Gang Stalking

A upto date blog about my adventures with gangstalking. This is my way of sharing with the world what gang stalking is really like. Some helpful books. Gang Stalking Books Mobbing Books

Monday, April 12, 2010



That is the best word to use to describe these people. Recently I had to find out information in regards to trying to get this stopped, not just for myself but for other targets.

The Informants went into hyper-stupidity mode. I was recently talking to someone in an official capacity, the informants interpreted this as a sign for sure of mental illness. It does not see to occur to them that in my official capacity of trying to assist myself and other targets, I now have to put in place procedures and suggestions that targets can use to get this curtailed in their lives? I am now trying to find the correct procedures and methods that current and future targets can use to gain access to their files, and what legal channels they need to take, this was what I recently set out to do.

They were not having any of that, my need to make polite inquires was surely a sign of whatever garbage they are trying to put out there about me. Logic is not something that will stop these people from their crazy beliefs. They see logic, trip over logic, pick themselves up, and just keep going. Watching them in action I am sure that many of them would fail basic tests for critical thinking. They watch me looking for signs, and I watch them thinking, Are bloody well stupid? I often can not believe that I that I let such wankers destroy my life for so long. Frenzied is the only term that I can use to describe these people.
fren·zied (frnzd)
Affected with or marked by frenzy; frantic:

The more they interact with each other,the more they feed the frenzy. It's interesting to watch, logic, and common sense just does not break through their wall of ignorance, they know what they know cause the state told them so.

Not only are they frenzied, but a lot of what they do in their official delusion that they are keeping the city safe, involves breaking the law, and that is what I was setting out to do recently, finding out what course of action is best for targets to use to start to curtail this. I have very little doubts that my progress will be impeded, but it must be done.

Again before I go further, let me state that there are sane rational citizens out there, one's who are as disgusted as I am by the crazy frenzied behaviour of the other citizens, but unfortunately too many bad apples will spoil the whole bunch. I just wanted to be clear that there are logical people out there, but more are needed.

In a given day, I touch base with quite a few individuals, responding to inquires, contacting organizations that might be able to help, researching what was at the heart of the harassment that has begun to become known as Gang Stalking. Discovering a secret flagging system for members of society, and the army of citizens that monitor those being flagged has been no easy task. Now the question is, what can targets legally do to defend themselves and to challenge what is happening? For legal challenges I think and exposure will be key strategy for curtailing much of this. A lot of what they are doing is not going to be legal. Exposing it, and helping others to understand why it's wrong to dehumanize targets will be key.

That is what I am working on, and have been working on, and will continue to work on. Any recent conversations, discussions, correspondences, therefore pertain to this. Period.

What I had the chance to observe recently is what I gleamed after reading the articles about how they arrest and forced some innocent person because he bought guns, and his employer alerted them to the fact that he might have been dangerous.

To hear them tell it they saved the day and stopped some crazy person, using the swat team to subdue him, and forcing him to get the help he needed. That's their interpretation.

[quote]To hear them tell it, the five police agencies who apprehended 39-year-old Oregonian David Pyles early on the morning of March 8 thwarted another lone wolf mass murderer. The police “were able to successfully take a potentially volatile male subject into protective custody for a mental evaluation,” announced a press release put out by the Medford, Oregon, police department. The subject had recently been placed on administrative leave from his job, was “very disgruntled,” and had recently purchased several firearms. “Local Law Enforcement agencies were extremely concerned that the subject was planning retaliation against his employers,” the release said. Fortunately, Pyles “voluntarily” turned himself over to police custody, and the legally purchased firearms “were seized for safekeeping.”[/quote]

The reality was very different. They took away this mans rights illegally. They forced their way into his home without cause, kidnapped him, forced him to have a mental evaluation without any real justification, then stole his guns. After he requested them back they then played around about giving it back till he contacted the media outlets. To this date I have not heard an apology issued for what was done. That's the reality of what they did.

[quote]This voluntary exchange involved two SWAT teams, police officers from Medford and nearby Roseburg, sheriff’s deputies from Jackson and Douglas counties, and the Oregon State Police. Oregon State Police Sgt. Jeff Proulx explained to South Oregon’s Mail Tribune why the operation was such a success: “Instead of being reactive, we took a proactive approach.”

There’s just one problem: David Pyles hadn’t committed any crime, nor was he suspected of having committed one. The police never obtained a warrant for either search or arrest. They never consulted with a judge or mental health professional before sending out the military-style tactical teams to take Pyle in.

“They woke me up with a phone call at about 5:50 in the morning,” Pyles told me in a phone interview Friday. “I looked out the window and saw the SWAT team pointing their guns at my house. The officer on the phone told me to turn myself in. I told them I would, on three conditions: I would not be handcuffed. I would not be taken off my property. And I would not be forced to get a mental health evaluation. He agreed. The second I stepped outside, they jumped me. Then they handcuffed me, took me off my property, and took me to get a mental health evaluation.”[/quote]

The problem is when people are in a frenzied state, they believe their own mythology, and nothing you say or do will convince them otherwise. The same is true for what we have to go through when dealong with frenzied people. The system has flagged us for various reasons. It no longer matters if it's true or not, if we are guilty or innocent, tell them crazy, they will see crazy, tell them terrorist and you will clear the space around you, they will believe anything and act accordingly. They also expect us to do the same, expecting us to internalize their expectations of us. Thus justifying their treatment of us. It's important that targets do not let this happen.

The Pygmalion effect, or Rosenthal effect, refers to the phenomenon in which the greater the expectation placed upon people, often children or students and employees, the better they perform. The effect is named after Pygmalion, a Cypriot sculptor in a narrative by Ovid in Greek mythology, who fell in love with a female statue he had carved out of ivory.

The Pygmalion effect is a form of self-fulfilling prophecy, and, in this respect, people with poor expectations internalize their negative label, and those with positive labels succeed accordingly. Within sociology, the effect is often cited with regards to education and social class.[/quote]

Logic does not get past their wall of ignorance, fear, and stupidity. Other methods must be used. As you can see from the case above, the methods used involved expose, and I am sure future legal action. That was how he got his guns back, and that is how he got to tell his side of the story, very different than what they would have had the common public believe.

[quote]There's nothing wrong with looking for signs that someone is about to snap, and if he's putting up multiple red flags, we'd certainly want law enforcement to investigate, possibly to chat with the person and his friends and family. And obviously if someone has made specific threats, a criminal investigation should follow. But that's a far cry from what happened to Pyles.

Pyles' problems began last June after a series of grievances with his employer, the Oregon Department of Transportation. "This was always a professional thing for me," he says. "It was never personal. We were handling the grievances through the process stipulated in the union contract." Pyles declined to discuss the nature of the complaints, citing stipulations in his contract.

On March 4, Pyles was placed on administrative leave, which required him to work from home. On March 5, 6, and 7, after getting his income tax refund, he made three purchases of five firearms. Pyles describes himself as a gun enthusiast, who had already owned several weapons. All three new purchases required an Oregon background check, which would have prohibited the transactions had Pyles ever been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving violence, or been committed by the state to a mental health institution. Pyles says he has no criminal record, and says he never threatened anyone in his office. (A specific threat of violence would have likely brought a criminal charge.) The Oregon State Police, the Medford Police Department, and the Oregon Department of Transportation did not respond to requests for comment.[/quote]

Having the capacity for independent critical thinking is just so important, and I really believe a lot of these people have lost that. They need, they have to have hero vs villain to justify what they are doing. You are either with them or against them, and if you are against them then you must be bad. It helps them to justify their actions. I have seen their actions, not all of it is bad, but on the other hand I could not willing join a frenzied mob incapable of independent and critical thinking.

They need to justify what they are doing, I have no desire to join the true insanity that I see before me which is how this flagging system works, and the actions of those doing the monitoring. It's like watching people in a lunatic frenzied state, and so they have to see those on this side as bad, and justify what they are doing. The scary part is how comforted they are when someone can share in their one handed sign language which tells them who is good vs bad.

Anyways in my official capacity I was able to save some time by finding out a bit more about the direction that targets do no need to go in.

What we need as a community are procedures. Simple procedures that most other targets can follow. Something easy affordable. If most of us knew at the beginning what was happening, we could seek out proper legal assistance before our resources were almost completely exhausted, and that is going to be the next leg of the journey.

Other targets out there are free free to make their own inquires, if you are less watched, less guarded you might have slightly better luck.

Labels: , , , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I had a similar problem where I taught part-time. I was made to react, with the usual poser or two on harassment duty, and I just happened to be stressed out, and in a hurry to boot. I kind of went a little out of my mind, and was in a very bad mood. I went to the library, and I had slammed a door down in the bottom floor. Now I realize I should've have done that, but this head librarian on duty turned me in to the Director of Academic Affairs. Now that you mention it, perhaps that librarian was told that I am dangerous or a loose cannon, and to be on alert for this crazed individual who has issues or whatnot. So the setup of all of this was the ignorant harasser student, whose job was to provoke me, so someone "on watch" could witness me reacting to the harassment.

When the DAA arrived, I explained that I was provoked and illegally framed. She asked me how I knew the student was provoking me in particular. After all, she was just talking on the phone to her friend. But she was saying trigger words I was conditioned to react to. I didn't react to favorably that day.

So the DAA agreed to go up to my classroom and watch my teaching. The class went extremely well, and she had some helpful hints to give me. She gave me a nod of approval. But late that afternoon, I got a call, and she told me she didn't like my behavior that morning, that I should quit teaching there, and to get counciling. The agreement was that I was supposed to meet with a councilor at the main campus. An aside: maybe the reason is that the councilor was advised to say certain things, like I needed drugs or that I was mentally ill? Maybe this whole thing was arranged with the councilor ahead of time?

She told me my reaction to the "imagined" harassment was a warning sign that I need councilling, and that I am a danger to the students there. Interesting how that all worked.

Now, I'm completely out of a job. College II, where I taught since 2008, had similar terms. All of a sudden, I'm teaching way over my student's heads, and it's interesting how this was never brought up during the 2 years I worked there, until this semester, where they cut me down, way down, in teaching hours. This summer, they will not award me a contract, a first for them.

I believe the system had pressured those two colleges to let me go. For what reason, I don't know. But they must've felt that I was making enough money there to buy stuff I needed (electronic) to track them down. I don't buy the college I's excuse that I was a danger to my students.... odd she waited 7 hours to contact me. What transpired during those 7 hours. I did mention organized stalking, and that's probably why I was terminated at both places. They care less about people and more about their business of keeping the people who know too much in line with harassment, stalking, e-torture. I believe DAA from College I was contacted by some people from the system (perps), and threatened her if she didn't put forth her "go to counciling or you're fired" proposition.

That must be the last resort the system uses: if it doesn't work the normal harass/witness/take action way, just pressure the employer to fire the person anyways.

Monday, April 12, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another interesting tidbit: when I purchase anything electronic or electrical, including measuring equipment online, the sender never sends the item, and then provides an excuse, such as, the post office sent it back, or it got lost in shipping. Seems they are afraid of me tracking down how their well-connected remote influence works to the perps working it.

Monday, April 12, 2010  
Blogger gang stalking said...

I agree, they want us jobless, or they want the ability to restrict our income so that we can not fight back, the system is a bully, but what really put's me off is that people know this, but still go along with it.

I am saddened by the people at the bottom, but it is what it is.

I am also wondering how targets come online, they manage to bypass good sites, then get scammed by phony sites, it's amazing, but it is what it is.

They do want us to fight back, and I have seen the same. People online that I have tried to form business associations with, suddenly don't write back, no contact. I am wondering if they are just socially being pressured behind the scenes, or are they using some kind of gag order to delay them doing business, and is so what could they be legally using?

Most times when you examine up close and personal what they are doing it's illegal. As targets if we could get proper legal representation we could stop a lot of this.

The problem is we need people to tell us how they are being pressured, if legal documents are used we need to know which ones, and then make a legal case out of this.

This is where the Cointelpro like tactics come in, most are illegal and used to destroy the life of the target and remove them from the system.

Since the truth come out about the targeting, and these lists, how many of these sites are really talking about it? That should be pretty telling.

These people put in place to keep the lies going. It's annoying. I am still fighting and struggling. Still blocking the electronic harassment, and still fighting to get this out into the open, we need wider exposure. Legal representation. Good legal representation. Maybe I should say affordable legal representation.

Monday, April 19, 2010  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for your post. Very informative.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home