There is a doctor right now that is openly trying to clone human babies, and he is bragging about it, but think how many others are doing the same in secret.
That was beautiful. Both ends of the scale are bad, but to not question in my mind is worst. The real truth is, they would rather let the system abuse them than believe anything bad about it, because then they would have to confront the truth, that the system might not wish them well, and might be willing to do them evil.
They have said that they wanted to know what would happen if the flu and avian mixed together and were even thinking of doing something similar, eg, creating it in the lab. So if you create something in the lab, what's the point if you can't run a mock test on some population?
Mexico like Africa is a country people don't care about if they lose a few citizens. I don't feel that way but others do. It's the perfect way to try to cover it up. Oh it started in Mexico, everyone knows how those conditions are, almost as bad as a third world country. Poor maintainence on those pig farms, etc. And the sheep would never question the explanation.
Ask yourself why people were so quick to believe it was natural, but are fighting so hard to believe it was not man made?
That's why pedophile rings consisting of hundreds of men, and sometimes women are so easy to catch, cause no one can keep a secret right? That's why the rampant sexual abuse of children came out decades ago right, because no one could keep a secret right? Thousands of families for years kept their mouths shut and so did the victims out of fear.
The church abused thousands of boys and girls, but for decades it was kept a secret, these men moved from one location to another.
Yep guess you are right, people can't keep secrets. They keep secrets now the same they did them, to protect the system, and they consistently sacrifice the innocent to do so.
When the secrets do seem about to come out, follow the trail of blood and death. That's the other reason secrets don't come out. Oh he was just about to testify, weird how the threw himself out that window, etc. Secrets stay buried for a reason.
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.
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]
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.
See this is the myth that still permiates much of socity and their way of thinking. What you and many others are not realising is you don't have to be important to be followed around 24/7. The government is doing this to average people. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-559123/Why-earth-Stasi-state-spying-families.html
[quote]Fast-forward to 2008, and we discover that those same laws have been used for surveillance of a family in Dorset whose only "crime" was to want the best for their youngest child.
They were spied on by their local council, on suspicion of falsifying their address to get their daughter into the popular local primary school.
[/quote]
These people and many others were followed around 24/7 and they had intrusive surveillence, there every moment was recored. Closed the curtains, went to the door, etc.
So please stop permiating the myth. This is happening to a lot of people who are not important, and it was used for things like anit-social behaviour and dog fouling, or putting out the trash on days you should not have. Some were tracked for months in this way.
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
Slashdot Mirror
So let's slander him, make him look whacko and not question the establishment, gotcha ya.
There is a doctor right now that is openly trying to clone human babies, and he is bragging about it, but think how many others are doing the same in secret.
That was beautiful. Both ends of the scale are bad, but to not question in my mind is worst. The real truth is, they would rather let the system abuse them than believe anything bad about it, because then they would have to confront the truth, that the system might not wish them well, and might be willing to do them evil.
They have said that they wanted to know what would happen if the flu and avian mixed together and were even thinking of doing something similar, eg, creating it in the lab. So if you create something in the lab, what's the point if you can't run a mock test on some population?
Mexico like Africa is a country people don't care about if they lose a few citizens. I don't feel that way but others do. It's the perfect way to try to cover it up. Oh it started in Mexico, everyone knows how those conditions are, almost as bad as a third world country. Poor maintainence on those pig farms, etc. And the sheep would never question the explanation.
Ask yourself why people were so quick to believe it was natural, but are fighting so hard to believe it was not man made?
That's why pedophile rings consisting of hundreds of men, and sometimes women are so easy to catch, cause no one can keep a secret right? That's why the rampant sexual abuse of children came out decades ago right, because no one could keep a secret right? Thousands of families for years kept their mouths shut and so did the victims out of fear.
The church abused thousands of boys and girls, but for decades it was kept a secret, these men moved from one location to another.
Yep guess you are right, people can't keep secrets. They keep secrets now the same they did them, to protect the system, and they consistently sacrifice the innocent to do so.
When the secrets do seem about to come out, follow the trail of blood and death. That's the other reason secrets don't come out. Oh he was just about to testify, weird how the threw himself out that window, etc. Secrets stay buried for a reason.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mg2RZH0oNU Some other Gang Stalking Videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLpHitaKk1s
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.
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]
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.
See this is the myth that still permiates much of socity and their way of thinking. What you and many others are not realising is you don't have to be important to be followed around 24/7. The government is doing this to average people. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-559123/Why-earth-Stasi-state-spying-families.html [quote]Fast-forward to 2008, and we discover that those same laws have been used for surveillance of a family in Dorset whose only "crime" was to want the best for their youngest child. They were spied on by their local council, on suspicion of falsifying their address to get their daughter into the popular local primary school. [/quote] These people and many others were followed around 24/7 and they had intrusive surveillence, there every moment was recored. Closed the curtains, went to the door, etc. So please stop permiating the myth. This is happening to a lot of people who are not important, and it was used for things like anit-social behaviour and dog fouling, or putting out the trash on days you should not have. Some were tracked for months in this way.
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