The Psychiatric Reprisal. Part 2 & 3

Named: People who become very angry, like Mr. T in the A Team, could have 'intermittent explosive disorder'

Do you live surrounded by clutter - ancient copies of magazines, your children’s old toys, articles you’ve clipped out of newspapers over the years?

If you find it hard to throw out things of limited or no value, you could be suffering from hoarding disorder.

‘Hoarding’ is just one of the new mental conditions being added to the psychiatrists’ bible, or the Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM), to give it its proper name.

Other new conditions identified as possibly needing professional help include binge eating - which is said to affect many people who are seriously obese - and ‘cognitive tempo disorder’, which seems very like laziness (symptoms include dreaminess and sluggishness).

There’s also ‘intermittent explosive disorder’, which involves occasionally becoming very angry suddenly.

Most bizarre of the proposed additions is one defined as ‘getting a thrill at being outraged by pornography’.

3

It seems that those in the western world who do not fall in line and follow the norms that the society prescribes as normal, could soon be in for an experience similar to that of the former Soviet Union.

Childhood temper tantrums, teenage irritability and binge eating may soon rate as psychiatric disorders in the US, according to proposed changes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the bible of the psychiatric profession.

4

Things like childhood temper tantrums, teenage angst, and binge eating, might in today's society be unpopular, but are they worthy of being classified as signs of mental illness and possibly being drugged away?

Proposed changes to the U.S. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) could include reclassifying childhood temper tantrums, teenage angst, and binge eating as psychiatric disorders. If accepted, the proposals could equal billions of dollars in new revenue for pharmaceutical companies.

5

Is being antisocial really a sign of mental illness? Are these laws just designed to target those who do not fit into a future state agenda?

The new edition may include "disorders" like "oppositional defiant disorder", which includes people who have a pattern of "negativistic, defiant, disobedient and hostile behavior toward authority figures." Some of the "symptoms" of this disorder including losing one's temper, annoying people and being "touchy".

Other "disorders" being considered include personality flaws like antisocial behavior, arrogance, cynicism or narcissism. There are even categories for people who binge eat and children who have temper tantrums.

Children are already over-diagnosed for allegedly being bipolar or having attention-deficit disorder (ADD), which results in their being prescribed dangerous antipsychotic drugs. To categorize even more childhood behaviors as psychiatric disorders will only further increase the number of children who will be needlessly prescribed antipsychotic drugs.

6

Is western society slowly implementing many of the same criteria that allowed Soviet psychiatrists to label many healthy individuals as mentally ill, just by following a criteria and trying to lump everyone into those criteria, and weeding out the ones who do not fit?

The APA panel is also suggesting adding a new condition category to DSM called "risk syndromes". People who are suspected to potentially be at risk for developing a mental disorder but do not yet have one would be deemed as having "psychosis risk syndrome". This category would include teenagers who exhibit "excessive suspicion, delusions and disorganized speech or behavior," for example.

The APA made it clear that its goal with the revisions is to diagnose people as early as possible with mental disorders, even before they actually have them, in order to get them on treatment.

6

If these risk syndromes are added to the new update, then you could be dealt with not for having a mental disorder, but just for having a factor that puts you at risk of having a mental disorder. You could be in treatment for just being suspected of potentially being at risk for developing a mental disorder.

"It not only determines how mental disorders are diagnosed, it can impact how people see themselves and how we see each other," Alan Schatzberg, president of the American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the guide, told reporters. "It influences how research is conducted as well as what is researched. It affects legal matters, industry and government programmes."

4

Might such factors already be affecting how we interact with each other? How we view each other? Are these criteria or similar being used to falsely diagnose individuals in western society as having a mental illness when they do not?

Cases

In the article giving workers the treatment, Peter Downs cites several cases of workers who complained and then were asked to see a psychiatrist. This is happening at thousands upon thousands of workplaces in many democratic societies. A condition of continued employment might even be based on such a forced encounter.

The first case sited in the article is that of Norm Crosty

On October 5, 1998, Norm Crosty sent a letter to the labor relationsdepartment at his plant. Crosty, for thirteen years an electrician at Ford Motor Company's Wixom, Michigan, assembly plant, complained that he could not do his job because so many of his bosses were taking the necessary equipment out of the plant to work on their homes or personal businesses.

The next day, the plant director of human resources invoked a Ford program for combating workplace violence to bar Crosty from the factory and ordered him to see a company-paid psychiatrist or lose his job.

7

In this case for making what was a very legitimate claim, the worker was not only barred from his place of employment, but was ordered to see a psychiatrist. The ford program for combating workplace violence, most likely falls under the occupational health and safety laws that have been used to target others.

A little more than fourteen months later, and 725 miles away, officials at Emory University cited a similar concern about violence to justify using armed guards to escort Dr. James Murtagh off university property when Dr. R. Wayne Alexander, chairman of the department of medicine at Emory, ordered him to see a company-selected psychiatrist or lose his job. Six weeks earlier, Murtagh, a professor of pulmonology at Emory, had filed a false claims suit against the university, alleging that it had misspent millions of dollars in federal grant money.

7

It seems that members of society who complain, blow the whistle, or assert their rights at work, are being targeted under these health and safety provisions. The laws were originally put in place to protect the rights of workers who have the right to a safe work environment, but it seems that they are increasingly used to silence those who continue to complain, blow the whistle, or file complaints. Many targets of workplace mobbing, who complain about it, or get angry about it, seem to be having warning markers or notifications placed on their files often without their knowledge or awareness.

Across the United States, companies have seized upon concerns about workplace violence to quash dissent. Hundreds of large corporations have hired psychiatrists and psychologists as consultants to advise them on how to weed out "threatening" employees. They say they are only responding to a 1970 directive from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration that they maintain a "safe and secure work environment." But by drawing the definition of "threatening" as broadly as possible, they are giving themselves a new club to bang over the heads of workers.

Maria Buffa, a former salaried employee in the personnel department at Ford World Headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan, said she, too, was sent to a psychiatrist after she filed a sexual harassment complaint in February 1999 against a woman co-worker. "You think, maybe I am the problem, else why would they be sending me to a psychiatrist,"

7

This pattern of the state using psychiatrists to follow a set of diagnostic markers to access workers remotely, often without interviewing the workers is very similar to the pattern that was happening in the former Soviet Union, which allowed many innocent individuals to be falsely misdiagnosed.

As you might expect, the Postal Service, given its reputation for workplace violence, has bought into the psychiatric testing. Last September, Postal Service executives proposed to give line supervisors the right to order emergency psychiatric exams for employees who are argumentative. Unionists say this will jeopardize their ability to represent their members. "

Albanese admits there are some people who clearly need help, but he says the Postal Service has so broadened its definition of events that can trigger a mandatory exam that "it is very easy to tie someone up in that psychiatric situation." According to the APWU, "The following is a list of factors that a supervisor can consider when deciding whether or not to send an employee for a fitness-for-duty exam: significant increases in unscheduled absences, increased bathroom use, changes in behavior or work performance after lavatory or lunch breaks, deterioration in personal hygiene and/or cleanliness of the work location, inattention to work duties and progressive deterioration in concentration and memory, [and] threatening behavior. Supervisors can also impose emergency fitness-for-duty exams if an employee becomes argumentative, or shows an unusual interest in news stories or literature dealing with violence."

7

These could be people who also just do not enjoy their jobs very much. Unscheduled absences, increased bathroom use, changes in behavior or workplace performance. How many workplaces implement unpopular changes which drive some workers away from their normal job functions, or make the regular job functions so unbearable that they just do not wish to be in the environment? Lot's of companies do, thus many individuals at one point in their lives or another might fall into this criteria.

The web site for Michael H. Corcoran, Ph.D. & Associates, Inc., for example, asks: "Will the expert you consult be willing to render an opinion of dangerousness and be willing to put it in writing?" and "Will the expert be willing to do this without interviewing the subject personally?"

Some psychiatrists in the field doubt that any reliable judgment can be made without interviewing the subject.

7

Yet it seems that in the case of many individuals that is exactly what is happening. People are being assessed remotely, and yes some psychiatrists are diagnosing patients as mentally ill, schizophrenic, etc. They are then having warning markers placed on their files, placing them on notification lists, they are then subsequently followed around and harassed by the community at large. A practice that the Targeted Individual community has come to call and classify as Gang Stalking.

Speaking for himself, he says it is possible to tell if a worker is likely to become violent on the job, but not with 100 percent accuracy. But, he insists, "it will require more than just one session with the worker, and it will also require information from other sources close to the patient, including relatives, acquaintances in the neighborhood, work, etc." If a psychiatrist is evaluating someone who is already on the job, he says, "one measure to prevent mistakes is to require a second opinion. That would give the individual the option to appeal and have his or her own evaluator."

Unionists are skeptical of the objectivity of the psychiatrists the companies use. "We call them prostitutes, because they will write whatever the Postal Service wants them to," says Shirley McLennan, vice president of APWU Local 4 in Louisville, Kentucky, of the doctors who do fitness-for-duty exams.

7

What if the information is coming from hostile other sources, such as jealous neighbours, or even distant neighbours, hostile co-workers, and family who immediately assume that their relatives are mentally ill, just based on the criteria of being interviewed about wither their relative could be mentally ill?

Donald Soeken, a former U.S. Public Health Service psychiatric social worker who used to be in charge of giving fitness-for-duty exams, says the psychiatric exams almost always are shams. "The doctor will go into all the areas that could discredit a person," Soeken says. "He'll ask early life questions, late life questions, sexual questions, whatever he wants to ask, and then write it up and give it to the boss or law firm. Any doctor worth his salt will find something wrong, or even make up something, and if you don't answer one of his questions, then you are uncooperative and you can be fired for that, too. What they are trying to do is put a person out on a psychiatric disability. If they succeed, you would never work again in your lifetime."

Soeken is sometimes called the father of the fight against abusive fitness-for-duty exams. While doing such exams for federal employees at the Public Health Service's outpatient clinic in Washington, D.C., in 1978, he discovered that many of the people sent to him were either whistleblowers or people who had a personality clash with the boss. The employer making the referrals expected him to give them the ammunition to get rid of employees for mental health reasons.

7

Though not the exact same as being sent off to a Soviet Union state mental health facility, this practice could render a worker unable to work again. It could render a worker unfit to stay gainfully employed because they choose to blow the whistle, or had a disagreement with the boss. This practice in American society has been in place since at least the 1970, and similar practices are in other democratic countries.

After leaving the Public Health Service in 1994, Soeken established Integrity International to assist whistleblowers in the private sector. Since then, he has testified as an expert witness in seventy psychiatric reprisal lawsuits. Soeken warns anyone who will listen not to trust the company psychiatrist.

"If you assume the doctor is concerned about your health and well-being, you've made a deadly assumption," he says. "They are looking for any phrase or evidence they can use against you to stereotype you as schizophrenic, paranoid, or delusional."

7

This is why individuals who have never seen a mental health professional can be classified as delusional, schizophrenic, paranoid, etc, without ever having had a mental health exam. This can be done remotely. Remember this is not happening in the former Soviet Union, this is not happening in China, this is happening in democratic countries. America, Canada, The U.K., and many other democratic countries. Along with many none democratic countries.

Tom Devine, legal director for the Government Accountability Project. Often, another goal is to smear and discredit the employee. That, he said, is why psychiatric harassment "is unsurpassed in its ugliness."

In Crosty's case, a notice on the company bulletin board announced he had been expelled from the plant for psychiatric reasons. "It was very demeaning," says Crosty. With the help of an attorney, and after he was cleared by four different psychiatrists, he got his job back, but "I was totally discredited as some kind of kook and wacko," he says.

In Murtagh's case, administrators at Emory "spread a rumor that he could be armed and dangerous, and a terrorist threat," says Devine, whose organization has taken up Murtagh's defense.

7

These practicies are being used across democratic workplaces, educational facilities, and other areas of society. These practices are being used on unsuspecting members of society. It's being used to discriminate, silence, and destroy the lives on many innocent individuals. In addition to fit for duty exams, warning markers are being placed on files, citizens are being declared as having mental illnesses, in many cases without having ever been assessed by a health professional, and even if they are assessed, there is no guarantee of a fair assessment, in some cases these health professionals are going on rumours and hearsay of the administration that wants to have the worker removed from their job.

Based on this criteria it's easy for the system to not only be abused by Employers, but also by employees who wish to get away with harassing fellow coworkers. Eg. If an employee complains too much, files a complaint, they can be placed on a notification system. If other employees go to Human Resources with complaints about an employee, reports are gathered together. The information is forwarded from Human Resources, and then to the Occupational Health and Safety team members who can be made up of a number of internal employees, plus a number of outside employers. Some workplaces and universities even have a special threat assessment team to determine if a worker could become a danger to themselves or others.

Employees and Educational facilities can recommend that a worker seek psychiatric assistance, or even use the Employee Assistance Program if one is in place, but in many cases they can not force an employee to undergo an assessment, what they can do instead is they can add a warning marker to an employees file. Using the occupational health and safety, workplace violence prevention laws, they can add a warning marker without the individuals knowledge. Once a warning marker is added, which could say a variety of things, including that the subject has displayed violent behaviours, might be suffering from mental health issues, etc. A notification is sent out to everyone in the targets environment, under the guise of protecting the community.

What community notifications really do is poison the targets environment, and often not only socially annexing the target, but opening the target to unspeakable harassment by the community at large. These notifications are in many cases treated the same way notifications about violent offenders and other predators are treated, it puts the community into a frenzy, and the target is treated as a pariah in many cases.

Once the community receive the notification, they often start to monitor and follow the target around. Many will even gaslight the target and other subtle, and not so subtle forms of harassment in an attempt to remove the target from the environment. Thus Gang Stalking is also referred to as community mobbing, taken to the extreme. This practice not only disrupts the life of the target, it's fully capable of destroying the targets life. Because the notifications are systemic, they follow the target everywhere they go, every new job that they apply for, every new association that the target tries to form is poisoned by these notifications.

In the case of Damon Thompson he reports having made many complaints of harassment by both student and staff alike. Though he did not receive any help, student affairs reports that he was known to them. In cases similar to his, what has been known to happen to others is that the continued complaints about staff and students is not used as a learning opportunity to address mobbing on campus, or in the workplace, but is used to classify the person complaining and seeking help as mentally unwell. In similar cases, targets have had files opened, and been placed on notifications, which then increases the level of harassment the target experiences. Then due to the notification, further complaints by the target are treated as a sign of mental illness, rather than a cry for help, as they are further targeted in their environment.

Damon Thompson became violent and attacked a fellow student. He was arrested, and will likely go to jail. The fellow student he attacked a Katherine Rosen who did recover, but reports from an overseas paper report that he had made several complaints against her in the past. When the U.S. media reported the same story, they reported it as an unprovoked attack, and said that the student had just snapped for no apparent reason.

sources close to him and his family indicated that prior to this incident he had made countless complaints against classmates and this specific lab partner but with no results. Contrary to US media reports, Thompson did know Rosen who was his lab partner and who has been very offensive to him on previous occasions and even the day in question. Now UCLA in an attempt to shift blame away from itself has sought to discredit the mental stability of Thompson by using his many complaints by e-mail as an indication of instability.

But according to KTLA news, a professor who taught Thompson said he told a university administrator he was worried about the student's mental health 10 months ago. UCLA history professor Stephen Frank, who taught him Western civilization late last year admits that Thompson sent him several emails complaining that classmates sitting around him had been disruptive and made offensive comments to him while he was taking a written exam and even accused the Professor of taunting him.

8

What many individuals are unaware of is that the very act of seeking out aid and assistance for workplace mobbing, or harassment, can be used against the person complaining to make it seem as if they are mentally unstable.

One e-mail stated "I believe I heard you, Professor Frank, say that I was 'troubled' and 'crazy' among other things," Thompson wrote. "My outrage at this situation coupled with the pressure of the very weighted examination dulled my concentration and detracted from my performance."

Frank said he was present during the entire exam, that Thompson sat in the front row and that he saw nothing to support the student's complaints. Frank said he was told that other professors had reported similar exchanges with Thompson, who complained he was taunted by other students -- in class, the dorms, dining areas and the library. A university official told Frank that he could only suggest that Thompson seek treatment, but they couldn't require him to seek psychological help. "My concern was in the context of other violent incidents on campuses around the country," Frank said.

Sources close to his family explain that Thompson frequently spoke with his mother and complained about the many things student had done to him and the names he was called even by the female students. However, they explain that the problem had to be extreme for Thompson to have reacted so violently

8

It seems that in some democratic countries similar psychiatric reprisal practices have been in place for the last 40 years or more. While many were pointing the finger at countries such as the former Soviet Union and China, many democratic countries were subtle implementing policies, practices, and procedures that were almost as harsh as those practices in none democratic countries. It seems for the last few decades the occupational health and safety laws have been used in a way similar to how the laws were used in the former Soviet Union. As early the 70's there were reports of these laws being used to target whistleblowers and those who did not get along with their boss.

For change to happen and the abuses within the system to stop, the media, must be willing to report the abuses, like they were when these abuses happened in other countries. Society must wake up to the reality that we are using occupational health and safety laws, not always to protect society, but to target dissenting voices in many cases. To target those who are different, those who stand out, those who are still willing to complain, or fight for what they believe in.

With the future changes to the DSM rules and regulations, democratic countries could well wittingly or unwittingly be exactly where the former Soviet Union was just a few short years ago. Targeting perfectly sane, perfectly healthy productive members of society and declaring them as mentally ill to fit an a state and corporate agendas. A society where everyone is the same is not a creative, productive, or forward momentum society and eventually such societies do not remain productive for very long. The people just loose the will, when everyone is the same. When everyone is forced to think the same, act the same, and individuality, eccentricities, or differences are legislated, medicated, or socialized away.

1. http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=d242g51470r84388&size=largest

2. http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/reprint/30/1/131.pdf

3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1251309/Psychiatrists-want-angry-mental-illness-How-utterly-mad.html#ixzz0p5GCoaKQ

4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/10/diagnostic-statistical-manual-proposals

5. http://www.naturalnews.com/028762_children_disorders.html

6. http://www.naturalnews.com/028803_psychiatry_disease.html

7. http://www.harassment101.com/Article5.html

8. http://www.guardian.bz/component/content/article/53-headlines/842-belizean-stude%20nt-at-ucla-facing-attempted-murder-charges

Psychiatric Reprisal

The Psychiatric Reprisal

What it is

This was a practice first identified as being used in the former Soviet Union. Targets of this practice were misdiagnosed as mentally ill, many were placed in state run psychiatric facilities.

Thousands upon thousands of individuals were targeted and systemically eliminated this way before the practice was brought to light and drew international attention.

The primary targets of this practice were dissidents, activists, those who tried to exercise their rights, or who wrote or published items that the state did not approve of. Those practicing freedom of religion. Also those who practiced minority or ethnic rights.

The practice was brought to the attention of the United Nations in 1969, and brought some condemnation in 1974, but this did little to change what was happening. The practice continued. It was only in 1991 when change was happening on the world stage, that the issue was again examined in more depth and the practice seems to have diminished.

Russia is not the only country to have used this practice. The practice was also heavily used in China as well. They also used this as a way of dealing with political dissidence.

What was interesting about the research into this practice is the idea that a whole field of professionals can become corrupted and misguided in their views. Believing that any form of dissidence is a mental illness.

She could not sleep that night, and became increasingly worried during subsequent months as more instructions from Moscow appeared on her desk. They were unusual, and what was worse, they confirmed her fears of that very first night: The author, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, was not normal. Actually, he was ill, clearly suffering from what was widely known in Soviet psychiatry as “sluggish schizophrenia.” And indeed, Gorbachev had all the symptoms: struggle for the truth, perseverance, reformist ideas, and willingness to go against the grain. My interlocutor continued to believe in her diagnosis until the Soviet Union collapsed and the windows to the world were opened wide. Only then did she realize that her concept of mental illness, shared by virtually all the approxi-mately 45,000 Soviet psychiatrists, was what was abnormal and that Gorbachev had been normal all along.

2

What is frightening is the realization of how indoctrinated these health professionals were. That they so implicitly believed the propaganda of what the state taught them to, and were willing to turn this indoctrination on innocent citizens. Just like some of the Nazi's in Germany, many were following what they had been told or taught to do.

The overwhelming multitude of Soviet psychiatrists either had never participated in the political abuse of psychiatry, had tried to avoid being trapped by authorities into taking part, or had no idea that they were hospitalizing people who according to international standards were in perfect mental health—if such a thing exists. They followed thee criteria that they had been taught by a monopolized psychiatric educational system that was dominated by the Moscow School headed by Professor Snezhnevsky. They had been cut off from international psychiatry and had no knowledge of what their colleagues in the outside, “bourgeois” world believed. If any information trickled through, it was immediately seen as an offspring of degenerated bourgeois societies.

2

Many times we like to view these individuals as evil. Denizens of the state who cruelly and unconscionably tortured and falsely inprisioned innocent citizens, but what history is repeatedly showing time and again is that things are often not the cut and dried. These psychiatrist in many cases apparently did not realise the evil that they were doing. They in many cases were following a criteria, a set of standards laid out for them, by a governing body, and anyone who fell into specific criterias, were automatically labelled mentally ill.

They were part of a society in which private initiative, independent thinking, and going against the grain were, at the least, considered dangerous and were often branded criminal. They were part of a society that was taught that anybody who was different, both in thought and in appearance, was “not normal” and thereby almost inherently was “antisocial” and “antisocialist.” When combined with the theories of “sluggish schizophrenia,” this training made it very easy to convince rankand-file psychiatrists, who had only a Soviet education and no access to world psychiatry, that any person who went against the Communist Party and was willing to risk the happiness of both his family and himself had to be mentally ill.

2

These professional had a limited lens by which to judge, and so they went with what they had been taught, they followed the guidelines without question, and placed people into categories based on predetermined criterias. Could the same pattern be re-emerging in other societies? Could these same patterns be happening in democratic countries? Could health professionals also be following a set of criteria, and misdiagnosing perfectly healthy individuals as mentally unwell, schizophrenic, without having ever met them face to face, based solely on predetermined criteria?

Dissidents were held for observation in the fourth (“political”) department, and in most cases mental illness was the eventual diagnosis—almost invariably accompanied by a diagnosis of “sluggish schizophrenia.” When the investigative commission reviewed the files, the retired psychiatrist recognized many names under the diagnoses: former colleagues, sometimes friends, known to her as good professionals. The diagnoses were composed as though she had written them herself: the same style, the same terminology, and probably the same conclusions. Yet when the commission subsequently examined the 60 former victims in person, she was shocked, devastated.

2

What is really scary is how these diagnosis were handed out and delivered. By her own admission this psychiatrist would likely have put many of these individuals away, yet in person they still remained healthy fully functioning individuals, even after years of surviving the Soviet hell that they were put through.

As I said earlier, after the fall of the Soviet regime we found that the truth about Soviet psychiatry was even more horrific than we had imagined. The political abuse of psychiatry was only the tip of the iceberg. The Soviet regime had ostracized any person who was not productive, who did not fulfill the image of the healthy socialist person laboring for the common good—the radiant communist future.

2

Could these same criteria be slowly getting implemented in many democratic societies? Could this same agenda be making it's way to the west? Will the citizens of the western world soon experience what their counter parts in the former Soviet Union did? A systemic abuse of power that targets 1 in 3 political prisoners?. A practice that touched possibly millions of innocent lives?

Approximately one in three political prisoners were held in psychiatric hospitals rather than in camps and prisons. Yet, the thousands of victims of these political abuses form only the tip of the iceberg of millions of Soviet citizens who fell victim to totalitarian Soviet psychiatry.

2

The American Psychiatric Association is said to be writing it's soon to be updated version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and the criteria for mental illness might surprise some individuals.

Ring the alarm?

A few weeks ago, I provided a post that looked like this.

[quote]
"In the democracy, they came first for the Extremists, but I did not say anything because I was not an extremist.

Then they came for the conspiracy theorists and the denialists, but I did not say anything because I was not a conspiracy theorist or a denialist.

Then they came for a the Targeted Individuals, but again I did not say anything because I was not a Targeted Individual.

Then they came for the outspoken and the some of the Christians, but I did not say anything then either, because I was not outspoken or a Christian.

Then they came for me, and by this time there was no one left to speak. "[/quote]

I think that this is a real breakdown of what we will see if history should start to repeat itself. Based on that, I have been spending a lot of time getting to know, via observation a specific group on the net, that is considered to be extreme, and who might be at the epicenter of such an event if they did go after extremists first.

I have been learning what they believe, why they think and feel the way they do, and looking for signs that their communities are going to be following the script above, in getting targeted first, just like the communists were first targeted in Germany.

Would they really come for the extremists first?

Well like many others I have been paying attention to news articles. What I would expect to see is an increase in extremist killings, kind of like how we had those mysterious killing sprees that were suppose to get us all so scared, guns would be banned. Anyways, what I have been on the alert for is an increase in this type of media hype in regards to extremists a) and b) and increase in demonizing the community.

Remember in Germany it was the communists that they came for first. That group was easy to pick on and they were the first to be attacked. Once this was left to happen, it was easy to go after other political enemies, create laws, etc, which eventually lead to rounding up of several other groups. So what I have been wondering is, could it be happening again, using different groups?

I first noticed an increase in articles, such as the Tiller killing, trying to paint him as right wing, a lone wolf, and the new domestic threat. Then there was the extremist who said he was going to kill Obama. Then in the UK, an alleged international plot by extremists to kill ethnic minorities with ricin. Keep in mind the UK, plot involved only a father and son, and the so called ricin was in a jam jar, and had been there for two years.

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/06/01/alleged-killer-of-abortion-doctor-has-decades-long-history-of-extremism/

[quote]The man suspected of fatally shooting abortion provider George Tiller as Tiller served as an usher during church services yesterday has a long history of involvement with the anti-government “sovereign citizen” movement, as well as anti-abortion radicalism.[/quote]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/06/barack-obama-racism-assassination

[quote]The two men were taken to the county jail where, the next day, in the presence of FBI agents, they began to reveal their intentions. Cowart went first, saying they planned "to go from state to state on a killing spree. Paul had mentioned a total of 88 people and beheading 14 of them." In Schlesselman's account, their aim was "to kill 88 people and kill 14 blacks": either way, the numbers are symbolic among white supremacists. The eighth letter of the alphabet is H, so 88 translates as HH, "Heil Hitler"; 14 refers to the number of words in a message, legendary among the faithful, left by the white supremacist leader David Lane when he was jailed for murder: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."[/quote]

[quote]The perennial question in such tragedies is what motivates the perpetrators. In most cases, answers are hard to find, not least because those behind the trigger are not around to give their side of the story. In the case of Cowart and Schlesselman that impediment does not exist, but there are plenty of other conundrums, not least the issue that will no doubt prove central at their eventual trial: how serious were they? Was their talk of a killing spree and dying in a hail of bullets at the feet of Obama a plot they took seriously? Or was it the ranting of two infantile fantasists?[/quote]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/05/utah.threat.against.president/index.html

[quote]Federal authorities are searching for a man who has at least eight guns registered to him and has threatened to kill President Obama.

President Obama walks towards a car at the airport on Thursday in Dresden, Germany.
The man, identified as Daniel James Murray, is charged with making threats against the president of the United States.

He recently withdrew $85,000 from a Utah bank and told a teller: "We are on a mission to kill the president of the United States," according to court papers.

Murray is originally from New York, but was seen several times in late May in St. George, Utah, making bizarre statements at a bank.

According to a criminal complaint filed in federal court in Utah, Murray opened an account at Zions First National Bank on May 19 with a $85,000 check.[/quote]

[quote]
"Not to be disrespectful, but if I don't get this money, someone is going to die," Murray said, according to the criminal complaint.

Murray would not accept a check and demanded bills no larger than $50, the complaint says.
"We are 94 million miles from the sun, and are in between the sun and moon, and the eagle that flies between them and it's a giant step for mankind. ... I have traveled thousands of miles to be here and know things that are going to happen. ... the banking system will fail and people will die. ... there will be chaos in the world," Murray said.

He then made his threat against the president, the complaint says.

The next day, Murray returned to the bank, withdrew the rest of his money and closed the account.

Authorities do not know where Murray is and said he has been seen driving a blue 2001 Buick LeSabre with New York license plate number ERL 1445.
[/quote]

I was trying to look into this more, when I was again interrupted by another white supremacist plot. This case bothered me, because I know what happens when you make a large deposit such as this, investigations, etc, and then he was just allowed to withdraw the money. It sounded staged, but I did not have time to look into it further.

http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/06/05/feds-hunting-for-right-wing-extremist-39on-a-mission-to-kill-the-president39/

Allegedly he is mentally ill, but the fear has been set. But there are lot's of questions about that story that still did not make sense.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525299,00.html

[quote]A teenage boy and his father are being held in Britain under the Terrorism Act over a suspected ricin poison plot by white supremacists.

Nicky Davison, 18, was arrested after police found the deadly poison ricin in a jam jar at his father Ian’s home this week.

Ian, a 41-year-old former DJ, is also being held after the anti-terror raid at the terraced house, on Myrtle Grove, Burnopfield, Durham Durham.

Nicky was initially arrested at his home in Grampian Court, Annfield Plain, on suspicion of inciting racial hatred but now both father and son are being detained under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Senior police say they believe the two could be part of worldwide terror plot targeting ethnic minorities.

Durham’s assistant chief constable Mike Barton said: “This shows that the terrorist threat in the U.K. is real and present."

“We believe the people involved to be white supremacist extremists and one of our lines of inquiry was that they were going to target people from ethnic minorities.
[/quote]

I saw this plot and I called it bs. The son was initially arrested for inciting racial hatred, grant it not a good look, but an international plot? They searched the house and found a jam jar, that had been sitting there for two years, and it had traces of ricin. No clear evidence at the time that they were going to poison anyone with the ricin, and if that was their intent, why have it sitting in the cupboard for two years?

How they got that this is an international plot is what I am not clear on. So far they have a father and son, and every article that I had seen was just saying a father and son had been arrested, but the intent to spread fear, hatred, and racial division was there. Don't get me wrong, I am sure this kid got himself into trouble, but the news sources are taking every opportunity to exploit these cases, to point us in the direction of the new terror threat, and yes this is what I was expecting and looking for.

So at this stage I was like, should I sound the alarm, write an article or is it just too soon? No one ever wants to sound like that lone nut on the internet alerting the audience of the deliberate intent to create a new threat, the extremist. That willy domestic terrorist that is more hard to predict that external terrorist, thus necessitating more laws, to take away our freedoms, specifically hate speech laws, but this is what I thought I was seeing.

As it was the weekend, and my image needs no further hits, I thought, maybe just wait and see. What I found was in addition to that, I found a video of Obama telling people to not question the official version of 9-11. Exhibit A.

Obama Warns not to challenge Official 9/11 Story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuASoVK8f9c

Now maybe Obama really does believe that 9-11 was done by terrorists, and that Osama Bin Laden is still alive, I don't know. However for many others they do believe that 9-11 was an inside job, and as the years go by, they are not alone in that belief. It seems more and more people are joining into the speculation that 9/11 was indeed and inside job.

Whatever you believe, in a free thinking society people should be able to look for answers to questions that they have, they should be able to question, without fear of draconian laws, and labels. It seems 9-11 truthers are also a target for new labels, as some try to link them in with extremism. I also expected to see this pattern, again 9-11 truthers fall into the second category I expect to see attacked, and that's the conspiracy theorists.

Anyways after seeing all this, I was still undecided. Then the weekend passed, and I was again in my observation mode, because I thought that with the 911 truthers being highlighted and the sudden media blip of evil extremists on the loose, I might be seeing what I had expected, but wanted to wait a little longer. Well I did not have to wait too long, because the holocaust museum shooting happened and a bit of hell broke loose.

This guy was a poster child and wet dream for extremist watchers everywhere. He was a hate filled white supremacist, had been for years. He had a history of jail time spent for taking hostages. (He claims it was a citizen arrest for the federal reserve.) Either way 4.5 years in jail. He was a supporter of the BNP. A British extremist party, who many claim have extremist or racist views. He was a 9-11 truther, and he also wanted to look into the Obama birth certificate issue. I can't remember if there was anything else that I missed. Oh yeah he hated black people and Jewish people, and thought the world was run Jewish persons. He also ran a website, which some had listed as a hate site. I don't know how this guy managed not to have links to Al Qaeda. Anyways, the stories were flying, and I spent days trying to monitor threads about this, articles, to get a better picture of what had happened.

So far many of the stories that I had come across were suspect in some ways, eg, the British ricin plot, the guy who seemed to have deposited money with no other intent than getting people to hear that he was threatening the president, and then this.

So the first question is was he really a hate-filled extremist that was hell bent on wipeing out someone black or Jewish before his last hurrah? On the surface it looked pretty cut and dried. His ex-wife says he wanted to go out with his boots off, his son says his hate-filled ways destroyed their life, he has a history of convictions, he is hate filled, what else do we really need to know?

Yeah I can see where most people would stop there, but as a targeted individual, and someone who looked deeper into the Jiverly Wong case, this is what I see.

Some weeks before the shooting, he told a friend that his social security had been cut, he felt that someone in Washington had visited his website saw something he posted, did not like it and then had his security benefits cut.

Most times this would sound like the ramblings of an old man who is a bit of a conspiracy theorist, or paranoid but is it possible someone was visiting his site, and saw something they did not like? Someone with the connections to have his benifits cut?

He is under investigation, many articles have made this clear, if nothing else his arrest for the hostage taking or whatever it was, would leave him on a watch list probably for life. Remember when under investigation your family and friends are contacted, and they make it almost impossible for you to have the means to support yourself.

Based on articles that I have read, this is what I put together. Sometime ago, he moved in with his son and his sons room mate when his sister had cancer. It seems that his security could not cover their home and they had to move in with the son and room mate.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/11/dc.von.brunn.housemate/index.html

[quote]
"I think it was financial reasons" that led the father and his sister Alice, who was being treated for cancer, to move from their home in Maryland into a 1,800-square-foot, three-bedroom house shared by the two managers of a store renting furniture, appliances and computers, Aulbach said. With Social Security payments his sole income, von Brunn "couldn't support himself," Aulbach added.

Aulbach said he and the younger von Brunn agreed to share the master bedroom so his roommate's father and aunt could have separate bedrooms, but he still paid half the $1,500 monthly rent.
[/quote]

That was several years ago.

[quote]Soon after, Eric lost his job and the von Brunns returned to Maryland, where Alice died of cancer. Eric moved in with his father in Easton, returning to Florida once in 2006 for a vacation, Aulbach said. The former roommates talked "maybe once or twice after that," but the conversations ended when Aulbach lost Eric's telephone number.[/quote]

From what I understand, the dad Van Brunn moved in with his son and his son's fiance, or his son later acquired a fiance and he paid them $400.00 a month for rent.

He lived like that and ran his website. Then recently this is the part that's tricky because I don't have exact dates, but recently he said that his social security had been cut back. By how much I don't know, but in one of the articles that I read, it said the cut meant that he would not be able to pay for his monthly internet connection and would have to go offline.

I have other articles saying that he told his online friends that they would not be seeing him anymore, and one final article confirming that he sold his domain name, or transferred it to another gentleman on June 01, 2009.

So we have an octogenarian, who is barely making it, living hand to mouth, who's pleasure is talking his hate online to those who visit his site. He is hate-filled, but the hate is going into his website, till the means are cut back for whatever reason, he believed it to be someone in Washington.

The other articles say he had become despondent, talking about giving away his computer and other items. Can't pay your internet bill, no more access, no point in keeping the computer. Was he suicidal? I don't have the answer to that question, just what I found in the articles.

http://www.adn.com/nation/story/827687.html

[quote]At least one acquaintance said he suspected that von Brunn was preparing for a violent end.

Von Brunn had talked about giving up "precious things" - even the computer from which he spread his angry diatribes against Jews, interracial dating and the government, said fellow white supremacist John de Nugent.

"He said he had gone offline," said de Nugent, who last spoke to von Brunn on the phone a few weeks ago.

De Nugent said von Brunn complained that his Social Security benefits had been reduced, and he suspected that his white supremacist views were the reason.

"He was unhappy with his living situation," de Nugent said.[/quote]

I think he was more than unhappy, the other article described him as despondent. I have no idea what the cut to the social security cheque meant, or what it was going to do to his living circumstances, but the internet loss would suggest that it hit him someone what badly.
[quote] Winchester Model 6, .22 caliber rifle — a type of gun manufactured between 1908 and 1928[/quote]

He had two guns that he owned, but oddly decided to take with him, the gun that would cause the lesser damage. Why not take the other gun if he intended to go on a killing spree or go out with a bang?

[quote]Investigators found 10 rounds in von Brunn's rifle and a signed, handwritten screed in his car. "You wanted my weapons - this is how you'll get them," von Brunn wrote.[/quote]
I don't know how many rounds a winchester holds, he fired at least a few according to the reports, but there were still rounds left. I don't like guns, and I could not find this information via a quick web search, so I left it for the time being.

If the note really is his, and not faked. (Let's remember the Martin Luther King suicide note in his own hand writing, which was faked.) It it's his, it might give some indication as to why he finally snapped and let the hate spill over into the real world. He said that if they wanted his guns, this is how you'll get them. Who wanted his guns? Was he speaking in general terms or specific terms? Remember he is a convicted felon and is not allowed to own guns except on the downlow. If someone really did cut his security like he claimed, did they also find out about his guns? Did he get a letter from the tobacco and fire arms, or some other agency asking him to turn in his guns?

"It was a desperate move," said de Nugent's girlfriend, Margaret Huffstickler, "by a man who thought he couldn't do any more."

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/jun/11/von-brunn-charged-murder-holocaust-museum-shooting/

[quote]In his car, officers found a notebook with a handwritten note saying, “You want my weapons — this is how you’ll get them. The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews,” according to a court affidavit.[/quote]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/10/AR2009061003495.html

[quote]"He said his Social Security had been cut and that he was barely making it," de Nugent said. "He felt it was the direct result of someone in Washington looking at his Web site."
In one of his e-mail blasts expressing his white supremacist views, the man police sources say shot and killed a security guard yesterday at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum told readers that they shouldn't expect to hear from him again. Von Brunn was shot and critically wounded by museum guards.

He was about to give away his computer, his primary connection to the fringe world of radical racists. He was living hand to mouth. [/quote]

His primary connection to being social with others, to being human. Though I have read that he visited neighbours, and lived with his son, his real connection to others like him, like minded people was online. Having that taken away from someone who is already hate-filled, means having their outlet taken away. Having him online is like having a cage where you can openly monitor his views and opinions, but it also gives many of these an outlet, an outlet that might other wise be expressed in other none productive ways.

In the end Van Bran is responsible for what he did, so is Jiverly Wong and all the others, but let's not discount any other roles or factors that society might play. By this I mean killing is wrong, and their is no excuse for the actions, but let's examine what we know about this case.

If left to spill his hatred on the internet, Van Brann, much like many other keyboard warriors, (it's not my term, but I like it) would be just that. Keyboard warriors. The majority of people who come on the internet and spill their views, hatred what have you in my research are more likely to take action online, then offline. It gives them an outlet. Without the internet many of these people posting on extremist sites, conspiracy sites what have you, would do what people use to do, they would go out and they would find each other offline, and then maybe form movements, and then you really would have fringe groups all over the place.

As it is, most people online, not everyone, but the majority will spill their hate, opinions, and conspiracies on the internet and keep it that way. If this man had been allowed to stay online, would this shooting have happened? I don't know the answer to this question, but my suspicion is possibly not. Was there a final trigger that sent this man over the edge into unplanned rage? I don't have the answer to this question, just the picture that had been painted of an old man, conspiracy theorist, extremist, who spilled his opinions on the internet, where his hate was in someways more contained then we realise. This outlet due to a social security cut, which he blames on someone in Washington, was removed from him, he told the people online, whom he seems to have connected with, his community, that he would not be seeing them anymore. He then transferred his domain to someone else, and talked of giving away his computer.

Remember it does not sound like he wanted to quit being online, it sounds like he had to, and I will not make excuses for what he did, but this left a hate-filled person with no outlet. I also don't know if the cutbacks were going to interfere with any other life necessities, I have no way of knowing this.

There is a hand written note where he talks about his guns being taken away, if the letter really is his, we have to wonder if there was an actual threat? Did someone know he had these guns? He is not allowed to under the law because of his conviction. Did someone turn him in? Did he mention that he had guns on his site? Did this set him over the edge, or was it just his natural years of being hate-filled as we are lead to believe?

When I see these stories, I try to understand what is behind it, what is the story we are not being told, the picture we are not being painted. I now realise what the mainstream tells you, and the picture they paint is hardly ever the full, real, or true story, and I often go looking for the answers that others do not.

Being under investigation myself for God knows what. Remember first I was supposedly crazy. Then I have heard danger to society. I know from what I have heard back, my handing out activism material was recently used to paint me as crazy. I am none of the above.

Then I know for a fact that my recent research into extreme communities was used to paint me as something that I am not. Me of all people. Welcome to 1984, any websites you visit, even just for research purposes, or to better understand the communities, can and will be used against you. Keep in mind that me and 109,000 other recent visitors to this site could potentially have this crap used against us, not for ever posting, but just for visiting.

So I always try to see that others side. These people could paint a saint as a demon, and this man gave them a lot of material to work with. He was clearly no saint, but was he the heartless fully unredeemable character being portrayed? Hellbent in a fit of racist glory on destroying others?
There are two sides to every story. I have read and gathered evidence and this is the side of the story that I think we are not seeing, and that might be worth examining.

As far as the fallout is concerned, it's just what I expected. Calls for rounding up of extremists, for limiting free speech, it's being used to attach 9-11 truthers. For the truthers, I say hang in their guys, you must be getting close to your goals or they would not be attacking you this much.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Mahatma Gandhi

With the 9-11 truthers there is a scare campaign that I see happening. I see people posting stories such as "oh I was in a bar the other day and started talking about 9-11 and people tried to have me arrested," or "oh I was talking about conspiracies, and someone tried to have me committed to a mental hospital." I am seeing stories like this and I am thinking either the stories are fake and being used to scare people into not talking about 9-11, or people are getting desperate to shut them up. I kind of think it's the former, but who knows.

The fall out is interesting and I am still just getting caught up on that, but here are some of the highlights. I see people talking about rounding them up, the extremists.

I see people wanting to push ahead the hatecrime bill, that bill needs to be stopped. It will kill free speech and not stop hatecrimes. It will allow them to take down blogs they don't like, and go after anyone who has an opinion they don't like. Free speech is under attack and we have to all work together to stop this.

They are comparing 9-11 truther to terrorists.

They are saying that the lone wolf terrorist is harder to predict than Al Qaeda terrorists and thus more laws are needed, it's not true, but while they have your attention this is what they are pushing forward.

This is what I was expecting, but the speed to which is came down, did catch me out of the blue. I really thought there would be a bit more time before this action came on like this, but I guess I was wrong, but on the other hand, I was watching for it, and expecting it, and this is what I can report back.

The Set Up's

In researching Gang Stalking I have had to focus on how Informants are used. What I am finding is that Informants are an integral part of society, they are used at every level, and are an ingrained feature of some societies and have been for some time.

The other aspect of the Informant system that I am coming across is one that many would describe as conspirital. This involves the use of Informants to set up average individuals themselves to become Informants.

These set up's can happen for drugs, illegal materials, sexual assault accusations, pedophilia accusations, getting friends to steal from stores, stolen goods, embarrassing or compromising situations, illegal or immoral situations that are covered up, there are so many different ways the Informant is used for these set up's. The unsuspecting target or pawn might never suspect that cousin Ed, that old friend, neighbour, co-worker is calling out of the blue not to get reacquainted, but to try to help set you up.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/rachel_hoffman#comment-6520

Quote:
the unethical recruitment of drug informants Submitted by bobbie (not verified) on September 19, 2008 - 4:34am.

[quote]My son was targeted by local law enforcement simply because they valued him as a potential drug informant.

They were interested in him because he did construction work for someone who had a permit to grow marijuana plants.

He had no drug violations. The detectives targeted his specific vulnerabilities, and played on his sympathy with an older informant who said he was going through a bad divorce, and needed marijuana for his anxiety.

The 4 detectives witnessed and videotaped the sale, but did not arrest him. They waited until he reported for a scheduled jail time for a DUI, and rearrested him without publicity, and without family support.

They told him he was "screwed", and would he work for them? When he didn't want to consent without talking with his girlfriend, they went after her at work and threatened to prosecute her. He pleaded guilty and got 2 years prison, leaving his 8 yr old son without a dad. Please take a stand against this unethical activity.[/quote]

These systemic setup's have been going on for many years unchecked. The above example should be helpful in comprehending how these set up's are being conducted. If you think there is no such thing as a conspiracy in society you would be wrong.

The local law enforcement wanted this woman's son as an informant. I am not sure if they asked him first, but most likely they just created a scenario where a set up could happen.
They were not really interested in her son, the true target was his employer, look at the steps they went through to get to this person.

1. They profiled her son, to figure out what his vulnerability would be.
2. They hired an Informant who had access to her son. It's hard to say if they set up the Informant first or not.
3. They used the Informant to entrap her son, assuming that he would become a snitch.
4. Had they been successful, it would have been a matter of time before this woman's son would have been asked to either set up his employer, or do something to make him look guilty and set him up in that manner.

That's the way it's working, and has been for some time now. This happens in society a lot. It's systemic. If you don't think this way, operate this way, you might not know it when you see it, or experience it.

The above scenario is what we call a conspiracy, and that one was initiated by local law enforcement. In my readings and research this is not a one time thing, these setup's are happening all the time, and at every level and sector of society. Some on the record, many off the record, but the end result is the same, these people are owned by the system and can be used later on as needed.

Here is a made up scenario of a set up. A local politician is the target. There is no access to this person directly. He has a secretary, who after profiling her, she turns up clean, and there is no way to her directly, but Ms. secretary has a son, who's not that bright. He get's set up, the mother get's involved and has a choice of helping her son stay out of jail, or turning Informant. She agrees, thus giving TPTB access to the politician and and opportunity to gain access to this person, or introduce others into his realm, so that he in turn can be set up. Provided all goes as planned, this politician will then be a part of the system. There might not be any official records of this, but each will be owned by the state. That's a set up.

In a scenario like the one above, this person can then be used, if a policy needs to be voted on a specific way, etc.

In society there are similar scenarios working happening all the time, many less complex that are just person to person, drugs being the most common.Many in society are not immune to drugs, or getting arrested for drugs, as we saw recently with the arrest of Sarah Palin's in-law.

http://newsok.com/mother-of-bristol-palins-boyfriend-arrested/article/3331499

[quote]Alaska state police have arrested the mother of Bristol Palin's boyfriend on drug charges. Palin is the daughter of Gov. Sarah Palin.

Sherry L. Johnston was arrested Thursday after officers served a search warrant on a Wasilla home. The 42-year-old Johnston has been charged with six felony drug counts.[/quote]
In this review of the book Snitch Culture, Jim Redden focuses on the use of Informants, and how pervasive the practise has become. The book was written almost a decade ago, but has become even more relevant then ever, in today's modern society.

[quote]As American enters the New Millennium, this country is in the grip of a government-created surveillance system which permeates every aspect of our lives. The economy is booming and things couldn¹t be better for the vast majority of citizens. Serious crime is at a 30-year low, with murder and other violent felonies dropping in every region of the nation. Minorities are earning more than ever before, and the schools have never been safer. And yet, despite this good news, large segments of the population live in fear - a fear created and exploited by opportunistic politicians and power-hungry law enforcement officials to justify the most sophisticated police state ever created.

And at the heart of this nightmare is the snitch, the government's weapon of choice against criminals and law-abiding citizens alike. [/quote]

This is the true evil of this system. Many people in society assume that if you follow the law, if you are law abiding, then this does not apply to you, after reading through many stories I see that this is not the case. You can be affected and are more likely at some point to be affected by this system if you are not aware of how it's working.

[quote]Such tips can trigger a broad range of responses by federal, state and local authorities, from home visits by child care and mental health specialists to deadly raids by heavily-armed SWAT units. Governments have spent billions of dollars in recent years militarizing local police departments across the country, and creating special federal units with overwhelming firepower. They are all ready and waiting for an informant to send them on their next mission. The result of all this snitching has been boiled down to a simple bumpersticker that can be seen on cars and trucks in all 50 state: "I love my country, but fear my government."

The Snitch Culture did not come about by accident. It was deliberately created by Democrats and Republicans alike, working with federal, state and local law enforcement officials to build a nationwide intelligence-gathering network which is impossible to escape. This surveillance system did not spring to life overnight. It was assembled in pieces over the past century in reaction to one manufactured threat to the American way of life after another, each requiring new laws, new law enforcement agencies, and new informants to enforce. Our political and law enforcement leaders repeatedly seize on bizarre but isolated incidents to create the image of a country under attack from all sides. The threats have ranged over the years from anarchists to marijuana to Communists to heroin to Muslims to methamphetamine to white supremacists, but in each case the government¹s response has been the same - a new domestic war. The War on Crime. The War on Drugs. The War on Terrorism. The War on Youth Violence.[/quote]

Many in society myself included believe that wars on drugs, gangs were for the betterment of
society, but in reality there seems to have been a different and separate agenda working. Something far more sinister that many are not willing to believe or accept.

[quote]The result is a society driven by manufactured mass paranoia, where personal betrayal is seen as a virtue instead of the lowest form of human behavior. And as the 21st Century begins to unfold, this perverse version of reality is being exported around the world. Seamless global surveillance is the ultimate goal. All it takes is a tip from a snitch to make you a target.[/quote]

Before my research into Gang Stalking, I really believed that if you called in a tip to the police it would be quickly and properly investigated and the person if innocent would be cleared, but as we have seen with the war on terror, this is not the case, many innocent people are having their lives ruined. Most people never see the end result of what is set in motion after a tip is made. Many others are all too aware of the events that will be set in motion and are all too happy to partake in the ruin of an innocent persons life.

What can be done to correct what is happening? Exposure and awareness are key, but also societies mentality has changed. Many in society glorify snitching, many people think that it's ok to set someone up, too many are unaware, or unwilling to believe how prevalent the Informant system is.

These are some of the key changes that would be required to correct a system that has become corrupt in too many societies.

Laws that require all Informants no matter who they are to be registered as such, at every level in society.

Record all Informant deals. It's the only way to get a true record of who is an Informant and how wide spread the Informant Infection has become in society.

Do I expect the above changes to be implemented? Not really, but these are the scenarios that would help stop much of the corruption that we see, and are experiencing at many levels of society today.

The only real way then that an individual can affect change is to just say no. When they get into a situation where they are asked to snitch for unjust reasons, or for unethical set up's, the best way to change what is happening in society is to just say no.

Shutting Down

http://www.i-cams.org/ICAMS1.pdf

I have been really busy reading reports like the one above, and working on some other projects. It's a really worthwhile report if you have not read it.

One part of the report more or less talks about the fact that you don't have to shut down all of society, just some parts of it, and then everyone else stats to fall in line and the fear spreads.
This is what was done with the war on drugs, and the war on terror. Interestingly enough with the war on drugs, the people fighting the drugs, were also the ones importing it. Also we all know there are many questions that have been left unanswered about the war on terror and if in fact this was an external threat that carried out the action.

I came across some news stories that really for once had me concerned, as to how far gone we really are as a society. I for once could really feel myself shutting down. See my Gang Stalking is not pleasant, but it doesn't bother me. I just mean that I have learnt or become accustomed to living with many aspects of it, and it doesn't bother me. What does bother me are some of the things that are happening in society that are being left unchecked. No one is there looking out for those balances.

For years many of us have been reporting what we call Gang Stalking, which is basically Cointelpro like activities with a big dash of the former East Germany thrown in.

Our societies are becoming surveillance societies, with Informant forces that would make the Stasi jealous. Even after reporting this, getting the information out, there is not one responsible agency that is willing to do anything or to look into this. The United Nations still criticises countries like China for their actions, but are completely ignoring the fact that countries such as the UK, US and Canada, along with European countries are torturing citizens inside of their own homes, and are systemically driving many to suicide, falsely imprisoning, or institutionalizing many others. It's a weird world when you look at it from this perspective, but that still does not bother me, I have gotten accustomed to this, and accept the world for the way it is, corrupt.
What did start to bother me are several news stories that I have seen. Alone they are not much, but together for me they are a real indicator that we are slowly starting to shut down as a society, and not just in one country.

Here are a few of them, and for the first time I really felt that I wanted to just close off, where I have not felt that way before. I realised that I could not let myself begin to feel this way, if Gang Stalking hasn't shut me down, then I didn't want these stories to. I had to dig into my reserve and just choose to remain open and not let the worry overcome me. I realised that the only way we can shut down as a society externally, is if we let ourselves do so internally, and I refuse to do this, I refuse to give into that fear and become a closed off person. Instead what I am choosing to do is to support some of the people in these stories, either just privately, or just by letting others know what's happening, and speaking out when I see injustices. So here is a run down of some of the stories that made me really wake up and pay attention and for once really made me sad, but only for a little while.

Armed Guards in Churches.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/06/church.security/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

[quote]In an era when terrorism threats and deadly shootings at schools and churches have made headlines, religious leaders are rethinking their security strategies. Last Saturday, a minister was fatally shot and another man wounded outside of a church in Kentucky where the men went to attend a funeral.[/quote]

So now in addition to walkie-talkies and security cameras we now have armed guards. The same trick worked for the schools and will eventually work for guns. I wonder who these people in these churches are praying to?

Student arrested for photocopying documents

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/may/31/highereducation.uk

[quote]For more than a decade, Nottingham university felt like the safest place in the world for Hicham Yezza as an undergraduate, doctoral student, campus activist and, most recently, employee. But two weeks ago his world caved in when he was arrested under the Terrorism Act.
The 30-year-old Algerian was detained by police for possessing a copy of the al-Qaida training manual that he had been given to print by a friend researching the terrorist group’s techniques for his MA.

University officials called in the police after a colleague noticed the document on his computer. Yezza and his friend, 22-year-old student Rizwaan Sabir, were held for six days despite Sabir’s tutors giving statements within two days that the document was directly relevant to his research.[/quote]

Campus activist for peace, probably had more to do with this than what he downloaded for his research.

[quote]Yezza said his situation highlighted a growing fear on campuses. "It's a very, very worrying trend that needs to be opposed, this mindset that views everything with extreme suspicion. That installs some sort of 'play it safe' mentality, which is the very opposite of intellectual endeavour.

"No intellectual progress takes place without a sense of curiosity, without a sense of going beyond what we know already, beyond the established facts and notions and truths; that's how scientific and intellectual revolutions have been achieved."[/quote]

The only thing that get's achieved in these climates are unjust witch hunts, but until people get bored of it, this will continue. The way to stop this, stop living in fear. Refuse to live in fear, refuse to give into this, it's the only way to stop this, and it begins with you, each and every individual person, that's the only way to stop this.

[quote]Yezza's supporters and academics, many of them attending the University and College Union conference in Manchester this week, are now talking of the pressure they face to become "police informers" on their students, part of the government's "preventive agenda" which has seen universities and colleges provided with guidance on how to spot and tackle extremism.[/quote]

I keep trying to drill this into your head. We have turned into a society of snitches. It's horrible. We looked down on East Germany for this a decade and half ago, and now we are doing the same thing.

[quote]Gavin Reid, a member of the UCU national executive committee from Leeds University, said people were scared to do research and speak out. "Self-censorship is coming," he said. "People are more suspicious of colleagues and students. People are scared even to look at the link [for the training manual in the Nottingham case]."[/quote]

And this is what they want. To control us and to scare us. They don't need to arrest or terrorise everyone, just a few key people, then the rest start to shut down, but if we each play our part and refuse to shut down, refuse to be scared, we can overcome this.

[quote]"Hicham was a very prominent member of student political society. That says something about the potential implications of being politically active on campus in a time when a culture of fear merges with draconian terror legislation.

"It's a question of intellectual freedom, not just academic freedom. What does this say about people's right to inform themselves about issues of public concern?[/quote]

That's right, he is an activist, and what does that say about society? What is happening within the Gang Stalking community, is just as relevant to everyone else, the conditions that are allowing this to happen to us, are the same conditions that are allowing these things to happen to others. Think about it.

Family arrested for selling food.

http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php?ArticleID=4287

[quote]Ohio authorities stormed a farm house in LaGange Monday, December 1, to execute a search warrant, holding the Jacqueline and John Stowers and their son and young grandchildren at gunpoint for nine hours. During the raid the Ohio Department of Agriculture and police confiscated over ten thousand dollars worth of food, computers and cell phones. The Stowers’ crime? They run a private, members-only food co-op.
[/quote]

Wow that soon will be a crime worst than terrorism, food terrorist, those who try to sell food to the poor, that is truly horrible. I feel very bad for this family. The food they took also included the families food supply for the next year, from what I have read. It's a horrible story and there can be no justification for doing this to a family, of course in a society such as this, anything can now become justified.

Australia to censor their Internet just like China

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24568137-2862,00.html

This should scare you. A so called democratic country shutting down, or rather censoring it's Internet the same way China does? Do I need to say more?

[quote]AUSTRALIA will join China in implementing mandatory censoring of the Internet under plans put forward by the Federal Government.

The government has declared it will not let Internet users opt out of the proposed national Internet filter.

The plan was first created as a way to combat child pornography and adult content, but could be extended to include controversial websites on euthanasia or anorexia[/quote]

For our own protection. This is the same crap they are trying to pull for identity theft and why they need more control. Normally the people scaring you have a hand in why you are being scared, remember there is often an objective to be achieved.

Now if one democratic country is willing to shut down, or rather censor their Internet the same way China does, what will stop the other so called democratic countries?

I know there are going to be protests in Australia, but this is an international problem, not just an Australian problem, what affects them could well affect the others.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a4f_1228731672

[quote]A Queensland man has been charged for re-publishing on a video-sharing site a viral video of a man swinging a baby around like a rag doll.

The controversial three-minute video had already been published widely across the Internet and shown on More..American TV news shows. The clip can still be found online today.
Chris Illingworth, 60, a father of four from Maroochydore, thought he would share it with fellow users of Liveleak, a site similar to YouTube but focused on news and current events. In two years, he has uploaded hundreds of videos to Liveleak.

His home was raided on Sunday, November 30, by Queensland Police from Task Force Argos, which specialises in combating child pornography and child groomers.
He was charged with using the internet to access and publish child-abuse material and is scheduled to appear in court in Maroochydore on December 18.

It is understood that he had no involvement in the creation of the video, which cannot be published on this website for legal reasons.[/quote]

I can't even begin to describe the craziness of this story. Here are more details.

[quote]On Saturday, November 29, 2008, Biggles9's home and office was raided by the Task Force Argos. They seized his computers for forensic inspection. He was arrested by armed officers while his neighbors watched, and was detained for 7 hours of interrogation with no lawyer present. He is being charged with accessing child abuse material, downloading child abuse material, and uploading child abuse material with the intent to distribute. He had to post $10,000 in bail, has to report to the police every two days, and has travel restrictions.

When the video was originally uploaded, the idea was to try to identify the man swinging the baby. Biggles9 worked with one of Liveleak's founders (Hayden Hewitt), who in turn worked with the UK police, who in turn worked with Interpol, who traced the video's origin to Russia (possibly a "circus family"). However, Biggles9's IP address was also recovered and forwarded to the Australian federal authorities, who in turn forwarded it to Task Force Argos, who in turn arrested Biggles9.

Here's Biggles9's post about the incident: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ccd_1228081196[/quote]

For this he is getting charged with accessing child abuse material. So every who saw this on the news, cause the video was shown on the news, also accessed child abuse material. Anyone who taped the news that day, also accessed child abuse material, and anyone who made a tape or dvd, and passed the new item on to their friend, family also is guilty of the same things. That's the insanity of it all, but that's what he has been charged with. Now in this case, he saw the video on YouTube or something and downloaded it, and uploaded it to liveleak. That's all he did, and now he is being charged almost the same way actual criminals get charged.

Now about the video, apparently it's an Eastern European father, apparently a circus family, so he's apparently swinging the child by one arm, and legs, etc. Basically like a trapeze show, but the child s one or two, now you would not want to try this at home, but at the end of the video the child is laughing and smiling. I feel bad for the family if this is part of their culture, because obviously the police came looking for them as well, and the father in the video is probably getting a lot of slack, yet what if this is normal in his culture?

Anyways back to Biggles9, he did nothing that millions of Internet users do not do every day, and to go after him for this is wrong for those reasons. I mean based on this, these people could go after America's funniest home videos, Steve Irwin when he was alive and he let the kids go near the crocodile, and anyone who uploaded a video of him letting his kids go near the crocodiles, that's the insanity that we are dealing with. (Oh I didn't think him letting the kids go near the croc was such a good idea, but that's just me.)

Bus Beheading

Greyhound to screen passengers. You knew that this was coming. They had no reason to do this on buses, they wanted to after 9/11, but they needed a reason, and this gave them one. Interesting how that worked out.

http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=1025521

[quote]Greyhound Canada began introducing improved security measures Tuesday, beginning with terminals in Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg, the company said in a news release.
The company said all passengers will be screened for weapons with a hand-held magnetometer at major Greyhound bus terminals. The company is also now mandating all luggage be stowed underneath the bus, with some exceptions made for customers needing essential items, the release said.
[/quote]

For years they have been operational and this never happened, and now a beheading and there go your rights.

I could go on, but do you see the pattern? You will continue to see the pattern, and if you don't question the mechanisms behind what is happening, you will not see the little pieces being moved around the board.

People really are sheep, scare them enough and they will do what you want, but just remember:
"Those willing to sacrifice essential liberty for a little security deserve neither freedom nor security". Benjamin Franklin.

Yet the above scenario seems to work everytime. It's such a simple formula, have an agenda you want to see implemented? Scare the people, and they will come clamoring to you to implement the agenda. It's sad, but it's worked everytime, and people continue to let it work, that is why we are where we are.

If we continue to live in fear, then that is all that we will have. They want us to be afraid, scared, sheeple, not thinking, or questioning. If we want to change this we have to refuse to live in fear, at the end of the day, it's up to us how we choose to live. If you choose to shut down, you will help others around you to shut down, if you choose to remain open, that is the best thing that you can do.

Speaking of trends, we seem to be moving onto get them sensitized to fears about biological warfare, and worries about that. I guess the programing for fear of terrorists is not working as well as it use to?

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me-- and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Martin Niemoeller