Is there a pattern forming?
I asked this question after realising that an article about Truman Show delusion, Internet delusion and climate change delusion came out back in August 29, 2008. It was written by Sarah Kershaw and in the article she mentioned Joel and Ian Gold, both brothers. Both psychiatrists, one out of New York, one now in Toronto, who are writing about Truman show delusion.
The second article which you might be more familiar with is the New York Times article again by Sarah Kershaw, November 13, 2008, with mentions of Vaughan Bell, Dr Hoffman and unnamed concerned health professionals.
The third article is by Jennifer Peltz, where she writes about Truman Show Delusion, this came out 11/24/08. She also references the brothers Gold and Vaughan Bell again in the article.
Now wither or not it's a new trend to write about delusions or as some suspect an actual attempt by the system to give society the impression that people claiming to be watched are delusional is anyone's guess.
I was going back over my writings and I did want to make one thing clear. When I first read the Sarah Kershaw article, I wrote about it. Now the pen or in this case my typing fingers might have been a bit faster than my mind. What I mean is, I was looking back at what I wrote, and it seemed to be critical of the article. I never meant to be critical of the article, and I apologize if it came across that way. What I was actually concerned about was the new "syndromes" that had appeared in the article. Specifically the Internet Delusions and to a lesser extend the Truman show delusion.
The first article by Sarah Kershaw was actually an interesting, informative and insightful read. It was a pretty well written article, I didn't mean that I wanted the article to fail. What I meant was that I had really specific concerns more specifically, about the findings that had been exposed in the article.
Here is some background information about my concerns. Since coming across the David Lawson book Terrorist Stalking in America and his conclusions that this is being done by vigilante groups and then his follow up book which claims this is being done by terrorist or anti-government groups, I have long suspected the work to be a disinformation piece that was meant to destroy and harm the credibility of targets should they go to the police or health professionals with his conclusions.
This is what I wrote about David Lawson back in December 2006.
[quote]If what he says about these stalking crews are true. These crews are illegal, dangerous, well connected and you would not want to be writing a book about their activities without consent. Members stay in the group out of fear, blackmail, the sense of power it gives them. The reason they work so well, and have become so powerful is because they work in secrecy. Secrecy, and yet he was allowed to write a book about them and go on his merry way?
No reprisals? No revenge? He is either really brave, and lucky. Really deceptive and wrong. Or maybe somewhere in between?[/quote]
Since then David Lawson has reappeared, his book is off the satellite stealing website, and it's now widely available at amazon, with the new conclusions, that this is being done by terrorist, and anti-government groups.
David Lawson claims to have been a detective for 12 years, then he claims that he was a part of these stalking groups for several more years. My question has always been, why was he allowed to write the book if they are so dangerous? He claims to have been one of them for several years, so how do we know he can be trusted? Later after doing my own research and talking to others, I realised that his conclusions were false and that a detective of 12 years could not have come to such false conclusions easily, especially one that claims to have travelled with them for several years. I have maintained that I think the book is disinformation.
I wondered if at some point the establishment would have an illness similar or one that matched his conclusions. After reading the article and doing some research, I came across this.
[quote]This paper analyzes four case-reports and notes that, contrary to the traditional view, the cases are examples where an internet-theme has particular clinical implications.
In one case, a patient began to have paranoid thoughts and used an internet search engine to investigate suspicions about an ingredient on a chewing gum packet.
Her searches led her to believe she had discovered a secret terrorist network, and was therefore being personally targeted by the authorities using phone taps and hidden cameras.[/quote]
I read over the case study, and the first case study presented was unrelated. My concerns however with these new findings is that they don't take current factors into consideration when making their diagnosis. Eg. The real danger that people's concerns about surveillance could have some basis in truth.
The other concern is the fact that there might be disinformation material being deliberately distributed to the public by specific sources. I am sure this is a foreign concept for many members of mainstream society, but practices such as Cointelpro have shown us that, false Media Stories, Faked dirty letters, poems, and satirical comic books were among the FBI’s many devices for pitting activists against one another.
In the past it was used to discredit dissidents, today it could be providing a similar function.