by Susan Rosenthal / May 19th, 2008
When you are sick or injured, you want to know what’s wrong and what can be done. You want a diagnosis. A correct diagnosis reveals what is wrong, what is the preferred treatment and what is the likely outcome. For example, a diagnosis of pneumonia indicates a serious lung infection that can usually be cured with antibiotics.
While medical diagnoses are based on science, psychiatric “diagnoses” are not at all scientific. They do not reveal what is wrong, what is the preferred treatment, and what is the likely outcome. Nor are they reliable. Different psychiatrists who examine the same patient typically offer different “diagnoses.” Moreover, psychiatric “diagnoses” move in and out of favor, depending on a variety of social factors.
Psychiatric “diagnosis” is actually a labeling process, where the patient’s symptoms are matched with a grouping of symptoms listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders (DSM). As we shall see, this psychiatric “bible” was developed and is maintained by financial and political interests.1
Who decides what is normal or healthy and what is deviant or sick?
Before the 20th century, life stresses were generally seen as spiritual problems or physical illnesses, and people turned to religious advisors and physicians for help. Medical doctors treated “hysteria” and “nerves” as physical problems. Psychiatry was restricted to the treatment of severely disturbed people in asylums.2 The first classification of psychiatric disorders in the United States appeared in 1918 and contained 22 categories. All but one referred to various forms of insanity.
In 1901, Sigmund Freud revolutionized psychiatry by breaking down the barrier between mental illness and normal behavior. In The Psychopathology of Everyday Life,3 Freud argued that commonplace behaviors — slips of the tongue, what people find humorous, what they forget and the mistakes they make — indicate repressed sexual feelings that lurk beneath the surface of normal behavior.
By linking everyday behavior with mental illness, Freud and his followers released psychiatry from the asylum. Between 1917 and 1970, as psychiatrists cultivated clients with a broad range of problems, the number of psychiatrists practicing outside institutions swelled from eight percent to 66 percent.4
The social movements of the 1960′s opposed psychiatry’s focus on inner conflict and emphasized the social sources of sickness instead. Dr. Alvin Poussaint recalls the 1969 convention of the American Psychiatric Association (APA).
“After multiple racist killings during the civil rights movement, a group of black psychiatrists sought to have murderous bigotry based on race classified as a mental disorder. The APA’s officials rejected that recommendation, arguing that since so many Americans are racist, racism in this country is normative.”5
Growing the industry
In 1980, the APA overhauled the DSM. The Task Force established to create the new manual declared that any disorder could be included,
“If there is general agreement among clinicians, who would be expected to encounter the condition, that there are significant number of patients who have it and that its identification is important in the clinical work it is included in the classification.”6
In other words, the new DSM was not based on science, but on the need to maintain existing patients and include new ones who might seek help for any number of problems. A profitable and self-perpetuating industry was born. The more people could be encouraged to seek treatment, the more conditions could be entered into the DSM, and the more people could be encouraged to seek treatment for these new conditions.
By 1994, the DSM listed 400 distinct mental disorders covering a wide variety of behaviors in adults and children. Significantly, racism, homophobia (fear of homosexuality) and misogyny (hatred of women) have never been listed as mental disorders. In 1999, the chairperson of the APA’s Council on Psychiatry and the Law confirmed that racism “is not something that is designated as an illness that can be treated by mental health professionals.”7 Homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder until activists campaigned to have it removed.8
The women’s liberation movement condemned labeling symptoms of oppression as mental illnesses. In They Say You’re Crazy: How the World’s Most Powerful Psychiatrists Decide Who’s Normal, Paula Caplan explains,
“In a culture that scorns and demeans lesbians and gay men, it is hard to be completely comfortable with one’s homosexuality, and so the DSM-III authors were treating as a mental disorder what was often simply a perfectly comprehensible reaction to being mocked and oppressed.”9
Caplan describes efforts to prevent “Masochistic Personality Disorder” from being included in the DSM. This disorder assumes that women stay with abusive spouses because like to suffer, not because they lack the resources to leave. Despite protest, “Masochistic Personality Disorder” was added to the 1987 edition of the DSM, although it was later dropped.
The inclusion of “Pre-Menstrual Dysphoric Disorder” (PMDD) in the DSM also raised a protest. According to Caplan,
“The problem with PMDD is not the women who report premenstrual mood problems but the diagnosis of PMDD itself. Excellent research shows that these women are significantly more likely than other women to be in upsetting life situations, such as being battered or being mistreated at work. To label them mentally disordered — to send the message that their problems are individual, psychological ones — hides the real, external sources of their trouble.”10
As soon as PMDD was listed in the DSM, Eli Lilly repackaged its best-selling drug, Prozac, in a pink-pill format, renamed it Serafem, and promoted it as a treatment for PMDD. By creating Serafem, Lilly was able to extend its patent on the Prozac formula for another seven years.
A marketing gold mine
The DSM is a marketing gold mine for the drug industry. The FDA will approve a drug to treat a mental disorder only if that disorder is listed in the DSM. Therefore, each new listing is worth millions in potential drug sales. Most of the experts who construct the DSM have financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, and every new edition of the DSM contains more conditions than the previous one.
Once the DSM lists a new mental disorder, drugs for that disorder are heavily marketed for everyone who might fit the symptom checklist. (Doctors are also encouraged to prescribe these drugs for “off-label use,” which means to anyone they think might benefit.) Not surprisingly, the numbers of people “diagnosed” with a mental condition rise rapidly after a drug is approved to treat that condition.
In 2005, a major study announced that “About half of Americans will meet the criteria for a DSM-IV disorder sometime in their life…”11 How is this possible? Has it become normal to be mentally ill, or has the definition of mental illness expanded beyond reason? Both could be true.
Capitalism damages people in many ways. It’s also true that the more people can be labeled as sick, the more profits can be made from selling them treatments. In Creating Mental Illness, Alan Horowitz warns,
“…a large proportion of behaviors that are currently regarded as mental illnesses are normal consequences of stressful social arrangements or forms of social deviance. Contrary to its general definition of mental disorder, the DSM and much research that follows from it considers all symptoms, whether internal or not, expected or not, deviant or not, as signs of disorder.”12
Most people know the difference between normal behavior (such as grief over the death of a loved one) and abnormal behavior that could indicate an internal disorder (such as prolonged grief for no apparent reason). However, the DSM does not consider what happens in people’s lives. With one exception (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), the DSM lists and categorizes symptoms outside of any social context. As a result, DSM-based surveys artificially increase the numbers of people suffering from mental disorders and, therefore, the market for drug treatments.
DSM-inflated rates of mental illness are typically accompanied by the warning that not enough people are getting treatment.13 The question of whether or not they are actually sick is never raised.
Psychiatry has a long history of medicating the oppressed, including children, for social control.14
Using DSM criteria, at least six million American children have been diagnosed with serious mental disorders, triple the number in the early 1990′s. The rate of boys aged 7 to 12 diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder more than doubled between 1995 and 2000 and continues to rise.
A 2007 survey of 8- to 15-year-olds discovered that nine percent met the DSM criteria for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The survey found that fewer than half of these children had been diagnosed or treated, “suggesting that some children with clinically significant inattention and hyperactivity may not be receiving optimal attention.” Noting that poor children were least likely to receive medication, the authors of the study recommend “further investigation and possible intervention.”15
Instead of addressing the stressful social conditions that agitate children, psychiatry imposes conformity through medication. To force compliance with this oppressive system, access to insurance benefits, medical care and social services depends on “having a diagnosis.”
The psychiatric-pharmaceutical industry treats illness as strictly individual and internal — the result of faulty genes or chemical imbalances. In reality, human problems exist in a social context.
Most of the symptoms listed in the DSM describe human responses to deprivation and oppression (anxiety, agitation, aggression, depression) and the many ways that people try to manage unbearable pain (obsessions, compulsions, rage, addictions). Depression is strongly linked with poverty,16 and alleviating poverty can lift depression.17
Under capitalism, addressing the social causes of misery is politically risky and unprofitable. So psychiatry extracts the individual from society, splits the brain from the body, severs the mind from the brain and drugs the brain.18
A sick society
Capitalism is a system that requires the majority to have no control over their lives and to believe that this condition is normal. Therefore, all reactions to inequality and deprivation must be viewed as signs of personal inadequacy, biological defect, mental illness — anything other than reasonable responses to unreasonable conditions.
During slavery days, experts argued that Black people were psychologically suited for a life of slavery, so there must be something wrong with those who rebelled.19 In 1851, the diagnosis of “drapetomania”(runaway fever) was developed to explain why slaves try to escape.20 Not much has changed. Today, exploitation and oppression are considered normal, and those who rebel in any way are considered to be sick or deviant and in need of medication or incarceration.
What’s the diagnosis for a sick society? We know what’s wrong. Most people are kept in sick social conditions so that a few can maintain their wealth and power. What is the treatment? Putting human needs first would eliminate most human misery. Who will deliver the medicine? The majority must organize to take collective control of society.
I don’t expect this diagnosis to appear in the DSM anytime soon.
- Kirk, S.S. & Kutchins, H. (1992). The selling of DSM: The rhetoric of science in psychiatry. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. [↩]
- Horowitz, A.V. (2002). Creating mental illness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [↩]
- Freud, S. (1901/1991). The psychopathology of everyday life. New York: Penguin [↩]
- Shorter, E. (1997). A history of psychiatry: From the era of the asylum to the age of Prozac. New York: John Wiley & Sons. [↩]
- Poussaint, A.F. & Alexander, A. (2000). Lay my burden down: Suicide and the mental health crisis among African-Americans. Boston: Beacon Press, p.125. [↩]
- Spitzer, R.L., Sheeney, M. & Endicott, J. (1977). DSM III: Guiding principles. In Psychiatric diagnosis, (Eds). Rakoff, V., Stancer, H. & Kedward, H. New York: Brunner Mazel. [↩]
- Egan, T. (1999). Racist shootings test limits of health system and laws. New York Times, August 14, p.1. [↩]
- “DSM and homosexuality: A cautionary tale.” in Kirk, S.A., Kutchins, H. (1992). The selling of DSM: The rhetoric of science in psychiatry. New York: Aldine De Gruyter p 81-90 [↩]
- Caplan, P. (1995). They say you’re crazy: How the world’s most powerful psychiatrists decide who’s normal. New York: Addison-Wesley, pp.180-181. [↩]
- Caplan, P.J. (2002). Expert decries diagnosis for pathologizing women. Journal of Addiction and Mental Health. September/October 2001, p.16. [↩]
- Kessler, R.C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R. & Walters, E.E. (2005). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry. Vol.62, No.6, pp.593-602. [↩]
- Horowitz, A.V. (2002). Creating Mental Illness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p.37. [↩]
- Talen, J. (2005). Survey says nearly half of all Americans will be affected by a mental illness, some before adulthood. Newsday, June 7. [↩]
- Breggin, P.R. & Breggin, G. R. (1994). The war against children: How the drugs, programs, and theories of the psychiatric establishment are threatening America’s children with a medical ‘cure’ for violence. New York: St. Martin’s Press. [↩]
- Froehlich TE, et.al. (2007). Prevalence, recognition, and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in a national sample of US children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. Vol.161, pp.857-864. [↩]
- Duenwald, M. (2003). “More Americans Seeking Help for Depression.” New York Times, June 18. [↩]
- Costello EJ, Compton SN, Keeler G, Angold A.(2003). Relationships between poverty and psychopathology: a natural experiment. JAMA. Oct 15, Vol.290, No. 15, pp.2023-9. [↩]
- Ross, C.A., & Pam, A., (1995). Pseudoscience in biological psychiatry: Blaming the body. New York: Wiley. [↩]
- Poussaint, A.F. & Alexander, A. (2000). Lay my burden down: Suicide and the mental health crisis among African Americans. Boston: Beacon Press. [↩]
- Cartwright, S. (1851). Report on the diseases and physical peculiarities of the Negro race. New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal. May, p. 707. [↩]
When military scientists begin to combine “cognitive engineering” and neuroscience with genetic engineering, we could see a nightmarish new generation of biological weapons and nerve agents that radically alter the minds, emotions, memories and beliefs of everyone on earth.
That’s the opinion of Mark Wheelis and Malcolm Dando, authors of “Neurobiology: A Case Study of the Imminent Militarization of Biology” published September 30, 1995 in the International Review of the Red Cross. See this site for a PDF of the full article:
Abstract: The revolution in biology, including advances in genomics, will lead to rapid progress in the treatment of mental illness by advancing the discovery of highly specific ligands that affect specific neurological pathways. The status of brain science and its potential for military application to enhance soldier performance, to develop new weapons and to facilitate interrogation are discussed. If such applications are pursued, they will also expand the options available to torturers, dictators and terrorists. Several generic approaches to containing the malign applications of biology are shown, and it is concluded that success or failure in doing so will be significantly dependent on the active involvement of the scientific and medical communities.
Translation: The medical community has got to stop sitting on its duff and get some international legislation passed prohibiting the development of these bioweapons NOW.
I would add: An equally serious effort needs to be made to block military application of EM weapons to the human brain. The pretence that such weapons are “less than lethal” is a serious misunderstanding of the immense threat that they pose to the privacy and civil liberties of every man, woman and child on the face of the globe.
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
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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?
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.
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.
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,”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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
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.
Somali victim of Gang-stalking
It all started one day in July 2004. I did not know what was happening around me except that I was followed / tailgated by many vehicles with Clayton county GA license plates. They followed me wherever I went. They did not talk to me or approach me just “whispers” from distance. Then a team visited my work place. I was followed by “George Smith” with Clayton county tag. I had not committed crime in Russia or US. All I knew was that I was harassed by many people in vehicles in different places at the store, gas station and even at work. Russia had no such harassment program or extra judicial correction system; I was completely unaware and started to act out. I started making phone calls, sending emails.
I didn’t want to be framed, so I contacted relatives and asked for a lawyer. They said I needed “medical attention”.
The deception was that I was railroaded and “gaslighted”. What was happening to me was “traffic mob” as part of gang-stalking campaign. Gang –stalking is systemic form of control which seeks to destroy every aspect of targeted individual’s life. Once a target is flagged a notification is sent out to the community at large, and the target is followed around 24/7 by various communities that they’re in. The community notifications will go out to various places. Apartment rentals, future employers, stores and communities where that target visits will be notified. Doctors offices, fire departments, and police etc. A covert investigation might also be opened and electronic means by civilian spies / snitches as part of the overt and covert monitoring and surveillance process.
Individuals are flagged without their knowledge. These community notifications might fall under mental health and community safety and health laws. It seems that employers, educational facilities, and community centers are in some cases flagging innocent individuals as a means of retaliation, silencing or controlling members of the society.
Individual can be flagged for various reasons. The notification can designate them as “terror suspects” or as having aggressive or inappropriate behavior, being danger to themselves and others etc. This notification system will follow the target if they move, change jobs, visit other areas. It lets the community believe that the target is a person who needs to be watched or monitored
The gang-stalking and harassment that started in 2004 continue in 2010. It’s parallel justice system in which no crime needs to committed just projected “future attributes” for life till the targeted individual is DESTROYED both physically and mentally.