruck einer MfS-Tätigkeit einzelner Gruppenmitglieder erzeugt werden.[27] Zweifel entstanden zudem durch die Inhaftierung nur einiger Mitglieder einer Gruppe.[37]

Ferner gehörten zu den Zersetzungsmethoden offene, verdeckte oder vorgetäuschte Bespitzelung, Brief- oder Telefonkontrolle, das Beschädigen privaten Eigentums, Manipulationen an Fahrzeugen bis hin zur Vergiftung von Lebensmitteln, falscher medizinischer Behandlung und strategisch gezieltem Treiben in den Suizid.[39]

Nicht abschließend geklärt werden konnte, ob das MfS Röntgenstrahlung einsetzte, um bei politischen Gegnern gesundheitliche Langzeitschäden hervorzurufen.[40] So starben mit Rudolf Bahro, Gerulf Pannach und Jürgen Fuchs im Abstand von zwei Jahren drei zum gleichen Zeitpunkt inhaftierte, prominente DDR-Dissidenten an Krebserkrankungen.[41] Eine Studie der BStU schloss jedoch auf Grundlage der vorhandenen Akten eine derart vorsätzliche Anwendung von Röntgenstrahlung aus und dokumentierte stattdessen nur einzelne Fälle fahrlässiger gesundheitsgefährdender Verwendung von radioaktiver Strahlenquellen, beispielsweise zur Markierung von Dokumenten.[42]

Das MfS setzte Zersetzungsmaßnahmen auch in Zusammenarbeit mit Bruder-Geheimdiensten anderer Ostblock-Staaten um. So leitete beispielsweise der polnische Geheimdienst gemeinsam mit dem MfS ab Anfang der 1960er Jahre gezielte Maßnahmen gegen die Zeugen Jehovas ein, welche als „innere Zersetzung“[43] bezeichnet wurden.[44]
Zielgruppen für Zersetzungsmaßnahmen

Maßnahmen der Zersetzung wurden seitens des MfS gegen Einzelpersonen und Personengruppen angewandt. Es existierte jedoch keine homogene Zielgruppe für Zersetzungsmaßnahmen, da oppositionelles Verhalten in der DDR vielfältig in Erscheinung trat und das MfS daher differenzierte Maßnahmen zu dessen Bekämpfung ergriff.[45] Dennoch nannte das MfS als Hauptzielgruppen:[2]

* Zusammenschlüsse von Ausreiseantragsstellern
* feindliche Gruppen unter kritischen Künstlern
* kirchliche Oppositionsgruppen
* Gruppierungen von Jugendlichen
* sowie deren Unterstützer (Menschenrechts- und Fluchthilfeorganisationen, ausgereiste und ausgebürgerte Oppositionelle).

Zudem setzte die Stasi vereinzelt Methoden der Zersetzung auch gegen missliebige unpolitische Organisationen wie die Wachtturm-Gesellschaft ein.[46]

Zu den prominentesten Opfern von Zersetzungsmaßnahmen zählten Jürgen Fuchs, Gerulf Pannach, Rudolf Bahro, Robert Havemann, Rainer Eppelmann, Reiner Kunze, die Eheleute Gerd und Ulrike Poppe, sowie Wolfgang Templin.
Gesellschaftliche und juristische Aufarbeitung

Sofern ihnen dies bewusst wurde, versuchten DDR-Oppositionelle wie Wolfgang Templin zum Teil erfolgreich die Zersetzungstätigkeiten des MfS über westliche Journalisten öffentlich zu machen.[33] Der Spiegel veröffentlichte 1977 die fünfteilige Serie Du sollst zerbrechen! des exilierten Jürgen Fuchs, in der er die „operative Psychologie“ der Stasi beschrieb.[47] Das MfS versuchte derartigen Veröffentlichungen entgegen zu wirken, indem es Fuchs in Redaktionen als Stasi-Paranoiker diskreditierte,[48] sodass der Spiegel und andere Medien davon ausgingen, Fuchs leide an Verfolgungswahn.[49][33] Dies konnte erst durch die Einsicht der Stasi-Akten nach der politischen Wende in der DDR widerlegt werden.

Im Wesentlichen gelten Methoden der Zersetzung auf Grund des Rückwirkungsverbots auch nach 1990 als nicht strafwürdig, eine Beteiligung an der Planung oder Durchführung von Zersetzungsmaßnahmen zog daher in der Regel keine juristischen Folgen nach sich.[50] Da ein eigener Straftatbestand der Zersetzung nicht existiert,[51] müssen Zersetzungsmaßnahmen einzeln zur Anzeige gebracht werden. Handlungen, die auch nach DDR-Recht Straftatbestände waren (etwa die Verletzung des Briefgeheimnisses), hätten bereits kurz nach der Tat bei DDR-Behörden angezeigt werden müssen, um einer Verjährung zu entgehen.[52] Erschwerend kam für viele Betroffene hinzu, dass das MfS als Urheber persönlicher Schäden und Misserfolge nicht erkennbar war. Oftmals besitzen zudem Stasi-Unterlagen vor Gericht keine Beweiskraft.

Opfer von Zersetzungsmaßnahmen erhalten – sofern sie nicht mindestens 180 Tage inhaftiert waren – keine Opferpension gemäß §17a des Strafrechtlichen Rehabilitierungsgesetzes (StrRehaG). Bei nachweislicher systematischer, beruflicher und/oder gesundheitlicher Schädigung durch das MfS kann gemäß Unrechtsbereinigungsgesetz (2. SED-UnBerG) eine verwaltungsrechtliche und sowie eine berufliche Rehabilitierung beantragt werden. Diese heben bestimmte Verwaltungsmaßnahmen von DDR-Organen auf und stellen deren Rechtsstaatswidrigkeit fest. Dies ist Voraussetzung für soziale Ausgleichszahlungen nach dem Bundesversorgungsgesetz. Bei einer anerkannten Verfolgungszeit von mindestens drei Jahren und nachgewiesener Bedürftigkeit können zudem Ausgleichszahlungen für Verdienstausfälle und Rentenschäden beantragt werden.[53] Als besondere Hürden erweisen sich in den genannten Fällen jedoch der Nachweis des Eingriffs des MfS in Gesundheit, Vermögen, Ausbildung und Beruf des Betroffenen, sowie die Anerkennung von (zum Teil psychischen) Gesundheitsschäden als direkte Folge von Zersetzungsmaßnahmen.[54]

The use of “Character Assassination” to isolate the target

Character Assassination

Targets usually experience character assassination which is done to destroy their personal and professional life. Half-truths and lies are often strategically spread into their lives, and may be the basis for a bogus investigation. The rumors circulated about people are apparently not petty, but shocking and repulsive. They are CIA or Stasi-type life-damaging lies. Some of the people spreading these lies may be acquaintances and/or family members that have been recruited (lied to, intimidated and blackmailed) into becoming informants. More on the recruitment of family and friends will be covered in the Informants and Motivational Factors chapters.

U.S. Federal law enforcement has used these tactics to destroy people they either wanted to recruit as informants or those they knew they couldn’t recruit and just wanted to destroy. According to former CIA psychologist James Keehner, “It was planned destructiveness. First, you’d check to see if you could destroy a man’s marriage. If you could, then that would be enough to put a lot of stress on that individual, to break him down. Then you might start a rumor campaign against him. Harass him constantly.” Constant harassment, planned destructiveness, character assassination, destroying relationships, all done in concert with the goal of breaking someone down are a standard part of this program.

Reportedly, the usual rumors spread about a person are that they are a pedophile, prostitute, terrorist, racist, anti-government, mentally ill, drug addict, drug dealer, or a threat to “national security.” They are often spread to neighbors, friends, family, employers, etc. A major effort is spent to separate a person from their friends and families.

Apparently these rumor campaigns aid in recruitment. Dr. Rauni Kilde wrote, “Deception is the name of the game, so recruits are told untrue sinister stories of their victims to keep them motivated.” According to CNN, the Stasi used the exact same tactics. They stated, “The agency was authorized to conduct secret smear campaigns against anyone it judged to be a threat…” The Russian KGB too, with its massive network of informants, would slander their internal targets.

These rumors may be propagated by multiple people (informants) behind a target’s back. Apparently, not letting a targeted person become aware of these rumors is essential to their effectiveness. Victor Santoro noted in his book, Gaslighting: How to Drive Your Enemies Crazy, that “The essence of defaming your target with rumors is it that it not get back to him.”

Some targeted people believe that rumors are being spread that they are pedophiles. The organizers realize that labeling someone a pedophile will be highly damaging and produce optimum leverage for gaining community support. It is probably one of the worst rumors you could launch against someone. The Stasi would destroy the character of their targets by labeling them as pedophiles as well. There have been multiple magazine and newspaper reports of pedophiles being harassed by neighbors, and vigilante groups to the point where they are driven out of communities and forced out of work. Some have been driven out of multiple states.

The use of “Mental Health System” to silence targets

Mental Health System

The mental health system is apparently being used worldwide to discredit targeted people who complain. According to the book, Journey Into Madness: The True Story of Secret CIA Mind Control and Medical Abuse, by Gordon Thomas, countries around the world, including the U.S., have used doctors to help abuse and discredit people, often for political reasons. It is also a documented fact that there was collaboration between doctors and the military when experiments were carried out in prisons, hospitals, and universities on unwitting people in North America.

McKinney states that medical doctors, as well as psychiatrist and psychologists appear to be providing cover for this program. This is similar to what was done in Russia, where enemies of the dictatorship would be thrown into mental institutions and drugged beyond recovery. “The APA’s refusal to acknowledge the impact of terrorization upon the human psyche, even given the publicity stemming from the Church Committee’s findings in 1975, raises serious questions about the validity of psychiatry as a profession in this country,” declared McKinney, “not to mention, the APA’s ethical intent, in the long term.”

The DSM is a diagnostic manual for identifying mental disorders. The first edition of the DSM was released in 1952 at a time when the APA was under the control of Dr. Ewen Cameron, who would commit brutal government-sponsored torture under the MKULTRA program. Dr. Rauni Leena Kilde, former Chief Medical Officer of Finland, wrote an article entitled, Microwave Mind Control: Modern Torture and Control Mechanisms Eliminating Human Rights and Privacy. In it she described “The Psychiatric Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) for mental disorders,” as a “brilliant cover up operation in 18 languages to hide the atrocities of military and intelligence agencies’ actions towards their targets.”

Dr. Kilde says the manual “lists all mind control actions as signs of paranoid schizophrenia,” and that “all medical schools teach their students that the person is paranoid, ESPECIALLY if he believes intelligence agencies are behind it all.” Finally she proclaims, “Never is the medical profession told that these are routine actions all over the world by intelligence agencies against their targets.”

Dr. Munzert said that doctors, “first think of paranoia and schizophrenia” if someone complains of this program. He cautions that because of this, “victims” could end up in a “lunatic asylum.” Annie Earle, a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, and Board Certified Diplomat in her area of expertise, has over 25 years of psychotherapy experience as an independent practitioner. When referring to the DSM during an interview on the Republic Broadcasting Network, she stated, “It’s called the Diagnostic Statistical Manual … [and all] psychotherapists, regardless of specialty are required to give their patients a diagnosis from this manual, and in order to get the diagnosis you have to fulfill certain criteria that is clearly spelled out in the DSM.”

Earle noticed a pattern unfolding when some of the people who came to her who did not fit the standard criteria. “The patients that started coming to me really did not fit any of the standard classifications,” she explained. “For example, they might be having what some people consider a psychotic or schizophrenic breakdown in that they might report what seem to be hallucinations, but they did not have any of the other criteria that goes along with schizophrenia. There are many criteria that one is required to … [detect] in making the diagnosis of schizophrenia, and these people did not meet all that criteria.” Apparently Earle became targeted herself while studying this program.

Interestingly, the April/May 1996 issue of Nexus Magazine contained an article entitled, How The NSA Harasses Thousands Of Law Abiding Americans Daily By The Usage Of Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM) written by former NSA worker John St. Clair Akwei. It read, “NSA DOMINT [Domestic Intelligence] has the ability to covertly assassinate U.S. citizens or run covert psychological control operations to cause subjects to be diagnosed with ill mental health.”

The DSM appears to have been created with a loophole which allows government-sponsored harassment programs to exist. This was evidently done so that people will appear ill when explaining this to a mental health professional. Adding to this confusion, the program itself is designed to mimic mental illness when explained to those “not-in-the-know.” Mental health professionals may also participate in this program, wittingly or unwittingly by labeling targets as mentally ill. It is one of several layers of protection used to help keep this program operating in secrecy. It’s easy to see how some mental health professionals might “jump to conclusions.”

What is Gaslighting?

Gaslighting is any behavior or imparting of information that has the effect of making the target distrust their own perception. If you feel cold and told it’s hot, you start to doubt your reality checking faculty. Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse that involves withholding of factual information from and/or providing false information to the target. Having the gradual effect of making the victim anxious, confused and less able to trust his/her own memory and perception.

Gaslighting tends to intersect with other tactics such as gang stalking, street theater, cryptic reference themes but generally involves sabotage of the target’s belongings and perspective in order to disturb the target’s peace of mind. The goal is to confuse the target to the point he/she cannot trust his/her memory or perspective.

Street theater is gaslighting

Via street theater gaslighting is carried out by networking of stalkers who share some profile information and disinformation about the target. While participating in staged events around the target this info and disinfo is mentioned to or loud around the target. The basic idea is to let the target know that personal information or things done around the home are known about them. Oftentimes during harassment the most mundane things are mentioned such as a phrase that the target said earlier that morning or mention an internet site that was visited etc. This is done to give the impression that everything they do is monitored. In most cases disinformation is also mentioned but is only pieced together by the target after many runnings with street theater stalkers. This disinformation is the most disturbing because the target is left to wonder why so many people are referring to the same topics or exact phrases. This is a pattern of neurolinguistic programming to instill negative emotions, and associations. Again with seemingly meaningless repetitious phrases, the idea is to confuse the target who may start questioning their senses. They flash when they hear several people mention the same words or the same topic while having no real significance in the target’s experience.

Cryptic reference is gaslighting

This happens in street theater but also in conversations with family and friends. When the target is profiled, the information about the target’s fears and weaknesses is used to create collection of key words and topics. These triggers are mentioned in the most casual conversations in an attempt to confuse and upset the target. To complicate things, the target starts seeing patterns and themes which come from harmless sources. Any attempt to share the gaslighting information with others will only isolate them as people will have hard time believing the target and see the events as life’s normal misfortunes.

Gaslighting by friends and family

Oftentimes people close to the target are approached and fed various lies and programmed long before the target even knows he/she has become a target. When the target tries to relate the events that are happening, the trusted friends and family tell the target various forms of NO – it is only your imagination. And if the target presses the horns the stalking event becomes intense. The target is advised to normalize and quit mentioning the signs of stalking that they see. Friends and family members are the worst / most effective wielders of gaslighting. The target, searching for support and meaning, takes the advice to heart to gain some sort of normalcy in life. This pushes the target in line to obey normal life dictates. While still being harassed by stranger stalkers and putting up with various other tactics, the target is forced to live in two worlds. Clearly this is the very definition of gaslighting. If the target is left in this state, they may start to doubt their memory, perception, and their very self. Induced self-doubt is indeed terroristic by its very nature. Friends and family members will say the target needs to move on and forget about the traumatic events. Repeatedly these gaslighting events lead the target to dangerous situations where they cannot trust their own intuitions.

Gaslighting permeates gang stalking from day one. Then as the target tries to regroup to have normal life, gaslighting from the target’s family members complicates the situation.

Constitutional Rights , Human Microchip Implantation & Brain Waves

Constitutional Rights

Devices described above can be said to impinge upon various constitutional rights, depending on the embodiment. Here we focus on the relation of human microchip implantation to the Fourth and the Fifth Amendments.[86] The Fourteenth Amendment will be discussed in conjunction with the impingement upon property rights.

Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. A type of search which has been frequently tested for potential violation of constitutional rights is the use of electronic surveillance. In that instance, a bifurcated framework has been used to analyze which acts of surveillance constitute illegal searches. This approach considers first the implications of the attachment of the surveillance device and second the implications of continual monitoring once a device is in place.[87] These considerations must also take into account the requirements of probable cause and particularity.[88] There must be a definite reason for suspicion necessitating the search, and the search must also be placed within finite limits. In this section, a search will first be defined, then the method of determination of whether or not a search is constitutional will be explained, and finally the applicability to microchip implantation will be explored.

The courts often examine whether or not the activity under surveillance normally has associated with it a legitimate expectation of privacy in making their determinations as to whether or not a “search” (requiring constitutional protection) took place. This factor may be illustrated by a hypothetical surveillance of an individual walking on the sidewalk. Privacy often has two aspects: 1) actual expectations and 2) their reasonableness.[89] Applying these to the hypothetical, just because a pedestrian thinks sidewalk activities are private and precluded from surveillance does not mean that they are. Legally, because of no reasonable expectation of privacy on a sidewalk, observing the pedestrian does not amount to a search for Fourth Amendment purposes.

The same type of question has been asked in litigation over whether or not surveillance of a moving automobile is a search. If a beeper is placed on an automobile for tracking, is it within the realm of public activities and therefore a type of surveillance which is not a search? Courts have answered that question in the affirmative, terming driving an activity associated with a “diminished expectation of privacy,” not a search because “[a] car has little capacity for escaping public scrutiny.”[90] The same reasoning has also been applied to beepers placed on airplanes,[91] and the use of infrared devices to examine the heat content emanating from buildings.[92]

The generalized concepts relating to the definition of a search have been related to external examples of beepers or wiretapping. However, the Fourth Amendment has also been invoked with reference to internal intrusions upon individuals to obtain evidence which could be used against them. Examples include the withdrawal of blood and bodily searches which require surgical procedures or other means to extract substances from the body. In Winston v. Lee,[93] a robber was shot during an escape of the scene of an attempted robbery. Shortly thereafter, a man with a gunshot wound was discovered in the vicinity. To confirm that the suspect was connected with that particular robbery, the police wanted to compel surgery to remove the bullet. Because of the complicated and life-threatening surgery required to remove the bullet, the Supreme Court ruled that the surgery would be an unreasonable search.[94] Alternatively, other decisions have classified these highly intrusive searches as warrantless searches rather than unreasonable ones.[95] Thus, it seems that the courts are unwilling to totally relinquish the power to conduct a highly intrusive search, regardless of the conditions involved.

Arguments have also been made that taking blood samples is another example of an internal search which may be said to implicate the Fourth Amendment, where those samples indicate intoxication.[96] The same reasoning has been suggested as a reason to prevent the collection of blood samples from convicted criminals to obtain DNA for a genetic data bank.[97] However, these arguments have not been successful against the claim that greater restraints on liberties are required for the convicted.

Once it has been established that a search has indeed taken place, it is thereafter unconstitutional only if a valid warrant was not obtained prior to the search. The warrant is evidence that the proposed search has been examined, and considered not to infringe upon the suspect’s rights. The leading case detailing the constitutionality of the search when a warrant is provided is Katz v. United States,[98] which examined the constitutionality of wiretap surveillance by the government. The petitioner had been convicted based on improperly-obtained evidence because the safeguard of first obtaining a search warrant before bugging the phone booth had been ignored. On appeal the court stated that “[i]n the absence of such safeguards, this Court has never sustained a search upon the sole ground that officers reasonably expected to find evidence of a particular crime and voluntarily confined their activities to the least intrusive means consistent with that end.”[99]

The principles evolved for Fourth Amendment claims can be applied to microchip implants. The clearest application will be to the embodiment of the device that can read-write and track. Still, read only and read-write devices also implicate Fourth Amendment principles because, once installed, either could be scanned by police to obtain information about the individual. Scanning of the microchip would be considered as a search.

The first question to consider is whether or not a search (worthy of Fourth Amendment protection) took place. Thus, scanning or interrogation of the implanted microchip to obtain information from it is the action to be evaluated. The act of implantation itself does not constitute a search.[100] Rather, it is subsequent actions relating to the garnering of information from the microchip which are of consequence to the Fourth Amendment analysis.

In the case of any of the embodiments, an individual may have an expectation of privacy as to the information on the microchip. However, it would be more difficult to defend that expectation as a justifiable one, if the microchip carried information of medical records on a read-write device.[101] Because the information is vital for the good of society, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Proponents of this theory would argue that such information was available and on record already, and that this technology merely increased the speed with which it could be recovered. If these arguments prevail, there would be no search and no Fourth Amendment protection.

However, one court has found that personal information should be kept private and not readily accessible.[102] In a Doe case, this philosophy was validated for medical information by judges who declared that “Doe has a right to privacy (or confidentiality) in his HIV status, because his personal medical condition is a matter that he is normally entitled to keep private.”[103] Therefore, under Doe, retrieval of information from a microchip read-write device is a search when the information retrievable is of a type that is normally protected.

Monitoring a read-write device with tracking capabilities could be defined as a search if the implanted citizen were law-abiding. Because criminals have lesser privacy rights, tracking in their case wouldn’t be termed a search.[104]

Once it has been established that a search has occurred, the Fourth Amendment protections insure that the search is only permissible under certain conditions: that a warrant has been issued and that the search is described with particularity. Even if it is a possibility that blanket warrants could be issued, or that a warrant could be easily obtained, it will be difficult to evade the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment with reference to microchip implantation. That requirement is to prevent an overbroad search which impinges on an individual’s privacy rights.[105]

If the embodiment of the device is read only or read-write, the particularity requirement could be satisfied with a warrant. Conversely, if the device was read-write with tracking capabilities, the search would not be defined with particularity, as a person could be monitored at any time, in any place.[106] In summation, in any form, interrogation of the microchip implant can be considered a search under the bifurcated analytical framework. The Fourth Amendment protections to make a search constitutional could conceivably be met by the government when the search involves certain information from read only or read-write devices. However, if the device is used for tracking purposes, it will fail the particularity test and thus violate the Fourth Amendment on the grounds that a valid warrant has not been issued.

Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment provides, in part, that no citizen “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”[107] Verbal self-incrimination is commonly understood to be covered by the amendment,[108] but it has also been applied to removal of objects from someone’s body.[109] “[A] person is compelled to be a witness against himself not only when he is compelled to testify, but also when… incriminating evidence is forcibly taken from him by a contrivance of modern science” according to a concurrence by Justice Black.[110]

Non-verbal communications are not as easily categorized. For example, in a case concerning whether or not blood withdrawn from a suspect could be used to prove intoxication, the court commented that “[s]ince the blood test evidence, although an incriminating product of compulsion, was neither petitioner’s testimony nor evidence relating to some communicative act or writing by the petitioner, it was not inadmissible on privilege grounds.”[111] Yet later in the same opinion, Justice Brennan tempered the decision in the following manner: “That we today hold that the Constitution does not forbid the States minor intrusions into an individual’s body under stringently limited conditions in no way indicates that it permits more substantial intrusions, or intrusions under other conditions.”[112] Thus, there appears to be some disagreement as to the extent of the reach of the Fifth Amendment’s protection as applied to bodily intrusions. However, a common theme in such cases is that the courts examine the difficulty involved in terms of the level of intrusiveness required to obtain the “non-verbal communication,” to determine whether it is constitutional.

The Fifth Amendment could be applied to the use of microchip implants in humans because it could be a form of self-incrimination where the device has tracking capabilities.[113] Note that the implantation itself would not be incriminating, but the scanning or tracking of the implant could be. The question which arises is whether or not the act of carrying the implant is self-incrimination. According to decisions which require a communicative act such as speech or writing, the implant would not be an example of self-incrimination worthy of Fifth Amendment protection. Yet the carrying of the implant might properly be categorized as a communicative act because the chip would provide for constant communication of location. If the government has the ability to determine where someone is at all times, that information could be used as evidence in the commission of certain crimes. It would be analogous to the situation in which a suspect wore a beeper for surveillance 24 hours a day for the rest of his life.[114] In that instance, it might be most properly characterized as self-incrimination and therefore prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. Conversely, if the implantation were consensual, it could hardly be said to represent self-incrimination because of acquiescence.

Moreover, if tracking or scanning of the microchip is considered merely as a non-verbal communication, it may not qualify for Fifth Amendment immunity if constitutionally obtained. Since the act of scanning or tracking does not involve any life-threatening operation, or serious physical disruption, but rather only the monitoring of an electronic device, it would not be intrusive enough a method to qualify for immunity.

Property Rights

Property rights are protected from governmental deprivation without due process by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.[115] Here, we focus on the latter. To determine what is protected by the due process clauses, it is necessary to understand what is meant by the term “property.” This is constantly refined and expanded by the courts, but basically it refers to a collection of rights held in a particular object.[116] They may be tangible, as in the case of land or possessions, or intangible, as in the case of intellectual property. Property has been defined as “every species of valuable right and interest” which may be protected by the State.[117] Although the concept of one’s own body as one’s property has not been embraced by the courts, there is some precedent for that expansion. The law does not provide an overtly obvious method of insulation from bodily intrusions such as mandatory microchip implantation, but it is argued that novel situations require novel applications and expansions of existing legal concepts.

Here, the current rationale for and against the definition of the body as property will be examined, followed by current indications that the theory should be generally adopted. Last, the application of the concept of the body as property to the use of microchip implantation into humans will be explained.

1. Rationale

As explained, the concept of the human body as property is not generally accepted. One reason is fear that if the body were property, one could sell oneself or a portion thereof to another for profit. The basic rights in property include the right to transfer it as one wishes.[118] However, those fears could be allayed by specific statutes covering and limiting transfers. Even the transfer of land is subject to, e.g., zoning restrictions.[119] Another reason for hesitation to consider the body as property is that it harkens back to slavery.

If the body were recognized as property, it would provide certain advantages. Namely, the Fourteenth Amendment which insures that the individual will not be deprived of property without due process of law could then be invoked against intrusions into an individual’s body. It may be argued however, that the individual is already afforded Fourteenth Amendment protection through the liberty aspect of the amendment.[120] Liberty is generally thought to refer to personal rights in conjunction with torts such as battery, assault and false imprisonment.[121] These may be categorized as external events, ones which are not the doing of the individual himself, but rather the acts of another against the self. Conversely, property rights in one’s own body would cover the acts of the self concerning the self. Therefore the liberty interest does not strictly apply, and the property interest in the self could result in a right distinct from the liberty interest. The importance of this feature will be illustrated below.

Current Indications

Evidence for some situations in which the body has been considered as property, or at least as quasi-property, can be found in statutes and court decisions. For example, individuals can have limited rights with respect to the corpse of another, referred to as quasi-property rights.[122] Surviving spouses often have the ability to determine how to dispose of the dead.[123] Other rights in an individual’s body are defined by the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) which determines how and to whom gifts of transplantable organs can be made subsequent to the death of a donor.[124] Since one of the rights attached to property is the ability to alienate it, the introduction of the UAGA serves as evidence that it is permissible to have property rights in one’s body,[125] though they are statutorily limited.[126]

In York v. Jones, a couple had an embryo cryogenically frozen for future use.[127] Later, they wished to transfer it from an in-vitro fertilization institute in Virginia to another in California. The Virginia institute refused, citing the Cryopreservation agreement signed by the couple which specified only one of three fates for cryopreserved embryos. Interinstitutional transfer was not one agreed upon. The Yorks’ argument, adopted by the court, was that the Cryopreservation Agreement was an admission by the Institute that the Yorks had property rights in addition to contract rights in the embryos.[128] Thus, within the confines of a contract, the court was willing to recognize property rights in an embryo.

In a later dispute over the ownership of frozen embryos, another court was not as willing to go as far.[129] The Davises had seven in-vitro fertilized embryos stored at a clinic for later implantation. Afterwards, in divorce proceedings they disagreed over who should get the embryos. Finding it impossible to call the embryos “persons”, and unwilling to call them “property”, the court compromised by putting them in an “interim category that entitles them to special respect because of their potential for human life.”[130] The rights or duties entailed by the interim category were not further elaborated upon other than to indicate that the interest of the parents was one of ownership (where they had equal weight in determining the fate of the embryos).[131] In both York and Davis, the emphasis was on an embryo outside of the human body. Property rights exerted, where granted, are still external to the human body.

In a third example, external rights were also the issue where a man sued to obtain the monetary gain of the use of his cells to create a profitable cell line.[132] In part of his argument, he claimed that he had property rights in the cells removed from him during the course of his treatment. Because he never agreed that his cells could be used by the researchers to develop a new cell line, he claimed that they had converted his property based on the belief that the cells were still his property (because he had not released them) even after they were removed from his body.[133] The argument had been accepted by the lower court, but was not confirmed by the California Supreme Court. Instead, that court sustained the demurrers of the defendants to the cause of action of conversion, citing that the burden that would be placed on researchers to confirm consent before utilization of human body fluids in research would be too great.[134] Here again, the case focused on the ability of one to define products of his body external to himself as his property.

Applications of Property Law Concepts

Implantation of microchips concerns an internal property interest in the self because placement of the device involves breaking the skin to place a foreign object within the body permanently. It may be likened to the use of an artificial eye or a pace-maker. However, in those cases, the implant is desired. In the case of the microchip, there is only a convenient accounting system and repository for government information. Thus, new questions such as whether or not property rights can be extended to oneself now arise.

If York could be used as a precedent, it would then be possible to extend the right from a frozen embryo removed from the body, to internal bodily organs. If embryos outside an individual’s body are his or her property, why then couldn’t the embryos inside the body also be that individual’s property? From there the conclusion that anything within an individual’s body was the property of that individual, or that the body as a whole is property if its components are, could be reached. York is somewhat different however, because concerns and interests in reproductive freedom enter into disputes over fetuses, embryos and contraception in general.[135] York or Davis or other cases concerning reproductive rights and technologies are therefore not the best models for the microchip, but they are closest in substance.[136] Additionally, the very closest legally applicable statutory precedent is the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. Unfortunately, as previously stated, because this Act covers intrusions into self only after death, it is not directly applicable either.

As stated previously, in the absence of close precedent, and in the face of emerging technology, it is sometimes necessary to forge new legal concepts to cover the previously unanticipated developments of science. The use of microchip implants in humans is such an instance, wherein the application of novel legal theories is required, because of the novelty and the direness of the implications for humans. The concept of property should be extended to oneself as concerns internal matters to prevent technology from swallowing up the individual.

One important aspect of property is the owner’s right to exclude others from it. It follows that if an individual can be said to have property rights in himself, he can exclude others from invading his body which he controls as his property. Thereafter, if it is recognized that the individual has that right to prevent intrusions into his own body under property law, he can invoke Fourteenth Amendment protection to dissuade others or the government from requiring the placement of foreign objects in his body or at minimum provide adequate compensation.

Those principles can be analogized to the scenario of governmental mandate of microchip implantation. If the government desires to mandate microchip implantation, it must provide just compensation for those implanted. The question would then become how to value this level of intrusion. Compensation required would include money damages for the initial implantation,[137] as well as carrying a foreign substance,[138] difficult calculations indeed. Even if an amount could be calculated, it is unlikely that the government could give its value in cash because the total amount required for compensation of all individuals would be prohibitively high.[139]

Thus, if property interests were recognized in self, the compensation required by each individual from the government to implant the chip in each individual would be very great. The renumerative aspects of the program would effectively make it difficult to uniformly mandate the implantation of the microchip.[140] To overcome this obstacle, the government might insist on some form of nonmonetary compensation. For example, a tax break, an additional legal holiday or some other compensatory program might be invoked which did not involve an actual exchange of money on the part of the government.

In summation, property rights in self should be recognized in the case of mandated microchip implantation.[141] This would ensure that individuals receive compensation for their inconvenience, though the government may provide nonmonetary compensation which would be less satisfactory.

COMMUNITY (COMMUNIST) ORIENTED POLICING

COMMUNITY (COMMUNIST) ORIENTED POLICING

By Detective Phil Worts

June 1, 2001

NewsWithViews.com

The consensus (dialectic) process

There is a myth that communism is dead and that the cold war is over. Nothing could be further from the truth. The problem is that few people today understand what communism really is and just where the cold war battle lines are actually drawn. Crack open a dictionary and look up the term “Dialectical Materialism.” You should find something like this:

“A philosophy founded by Karl Marx… which forms the basis of Communist doctrine: it combines the materialistic idea of matter over mind with the Hegalian dialectic in which opposing forces are constantly being reunited at a higher level.” –Webster Dictionary

But that definition might beg the question, “What is the Hegelian dialectic?” For modern man, the answer to that question is epic. The Hegelian dialectic has profoundly impacted the world in which you live.

What is communism?

The Dialectic:
Fomenting the Revolution

The concept of the dialectic has been around for a long time. It is simply that of opposite positions: Thesis (position) vs. Antithesis (opposite position). In traditional logic, if my thesis was true, then all other positions were by definition untrue. For example, if my thesis is 2+2=4, then all other answers (antithesis) are false. George W.F. Hegel, the nineteenth century German philosopher, turned that concept upside down by equalizing Thesis and Antithesis. All things are now relative. There is no such thing as absolute truth to be found anywhere. Instead, “truth” is found in Synthesis, a compromise of Thesis and Antithesis. This is the heart and soul of the consensus process.

This is diametrically opposed to the Judeo-Christian world-view prevalent in the Western world for the better part of two millennia that held that God existed, that He existed outside of the material creation and that man had a moral obligation to Him and His laws. God was transcendent and thus truth was absolute and transcendent, outside of our ability to manipulate it. This all changed with Hegel and modern man was born. Man could now challenge any authority and position, even God. Since there is no such thing as absolute truth, “my truth” is just as good as “your truth,” so don’t tell me what to think or how to behave. As Nietzsche, the “God is Dead” philosopher, would later say, “There is absolutely no absolute.” Now 2+2 can equal 5, or 17, or whatever you feel is right. (Hint: This is why our schools are failing. All teachers are certified on Benjamin Bloom’s work. He said “…we recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and all places.”)

At about the same time that Hegel was passing from the scene, Karl Marx caught the revolutionary fever. He drew heavily from Hegel (the dialectic) and Feuerbach (materialism). He picked up where the other philosophers left the discussion, but with a twist. He scornfully stated, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it.” To CHANGE the WORLD was to become the warp and woof of Marxism. In the Marxian interpretation of reality, God had been abandoned. Alone in his universe, man was to fill the vacuum left by religion with materialism. Religion was the enemy of all progress. As he wrote in 1843, “Religion is the opium of the people.” No longer bound to a relationship with his Creator, the social relationship of “man to man” became the principle of Marx’s theory. It followed that these social relationships, which necessarily involve conflict, cause the changes in human progress. As the opening words of the Communist Manifesto announce: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Note the dialectic reasoning: the clash of opposites produces synthesis and change. Man, freed from religious restraints will carry the revolution (change via conflict) forward until all are equal in a man made utopia on earth. To that end, the Manifesto concludes, “Working men all countries, unite!”

1. It is Dialectical Materialism, or, in simpler terms: a God expunged human reasoning process.
2. REVOLUTION is its goal, to “change the world,” Marx said.
3. The CHANGE is to be from a Theistic World View (Old World Order) to a Humanistic World View (New World Order). The term New World Order was a popular euphemism for world communism for years. Conspiracy kooks did not invent it. When it started to take on negative connotations, it was dropped for a nicer sounding label, Global Governance.
4. Change is to occur through CONFLICT, (Crisis/Problems/Issues).

The Cold War. Where is the battlefield?

Change Happens: The re-culturing of America

Even as the worldwide communist revolution got underway in earnest around the glove, a rift was forming within Marxist intellectual circles. Around the turn of the century there was a growing trend within this movement that a better way to change the world is not abruptly and violently at the point of a bayonet, (traditional Marxist revolution), but rather it should be done slowly and incrementally by transforming individuals and their cultural institutions. Then you can control a country as effectively as if you conquered it militarily. In fact, this method is preferred because one does not have to rebuild bombed out cities and dig all those mass graves!

The home for this new wave of dialectical Marxist thinking became the emerging “science” of socio-psychology. It may come as a surprise to many to discover that virtually all of the pillars of modern psychology were humanistic utopians who believed that there is no God, that mankind can and should be manipulated (for its own good, of course), and that all social problems can be solved by the proper reprogramming of man’s mind. This would lead to an era of peace and prosperity based on diversity, tolerance and unity. Most of their work dealt with the details of human behavior, but their over-arching view was that of transforming society (echo the revolution). Hence, they came to be known as “Transformational Marxists.”

One such group was the Fabian Socialists, who took their name from the Roman general, Fabius. Fabius, it will be remembered, was confronted with Hannibal’s invasion of Italy. Hannibal with his elephants held the advantage of superior forces, but was far from home and supplies. Instead of confronting his foe head on, a battle he would have certainly lost, Fabius utilized hit-and-run tactics. Harassing his enemy and wearing him down incrementally piece-by-piece over time until Hannibal capitulated, Fabius won the war. The Fabian Socialists adopted this strategy in their goal of world socialism. In a similar vein, the transformational Marxists advocated a “slow march through the institutions,” as famous Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci would say. Gramsci’s theories cannot be overstated in this regard, as this strategy has become synonymous with his name. The Gramsci Strategy is the “War of Position,” (i.e. the battle ground is for the mind and culture) vs. the “War of Maneuver,” (i.e. traditional battlefield warfare with guns and bombs.) Gramsci engendered the anger of his communist counterparts in Moscow when he basically told them they were doing it all wrong. Gramsci died in prison under Mussolini’s regime, but his strategy has become the strategy for changing society.

Meanwhile, in Germany, a group of some 21 Marxist socio-psychologists gathered in Frankfurt and formed the Institute of Marxist Research. Perhaps that was a little too obvious for their opponents and they renamed it the Institute for Social Research. When Hitler rose to power, most of these men fled to America and continued their work here. Kurt Lewin, J.L. Moreno, Theodor Adorno, Erik Fromm, Max Horkhiemer and others found positions in American universities and had their work funded by pro-Marxist foundations.

Kurt Lewin is of special interest for this discussion because it was he who went to M.I.T. and conducted the research involving group dynamics that laid the foundation for Total Quality Management. At the risk of oversimplifying how the process of group dynamics works, it could be summarized as a method of belief and behavior modification, using dialectic-reasoning skills (remember, all truth is relative), in a group setting. It utilizes the inherent fear an individual person has of being alienated from the group. By use of a change agent, or “facilitator,” individuals are herded toward “consensus” by compromising their position for the sake of “social harmony.” According to Lewin, “A successful change includes, therefore, three aspects: UNFREEZING the present level, MOVING to the new level, and FREEZING group life on the new level.”

This is precisely the technique with which the communists brainwashed American POWs, the only difference being they could accelerate the “unfreezing” phase with physical torture.

In group dynamics the pain is not physical, it’s emotional. Do not underestimate the force of emotional pain. POWs frequently described their long periods in isolation as worse than some of the most brutal physical torture Isolation from the group is a powerful behavior modification weapon.

Transformational Marxists such as Kurt Lewin refined their weapon for the new battlefield: Using group dynamics to invade the culture to affect the paradigm shift. The weapon looks like this:

1. A Diverse Group (“Diversity” needed for conflict)
2. Dialoging to Consensus (Dialectic process)
3. Over a Social Issue (Problem/Crisis/Issues)
4. In a Facilitated Meeting (Controlled environment using facilitator/change agent)
5. To a Predetermined Outcome (Paradigm shift)

The Marxist Trojan Horse

TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT

TQM is an organizational transformation strategy that uses:

1. Group Dynamics
2. Facilitator/Change Agents (“Strategic Planning” occurs in councils)
3. “Problem Solving”
4. Systems Management (ISO 900

Decoding the term “Total Quality Management” is impossible without an understanding of the Marxist foundation upon which it was built. I use the word “Decoding” because so many of the dialectic concepts are masked by nice sounding double-talk.
TOTAL= Holistic, Gestalt, Global
QUALITY= People. (Also slang, short for TQM systems in general, e.g. “We have a Quality Organization.”)
MANAGEMENT= the facilitators, the agents of change.

With this background we arrive at our current application of the dialectic in our nation. I would like to now focus on the role that your local law enforcement agency has in the “re-culturing of America.” Your local beat cop has a special part to play, and he doesn’t even realize it. Not only has TQM change agents restructured many of the police departments in America, they are now in a position to turn the police themselves into the facilitators of the community through a program called COPs, or Community Oriented Policing. COPs is a federally funded program administered through the U.S. Department of Justice. What is COPs? The most succinct definition I found was in a DJ brochure:

COMMUNITY POLICING WHAT IS IT?

Shift in philosophy about police duties vs. community responsibilities to a team concept of TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT of the community. Re-identifying the police role as a FACILITATOR in the community (Emphasis mine).

Translation: Transformation from a constitutionally empowered local police force performing their duty to keep the peace to that of a change agent working within the community to affect a Marxist paradigm shift. Pay close attention to what the influential German Marxist Georg Lukacs had to say about who the facilitators are in the community: “The institutions in socialist society which act as the facilitators between the public and private realms are the Soviets. They (facilitators) are the congresses (diverse groups), which facilitate the debate (dialoguing to consensus) of universal problems (social issues) in the context of the everyday.”

1. Leaders of the community (law enforcement, government, business, education, health, civic, non-profit, medical, religious, etc.) collaborating to identify problems in the community, what the significant impact on people will be, and suggesting solutions to those problems. (This is POP, or Problem Oriented Policing.)

2. Identifying common ground, where all factions of a community can work together for the COMMON GOOD of the community in a broader problem-solving approach. Forming a partnership between police and the rest of the community where each is accountable to each other and the community as a whole. (Emphasis mine. End of COPs definition).

Advertisement

Note the reference to the “common good,” the ever-present ideal in the communist state. Individual rights become subordinated to the so-called greater good. This raises serious concern over the role of the police officer in society as a “partner” with community groups and social service programs, which, due to the blurring of lines of responsibility, are unaccountable to the public (voters).

To further understand the philosophy of COPs, one does not have to look further than the late socio-psychologist Dr. Robert Trojanowicz. Formerly the director of the National Center for Community Policing at the University of Michigan, he is considered the father of Community Oriented Policing. Consider the following selections from his writings:

“Social control is most effective at the individual level. THE PERSONAL CONSCIENCE IS THE KEY ELEMENT in ensuring self-control, refraining from deviant behavior even when it can be easily perpetrated.”

“The family, the next most important unit affecting social control, is obviously instrumental in the initial formation of the conscience and in the continued reinforcement of the values that encourage law abiding behavior.”

This is an astonishing admission of the fundamental dynamics of crime prevention and social disorder. The most conservative thinkers alive today couldn’t have been better articulated what makes for domestic tranquility in any society. Our founding fathers were keenly aware of this fact. James Madison cited the fact that our form of limited government is “wholly inadequate” without personal conscience as the internal social control. So then, in an effort to solve America’s moral chaos, we are going to restore the personal conscience by encouraging accountability to a higher authority (Ten Commandments) and strengthening the family, right?” Don’t be silly, says Dr. Trojanowicz.

“Unfortunately, because of the reduction of influence exerted neighbors, the extended family and even the family, social control is now often more dependent on external control, than on internal self-control.”

Oh, darn, he says. Since that “unfortunate” breakdown of conscience and the family structure, the social order is now dependent on “external control.” Read that, “The State.” Unfortunately indeed! Dr. Trojanowicz ponders the dilemma of the current state of affairs in his paper Community Policing and the Challenge of Diversity:
“In addition to raising questions (dialectic reasoning questions all absolutes) about our national identity, increasing diversity also raises questions about how we define American ‘values and morality.’ (Absolute values of right and wrong vs. relative values). Many strongly held traditional beliefs derive from Judeo-Christian traditions. Blended with faith in the intrinsic virtues of family and the American Dream of the United States as a meritocracy where those who are willing to work hard will succeed. Can this model encompass the experience of the growing number of Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists among us? (What, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists aren’t willing to work hard?) Does it reflect sufficient sensitivity to the concerns of people of color, women and gays?”

Got that? Traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs (with their absolute truths and morals) are out, diversity and relative values are in. If we are not to restore the personal conscience and the family, what is his solution? He continues:
“The community of interest generated by crime, disorder and fear of crime becomes the goal to allow the community policing officer an entre into the geographic community.”

If you did not fall out of your chair with that line, you weren’t paying attention. Social chaos is the GOAL for the transformational Marxist. The crisis of crime and disorder is the door for the police officer as facilitator/change agent to enter the community (the “client,” or the latest term, “customer,” and to initiate the paradigm shift! Even though these social architects plainly admit what is most vital in making for a crime-free community, they have absolutely no intention of restoring “individual conscience” or going back to repairing the traditional family. On the contrary, for the past sixty years these social-psychologists have been introducing these very dialectic concepts into our school system with the intent on demolishing personal conscience. Is there any doubt they have succeeded? For them, there is no going back.

“They (Americans) may not yet recognize that there is no ‘going back to basics’ in education.” -Training manual for Goals 2000

“If ‘Equality of Opportunity’ is to become a part of the American Dream, the traditional family must be weakened.”

Socio Psychologist-James Coleman:

“In order to effect rapid change, one must mount a vigorous attack on the family lest the traditions of present generations be preserved.” -Socio-psychologist Warren Bennis in his book, The Temporary Society. Bennis’ book “Leaders,” was recommended reading at one time when one was promoted to sergeant on the S.D.P.D., wherein he identifies the leaders in any organization as “agents of change.”

Dr. Trojanowicz admits in no uncertain terms that is what his research is all about:
“It should also be noted that the continuing interest in finding a viable definition for the term community has not merely been an intellectual exercise. The theme underlying much of the research is that once you can identify a community, you have discovered the primary unit of society ABOVE the level of the individual and family that can be mobilized to take concerted action to bring about POSITIVE SOCIAL CHANGE.”

Just in case you doubt the Marxist nature of their concepts of community transformation, Trojanowicz quotes Saul Alinsky, the extreme Marxist change agent of the ‘60’s who authored Rules for Radicals. Alinsky proposed “we begin viewing community through the prism of issues (Issues=problems=crisis= conflict) which, in essence, constitutes the most urgent kind of community of interest.”

“What community policing does is put an officer in daily face-to-face contact with the community, so that he or she can have the input of the community in setting priorities. Unlike police programs of the past where police administrators or so-called community leaders set the police agenda, the community policing movement encourages average citizens to become involved.”

Formerly, the police administrators were accountable to the elected officials who were accountable to the voters (representative democracy). This new paradigm that Trojanowicz describes is exactly what Marxist George Lukacs termed “participatory democracy” and is nothing more than the Soviet style council. The United States Constitution was the law of the land (absolute authority) restraining government intrusion into the rights of the individual. The framers designed it to insulate the private realm (the individual) from the public realm (government). Allow me to repeat Lukacs:

“The institutions in socialist society which act as the facilitators between the public and private realms are the Soviets.”

By practicing the dialectic, we are removing the only barrier between a tyrannical government and the private citizen. Your neighborhood cop is now that facilitator, the Soviet. Why a police officer?

“In the role of the community ombudsman/liaison (i.e. facilitator), the community policing officer also acts as the community’s link to other agencies. The police are the only governmental agency open 24 hours a day, which makes them the ideal public agent to begin regenerating community spirit.”

The Soviet:

1. A Diverse Group
2. Dialoging to Consensus
3. Over a Social Issue
4. In a Facilitated Meeting
5. To a Predetermined Outcome

Conclusion:

Useful idiots?

When Lenin was consolidating the Bolshevik revolution, he wrote how he would implement the communist bureaucracy without hardcore Marxist believers. While the elite rulers of his inner circle understood the structure he was building, Lenin said he would exploit the natural vanity and ambition of people to forward his agenda without them knowing what they were really doing. Eager to gain his favor and to enhance their political careers, they would fall all over themselves trying to promote his agenda. He called these types of people “useful Idiots.” Before you brand every police officer you see as an undercover Marxist, understand that most of them comprehend little of what they are participating in. In reality, most officers intuitively know that something is wrong in their organization, but they play the game rather than risk damaging their career. Sadly, they constitute a vast army of “useful idiots.”

I’m all for ‘promoting mutual trust” and “cooperation between the people and the police” and “empowering neighborhoods.” These “positive social changes” are the selling points for Community Policing. But in reality, those appealing ideals camouflage the vehicle of Marxist change.

Who asked the citizenry if they wanted their communities “transformed” and their government “reinvented”? Who asked parents if they wanted their children to learn with their feelings instead of learning facts? Who asked your local police officers if they wanted their beliefs and attitudes manipulated? No one asked because if someone did, they would have been run out of town. Instead, using dialectic-reasoning skills, they have schemed to seduce, deceive and manipulate every community in the land into a utopian vision of so-called “unity in diversity.” These social engineers have no intention of taking America back to individual conscience within the family structure in order to preserve domestic peace and tranquility. That would mean a return to recognizing and submitting to the higher Authority. This “vision” has failed wherever it has been tried. By participating in the dialectic, we have deified human reason; traded in God and truth for relative values and consensus; and abandoned individual liberty and inalienable rights for the common good and diversity. In the final analysis, we are destined for Totalitaria, and worse, the loss of our souls.

The terms “communism,” “socialism,” “Marxism,” “New World Order,” etc., may be worn out and abandoned. The names change, because deception is one of the rules of the game. Many erroneously believe that the cold war is over and that we actually won. But the revolution is still very much alive and America is losing. The culture war is raging in our schools, our workplaces, our media and our churches. Antonio Gramsci would be very pleased if he could see just how effective his strategy has been.

“The Beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom, and whatever you get, get insight.” (Proverbs 4:7)

“We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” (Hosea 4:6)

© 2001 Phil Worts – All Rights Reserved

The Psychiatric Reprisal

The Psychiatric Reprisal

What it is

This was a practice first identified as being used in the former Soviet Union. Targets of this practice were misdiagnosed as mentally ill, many were placed in state run psychiatric facilities.

Thousands upon thousands of individuals were targeted and systemically eliminated this way before the practice was brought to light and drew international attention.

The primary targets of this practice were dissidents, activists, those who tried to exercise their rights, or who wrote or published items that the state did not approve of. Those practicing freedom of religion. Also those who practiced minority or ethnic rights.

The practice was brought to the attention of the United Nations in 1969, and brought some condemnation in 1974, but this did little to change what was happening. The practice continued. It was only in 1991 when change was happening on the world stage, that the issue was again examined in more depth and the practice seems to have diminished.

Russia is not the only country to have used this practice. The practice was also heavily used in China as well. They also used this as a way of dealing with political dissidence.

What was interesting about the research into this practice is the idea that a whole field of professionals can become corrupted and misguided in their views. Believing that any form of dissidence is a mental illness.

She could not sleep that night, and became increasingly worried during subsequent months as more instructions from Moscow appeared on her desk. They were unusual, and what was worse, they confirmed her fears of that very first night: The author, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, was not normal. Actually, he was ill, clearly suffering from what was widely known in Soviet psychiatry as “sluggish schizophrenia.” And indeed, Gorbachev had all the symptoms: struggle for the truth, perseverance, reformist ideas, and willingness to go against the grain. My interlocutor continued to believe in her diagnosis until the Soviet Union collapsed and the windows to the world were opened wide. Only then did she realize that her concept of mental illness, shared by virtually all the approxi-mately 45,000 Soviet psychiatrists, was what was abnormal and that Gorbachev had been normal all along.

2

What is frightening is the realization of how indoctrinated these health professionals were. That they so implicitly believed the propaganda of what the state taught them to, and were willing to turn this indoctrination on innocent citizens. Just like some of the Nazi’s in Germany, many were following what they had been told or taught to do.

The overwhelming multitude of Soviet psychiatrists either had never participated in the political abuse of psychiatry, had tried to avoid being trapped by authorities into taking part, or had no idea that they were hospitalizing people who according to international standards were in perfect mental health—if such a thing exists. They followed thee criteria that they had been taught by a monopolized psychiatric educational system that was dominated by the Moscow School headed by Professor Snezhnevsky. They had been cut off from international psychiatry and had no knowledge of what their colleagues in the outside, “bourgeois” world believed. If any information trickled through, it was immediately seen as an offspring of degenerated bourgeois societies.

2

Many times we like to view these individuals as evil. Denizens of the state who cruelly and unconscionably tortured and falsely inprisioned innocent citizens, but what history is repeatedly showing time and again is that things are often not the cut and dried. These psychiatrist in many cases apparently did not realise the evil that they were doing. They in many cases were following a criteria, a set of standards laid out for them, by a governing body, and anyone who fell into specific criterias, were automatically labelled mentally ill.

They were part of a society in which private initiative, independent thinking, and going against the grain were, at the least, considered dangerous and were often branded criminal. They were part of a society that was taught that anybody who was different, both in thought and in appearance, was “not normal” and thereby almost inherently was “antisocial” and “antisocialist.” When combined with the theories of “sluggish schizophrenia,” this training made it very easy to convince rankand-file psychiatrists, who had only a Soviet education and no access to world psychiatry, that any person who went against the Communist Party and was willing to risk the happiness of both his family and himself had to be mentally ill.

2

These professional had a limited lens by which to judge, and so they went with what they had been taught, they followed the guidelines without question, and placed people into categories based on predetermined criterias. Could the same pattern be re-emerging in other societies? Could these same patterns be happening in democratic countries? Could health professionals also be following a set of criteria, and misdiagnosing perfectly healthy individuals as mentally unwell, schizophrenic, without having ever met them face to face, based solely on predetermined criteria?

Dissidents were held for observation in the fourth (“political”) department, and in most cases mental illness was the eventual diagnosis—almost invariably accompanied by a diagnosis of “sluggish schizophrenia.” When the investigative commission reviewed the files, the retired psychiatrist recognized many names under the diagnoses: former colleagues, sometimes friends, known to her as good professionals. The diagnoses were composed as though she had written them herself: the same style, the same terminology, and probably the same conclusions. Yet when the commission subsequently examined the 60 former victims in person, she was shocked, devastated.

2

What is really scary is how these diagnosis were handed out and delivered. By her own admission this psychiatrist would likely have put many of these individuals away, yet in person they still remained healthy fully functioning individuals, even after years of surviving the Soviet hell that they were put through.

As I said earlier, after the fall of the Soviet regime we found that the truth about Soviet psychiatry was even more horrific than we had imagined. The political abuse of psychiatry was only the tip of the iceberg. The Soviet regime had ostracized any person who was not productive, who did not fulfill the image of the healthy socialist person laboring for the common good—the radiant communist future.

2

Could these same criteria be slowly getting implemented in many democratic societies? Could this same agenda be making it’s way to the west? Will the citizens of the western world soon experience what their counter parts in the former Soviet Union did? A systemic abuse of power that targets 1 in 3 political prisoners?. A practice that touched possibly millions of innocent lives?

Approximately one in three political prisoners were held in psychiatric hospitals rather than in camps and prisons. Yet, the thousands of victims of these political abuses form only the tip of the iceberg of millions of Soviet citizens who fell victim to totalitarian Soviet psychiatry.

2

The American Psychiatric Association is said to be writing it’s soon to be updated version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and the criteria for mental illness might surprise some individuals.

The Psychiatric Reprisal Part 1 part 2 and 3.

Part 2

Named: People who become very angry, like Mr. T in the A Team, could have ‘intermittent explosive disorder’

Do you live surrounded by clutter – ancient copies of magazines, your children’s old toys, articles you’ve clipped out of newspapers over the years?

If you find it hard to throw out things of limited or no value, you could be suffering from hoarding disorder.

‘Hoarding’ is just one of the new mental conditions being added to the psychiatrists’ bible, or the Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM), to give it its proper name.

Other new conditions identified as possibly needing professional help include binge eating – which is said to affect many people who are seriously obese – and ‘cognitive tempo disorder’, which seems very like laziness (symptoms include dreaminess and sluggishness).

There’s also ‘intermittent explosive disorder’, which involves occasionally becoming very angry suddenly.

Most bizarre of the proposed additions is one defined as ‘getting a thrill at being outraged by pornography’.

3

It seems that those in the western world who do not fall in line and follow the norms that the society prescribes as normal, could soon be in for an experience similar to that of the former Soviet Union.

Childhood temper tantrums, teenage irritability and binge eating may soon rate as psychiatric disorders in the US, according to proposed changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the bible of the psychiatric profession.

4

Things like childhood temper tantrums, teenage angst, and binge eating, might in today’s society be unpopular, but are they worthy of being classified as signs of mental illness and possibly being drugged away?

Proposed changes to the U.S. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) could include reclassifying childhood temper tantrums, teenage angst, and binge eating as psychiatric disorders. If accepted, the proposals could equal billions of dollars in new revenue for pharmaceutical companies.

5

Is being antisocial really a sign of mental illness? Are these laws just designed to target those who do not fit into a future state agenda?

The new edition may include “disorders” like “oppositional defiant disorder”, which includes people who have a pattern of “negativistic, defiant, disobedient and hostile behavior toward authority figures.” Some of the “symptoms” of this disorder including losing one’s temper, annoying people and being “touchy”.

Other “disorders” being considered include personality flaws like antisocial behavior, arrogance, cynicism or narcissism. There are even categories for people who binge eat and children who have temper tantrums.

Children are already over-diagnosed for allegedly being bipolar or having attention-deficit disorder (ADD), which results in their being prescribed dangerous antipsychotic drugs. To categorize even more childhood behaviors as psychiatric disorders will only further increase the number of children who will be needlessly prescribed antipsychotic drugs.

6

Is western society slowly implementing many of the same criteria that allowed Soviet psychiatrists to label many healthy individuals as mentally ill, just by following a criteria and trying to lump everyone into those criteria, and weeding out the ones who do not fit?

The APA panel is also suggesting adding a new condition category to DSM called “risk syndromes”. People who are suspected to potentially be at risk for developing a mental disorder but do not yet have one would be deemed as having “psychosis risk syndrome”. This category would include teenagers who exhibit “excessive suspicion, delusions and disorganized speech or behavior,” for example.

The APA made it clear that its goal with the revisions is to diagnose people as early as possible with mental disorders, even before they actually have them, in order to get them on treatment.

6

If these risk syndromes are added to the new update, then you could be dealt with not for having a mental disorder, but just for having a factor that puts you at risk of having a mental disorder. You could be in treatment for just being suspected of potentially being at risk for developing a mental disorder.

“It not only determines how mental disorders are diagnosed, it can impact how people see themselves and how we see each other,” Alan Schatzberg, president of the American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the guide, told reporters. “It influences how research is conducted as well as what is researched. It affects legal matters, industry and government programmes.”

4

Might such factors already be affecting how we interact with each other? How we view each other? Are these criteria or similar being used to falsely diagnose individuals in western society as having a mental illness when they do not?

Cases

In the article giving workers the treatment, Peter Downs cites several cases of workers who complained and then were asked to see a psychiatrist. This is happening at thousands upon thousands of workplaces in many democratic societies. A condition of continued employment might even be based on such a forced encounter.

The first case sited in the article is that of Norm Crosty

On October 5, 1998, Norm Crosty sent a letter to the labor relationsdepartment at his plant. Crosty, for thirteen years an electrician at Ford Motor Company’s Wixom, Michigan, assembly plant, complained that he could not do his job because so many of his bosses were taking the necessary equipment out of the plant to work on their homes or personal businesses.

The next day, the plant director of human resources invoked a Ford program for combating workplace violence to bar Crosty from the factory and ordered him to see a company-paid psychiatrist or lose his job.

7

In this case for making what was a very legitimate claim, the worker was not only barred from his place of employment, but was ordered to see a psychiatrist. The ford program for combating workplace violence, most likely falls under the occupational health and safety laws that have been used to target others.

A little more than fourteen months later, and 725 miles away, officials at Emory University cited a similar concern about violence to justify using armed guards to escort Dr. James Murtagh off university property when Dr. R. Wayne Alexander, chairman of the department of medicine at Emory, ordered him to see a company-selected psychiatrist or lose his job. Six weeks earlier, Murtagh, a professor of pulmonology at Emory, had filed a false claims suit against the university, alleging that it had misspent millions of dollars in federal grant money.

7

It seems that members of society who complain, blow the whistle, or assert their rights at work, are being targeted under these health and safety provisions. The laws were originally put in place to protect the rights of workers who have the right to a safe work environment, but it seems that they are increasingly used to silence those who continue to complain, blow the whistle, or file complaints. Many targets of workplace mobbing, who complain about it, or get angry about it, seem to be having warning markers or notifications placed on their files often without their knowledge or awareness.

Across the United States, companies have seized upon concerns about workplace violence to quash dissent. Hundreds of large corporations have hired psychiatrists and psychologists as consultants to advise them on how to weed out “threatening” employees. They say they are only responding to a 1970 directive from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration that they maintain a “safe and secure work environment.” But by drawing the definition of “threatening” as broadly as possible, they are giving themselves a new club to bang over the heads of workers.

Maria Buffa, a former salaried employee in the personnel department at Ford World Headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan, said she, too, was sent to a psychiatrist after she filed a sexual harassment complaint in February 1999 against a woman co-worker. “You think, maybe I am the problem, else why would they be sending me to a psychiatrist,”

7

This pattern of the state using psychiatrists to follow a set of diagnostic markers to access workers remotely, often without interviewing the workers is very similar to the pattern that was happening in the former Soviet Union, which allowed many innocent individuals to be falsely misdiagnosed.

As you might expect, the Postal Service, given its reputation for workplace violence, has bought into the psychiatric testing. Last September, Postal Service executives proposed to give line supervisors the right to order emergency psychiatric exams for employees who are argumentative. Unionists say this will jeopardize their ability to represent their members. ”

Albanese admits there are some people who clearly need help, but he says the Postal Service has so broadened its definition of events that can trigger a mandatory exam that “it is very easy to tie someone up in that psychiatric situation.” According to the APWU, “The following is a list of factors that a supervisor can consider when deciding whether or not to send an employee for a fitness-for-duty exam: significant increases in unscheduled absences, increased bathroom use, changes in behavior or work performance after lavatory or lunch breaks, deterioration in personal hygiene and/or cleanliness of the work location, inattention to work duties and progressive deterioration in concentration and memory, [and] threatening behavior. Supervisors can also impose emergency fitness-for-duty exams if an employee becomes argumentative, or shows an unusual interest in news stories or literature dealing with violence.”

7

These could be people who also just do not enjoy their jobs very much. Unscheduled absences, increased bathroom use, changes in behavior or workplace performance. How many workplaces implement unpopular changes which drive some workers away from their normal job functions, or make the regular job functions so unbearable that they just do not wish to be in the environment? Lot’s of companies do, thus many individuals at one point in their lives or another might fall into this criteria.

The web site for Michael H. Corcoran, Ph.D. & Associates, Inc., for example, asks: “Will the expert you consult be willing to render an opinion of dangerousness and be willing to put it in writing?” and “Will the expert be willing to do this without interviewing the subject personally?”

Some psychiatrists in the field doubt that any reliable judgment can be made without interviewing the subject.

7

Yet it seems that in the case of many individuals that is exactly what is happening. People are being assessed remotely, and yes some psychiatrists are diagnosing patients as mentally ill, schizophrenic, etc. They are then having warning markers placed on their files, placing them on notification lists, they are then subsequently followed around and harassed by the community at large. A practice that the Targeted Individual community has come to call and classify as Gang Stalking.

Speaking for himself, he says it is possible to tell if a worker is likely to become violent on the job, but not with 100 percent accuracy. But, he insists, “it will require more than just one session with the worker, and it will also require information from other sources close to the patient, including relatives, acquaintances in the neighborhood, work, etc.” If a psychiatrist is evaluating someone who is already on the job, he says, “one measure to prevent mistakes is to require a second opinion. That would give the individual the option to appeal and have his or her own evaluator.”

Unionists are skeptical of the objectivity of the psychiatrists the companies use. “We call them prostitutes, because they will write whatever the Postal Service wants them to,” says Shirley McLennan, vice president of APWU Local 4 in Louisville, Kentucky, of the doctors who do fitness-for-duty exams.

7

What if the information is coming from hostile other sources, such as jealous neighbours, or even distant neighbours, hostile co-workers, and family who immediately assume that their relatives are mentally ill, just based on the criteria of being interviewed about wither their relative could be mentally ill?

Donald Soeken, a former U.S. Public Health Service psychiatric social worker who used to be in charge of giving fitness-for-duty exams, says the psychiatric exams almost always are shams. “The doctor will go into all the areas that could discredit a person,” Soeken says. “He’ll ask early life questions, late life questions, sexual questions, whatever he wants to ask, and then write it up and give it to the boss or law firm. Any doctor worth his salt will find something wrong, or even make up something, and if you don’t answer one of his questions, then you are uncooperative and you can be fired for that, too. What they are trying to do is put a person out on a psychiatric disability. If they succeed, you would never work again in your lifetime.”

Soeken is sometimes called the father of the fight against abusive fitness-for-duty exams. While doing such exams for federal employees at the Public Health Service’s outpatient clinic in Washington, D.C., in 1978, he discovered that many of the people sent to him were either whistleblowers or people who had a personality clash with the boss. The employer making the referrals expected him to give them the ammunition to get rid of employees for mental health reasons.

7

Though not the exact same as being sent off to a Soviet Union state mental health facility, this practice could render a worker unable to work again. It could render a worker unfit to stay gainfully employed because they choose to blow the whistle, or had a disagreement with the boss. This practice in American society has been in place since at least the 1970, and similar practices are in other democratic countries.

After leaving the Public Health Service in 1994, Soeken established Integrity International to assist whistleblowers in the private sector. Since then, he has testified as an expert witness in seventy psychiatric reprisal lawsuits. Soeken warns anyone who will listen not to trust the company psychiatrist.

“If you assume the doctor is concerned about your health and well-being, you’ve made a deadly assumption,” he says. “They are looking for any phrase or evidence they can use against you to stereotype you as schizophrenic, paranoid, or delusional.”

7

This is why individuals who have never seen a mental health professional can be classified as delusional, schizophrenic, paranoid, etc, without ever having had a mental health exam. This can be done remotely. Remember this is not happening in the former Soviet Union, this is not happening in China, this is happening in democratic countries. America, Canada, The U.K., and many other democratic countries. Along with many none democratic countries.

Tom Devine, legal director for the Government Accountability Project. Often, another goal is to smear and discredit the employee. That, he said, is why psychiatric harassment “is unsurpassed in its ugliness.”

In Crosty’s case, a notice on the company bulletin board announced he had been expelled from the plant for psychiatric reasons. “It was very demeaning,” says Crosty. With the help of an attorney, and after he was cleared by four different psychiatrists, he got his job back, but “I was totally discredited as some kind of kook and wacko,” he says.

In Murtagh’s case, administrators at Emory “spread a rumor that he could be armed and dangerous, and a terrorist threat,” says Devine, whose organization has taken up Murtagh’s defense.

7

These practicies are being used across democratic workplaces, educational facilities, and other areas of society. These practices are being used on unsuspecting members of society. It’s being used to discriminate, silence, and destroy the lives on many innocent individuals. In addition to fit for duty exams, warning markers are being placed on files, citizens are being declared as having mental illnesses, in many cases without having ever been assessed by a health professional, and even if they are assessed, there is no guarantee of a fair assessment, in some cases these health professionals are going on rumours and hearsay of the administration that wants to have the worker removed from their job.

Based on this criteria it’s easy for the system to not only be abused by Employers, but also by employees who wish to get away with harassing fellow coworkers. Eg. If an employee complains too much, files a complaint, they can be placed on a notification system. If other employees go to Human Resources with complaints about an employee, reports are gathered together. The information is forwarded from Human Resources, and then to the Occupational Health and Safety team members who can be made up of a number of internal employees, plus a number of outside employers. Some workplaces and universities even have a special threat assessment team to determine if a worker could become a danger to themselves or others.

Employees and Educational facilities can recommend that a worker seek psychiatric assistance, or even use the Employee Assistance Program if one is in place, but in many cases they can not force an employee to undergo an assessment, what they can do instead is they can add a warning marker to an employees file. Using the occupational health and safety, workplace violence prevention laws, they can add a warning marker without the individuals knowledge. Once a warning marker is added, which could say a variety of things, including that the subject has displayed violent behaviours, might be suffering from mental health issues, etc. A notification is sent out to everyone in the targets environment, under the guise of protecting the community.

What community notifications really do is poison the targets environment, and often not only socially annexing the target, but opening the target to unspeakable harassment by the community at large. These notifications are in many cases treated the same way notifications about violent offenders and other predators are treated, it puts the community into a frenzy, and the target is treated as a pariah in many cases.

Once the community receive the notification, they often start to monitor and follow the target around. Many will even gaslight the target and other subtle, and not so subtle forms of harassment in an attempt to remove the target from the environment. Thus Gang Stalking is also referred to as community mobbing, taken to the extreme. This practice not only disrupts the life of the target, it’s fully capable of destroying the targets life. Because the notifications are systemic, they follow the target everywhere they go, every new job that they apply for, every new association that the target tries to form is poisoned by these notifications.

In the case of Damon Thompson he reports having made many complaints of harassment by both student and staff alike. Though he did not receive any help, student affairs reports that he was known to them. In cases similar to his, what has been known to happen to others is that the continued complaints about staff and students is not used as a learning opportunity to address mobbing on campus, or in the workplace, but is used to classify the person complaining and seeking help as mentally unwell. In similar cases, targets have had files opened, and been placed on notifications, which then increases the level of harassment the target experiences. Then due to the notification, further complaints by the target are treated as a sign of mental illness, rather than a cry for help, as they are further targeted in their environment.

Damon Thompson became violent and attacked a fellow student. He was arrested, and will likely go to jail. The fellow student he attacked a Katherine Rosen who did recover, but reports from an overseas paper report that he had made several complaints against her in the past. When the U.S. media reported the same story, they reported it as an unprovoked attack, and said that the student had just snapped for no apparent reason.

sources close to him and his family indicated that prior to this incident he had made countless complaints against classmates and this specific lab partner but with no results. Contrary to US media reports, Thompson did know Rosen who was his lab partner and who has been very offensive to him on previous occasions and even the day in question. Now UCLA in an attempt to shift blame away from itself has sought to discredit the mental stability of Thompson by using his many complaints by e-mail as an indication of instability.

But according to KTLA news, a professor who taught Thompson said he told a university administrator he was worried about the student’s mental health 10 months ago. UCLA history professor Stephen Frank, who taught him Western civilization late last year admits that Thompson sent him several emails complaining that classmates sitting around him had been disruptive and made offensive comments to him while he was taking a written exam and even accused the Professor of taunting him.

8

What many individuals are unaware of is that the very act of seeking out aid and assistance for workplace mobbing, or harassment, can be used against the person complaining to make it seem as if they are mentally unstable.

One e-mail stated “I believe I heard you, Professor Frank, say that I was ‘troubled’ and ‘crazy’ among other things,” Thompson wrote. “My outrage at this situation coupled with the pressure of the very weighted examination dulled my concentration and detracted from my performance.”

Frank said he was present during the entire exam, that Thompson sat in the front row and that he saw nothing to support the student’s complaints. Frank said he was told that other professors had reported similar exchanges with Thompson, who complained he was taunted by other students — in class, the dorms, dining areas and the library. A university official told Frank that he could only suggest that Thompson seek treatment, but they couldn’t require him to seek psychological help. “My concern was in the context of other violent incidents on campuses around the country,” Frank said.

Sources close to his family explain that Thompson frequently spoke with his mother and complained about the many things student had done to him and the names he was called even by the female students. However, they explain that the problem had to be extreme for Thompson to have reacted so violently

8

It seems that in some democratic countries similar psychiatric reprisal practices have been in place for the last 40 years or more. While many were pointing the finger at countries such as the former Soviet Union and China, many democratic countries were subtle implementing policies, practices, and procedures that were almost as harsh as those practices in none democratic countries. It seems for the last few decades the occupational health and safety laws have been used in a way similar to how the laws were used in the former Soviet Union. As early the 70’s there were reports of these laws being used to target whistleblowers and those who did not get along with their boss.

For change to happen and the abuses within the system to stop, the media, must be willing to report the abuses, like they were when these abuses happened in other countries. Society must wake up to the reality that we are using occupational health and safety laws, not always to protect society, but to target dissenting voices in many cases. To target those who are different, those who stand out, those who are still willing to complain, or fight for what they believe in.

With the future changes to the DSM rules and regulations, democratic countries could well wittingly or unwittingly be exactly where the former Soviet Union was just a few short years ago. Targeting perfectly sane, perfectly healthy productive members of society and declaring them as mentally ill to fit an a state and corporate agendas. A society where everyone is the same is not a creative, productive, or forward momentum society and eventually such societies do not remain productive for very long. The people just loose the will, when everyone is the same. When everyone is forced to think the same, act the same, and individuality, eccentricities, or differences are legislated, medicated, or socialized away.

1. http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=d242g51470r84388&size=largest

2. http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/reprint/30/1/131.pdf

3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1251309/Psychiatrists-want-angry-mental-illness-How-utterly-mad.html#ixzz0p5GCoaKQ

4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/10/diagnostic-statistical-manual-proposals
5. http://www.naturalnews.com/028762_children_disorders.html

6. http://www.naturalnews.com/028803_psychiatry_disease.html

7. http://www.harassment101.com/Article5.html

8. http://www.guardian.bz/component/content/article/53-headlines/842-belizean-stude%20nt-at-ucla-facing-attempted-murder-charges

Synthetic telepathy also known as techlepathy or psychotronics

The following article is an entry that appeared on Wikipedia. Within the last 24 hours a major “edit war” broke out and it appeared, at least to me, that the information was being suppressed. The article goes into depth about a field of espionage that employs a technology known as “silent sound” or “Synthetic telepathy”. If you’re interested in high tech espionage, this makes for a very good read.
Synthetic telepathy

Synthetic telepathy also known as techlepathy or psychotronics – is a term used to describe the process in brain-computer interfaces by which human thought (as electromagnetic radiation) is intercepted, processed by computer and a return signal generated that is perceptible by the human brain. (ref 1,2,3,4)

==History==
In 1967, Edmond M. Dewan published a paper in Nature demonstrating the control of Alpha waves, turning them on and off, to produce Morse code. (ref 5) Using an EEG machine, Dewan and his fellow researchers were able to send words and phrases by thought alone.

In 1976, Robert G. Malech was awarded United States Patent 3951134 for remotely monitoring and altering brainwaves using radio.(ref 6) This patent makes reference to demodulating the waveform, displaying it to an operator for viewing and passing this to a computer for further analysis.

In 1988, Farwell, L.A. & Donchin, D. produced a paper describing a method of transmitting linguistic information using the P300 response system. (ref 7) This system combined matching observed information to what the subject was thinking of. In this case, being able to select a letter from the alphabet that the subject was thinking of. In theory, any input could be used and a lexicon constructed.

United States Patent 6,011,991, granted January 4, 2000, describes a method of monitoring an individual’s brain waves remotely, for the purposes of communication. Filed December 7, 1998, the patent outlines a system that monitors an individual’s brainwaves via a sensor, then transmits this, specifically by satellite, to a computer for analysis. This analysis would determine if the individual was attempting to communicate a “word, phrase, or thought corresponding to the matched stored normalized signal”.(ref 8)

==Theory==
Approaches to synthetic telepathy can be categorized into two major groups, passive and active. Like sonar, the receiver can take part or passively listen.

Passive reception is the ability to “read” a signal without first broadcasting a signal. This can be roughly equated to tuning into a radio station, the brain generates electromagnetic radiation which can be received at a distance. That distanced is determined by the sensitivity of the receiver, the filters used and the bandwidth required. Most universities would have limited budgets and receivers such as EEG (and similar devices) would be used. A related military technology is the surveillance system TEMPEST, the effective range of which is classified. (ref 9) Given that US Congress attempted to enact a bill in Oct 2001 banning these type of devices as “space weapons”, (ref 10) may indicate that fluctuations in the human magnetic field can be intercepted by satellite.

Robert G. Malech’s approach requires a modulated signal to be broadcast at the target. The method uses an active signal which is interfered with by the brain’s modulation. Thus, the return signal can be used to infer the original brainwave. This approach does expose the transmitter, but is ultimately required for generating return signals that can be processed by the brain.

The research of Farwell, L.A. & Donchin, D, is the first public revelation that could lead to a generic lexicon being developed, however, this is implied in the work of Robert G. Malech in 1976.

==Current research==

Current research, as of 2010, is being driven by military for “covert speech”, however, given that much of this is unclassified, it would suggest that the bulk of the research was performed much earlier and dedicated to the field of intelligence gathering during the cold war. Additional reports suggest that a version is deployed in combat zones to demoralize enemy troops and a smaller number of reports indicate a potential use to undermine governments and cause public unrest. (ref 11, 12)

Today, the driving force appears to be silent communication with battlefield troops. A mere $4 million was provided to DARPA for the fiscal year 2009/2010 to develop such a system called “Silent Talk”. (ref 13) Much of the research is being conducted at The Cognitive NeuroSystems Lab at UC Irvine. (ref 14)

A further $4 million was allocated by the Army to the University of California to investigate computer-mediated “synthetic telepathy”.(ref 15) The research aims to detect and analyze the word-specific neural signals, using EEG, which occur before speech is vocalized, and to see if the patterns are generalizable. (ref 16) The research is part of a wider $70 million project that began in 2000 which aims to develop hardware capable of adapting to the behavior of its user.(ref 17)

Quite apart from linguistic information, images have been extracted from the brain. Researchers at Japan’s ATR Computational Neuroscience Laboratories have been able to reconstruct images that a subject can currently see. The ultimate goal of the unclassified project is to view both retinal and imagined images in real-time, including dreams. (ref 18)

==Computer mediation==

Computer mediation falls into two basic categories, interpretative and interactive.

Interpretative mediation is the passive analysis of signals coming from the human brain. A computer “reads” the signal then compares that signal against a database of signals and their meanings. Using statistical analysis and repetition, false-positives are reduced over time.

Interactive mediation can be in a passive-active mode, or active-active mode. In this case, passive and active denote the method of reading and writing to the brain and whether or not they make use of a broadcast signal. Interactive mediation can also be performed manually or via artificial intelligence.

Manual interactive mediation involves a human operator producing return signals such as speech or images. A.I. mediation leverages the cognitive system of the subject to identify images, pre-speech, objects, sounds and other artifacts, rather than developing A.I. routines to perform such activities. A.I. based systems may incorporate natural language processing interfaces that produce sensations, mental impressions, humor and conversation to provide a mental picture of a computerized personality. Not only can this A.I hold a conversation via the internal monologue but it may also perform routing of information to and from specific groups or individuals. This provides a broad range of potential applications from acting as a communications system to conducting interrogations.

This latter form is currently being researched at UC Irvine for an unclassified US military project. (ref 19) Given the high value to espionage and counter-terrorism, it is likely that such a system is already deployed in a classified manner.

==Military uses==

In a military context, the first obvious uses is to both read and write information to the internal monologue. This provides two major areas of interest, the first being two-way communication for field agents and the second is the intelligence gathering and interrogation. A fundamental problem arises when using the system for communication purposes, in that, it is impossible to authenticate the source of the transmission. Synthetic telepathy has limited uses as a communication system unless direct-contact headset systems are used and supported by encrypted channels. As such, standard radios are more effective in combat situations. Synthetic telepathy also requires the thought stream to be processed which results in a minor lapse of attention, rather like a daydream, that could have deadly consequences on the battlefield.

With respect to intelligence gathering and interrogations, synthetic telepathy has a wide range of drawbacks and limitations. Contrary to popular belief, synthetic telepathy does not provide the ability to read a person’s mind or memories. What it does provide is the ability to read the internal monologue (or anything that causes electrical change/radiation) and the trick is to get the subject to “voice” their memories and cross-reference that with their emotional state. In other words, basic psychological manipulation is a key factor and makes the technology not much more reliable than a standard lie-detector test. In practice, passive monitoring of the internal monologue over a long time period (months-years) is probably the most effective method of intelligence gathering.

The capability to put a person into a state of hypnosis is often touted by conspiracy theorists. In actual fact, the suggestive capabilities of synthetic telepathy use a different mechanism, basic impulses and sensations. This is merely a different form of writing to the brain. To formulate thought, the brain has a pipeline through which information is processed. (ref 20) At its most basic, impulses guide human behavior and manipulation of these impulses provides a strategic advantage in both combat and political situations. By altering the motivational factors of a target subject or group, it makes it easier to guide their higher level decision making processes.

Crowd or riot control can be achieved by generating impulses that are essentially common to all humans, resulting in the dispersion of crowds or a willingness to co-operate with authorities. This type of synthetic telepathy is arguably a political tool as it suppresses dissent. (ref 21)

Amnesia (retrograde and anterograde) can be induced as any active signal is essentially interferring with normal operations of the brain. Thus, transfer from shortterm to longterm memory can be inhibited. (ref 22) Vision and auditory systems could also be compromised, as with any neural processing system, corruption of the inputs would result in halucinations, much like the effects of LSD. With a proper interface to such regions, events such as “alien abductions” or “seeing God” could be faked quite readily and “mental illness” used as a cover for the extraction of information. (ref 23, 24, 25)

==Silent Sound Spread Spectrum (SSSS/S-Quad)==

ITV News Service, in March 1991, produced a report of ultrasound piggybacked on a commercial radio broadcast (100Mhz) aimed at entraining the brains of Iraqi troops and creating feelings of despair. (ref 26) This has been related to United States Patent 5,159,703 awarded to Oliver M. Lowery which refers to a “silent communications system in which nonaural carriers, in the very low or very high audio frequency range or in the adjacent ultrasonic frequency spectrum, are amplitude or frequency modulated with the desired intelligence and propagated acoustically or vibrationally, for inducement into the brain, typically through the use of loudspeakers, earphones or piezoelectric transducers.”(ref 27)

Human hearing is roughly in the range of 20Hz-20,000Hz (20 kHz), although a human adult will lose the ability to hear the higher ranges as they grow older. In addition, most cheap radios have a limited frequency response range (ref 28) that will be unable to reproduce silent sound as encoded originally making it ineffective.

As such, an alternative explanation for the effectiveness of S-Quad is provided in human biology:

1. Cells amplifying radio signals at certain frequencies.
2. Cells can demodulate voice on a basic carrier wave.

This is not as strange as it seems, it has been noted for a long time that fillings, or dental braces, can result in radio stations being heard in the mouth of an individual. (ref 29)

==Mind control==

Conspiracy theory and popular science fiction would have the world believe that the human mind can be remotely controlled. That individuals can be turned into mindless automatons and directly controlled by computers to produce sleepers or assassins. (ref 30) The reality is much less clear.

Interfacing remotely to write to the brain is performed using electrical interference rather like crosstalk (electronics). (ref 31) Much like a drill next to a television, the interference pattern is processed by the brain as information, a variant which induces sensations and feelings is known as Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. (ref 32) As such, an externally generated monologue will be weaker than the internal monologue of the target subject due to a lesser signal strength. An over-powering signal would interrupt a wide range of neural functions that could impact critical autonomic systems resulting in death.

Two possible methods exist that could result in an individual killing another through the use of synthetic telepathy. The first is to leverage the natural behavior of the target subject, that is, use an individual who would kill another. The second is to induce psychotic symptoms and diminish their mental control (ref 33, 34) In both cases, the underlying mechanics are the same, to provide impulses and sensations that urge the individual to commit murder. This is not hypnosis, but merely physiological manipulation without the knowledge of the target.

Another area of interest and arguably more feasible, is the manipulation of political figures. (ref 35)Thoughts, sensations and impulses can be combined to influence political and personal decision making processes. A similar process can be used to effect the population at large to drive agendas or to maintain power for certain groups, undermining free will and self-expression. (ref 36) As the technology matures and expands to regimes throughout the globe, this will be a major source of concern for governments world-wide.

Finally, we come to the area of interrogations which can be conducted remotely whilst an individual or groups is conducting their normal daily business. The internet is saturated with such reports (ref 37) and as a possible side-effect is psychosis, it is quite likely that at least some of them are accurate.

==In law==
The term “psychotronic”, short for psycho-electronic ( ref 38) was used in the proposed Bill H.R. 2977 Space Preservation Act of 2001, which listed “psychotronic” as a list of possible spaceborne weapons which would be banned by the Act (ref 39)

In 2001, President Vladimir V. Putin signed into law a bill making it illegal to employ “electromagnetic, infrasound … radiators” and other weapons of “psychotronic influence” with intent to cause harm.

As a completely unnatural event, it is arguable that this type of technology when employed in interrogations would be classified as “cruel or unusual”. Further to this, A.I. mediated events such as mock executions or death threats would also violate the Geneva convention, International law and laws of most nations in the developed world. Counter-claims focusing on National Security would be invalid as criminal activity is, in itself, a gross violation of National Security

The European Parliament adopted a resolution on January 28, 1999[38], 28.1.99 Environment, security and foreign affairs A4-0005/99:

23. Calls on the European Union to seek to have the new ‘non-lethal’ weapons technology and the development of new arms
strategies also covered and regulated by international conventions …

27. Calls for an international convention introducing a global ban on all developments and deployments of weapons which might
enable any form of manipulation of human beings

==In the media==

60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl interviewed Tom Mitchell of Carnegie Mellon University on his work in “Thought Identification” using fMRI. (ref 40) The segment, published Jan. 4, 2009 and available on the CBS website, shows associate producer Meghan Frank having his thoughts identified by computer. (ref 41) The segment shows that a generalizable pattern exists in the human brain that can be used to identify thoughts without training a computer for each individual with 100% accuracy.

==Further reading==
Dr Nick Begich – Controlling the Human Mind, Earth Pulse Press Anchorage – isbn=1-890693-54-5}}
Walter Bowart – http://www.scribd.com/doc/24531011/Operation-Mind-Control
John Marks – In Search of the Manchurian Candidate, publisher WW Norton & Co, 1979, isbn=0-393-30794-8

==References==
1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27162401/ – Army developing ‘synthetic telepathy’
2. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/HealthSci/US_army_developing_synthetic_telepathy/ articleshow/3596708.cms – US army developing synthetic telepathy
3.url= http://io9.com/5038464/army-sinks-millions-into-synthetic-telepathy-research – Army Sinks Millions Into “Synthetic Telepathy” Research
4. http://io9.com/5065304/tips-and-tricks-for-mind-control-from-the-us-military – Tips and Tricks for Mind Control from the US Military
5. http://cnslab.ss.uci.edu/muri/research.html#Dewan – MURI: Synthetic Telepathy
6. http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=3951134&KC=&FT=E – Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brain waves
7. http://cnslab.ss.uci.edu/muri/research.html#FarwellDonchin – MURI: Synthetic Telepathy
8. http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=6011991&KC=&FT=E – Communication system and method including brain wave analysis and/or use of brain activity
9. http://www.sst.ws/tempstandards.php?pab=1_1 – TEMPEST measurement standards
10. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-2977 – Space Preservation Act of 2001
11. http://www.raven1.net/silsoun2.htm – PSY-OPS WEAPONRY USED IN THE PERSIAN GULF WAR}}
12. Wall, Judy, “Military Use of Mind Control Weapons”, NEXUS, 5/06, Oct-Nov 1998
13. Soldier-Telepathy” Drummond, Katie – Pentagon Preps Soldier Telepathy Push – http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/pentagon-preps-soldier-telepathy-push
14. http://cnslab.ss.uci.edu/muri/research.html – MURI: Synthetic Telepathy
15. Soldier-Telepathy” Drummond, Katie – Pentagon Preps Soldier Telepathy Push – http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/pentagon-preps-soldier-telepathy-push
16. Soldier-Telepathy” Drummond, Katie – Pentagon Preps Soldier Telepathy Push – http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/pentagon-preps-soldier-telepathy-push
17. Noah, Shachtman – Pentagon’s PCs Bend to Your Brain – http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/03/the_us_military
18. http://pinktentacle.com/2008/12/scientists-extract-images-directly-from-brain/ – Scientists extract images directly from brain
19. http://cnslab.ss.uci.edu/muri/research.html#Overview – MURI: Synthetic Telepathy -Overview
20. http://cnslab.ss.uci.edu/muri/research.html#ImaginedSpeechProduction – MURI: Synthetic Telepathy
21. http://www.slavery.org.uk/Bioeffects_of_Selected_Non-Lethal_Weapons.pdf -Bioeffects of selected non-lethal weapons
22. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a785359968 – Partial Amnesia for a Narrative Following Application of Theta Frequency Electromagnetic Fields
23. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html – This Is Your Brain on God
24. http://www.charlesrehn.com/charlesrehn/books/aconversationwithamerica/essays/myessays/The%20NSA.doc – The NSA & Synthetic Telepathy
25. http://www.uwe.ac.uk/hlss/research/cpss/Journal_Psycho-Social_Studies/v2-2/SmithC.shtml – Journal of Psycho-Social Studies – Vol 2 (2) 2003 – On the Need for New Criteria of Diagnosis of Psychosis in the Light of Mind Invasive Technology by Dr. Carole Smith
26. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_nonlethalweapons02.htm – Eleanor White – New Devices That ‘Talk’ To The Human Mind Need Debate, Controls
27. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,159,703.PN.&OS=PN/5,159,703&RS=PN/5,159,703 – Silent subliminal presentation system
28. http://www.audioholics.com/education/loudspeaker-basics/understanding-loudspeaker-frequency-response | – Understanding Loudspeaker Frequency Response
29. http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=367925 – Q: Radio signals picked up by tooth fillings
30. http://cbcg.org/gjcs1.htm| – God’s Judgment Cometh Soon
31. http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/6587729.html – Apparatus for audibly communicating speech using the radio frequency hearing effect
32. http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/lpxdts/TMS%20info.html – Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
33. http://www.scribd.com/doc/6508206/SYNTHETIC-TELEPATHY-AND-THE-EARLY-MIND-WARS – SYNTHETIC TELEPATHY AND THE EARLY MIND WARS
34. http://newdawnmagazine.com.au/Article/Brain_Zapping_Part_One.html – Brain Zapping
35. http://genamason.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/more-on-synthetic-telepathy/ – More on synthetic telepathy
36. http://newdawnmagazine.com.au/Article/Brain_Zapping_Part_One.html – Brain Zapping
37. http://daprocess.com/01.welcome.html – DaProcess of A Federal Investigation PG 1 of 4
38. , http://www.uwe.ac.uk/hlss/research/cpss/Journal_Psycho-Social_Studies/v2-2/SmithC.shtml -Journal of Psycho-Social Studies – Vol 2 (2) 2003 – On the Need for New Criteria of Diagnosis of Psychosis in the Light of Mind Invasive Technology by Dr. Carole Smith
39. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-2977 – Space Preservation Act of 2001
40. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/31/60minutes/main4694713.shtml – 60 Minutes: Incredible Research Lets Scientists Get A Glimpse At Your Thoughts
41. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5119805n&tag=related;photovideo – 60 Minutes: Video – Mind Reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_telepathy