Slashdot Mirror
Mind Control Delusions and the Web
biohack writes "An article in the New York Times provides interesting insight into online communities of people who believe that they are subjected to mind control. 'Type "mind control" or "gang stalking" into Google, and Web sites appear that describe cases of persecution, both psychological and physical, related with the same minute details — red and white cars following victims, vandalism of their homes, snickering by those around them.' According to Dr. Vaughan Bell, a British psychologist who has researched the effect of the Internet on mental illness, '[the] extent of the community [...] poses a paradox to the traditional way delusion is defined under the diagnostic guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association, which says that if a belief is held by a person's "culture or subculture," it is not a delusion. The exception accounts for rituals of religious faith, for example.'"
The exception accounts for rituals of religious faith, for example.
Remember, it's fashionable to be a nutcase, to claim people are out to get you, to believe you're being persecuted & suppressed--just look at Tom Cruise.
It's been pointed out before but the internet is a very real, very powerful, very double-edged communications tool.
My work here is dung.
Being paranoid doesn't necessarily mean they aren't really out to get you.
More Twoson than Cupertino
It's not a delusion if other people also believe it?
That's not a definition of delusion. It's a political step to avoid annoying religious people. They are no less deluded for it.
Oh, now a politically-motivated definition doesn't stand up to analysis? Big surprise.
If I hear people snickering behind me, my first instinct IS to assume they are laughing at me. My rational mind then takes over and reminds me this is unlikely; but, still, I assumed this response is either normal for humans or trained as a result of our "kick me" sticky-note pranks as kids. I never realized it meant I was nuts.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
The snickering isn't a delusion, people are laughing at you!
Yea the internet lets crazy people meet other crazy people anyone who has spent anytime on slashdot knows that.
"if a belief is held by a person's "culture or subculture,it is not a delusion. The exception accounts for rituals of religious faith, for example.'"
Reminds me of my favourite quote:
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion."
-- Robert M. Pirsig, author of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
Why do you think he's never updated his web page? Because he's too busy stalking me.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
The article is incorrect in one person quoted therein that a delusion is not a delusion if it's commonly held by its culture or subculture. That's not what the definition of delusion says in the manual. It says that one's culture should be taken into account when making the diagnosis, that's all.
And you're in a logical circular loop if you start saying that a person's disorder is a legitimate "subculture." It is indeed a group, but an entire culture or subculture? I don't think so.
Read more observations about the article here:
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/11/13/shedding-light-on-a-dark-side-of-online-community/
If people are leaving garbage in your yard, honking and yelling at your house, following you, tailgating you, etc, etc... did you ever think that maybe it's because you're an asshole?
And that's the main problem with assholes, they don't even realize that they're assholes. They think people are out to get them all the time for no reason.
If people are out to get you, maybe there IS a reason.
They are so much easier to deal with than real-life problems. The delusional one sets the context, and whoever controls the context has the control. And delusional people don't give up their delusions easily. As the old song said, "no wise man has the power, to reason away, what a fool believes"
And the internet lets them set up a community of people to support their delusions so their delusion gets reinforcement
The 'parodox' goes away if you are willing to call rituals and religions delusions, which is pretty easy for anyone to do when you consider that at most one of the major religions in the world could possibly be true, since they contradict each other so well. The only thing that properly defines a delusion is that it is an incorrect belief.
This really seems like just regular delusion, except now there's the internet. Doesn't make it a whole new ballgame. Delusional people are always finding ways of validating their delusions, that it happens on a message board instead of some guy on the subway, or one of those pseudoscience magazines doesn't make it a special new thing. Sounds a lot like someone trying to sell a book or at least make up a new disease that they're an expert in.
Hey, I've got a new disease I'm an expert in: people who think aliens are probing them and who regularly visit the facebook group "Aliens are probing me." It's nearly impossible to cure, because there's a facebook group that supports it. Buy my book and find out how you can treat people with it and prevent yourself from getting this terrible affliction.
The woman with this youtube account is a schizophrenic who thinks she is being gang stalked by some secret organization or the government. She chronicles her misadventures through her 255 vlog entries. http://www.youtube.com/user/ChinyereDOTcom
Hey you, yes you!
So now you are reading an article on Internet about us?
Well, just to let you know, we are watching you!
This kind of thing is much more common than the story suggests. Much like other myths, people connect to and share some illusion or story. Much of which is culturally driven. So there are *shared* stories about black helicopters, red and white cars, virgin births, etc. Another related tidbit, the more repressive a culture, the more things like speaking in tongues is present.
It's also important to note that one person's "mental illness" is another persons "religious belief" or more generically, faith-based construct of their Self. You could easily flip the story around and put some common religious beliefs in there.
These are great ways to explore conciousness. (sp??)
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I guess Project MK-ULTRA didn't exist. Almost all of the MK-ULTRA documents were destroyed well before congressional inquiry into them happened. It was more of an umbrella project for lots of great projects, such as Artichoke, where they'd torture people to death.
Does that make the History Channel crazy for admitting that the CIA is responsible for the Counter-Culture Revolution of the 1960's thanks to it giving out LSD and the formula for making it?
It is pretty easy to find a lot of crazy people on the internet claiming things. However, that doesn't mean that the government isn't doing mind control experiments. What are we going to find out when the next Church Committee type investigation happens?
Remember that it is admitted that the Army has spent millions of dollars on ESP and "remote viewing" research.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
I can sell my tin foil hat then
Are you really important enough such that the government--or less likely, a cadre of independent people--would devote their lives to harassing every tiny bit of your life, with such things as periodically taking down the websites you visit? If you've invented something fabulous, then maybe just maybe... but if you're a janitor--I hate to be rude but--no one's going to waste their life with that.
It's important to distinguish between "time" and "life." Being harassed by someone you know, or even someone you don't, for their enjoyment for a few days or a couple weeks... that happens. But if you believe that someone's going to do this for years... yeah, you're not that important.
How about this; I'm pagan. Several of my friends are wiccan or american indian (one is both). We bless our houses, some of us see spirits, or hear things, or get feelings about a place, or sense a presence. By your definition, these things are delusions because they're part of our culture. But to most other people, their subjective realities don't include them and so (quite naturally) they think we're nuts. Which brings me to my ultimate point -- the mental health community in general has defined these kinds of things as a disorder if they cause significant impairment in a person's daily life.
So, this is part of my culture, but by the same token it's quite readily apparent that it causes a negative impact on my ability to deal with the rest of the world, who don't share my beliefs. It doesn't pass a clinical threshold in these cases, but assume they did. Would it change anything? Since just about anything can be defined as "cultural"-- afterall, schizophrenics have a cultural identity too (I'd like to know about the whole pennies thing myself)-- how can you (or anyone in the medical community) abandon the more objective metric of significant impairment for "cultural values"? Does this mean we're throwing out gender identity disorder too, because that's cultural? How about depression -- all those goths, they're not depressed anymore, they're just down with their culture. And people who drink the koolaid -- there was nothing wrong with them, they were just trying to fit in.
If you ask me, it seems like a cop-out by an establishment that's not sure enough of its foundations to take the initiative and say that some behaviors, even when culturally acceptable, lead to bad results. Because that would be a moral judgement, is that the argument? Just like pharmacists that refuse to dispense birth control and insurance companies that refuse to pay for gender reassignment surgery, etc. Here's a suggestion -- how about the medical community stop trying to pass moral judgements through the back door like this. Your job is to help people, not figure out their culture. Their culture is totally irrelevant -- what IS relevant is if they're in pain, if their life is significantly impacted, and there is a medical treatment or cure available that could help them. THAT is where the focus needs to be, and culture only plays a role insofar as how to reach out to the patient and contextualize what's happening. disclaimer: not a doctor.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I believe that mind control devices are real and are being used by American intelligence and law enforcement.
How do I know? The Village Voice quoted an FBI official during the siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco in 1994 as saying that they were planning to use a device on Koresh that would make him think he was talking to God.
I've always found the Village Voice to be pretty responsible... I think the official let this slip, and we haven't heard about it since because we weren't supposed to have ever heard about it at all.
The real problem is psychology is not very scientific.
They is no real definition of sane or insane. Nor a testable definition of order or disorder ( for that matter).
The whole science is wish washy and based on subjective judgment as opposed to a first order science that basis it's classification scheme on measurable objective facts.
For instance, why is it homosexuals were ever classified as a having a disorder? Why is it that they are now classified as not having a disorder. How come no other sexual inclination a person might have , bestiality for instance, has not changed status from being a disorder?
The reason is simple. Weather or not something is considered a disorder or not is basically voted on ( majority opinion is so scientific after all).
There is no real definition of a disorder and there is no way of performing concrete test or deterring from data if a given set of symptoms constitute a disorder.
This is not to say there aren't consolers out there that help people and I'm am limiting myself comments to psychology formal here not to include psychiatry ( medical ) or neuropsychology.
But the broader psychological community regular engages in what is little more the pseudo-science.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Sadly, at least one guy was probably fooled by the Paranormal State ad campaign. Now he's chatting daily with people who wear Hot Topic tees with the same fervor that Christian teens used to have for WWJD bracelets and wondering if these people understand the way the world really works.
while the internet gets raves for creating communities out of tiny exotic subcultures that without the internet would have no place to meet or find commonalities, it is interesting that it also unites psychologically damaged people with common ailments
ailments that without the internet would serve to socially isolate the person, but now serve to create online communities of shared, and reinforcing, and therefore enabling psychological breaks with reality
psychological diseases like paranoia that are amplified by the internet. very interesting
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Man, I love the smell of paranoia in the morning. It's so funny fucking with these guys. I'll turn the machine back on shortly and they'll completely forget about the mind control stuff.
Carbon Monoxide poisoning, believe it or not, causes the same side effects that delusional people claim. Visual/Auditory hallucinations, paranoia, memory loss, and this list goes on.
First line of business is for them to buy CO detectors
replying to self as an addendum:
I do the same thing as GP; but I know someone who really is paranoid/delusional, and when she hears any laughter or whispers, she gets angry and confrontational (to the bewilderment of people who don't know her; then they _do_ start talking about her).
It's not a delusion if other people also believe it?
That's not a definition of delusion. It's a political step to avoid annoying religious people. They are no less deluded for it.
Oh, now a politically-motivated definition doesn't stand up to analysis? Big surprise.
Does not surprise me. It goes the same with politics.
There's a bunch of bloggers and talk radio hosts talking about this. When I try to find something concrete, I cannot. But, a bunch of folks who listen and read that shit actually believe it and my company is getting hundreds of inquiries about this mythical seizing of retirement funds.
Apparently, some academic suggested it as a possible solution, but a bunch of folks who make a lot of money off of scaring people propagated it as truth. The most sickening thing for me is that most of the public does not try to verify it.
I have come to be completely mistrustful of all electronic, actually, ALL media now. If it cannot be verified by at least three separate sources (a website, newspaper, and radio show all repeating the same AP story does not count!), I will not believe it.
P.S. It is not just the Right either. This whole Obamamania is an example of the Left doing their job of supporting myth.
...poses a paradox to the traditional way delusion is defined under the diagnostic guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association, which says that if a belief is held by a person's "culture or subculture," it is not a delusion.
I don't see the problem. Why is it sane for people to believe in angels, but not sane for people to believe they're being followed by secret agents in red cars? People believe in a lot of silly things. That's not delusion, that just buying into a set of beliefs that don't make sense to outsiders.
The social norm definition of delusion is perfectly fine. The real problem is that the mental health community insists on treating this as a "diagnosis". This is a concept that makes no sense in describing mental conditions. The human brain is the most complicated thing in the known universe, and poorly understood. There are a few physical or chemical abnormalities that can screw up your thinking, but except for those, the idea that you can take a list of behaviors and "diagnose" an underlying condition the way an oncologist diagnoses a tumor is absurd.
Unfortunately, we seem to be stuck with this charade. People won't trust mental health professionals (who actually are useful now and then) if they don't maintain the pseudo-medical mumbo-jumbo. And of course insurance companies won't pay any bills without a "diagnosis".
It would be best if THEY didn't know.
I'm Peggy.
>> 'Type "mind control" or "gang stalking" into
>> Google, and Web sites appear that describe cases
>>of persecution,
How many people just followed those instructions?
The story remarkably overstates the obvious thus turning it into a kind of fear mongering exercise. I typed in mind control on Google and I got no surprises. Some historical CIA stuff, other historical stuff and a couple of sites devoted to the topic.
They aren't doing youtube-like traffic, don't have that much going on in terms of forums. Nothing to see here. Move along.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
The internet has allowed dysfunctional individuals to create communities and reinforce their dysfunctional behavior. For instance tech savvy individuals with no life can get together and ...
[Insert pithy quote here]
1st para; They aren't delusions because they're part of our culture.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I read the article and thought it was pretty interesting and credible....then I saw that it was under the fashion and style section....so I looked up what other articles this write has done. Wow such probing and great articles as "How to Treat a âMoney Disorderâ(TM)", "Girl Talk Has Its Limits", and "The Sum of Your Facial Parts". I am by no means saying this writer is a bad journalist but what makes her qualified to write an in depth story of psychology?
I found the website gangstalking world as the first hit on google, so I checked out the forums there.
Most of the posts seemed to be semi legit info about avoiding crime, surveillance, home alarm systems ect, I couldn't find any good crazy rants.
Then I realized ITS ALL BY ONE GUY. He just makes posts and replies to his own posts. Yikes.
So group delusion is more like delusion of being a group.
So believing you're being stalked by red and white cars is delusional, while cannibalizing a cosmic Jewish zombie to escape the consequences of a talking snake tricking a mud-man's rib-wife with magic fruit isn't?
"Skill shows through where genius wears thin." -Wittgenstein || Religion: uniting aviation and architecture.
I don't wonder at it all. The two most powerful mind control tools ever invented are PR/Advertising and TV, and fashion and style were two of the first things that both of these tools were applied to.
Just think how long it took the average American to stop drinking the Bush/Cheney kool-aid. If that wasn't mind control I don't know what is.
Now where is that tin-foil? Up to a couple of weeks ago when I went all digital mine was wrapped around my TV antenna. Made a world of difference.
I mean, I'm not a huge fan of psychology myself but for the New York Times to file this under Fashion & Style gives me the impression that all the cool kids are joining gang stalking support groups ... makes one wonder what will the next fad be?
...that they aren't being subjected to Frey effect experiments with stuff like this? ;)
Kidding, of course... right?
Auditory subliminal programming system - US Patent 4777529
Auditory subliminal message system and method - United States Patent 4395600
Superimposing method and apparatus useful for subliminal messages - United States Patent 5134484
Subliminal message generator - United States Patent 5270800
Method of inducing mental, emotional and physical states of consciousness, including specific mental activity, in human beings - United States Patent 5213562
Method and system for altering consciousness - United States Patent 5123899
Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brain waves - United States Patent 3951134
Method of and apparatus for inducing desired states of consciousness - United States Patent 5356368
Method of changing a person's behavior - United States Patent 4717343
Method and an associated apparatus for remotely determining information as to person's emotional state - United States Patent 5507291
Ultrasonic speech translator and communications system - United States Patent 5539705
Silent subliminal presentation system - United States Patent 5159703
How do they all link together?
Mind Control (pdf warning)
</tinfoil>
Before the Internet they were being abducted by aliens, before flying saucers they were being stalked by television news readers, before that they were receiving visitations from angels .. anyone see pattern here ..
davecb5620@gmail.com
"The views of these belief systems are like a shark that has to be constantly fed," Dr. Hoffman said. "If you don't feed the delusion, sooner or later it will die out or diminish on its own accord. The key thing is that it needs to be repetitively reinforced."
Hm. I wonder if that would work with Islam. Islam is really into repetitive reinforcement, with prayer five times a day and heavy emphasis on memorizing the Koran. It's possible to OD on religion, and Islam is set up to encourage that. In most other religions, you have to become a monk or a priest or join a cult to reach that level of intensity.
That's just the Nerd Herd guys.
...and back in reality world, we know they played very loud music and had spotlights. In short, they were attempting to sleep deprive those people. Taken in that context, the FBI comment doesn't quite mean what you imply.
Haven't you seen the documentatry Rules of Engagement?
You haven't heard further about "mind control devices" because they probably don't exist. I think you misunderstood.
The key difference here is that the mind control community somehow believe that they are being unduly influenced by the people around them. People in the religious community merely believe that they are being influenced by an invisible superbeing from outside of spacetime.
One only needs to apply common sense to determine which group is the crazy one.
Sounds like paranoid personality disorder.
This is old news, but still interesting.
Several years ago, I was living in Los Angeles. My day job was IT work, and my hobby was (and still is) running a new site. I very frequently (3-4 days per week) worked in downtown LA, and would drive home between 7pm to 3am.
One night, I came out of downtown onto the 110 North, and moved over to the inside lanes fairly quickly, so I could be prepared to take I-5 North. I came up behind a car with a website name on the back. I didn't really think anything about it, until I saw the driver hold a video camera backwards and was filming me. Ok, weird people. I noted the name, and went to the web site, electronicharassment.com. Check archive.org on or about July 2004, the site is now just a links page.
Here's a snippet from the site.
---
Since I started my research on this topic, when the harassment
commenced the number of websites on this topic has doubled, and the level
and the intensity of the harassment have quadrupled. I'm now followed
everywhere, even out of town. Once they followed me to the airport and I
wondering when I go visit family will they follow me there as well? They
laser and microwave me in class, at the theater, driving, even at the
funeral of a friend, they stung me during services. There is no respect,
and they endanger the lives of others, especially when chasing me on the
freeways.
I lived in 5 different places and that's not including hotels. Within days
they are set up in an apartment or homes adjacent to where I was residing and
the harassment resumes.
When I go out of town I'm followed by a convoy of vehicles, SUV, sports
cars, and lastly the old and new white vans, although they are occasionally a
different color.
---
There was more information on the site and linked from there about how to document the harassment, which included photos and videos of the harassment. Recording all the people following you. It really read of some insanity, but if you were really the target of some weird military psyop, wouldn't you seem insane?
In following the links on the site, it became obvious that this was paranoia being reinforced by other nutjobs on web sites (excuse my professional headshrinker terminology).
Since I run a news site, I thought it could make an interesting story if there was really a story there. I didn't want a story about another nutjob in California. There's a million nuts, and twice as many stories. Maybe there was some wild conspiracy. Hey, it could happen. I sent off the following email looking for further information. It was never answered. I guess crazy people don't need help from the press, even if it could stop the mystery agency from harassing them.
--- begin email
From: "Editor - Free Internet Press"
To: [censored]
Subject: surveillance
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Good evening,
I was behind what I believe was your car on the 110 in downtown LA this
evening. The red [censored]. I noticed you were filming my car. I thought
this was a bit odd, and I noted the site name on the bumper
(http://electronicharassment.com/), so I could see if it explained why
you were filming. Apparently it does.
If it makes you feel better, the [censored] that was behind you
wasn't following you. I was leaving a work site, going to where I'm
currently staying. I may have pulled in quickly behind you, but I
assure you, it wasn't to follow you, it was because I needed to get over
to that side, to catch the 5.
If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you some questions. I'm asking, with .
the possible intention of running a story on you on our site,
http://freeinternetpress.com/
We will run your story completely anonymously. It's not necessary for
you to tell us your name, or an
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I accidentally the whole CIA mind control network. Is that bad?
The book Madness Explained, at least the first 150 pages or so, show some of the problems of the current psychiatric system's approach to diagnosis. In truth, an accurate diagnosis system does not yet exist, and it is unlikely that a symptom orientated approach will ever suffice to give one (that is, a system where a diagnosis means more than just a token label for somebody's problem, and a system that correctly groups similar disorders whilst differentiating unlike disorders.) Basically, Kraepelin and co back in the 1800's made the assumptions that similar problems entailed similar symptoms, similar symptoms implied similar disease processes and that such similar disease processes could be treated in similar ways. All three of these assumptions, whilst probably reasonable in non-mental-health issues, break down rather quickly once one moves towards the levels of complexity that are apparent in the human nervous system and brain.
"if a belief is held by a person's "culture or subculture," it is not a delusion"
I guess that explains why Americans were not
psychotic when they believed in the
famous "weapons of mass delusion" in Iraq.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
and here's your flame:
Relativism and materialism are also indefensible philosophies as Nietzsche pointed out. What evidence do you really have that anything you percieve, or indeed your very self actually exists at all?
Also, many atheists / materialists believe that society would be better off if everyone subscribed to their beliefs. However many of these same people do not credit the rest of humanity with the enlightened self interest necessary to bootstrap and sustain what we commonly hold to be an ethical society. (My argument here is essentially that if most members of society were to drop their religious beliefs and yet not have the capacity for enlightened self interest that society would be unsustainable, essentially making broad case atheism / materialism parasitic.) And the best thing is that many atheists / materialists is that they cannot stand scrutiny of these autocontradictory beliefs they hold. "It would just all be better if no one believed in God(s)."
Well, that wasn't even much of a flame... more of a reasoned argument. I'll have to try harder next time.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
A few weeks ago I felt I was being stalked by Tesla electric cars. Either they were behind me or in front of me. There was a green one I kept seeing. Why were exotic electric cars silently following me?
Actually, it's because I live on a road near the only Tesla dealership in Northern California, and it's a winding road through a canyon that leads to a long, little used, gently-winding two-lane road along a beautiful lake. Tesla is selling a $100,000 convertible, so they take customers along this route for a test drive. It's the only road within ten minutes of the dealership suitable for showing off such a car. Driving on the freeway to San Francisco just doesn't make an expensive convertible seem worthwhile.
(If you want to see Teslas zoom by, take I-280 to the Edgewood Road interchange, drive down Edgewood to Canada Road, and drive along past Crystal Springs Reservoir.)
"If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia." -Thomas Szasz, Psychiatrist
It's on topic.
It's balanced.
Oh, wait, a moderator couldn't stand to examine their assumptions about the world.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
I keep hearing that red and white cars get the most tickets. Glad to hear that someone finally found an explanation for that phenomenon.
*snicker*
Did you know that "FTW" ("for the win") is a direct translation of "Sieg Heil"?
Just because you're deluded doesn't mean you don't occasionally guess right.
Just because your cult is all deluded in the same way doesn't mean you don't occasionally guess right.
Just because your cult is big enough or strong enough to be called a "religion" doesn't mean you're not all deluded.
In fact, most religious people are deluded. They can't all be right about all their mutually exclusive articles of faith, for which none of them have any proof (by definition).
Religion is delusion. They could use a shrink. The only reason they don't get real help for it is because they're surrounded by other people similarly deluded. Which is worse for the larger society (and themselves, really), not harmless. If only the APA had the guts to call it "accepted delusion", without pretending it's not delusion, we might all be closer to well.
--
make install -not war
1. The whole deity thing
2. Theirs is the only religion; everybody else is an "infidel," "sinner," or "satanist"
3. Everybody who is not one of them should be either converted or killed (there are some exceptions to this one)
4. They all believe that nobody can be ethical without their religion, and
5. Usually, the poor people who go to services pay for the lavish lifestyles of their religious "leaders"
Needless to say, I don't believe in any of that religious claptrap either (except FSM, of course).
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
I'm sorry, you seem to know what you're talking about, and can express yourself clearly and effectively, could you please find another web site to post on?
Because most of the city parks that I know of are not very good landing zones for helicopters. Not to mention the wind effects within a city.
This is the first I've ever heard of such claims.
It's obviously nonsense. The internet cannot be used to control my mind.
Ohh, what nice flashy colors.... it's almost like...
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Two years ago, I started experiencing terrible headaches. Sometimes flashes of light would be painful and debilitating. I knew I was having health problems of some kind and saw doctors. No problems were found. Gradually, I started thinking maybe I was being poisoned. Not by the FBI or individuals, but by my well water. Or the air near my house. I began getting very paranoid. I couldn't think straight. I had all kinds of health issues.
I finally figured out I was allergic to wheat.
Two days later, I started to feel better. I felt fully recovered 6 months later. I now feel fantastic and healthy.
I can completely see how someone with health issues could try to blame the CIA or secret mobs. You need to grapple for an explanation.
Interestingly enough, it has been found that a wheat gluten free diet often eases the symptoms of children with autism!
I bet many of these people in these online communities have health problems they are not aware of and blame it on some weirdness.
I did google group stalking, and wow all I have to say is crazy time. I've read some articles about people who say they are being group stalked, and they sound like that crazy skitzo on the bus ranting on and on. If this was such a great consiparcy with thousands of people participating, someone would have blabbed by now. So you just have to go with what make sense. Besides, Three can keep a secret if two are dead.
+10 insightful/cogent
Tin foil hats are quite the style these days.
The extent of this conspiracy is vaster than we think. They even have us mockers thinking that an aluminium foil hat is made of tin. Any expert will inform you that aluminium does not possess the protective qualities that authentic tin does. *puts on actual tin hat*
Reply to That ||
Really? I'd figured that sanity might be a scarce commodity in this forum, but do you truly need a definition to tell whether someone is crazy or not? Is it really that hard? Let's say you get to talking with some guy who's wearing a tin foil beret in the elevator. The conversation goes like this:
Beret: You know, it's amazing.
You: Huh? What?
Beret: This elevator is a near-perfect Faraday cage. Except for some leakage around the wiring, and some minor gaps here and there. Yet, the radiation goes right through.
You: Huh? What?
Beret: I'm glad you asked! The government has been using its spy satellites to beam mind control signals at me. They make me want to do crazy stuff, like take off my clothes and paint my body with woad. The amazing thing is that the signal strength is not diminished a whit by being inside an elevator! Nor by riding in a train through deep underground tunnels, on top of mountain peaks, scuba diving, or hiding in my aunt Bertha's closet. And I think the guy who sold me this tres chic aluminium beret was just a spammer, working for them. No matter where I go, no matter what precautions I take, I still want to paint myself blue!
You: Spasmodically start punching button to next floor so elevator will stop and you can get out.
Beret: You...ah...wouldn't have any woad on you by any chance?(Starts stripping off his shirt).
OK, so you might react the same way if some Jehova's Witness starts to proselytize you in an elevator...but I guess I was resting under the rather comfortable delusion that there is a set of people that at least 95% of the rest of the population would agree is bugnuts. Ah well, maybe the world has changed.
Maybe people are more accepting of today's crazies because their delusions have become so technological. (A smart move to strengthen their hand with the Slashdot crowd!) People used to feel compelled by curses; now they're under compulsion from weird rays emitted by satellites or airplanes. People were once persecuted by demons, now it's government spooks. People used to get kidnapped by fairies, now it's aliens in space ships. People used to talk to their voices in public...now you can't tell whether maybe they are just talking through their cell phone headsets.
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
Check up on him.
Hated, derided and ostracised. Used to be famous.
Feel pity for him? It's VERY likely he can't help himself, else he could have given up.
I used to study yoga, and I'd go out into the backyard and do the lotus meditation thing, except I wasn't in the practice of closing my eyes; rather I'd stare at some fixed object.
Anyway, one of my room mates was out on the front deck working on her bike, and my neighbor, this intense sixty-year old dude, stomped out and plunked himself down on his lawn and glared over the property line at her. He sat there scowling at her, motionless for several minutes. My roomie was understandably weirded out by this, but she kept at what she was doing. After he got tired of sitting and glaring, he stormed up to her and yelled something to the effect of, "There! How do YOU like it?!" --And then he accused her and everybody else in our house of being part of some kind of organization set up to watch his every move. Being yelled at was enough for her, so she came inside to tell us all about it.
It wasn't until later that I put two and two together and realized that he'd seen me doing my sitting meditation the other day. The realization made me both laugh out loud and feel great pity for the guy. No wonder he was freaked; there he was, actually seeing a guy staring intently at his house, which technically I had been, for like thirty minutes straight. I caught him later that week and tried to explain it to him, but I don't think he bought a word of it. The poor guy was sick. --He was also convinced that our landlord was stealing his mail and bugging his phone, among many things. And our landlord, being the selfish child-man he was, took our crazy neighbor's anger personally and so he did in fact sometimes steal his mail and throw crap over the fence just to piss him off and help him along the way to totally crazy.
As messed up as that particular episode was, that sort of weirdness happened all the time when I was living there. I loved it! It was like living in one of those really good sitcom/dramas.
-FL
From TFA:
Some of those now posting on mind-control sites say they are being remotely âoesexually stimulatedâ by their torturers.
And from a letter from this guy to my mother's friend:
Dear Cindy
I want to let you know some of the details of whatâ(TM)s been happening to me because of this chip in my head. I know this is all very hard to believe, but I want to tell people because when the truth (and the chip) comes out, someone will know as far as I can tell the facts of what has been going on. It is as difficult for me to believe as it is for anyone else (except, of course, the others involved in this), but there are a lot of people besides those in Mexico who have spent a lot of time and money to keep this situation unknown to anyone but themselves.
Nathan [redacted] and his friends(?) â" including â" believe it or not â" your old friends from Eckerd College Martha (Marty), Bruce [redacted], Bruce [redacted], Pat [redacted] and Peter [redacted] (Mr. Military History Major) â" have now had over 10 months to torture me and to use me as a guinea pig so they can learn how to manipulate this chip so as to cause my body and mind to react in different ways. Iâ(TM)ve actually âoespokenâ to each of these former college acquaintances of both of ours directly, and they identified themselves as such. (I write âoespokenâ with quotation marks because I never actually say anything out loud; everything I âoesayâ to them is actually me thinking.)
I donât know exactly how it works myself, but by sending these electronic impulses to my brain via this chip, they are able to make me feel various sensations in my body, cause my eyes to water and distort my vision. They seem to take particular delight in making my asshole twitch and my penis to feel impulses â" without an erection, although there are reactions in other body areas as well. Itâ(TM)s not exactly pain, though. (I once read that pain is just a body location you are especially aware of. And thatâ(TM)s what this is.) Sometimes, I feel it in my arms, my legs, and they can manipulate my heartbeat as well. (They call it giving me a âoeheart attackâ.)
By manipulating the volume control of this chip, all of the noises in my environment are greatly exaggerated so that the sound of my mother eating a potato chip or turning the page of a newspaper is so loud, itâ(TM)s maddening. Also, because of their transmission of sound via these microwaves â" cell phone transmissions â" my mother picks up on some of this because of her deafness, and, without noticing, she makes the sounds that they transmit. I hear her unknowingly repeat certain words over and over such as âoeI canâ(TM)t tell youâ and other innocuous phrases such as that. They have even caused her to âoesayâ things such as âoesuck my cockâ and âoefuck youâ without her knowing it. I know it sounds weird, but itâ(TM)s true. Because of her deafness, Mom sometimes unknowingly makes breathing noises, and this they have been able to somehow connect to.
Iâ(TM)m not crazy. These things happen. They keep me from going to sleep, and wake me up several times each night. This happened at your house during both visits. As a matter of fact, Martha â" the little fat, giggly girl who was yours and Georganaâ(TM)s friend at Eckerd â" was listening to our conversations when I was visiting you. The former Eckerd or FPC people are presumably still living in the St. Pete/Tampa area. Somehow Nathan has connected with these people, and they are very much involved with this as well as others who I think must be what Don once referred to as his âoelittle circle of friends.â Even Sue [redacted] is in on this. The Eckerd people al
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Who wrote the bible? It is known that the christian testaments WERE selected by a SINGLE individual who deciced what and what not to include from a host of other authors. How much did he leave out? Did he add anything? What was his agenda?
Same with Islam, it was written by a pedo who had sex with a girl only about 6 years old. And it is from HIS writings that the rest of the religion takes its que as to the acceptable age of marriage. Chicken and the egg anyone? How much did the prophet introduce his own leanings into the supposed godly teachings?
Same with the old testament, how can there be a people of Israel if all people are from the same two? Who wrote the original testaments? We have accounting of the actual telling of the testaments by god to the scribes, they just seem to have popped up somewhere. Slightly odd, at least most of the new testaments are supposed to be eye witness accounts even if 2nd or 3rd hand ones. But who witnessed or was told genesis?
Scientology just makes it bloody obvious that religions should be questioned as to the motivations of its founders. 2000 or 6000 years don't suddenly make it possible to ignore the question: "Where is the money".
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Sound like that MI6 guy on the Usenet that spams every news group with his stories about how MI6 is abusing him. He even thinks they are talking to him through the TV.
He hears words in others conversations and documents every thing he hears that he attributes to him self. He is nuts.
A badly constructed post, but not a troll
'[the] extent of the community [...] poses a paradox to the traditional way delusion is defined under the diagnostic guidelines of the American Psychiatric Association, which says that if a belief is held by a person's "culture or subculture," it is not a delusion. The exception accounts for rituals of religious faith, for example.' Could you imagine what would happen if these people came together to form a religion, or some sort of NGO? I'd imagine that a lot of random people would get phonecalls like this : "Hello?" "Hi, is this Steve Smith?" "Speaking. Who is this?" "You know who this is, because you've been watching us. We know, because we've been watching you." "Is this a prank call?" "No it's not, but you already knew that. Listen, I'm calling on behalf of Citizens Against Gang Stalking, and we want you to leave Terry Johnson alone." "Who's Terry Johnson?" "He was wearing a brown suit in Starbucks today, right around 8:30 when you usually get your coffee. He noticed that you reached for the napkin dispenser right before he did. What, you thought you'd get away with that?" "I have no idea who you're talking about. What am I trying to get away with?" "Implanting a tiny microphone into the next napkin, so that he'd take it with him, allowing you to listen to his conversations wherever he went. I bet you never thought we'd catch you!" "uhm, I'm going to hang up now."
I'm not paranoid, but that's not what "THEY" are probably saying!
Stop talking about me behind my back!
Yes, but look at the effects of that belief, together with all the other irrational beliefs people held at that time. There's a reason why those were the "dark" ages.
It doesn't matter if it's only a few people or a large group who believe in a falsehood. Actually, it's even worse if many people believe it. They will waste their time and resources fighting something that does not exist, they will live lower quality lives, full of fear.
Delusion or not, false beliefs should be eliminated.
I cannot imagine why you would believe this. Do you mean to tell me that you think that if someone believed there was a small, harmless gremlin walking beside them their entire life, and it didn't really bother them, that a psychologist would not classify them as delusional?
You are, of course, completely wrong.
A few years back, I played on a Neverwinter Night's roleplaying server. One of the DMs (who I didn't get along with, but that's a different story) was this British guy who was very articulate and well-spoken. I later came to find out that he honestly believed he was being assaulted by government mind-control techniques. I shrugged him off as a nutcase, but, after doing a little research, I discovered these communities. It's a far more widespread belief than I thought.
I know for a fact that the internet is subliminally trying to control us all. Look at all those buttons that say SUBMIT on them!
A delusion is not a delusion if the holder can be convinced otherwise by reasonable proof.
For example, if I think there is one beer left in the fridge, I am not deluded. If after seeing the fridge is empty I am still convinced there is a beer left, I am deluded.
With Christianity it is very hard to provide evidence that Jesus did not rise from the grave. So it's followers may be mistaken, but without contrary evidence it cannot be called delusion.
I'm not crazy! You're all out to get me!
That's why I always post under "Anonymous Coward"!
... but religion is just a delusion (actually a schizophrenia) that got so widespread, that they could create a special law/rule for it.
This does not mean that it isn't still a disease.
The same is true for these people.
Of course on mind control, one could actually check the facts, before calling it a disease. ;)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
OK, so what about if you believe there's one pink unicorn with the Pillsbury doughboy riding it in the fridge: delusional or not under your definition?
just wear your pvp trinket. Noobs.
Because religion is pretty delusional, too.
The problem with mental illness - in this case: massive delusions - is that it's not a "boolean" state. Psychiatry as a science makes the massive mistake of ignoring the gradual slope of those problems. From TFA:
Maybe they are not in the strictest sense psychotic, but they clearly are delusional and suffer from a severe mental disease. I do understand the reluctance to acknowledge this, because in consequence it means that we have to shine a not-so-positive light on closely related phenomena, like say, fundamentalist religious beliefs. However, this is science, and psychiatrists should stop making all kinds of concessions to avoid clashing with cultural beliefs.
And another thing from the article:
I don't understand how this legitimizes any of those mass delusions. If anything, examples like these go a long way to show that government spending is disgustingly influenced by a lack of education, common sense, and yes: sanity.
That depends.
Do I also believe that it hides when I open the fridge door? Do I still believe it after taking the fridge apart and examining it?
A delusion is a belief that is held in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That is what differentiates it from a normal belief or theory.
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/11/13/canadian-sues-microsoft-billion
> Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away.
That's a very interesting proof of religion, given how many people have stopped believing in it without it having gone anywhere.
It's very interesting to see how many people think they can be brainwashed or hypnotized by the mere flick of a finger or flash of an image or a 'hypnotic' phrase.
Even people who are hypnotized are not in complete control of the hypnotist, even though it seems like it with the silly things they make them do.
Brainwashing per the old movie (forgot the name) where the soldiers who had been operating in the Far East where brainwashed to kill the president or whatever, is not very workable.
I personally knew a person who had the misfortune of going under the needle by someone trying to brainwash him over a period of several months. Ditto I've known a guy who was a "test dummy" from a concentration camp (Auschwitz) in Poland. To break down the human psyche is not an easy undertaking. The end result is a very non functioning person, and anything but someone who would easily fit into society, never mind functioning in an organization.
There was at one point people who had infiltrated Scientology with the goal to make personal financial gain, but they were all discovered and kicked back in, oh, sometime in early -80's. Obviously the more responsibility you have the more you stand to gain, and loose. But people, including management, in Scientology is not there because they want to make a lot of money. They are there because they want to help people. A very unselfish lot if you ask me.
My company got a call to service a phone system for a local church, and the tech that went there came back and said that he'd heard about Scientology before but did not actually know anything. He was also very surprised over how friendly everybody was. Usually, a company would have an average cut of society and their fair share of "nasties". He was really taken back by how nice everyone was and kept on repeating it. Does not sound like brainwashed people, as they are anything but nice.
As I've pointed out before my daughter has taken courses there and has come out of her shy "shell" and is a very happy and productive young woman. I used to wonder why she would not say Thank you, after receiving some pleasantry from some of my friends or business contacts. Turned out that she was too shy to say anything. Well, that's long gone and she has certainty on who she is and what she can do and does very well for herself. Last summer she did a lot of community volunteer work, which is a first. She can tell right and wrong apart and is very helpful.
In my estimate people are afraid of unknown things and don't learn enough about it before they yell "Burn them at the stake!", or some similar type of thinking. We hear someone saying something like "Obama is a terrorist!", and immediately believe it, because it was said with certainty. (Did you see the Ungodly commercial that was run by Congress woman Dole against her competitor? I saw it and was horrified. Turned out I was not the only one fooled by the dubbed voice. Dole is now facing a deformation lawsuit.) The IRS spent several decades investigating the church and came back saying that it is a bona fide religion. These guys read every document, every policy, every lecture. Had spies inside and so on and could not find any evidence of wrong doing after all those decades.
Yeah, there is the issue of copyright lawsuits. I've never had the opportunity to discuss it with their attorneys so I can't say. But as a copyright owner I know about the necessity to defend copyrighted materials. They might not have been popular but you have little choice if you want to keep them. For you, old enough, will remember how Xerox lost the right on "xerox copy" because they did not defend the use of it. It was as common, back then, as it is to say "google it" these days. The Lisa McPherson(?)'s case was fumbled by one of the Medical Examiners, who later fessed up to misreporting it, which ended that case.
In the end I think that there is a small group of people who feel better going around and being destructive instead of constructive, and when you add that with the common fear o
Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! (http://www.gorgorat.com/)
I'm all ready to say no, when he says, ''For instance, do you think any
of the boys waiting on the benches are staring at you now?"
While I had been waiting to talk to the psychiatrist, I had noticed
there were about twelve guys on the benches waiting for the three
psychiatrists, and they've got nothing else to look at, so I divide twelve
by three -- that makes four each -- but I'm conservative, so I say, "Yeah,
maybe two of them are looking at us."
He says, "Well just turn around and look" -- and he's not even
bothering to look himself!
So I turn around, and sure enough, two guys are looking. So I point to
them and I say, "Yeah -- there's that guy, and that guy over there looking
at us." Of course, when I'm turned around and pointing like that, other guys
start to look at us, so I say, "Now him, and those two over there -- and now
the whole bunch." He still doesn't look up to check. He's busy writing more
things on my paper.
Then he says, "Do you ever hear voices in your head?"
"Very rarely," and I'm about to describe the two occasions on which it
happened when he says, "Do you talk to yourself?"
"Yeah, sometimes when I'm shaving, or thinking; once in a while." He's
writing down more stuff. (...)
my associative arrays can kick your hash - TCL
In respect to this specific article and claim made, it was suggested that since people belonged to an online group that reinforced their delusions, perhaps they weren't technically delusion after all (according to a definition of "delusion" that appears in an appendix of the DSM-IV, not in the actual text of the diagnostic criteria for delusional disorder or schizophrenia). I find that a spurious claim at best and a warping of the intent of the diagnostic criteria.
Of course people can and should be diagnosed with delusional disorders or schizophrenia if they believe stuff like, "All of my organs have been replaced with exact replicas by aliens," and not have such a diagnosis (and its respective treatment) withheld simply because they've joined an online group that reinforces that false belief.
John
--
Psych Central
And how about people to whom god is whispering in their ear to kill thousands of people in an unjustified preemptive war in order to fight the (axis of) evil, that happens to consist of people who believe in the wrong god?
... that not only are our targets gathered together in a few websites, but they actually post how they feel! I can't tell you how many times we wondered if we were freaking them out or not. I mean... so we replaced the lightbulb in the fridge with a broken one, and then switched it back the next day. But did they even notice?? Or did we nearly break our necks on the fire escape for no f***ing reason?
These sites make our jobs even more worthwhile. Keep up the good work!
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!) Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in
the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals
will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the
difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect
you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to
figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley
is updated with information about you.
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at
night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to
prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for
that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by
nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon,
emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by
key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically
moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of
their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but
consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there
is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical
documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially
launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union
address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have
said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking
of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long
history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in
this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun
goes down.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There was nothing to "treat," unless you want to advocate "deprogramming"...
As someone who knows nothing about the subject, my first instinct would be to ask, "why wouldn't you advocate 'deprogramming'?"
I get that people of different cultures hold different beliefs, and that in some cases the person doing the deprogramming would just be instilling his own culture into the patient, which would make it akin to brainwashing. However, I think there's a much better way of determining whether such a course of action is acceptable or not than just deciding if it's part of a person's culture: is the false belief negatively affecting a person's life? If you go around thinking that a woman is "witching" you, sounds like it is affecting your life. In the worst case scenario, this guy would be bothering the poor woman, trying to convince her to stop. The best case scenario is that he doesn't take any the actions necessary to solve his own ailments, because he believes it would be futile against her "powers." Both cases suck.
Same thing for religion. Having a religion is fine (whether it's true or not is irrelevant, as long as it's having a positive effect in your life. Many people are happier because they have faith). However, the moment your religion is interfering instead of helping, "deprogramming" seems like a viable option here.
There seems to be confusion in these discussions about the difference between a "false belief" and a delusion. The ability to believe something which is not true is adaptive. We have self-protective psychological mechanisms (we're not all under our desks screaming about our impending deaths) and are geared to believe our perceptions ("That cup is red" not "That redness is an artifact of my visual system interacting with light waves"). Superstition and religion are not delusions, either. The human brain is so good at making causal links, but, lacking good information, garbage links are made. The religious and cultural beliefs of our society (micro as well as macro) define where this inate capacity goes in terms of outcome ("Jesus" not "Buddah", "Individualism is good" not "Collectivism is good") - but holding any of these beliefs does not make you deluded per se, even if they are false. And hence the need to exculude culturally specific beliefs from the delusion definition. If you are believing it against all explanation (there is nothing in my culture of upbringing to explain why I think that the mafia is after me) or if there is some perceptual malfunction ("The voices are telling me I'm a horse") then I meet part of the explanation of mental illness. (If my family was a mafia family, or some ritual in my religious culture explained my ability to become a horse, then I'm not). It's the plasticity of our minds that explains this. Is the internet a "culture" in this sense when it comes to paranoid mind beliefs? I'd say not - it's a communication tool that allows people with similar delusions to link up. It should surprise no one that people who share a mental illness might like to get together, the same way that we all like to hang with those who are similar. But just because two people who think that Martians are trying to kill them sit together in the waiting room doesn't make them a culture which creates a plausible explanation for a delusion. I could read "car number plates are coded messages" stuff all day and not come to believe it. The creation of these sites is potentially positive as well as negative. Sure, they allows a bunch of parasites to sell tin foil hats to vulnerable people, and the reinforcing effect is hardly helpful. On the other hand, the sites might be the one social network for some people - and social networks mean so very much in terms of people quality of life and psychological health.
I like how the doctors had to resort to scarequotes and verbing the noun witch, to get "witching."
Whereas if they had used the fine English verb, to curse, they couldn't have institutionlized someone with it.
Neither of these beliefs are necessarily maladaptive, however; rather, they are contingently maladaptive in the sense that they are violently countermajoritarian. So the question for psychology becomes: do we "treat" this group as "delusional" or do we accept it as a "subculture?"
Elegantly phrased.
The problem with religion^h^h^h^h^h^h^hdelusion is not the act per se, it's the side effects that the individual with the delusion has on society as he/she acts according to a non-factually based belief set.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Whose eyes are those eyes?
Hey, I always told you.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Essentially means that you cannot automatically write off anyone who says that they hear voices in their head. Imagine the implications for the planet Earth if Dick Cheney had one of these and frequently targeted George W. Bush with it. Come to think of it that might explain a hell of a lot.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Sitting on that park bench, Professor Bell ironically looks like he has his arm around an invisible friend.
Clearly, you have never been to /b/.
Circa 1994, rumors of a "Good Times" virus started circulating the Internet. This was supposedly a virus that could open your address book, take control of your computer, and send copies of itself to your friends.
This was, at the time, tinfoil-hat laughable. There was no standard e-mail client, no "Visual Basic for Applications", and on standard address book. And you _knew_ if an extra application was running on your machine (I got my mail with "PINE" so it wasn't a problem at all).
About a year or two afterwards, the "Melissa" worm came around implementing the urban legend.
I wonder if gangs of malicious jerks will start picking on these (now organized) groups just to freak them out. (There are already directional sound technologies, etc. that are becoming available)
So if the many believe something patently false in reality it is "culture" but if only a few believe it then it is "delusion"? Then is there no such thing as a "popular delusion"? Isn't the important thing correspondence with reality / evidence rather than popularity?
I can agree that we hope (or believe) that we will get safely to our destination.
Hope and belief are not the same things at all. With hope, one is talking about one's wishes for outcomes regardless of reality, whereas with belief one is talking about one's knowledge about the state of reality. One may hope that your hypothetical airplane delivers you to your destination even if one believes sincerely that it probably won't, or vice versa, because they are different ideas.
In the next two assertions, you contradict yourself:
...the human spirit, consciousness, soul, whatever you want to call it, is the ONLY thing that goes out of existence.
...
NOTHING ever goes out of existence in the entire universe, but only changes form.
The second assertion is wrong, and you even illustrated this implicitly with your first. The only conserved quantities are the matter and energy in question, but the arrangement of those things *does* change. Our beings are such arrangements, and they are transient. That this arrangement (which dualists such as yourself call "soul") is transient rather than ineffable is illustrated by the existence of the universe before such an perception-enabling arrangement ("soul") exists is evidence of this. The universe existed before "you" did, and it will continue to exist after "you" cease to exist. If souls were conserved quantities which must persist after "death", then they must persist before inception, too. (This is to say nothing about how the similar life forms of the recent or distant past and those of the present must either have different kinds or amounts of "soul", or, per the uninvestigated claims of theology, none at all, no matter how similar or different they may be as in the case of Homo neanderthalensis, Homo habilis, domestic dog, lizard, insect, worm, petunia, or plankton.)
Another gamble many make is WHERE this eternal, real part of their person goes, as based on their present life.
What you're talking about now is called making an inference: predicting the unknown based on the already known. It is the basis of one's belief that an airplane will actually undertake its journey as planned and anticipated based on prior experience.
If people [live "virtuously", deferring possible disagreements on what constitutes this], [but are wrong about being reward for such in a supposed "afterlife", what have they lost if they [simply die]...?
That's "Pascal's Wager"; but an atheist can make the same wager: if one lives a virtuous life, what has one lost if there exists a virtuous and loving god? The point is that one should live a virtuous life because doing so is intrinsically good, not merely because one thinks doing so will be rewarded. (It is appalling to consider that some people are only living "virtuously" because they want a reward or because they fear punishment for failing to do so; this is not virtue, but rather business-mindedness and/or cowardice.)
Above and beyond all that, it is possible to hope for an afterlife, yet believe there exists none. One cannot simply will oneself to think something is true if one believes it is false.
...most people believe (hope) today [that human existence ends at death]...
It is safe to say that most people do not hope that their existence ends at death, even if most believe it is true! The human wish to live forever is a hallmark of human thought and certainly of human religion. The rest of your post illustrates the importance of this aspect of Christianity to Christians specifically, and is an example of this aspect of human religions in general.
However, if a person who believes...in the "nothingness" theory lives [unvirtuously, again assuming, for the sake of the present argument, that we could agree
...for two reasons.
First, diplomacy. It isn't smart to point out to an enormous, well-organised, well-funded group that its dearest tenets are patently and hilariously utter bollocks.
Second, contamination: when your own ranks are filled with people infected with these delusions it is not possible to recognise their pathology.
After giving the New York Times article a little bit more time to settle there are three points that I wanted to review further.
The first was how the article came to use the term extreme communities. I did read over the Vaughan Bell article was a reference is made to such communities.
http://arginine.spc.org/vaughan/Bell_2007_JMH_Preprint.pdf
According to what Dr Bell wrote in the article it was views considered extreme or unacceptable by the mainstream. Using this definition I wondered if things such as the 9/11 truth movement would be an extreme community? Their views are not considered mainstream. I also wondered who else might fall into this list based on Dr Bell's definition?
Websites that cover conspiracy topics might well meet his definition of extreme communities. Many of the subject matters covered on websites such as http://www.abovetopsecret.com/ would fall into this category. They would be a website of mini patches of extreme communities.
Another factor that I thought should be calculated in when defining a community as an extreme community is the obvious, is the community helpful vs harmful? What kind of purpose do they serve? If I go to a website that has what by some is considered an extreme view that encourages me to kill myself, then that should be considered different than going to a website that expounds none traditional views, but steers the website viewer away from inflicting harm to themselves?
There are lot's of websites that conform to traditional or more traditional mainstream views that in my opinion are probably fairly harmful to some aspects of society, but we turn a blind eye, because it does pass mainstream muster.
The definition as is, in my opinion is fairly broad, and the references to the term were limited except for references to Dr Bell's work and the New York Times article.
The other point that I am wondering about is who or what now defines what is mainstream or normal? In today's society we have so many different variables to consider. At one time spending all your time online might have been considered the actions of lonely desperate people. Now with websites such as Facebook, and much of web 2.0 culture, being online is considered normal, and spending many hours online as long as it's spent socialising is considered a fairly normal and healthy activity.
According to a report from Mediamark Research in a 30 day period 2.5 million adults participated in online dating. I am sure they find this to be completely normal and mainstream, but I am sure there are patches of society that do not agree with this.
http://www.mediamark.com/PDF/Nearly%202.5%20Million%20Adults%20Participated%20in%20Online%20Dating%20in%20Last%2030%20Days.pdf
World of WarCraft reached 11 Million monthly Subscribers. Many of them sane individuals who go online to take part in these roleplaying games. For that community, I am sure they consider themselves normal and mainstream, just by their sheer numbers. I am sure there are still many in society who would not however consider going online to roleplay normal, mainstream or even healthy.
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3170971
Thus what would be considered as abnormal or extreme view offline is often a normal and accepted view online, in many different circles. Eg. 9/11 conspiracy offline, might still be considered anti-government or none traditional, but online they are a fairly regular part of web culture and discussions. When defining mainstream and referencing the Internet, we might have to start finding different ways to do so.
Eg. I just read an article today, that talks about a real life couple getting divorced because he is cheating online with a virtual girlfr
After giving the New York Times article a little bit more time to settle there are three points that I wanted to review further. The first was how the article came to use the term extreme communities. I did read over the Vaughan Bell article was a reference is made to such communities. http://arginine.spc.org/vaughan/Bell_2007_JMH_Preprint.pdf According to what Dr Bell wrote in the article it was views considered extreme or unacceptable by the mainstream. Using this definition I wondered if things such as the 9/11 truth movement would be an extreme community? Their views are not considered mainstream. I also wondered who else might fall into this list based on Dr Bell's definition? Websites that cover conspiracy topics might well meet his definition of extreme communities. Many of the subject matters covered on websites such as http://www.abovetopsecret.com/ would fall into this category. They would be a website of mini patches of extreme communities. Another factor that I thought should be calculated in when defining a community as an extreme community is the obvious, is the community helpful vs harmful? What kind of purpose do they serve? If I go to a website that has what by some is considered an extreme view that encourages me to kill myself, then that should be considered different than going to a website that expounds none traditional views, but steers the website viewer away from inflicting harm to themselves? There are lot's of websites that conform to traditional or more traditional mainstream views that in my opinion are probably fairly harmful to some aspects of society, but we turn a blind eye, because it does pass mainstream muster. The definition as is, in my opinion is fairly broad, and the references to the term were limited except for references to Dr Bell's work and the New York Times article. The other point that I am wondering about is who or what now defines what is mainstream or normal? In today's society we have so many different variables to consider. At one time spending all your time online might have been considered the actions of lonely desperate people. Now with websites such as Facebook, and much of web 2.0 culture, being online is considered normal, and spending many hours online as long as it's spent socialising is considered a fairly normal and healthy activity. According to a report from Mediamark Research in a 30 day period 2.5 million adults participated in online dating. I am sure they find this to be completely normal and mainstream, but I am sure there are patches of society that do not agree with this. http://www.mediamark.com/PDF/Nearly%202.5%20Million%20Adults%20Participated%20in%20Online%20Dating%20in%20Last%2030%20Days.pdf World of WarCraft reached 11 Million monthly Subscribers. Many of them sane individuals who go online to take part in these roleplaying games. For that community, I am sure they consider themselves normal and mainstream, just by their sheer numbers. I am sure there are still many in society who would not however consider going online to roleplay normal, mainstream or even healthy. http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3170971 Thus what would be considered as abnormal or extreme view offline is often a normal and accepted view online, in many different circles. Eg. 9/11 conspiracy offline, might still be considered anti-government or none traditional, but online they are a fairly regular part of web culture and discussions. When defining mainstream and referencing the Internet, we might have to start finding different ways to do so. Eg. I just read an article today, that talks about a real life couple getting divorced because he is cheating online with a virtual girlfriend. Traditional definitions are having to be adapted and redef
Believe it or not, that's a myth. It's the same myth that if you ignore the Bully they will just go away. It's not true. This does not work with bullying, workplace mobbing, or gang stalking. Awareness and exposure have been the best methods thus far for combating what is happening. Please remember that on a psychologial and emotional level what happens to targets of gang stalking is very similar to what happened to targets of workplace mobbing, but this happens in the community.
In Russia where the state did go after activists and dissidents the Establishment did help them to do it. The same is true with Cointelpro and McCarthyism in the U.S. The same is also true with the psychiatric reprisal. http://www.harassment101.com/Article5.html [quote] 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. 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. He claimed the university diverted money from research grants in order to pay for salaries and trips for administrators and some staff. The specific allegations were sealed by order of the federal judge. Crosty and Murtagh don't know each other. It is unlikely their worlds would ever intersect, but they have at least one thing in common. They both are victims of an increasingly popular employer weapon against whistleblowers: the psychiatric reprisal. [/quote]
Your quoted text will look better with blockquote tags. Also use
for line breaks.
There are definitely some people who are being persecuted, but the majority of paranoid people are not being persecuted. Those are interesting examples and good arguments for having safeguards in place against abuse of mental health facilities. The old cliche of having someone inconvenient sent away to the lunatic asylum was disturbingly commonplace.
Man, you really need that seminar!
Just a quick update on the New York Times article.
I have just spoken to Vaughan Bell, one of the key psychologists mentioned in the article and he was kind enough to clarify that he has never studied Gang Stalking.
The research that he did, fully focuses on Mind Control sites. He has never studied Gang Stalking or the Gang Stalking World website more specifically.
I think one of the things that Sarah Kershaw did in the article, that many people do is that she lumped in Gang Stalking, Electronic Harassment, and Mind Control, all together.
For the record I do believe that all three happen and are happening to Targets. I know about Mk Ultra, the experiments that happened, the law-suites for mind control. I am familiar with Electronic Harassment. How many times have I gone into the shower to have patches of my skin peal off from the burns of the night before?
I do however focus on the Gang Stalking aspect of it, because it comes down to what can you prove? Over the last two years, I have spoken to enough police officers, (who are no longer mentioned), health professionals, social workers, crisis centers, lawyers, Investigators, Human Rights, etc to find out what I could about what was happening with the Citizen Informants, and the programs that they are being used for.
I have enough people offline and online that I have spoken to, to know that I know what I am talking about with the Gang Stalking stuff.
Since the only psychologist thus far that I could find who mentioned extreme communities was again Vaughan Bell, he has not identified the Gang Stalking websites as such, since he has never studied them.
The article also does make it clear that in relationship to Dr. Ralph Hoffman, his patients have "told him of visiting mind-control sites, and finding in them confirmation of their own experiences."
So we have two named professionals, one psychiatrist and one psychologist, both who have not it would appear studied, or actually made mention of the Gang Stalking Websites.
It seems the confusion and the lumping together of the terms might be coming from the author of the article Sarah Kershaw, and it is an easy error to make, if you are not familiar with the three phenomenons. We are all Targeted Individuals, but just because you experience or are a target of one, does not mean that you are a target of all.
I just wanted to clarify this factor for anyone who still had questions about this article or how the conclusions came about. I might do a bit more follow up, on this article with at least one more person, but these are important details that I thought should be clearifed.