Truman Show Delusion

Truman Show Delusion.

I know some people in the TI community have mentioned that they are going to be keeping an eye on this new syndrome.

So I just had a couple of quick suggestions about questions that you might want to ask.
Since some suspect that this might be in part designed to have the public think that anyone complaining about 24/7 surveillance is delusional or crazy, here are some things you might want to look at when checking into this further.

Start with the doctors in question who are researching this. The Doctors Gold Ian and Joel.First you always want to check out the credibility of these individuals. Make sure that there are no military ties. This has played a role in the past, so this is something that you would want to look into. Too many people remember Ewen Cameron and his experiments. This is not in anyway to compare the doctors Gold to him. The point however is, Dr Cameron was a doctor with good credibility that conducted illicit Mind Control experiments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewan_Cameron_(MKULTRA)

[quote]Donald Ewen Cameron (1901-1967) was a Scottish-American psychiatrist. Born in Bridge of Allan, he graduated from the University of Glasgow in 1924.

Cameron lived and worked in Albany, New York, and was involved in experiments in Canada for Project MKULTRA, a United States based CIA-directed mind control program which eventually lead to the publication of the KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation manual.

Cameron was the author of the psychic driving concept which the CIA found particularly interesting. In it he described his theory on correcting madness, which consisted of erasing existing memories and rebuilding the psyche completely. After being recruited by the CIA, he commuted to Montreal every week to work at the Allan Memorial Institute of the McGill University, and was paid $69,000 from 1957 to 1964 to carry out MKULTRA experiments there. The CIA appears to have given him the potentially deadly experiments to carry out, as they would be tried on non-US citizens. However, documents released in 1977 revealed that thousands of unwitting, as well as voluntary subjects were tested on during that time period. These subjects included United States citizens
[/quote]

Assuming that our esteemed doctors are what they say they are and what they appear to be, you would want to next look at the patients. Joel Gold has said that in 2002 in New York, he saw 5 patients, white males that were complaining about this delusion. Three specifically mentioned the Truman show. They felt their families were reading from a script and that their actions were being watched 24/7 and that the whole world was part of this. It encompassed their lives.
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/truman-show-delusion-real-imagined


[quote]
Joel Gold, who is on the psychiatric faculty of New York’s Bellevue Hospital and serves as a clinical assistant professional of psychiatry at New York University's School of Medicine, first began to see the symptoms dubbed Truman Show delusion in 2002 with patients at Bellevue Hospital. He initially treated five white male patients with middle-class upbringing and education, all who likened themselves to actors on reality TV shows. Three specifically referenced the movie The Truman Show, giving rise to the disorder’s name. [/quote]

We have thousands upon thousands of people complaining about Gang Stalking, Electronic Harassment and Mind Control, but 5 White male patients of upper middle class backgrounds say they are part of a reality show, and that's enough to get a study done on the Truman Show Delusion?

So with what we know about Cointelpro, we went to look into the credibility of the patients. Make sure that they have no military ties. Look at their past histories make sure that there is no reason to believe there was any financial motivation, or that they were not couched or exposed to influences that lead them to this belief.

This is not to insult or make aspersion's about anyone. Doctor Gold could really just have come across 5 patients out of the hundreds that he saw, and decided this would be a good study. The patients might really have these delusions and might really feel this way, but with what we have seen of Cointelpro, some of us were waiting and watching for a similar new illness or something similar to come out.

We have seen people pretend to be targets, who's only goal is to make other targets look delusional. We have seen people pretend to be targets who's only goal was to further harass real targets, etc. To not ask the questions would be unwise and well.

Since this summer for some reason, the doctors now in 2008, cause that was 2002, shared their findings this summer, and other doctors have said they have seen similar cases about 40-50 more. What is not clear is are their patients complaining about Truman Show as well, or just about being watched, about their families reading from scripts? The related case information that I could find was pretty sparse, if anyone is looking into this, maybe they can update this information.

Beyond that, I am going to be continuing on with looking into Gang Stalking, but these are some questions that I thought might be nice to ask for those looking into the Truman Show Delusion.

Clarification

Just a quick update on the New York Times article.

I have just spoken to Vaughan Bell, one of the key psychologists mentioned in the article and he was kind enough to clarify that he has never studied Gang Stalking.

The research that he did, fully focuses on Mind Control sites. He has never studied Gang Stalking or the Gang Stalking World website more specifically.

I think one of the things that Sarah Kershaw did in the article, that many people do is that she lumped in Gang Stalking, Electronic Harassment, and Mind Control, all together.

For the record I do believe that all three happen and are happening to Targets. I know about Mk Ultra, the experiments that happened, the law-suites for mind control. I am familiar with Electronic Harassment. How many times have I gone into the shower to have patches of my skin peal off from the burns of the night before?

I do however focus on the Gang Stalking aspect of it, because it comes down to what can you prove? Over the last two years, I have spoken to enough police officers, (who are no longer mentioned), health professionals, social workers, crisis centers, lawyers, Investigators, Human Rights, etc to find out what I could about what was happening with the Citizen Informants, and the programs that they are being used for.

I have enough people offline and online that I have spoken to, to know that I know what I am talking about with the Gang Stalking stuff.

Since the only psychologist thus far that I could find who mentioned extreme communities was again Vaughan Bell, he has not identified the Gang Stalking websites as such, since he has never studied them.

The article also does make it clear that in relationship to Dr. Ralph Hoffman, his patients have "told him of visiting mind-control sites, and finding in them confirmation of their own experiences."

So we have two named professionals, one psychiatrist and one psychologist, both who have not it would appear studied, or actually made mention of the Gang Stalking Websites.

It seems the confusion and the lumping together of the terms might be coming from the author of the article Sarah Kershaw, and it is an easy error to make, if you are not familiar with the three phenomenons. We are all Targeted Individuals, but just because you experience or are a target of one, does not mean that you are a target of all.

I just wanted to clarify this factor for anyone who still had questions about this article or how the conclusions came about. I might do a bit more follow up, on this article with at least one more person, but these are important details that I thought should be clearifed.

The reactions are in.

As many know, I have been tracking the New York Times article to see what kind of reaction it's getting across the board.

It's gotten a lot of various reactions. I have come across people who now say that it's trendy to think that you are being followed around. Gang Stalking trendy? I don't know about that one.
We have people who think that we are paranoids getting together and sharing stories, but getting the help we need and that's a good thing. I didn't stop to find out if the person was Martha Steward or not, but apparently it's a good thing. LOL.

I came across one person who is researching the Jeremy Blake and Teresa Duncan suicides, or what they termed Gang Stalking by Scientology, and this person was a little bit concerned for their own well being after starting this research. I mean a general research is one thing, but any time you did deep like Gary Webb did, you do have to be careful.

I have had to join Digg, Reddit, Slashdot, and so many other places to track this article down, and the reaction to it. Cause it's nice to know the pulse of the Internet.

So Gang Stalking has become a household name. Which is good. It's not in the way we wanted it, in many cases, but the term is out there and that was a goal. Everyone has to start someplace. I see this like starting in the mail room. We have our foot in the door, it's our choice what we make of it.

We still have a lot of people who read the article, did not go and visit any of the websites mentioned, and formulated an opinion strictly based on the article. I found at least one person who tried to check out the website, but who said it was down. I know my website shows 100% up time over the last few weeks, so I suggested he try again.

My email is not working properly so if you do email me, and don't get me, please use the Wordpress blog to try for access. It's just within the last 72 hours that it's not working correctly. Email is either not arriving, or it's being delayed for several hours.

Also in tracking the article, I found a copy of it at this forum. I wanted to be able to respond to the article, because as you know, I have written a response.

http://forum.psychlinks.ca/showthread.php?p=103474

I used the user name gangstalking, because it's what I use all over the Internet, when speaking out about what is happening. Have a cause, use the name that goes with the cause, just common sense. Well after waiting to be approved. (We are not worthy, we are not worthy. Sorry flash back to Wayne's World the movie.)

Anyways, I received this response.

[quote]"Given the sensitive nature of the Psychlinks Forum, your chosen username, "gangstalking", is likely to be a trigger for certain members.
I have deleted this account. Feel free to re-register with a less triggering username.
Dr. David J. Baxter, C.Psych."[/quote]

So I wrote to him to find out what kind of trigger this was likely to be? It has not been a trigger for anyone over the last two years, but suddenly, it's going to be a trigger, because you are going to make it so perhaps?

So I wrote back to find out what kind of a trigger this was going to be? It seem a little neurotic to me. See my feedback below.

[quote]"I registered the user name gangstalking, because you had an article on this forum that I wanted to comment on.

I was told that I could not use the user name gangstalking, because it might be a trigger word. I am wondering what type of pre-conseived notions this forum has regarding the user name gangstalking.

http://forum.psychlinks.ca/index.php show details 8:39 AM (12 hours ago)"[/quote]

Apparently it takes a long time to be approved for this forum. 12 hours ago. I really do think people create neurosis themselves, at times. Anyways he writes back.

[quote]We have members who have experienced a variety of trauma, including sexual assaults and ex-partner stalking and violence. You need to understand and be sensitive to these issues if you are going to be a member of this community.That is a very strict forum policy. On your second registration, I changed your username to GS when I approved it. Dr. David J. Baxter, C.Psych.
[/quote]

Ok I can understand his surface concern, but remember associating with people who have been through these types of situations is not new for me or different. In the last two years, I have encountered and associated with a variety of people. So I wrote back.

[quote]So Dr Baxter, to understand you correctly. Even though I have used the user name on the Sexual Harassment Support forum, the Stalking Victims Sanctuary forum, and several other related forums of that type, you now feel that it would be insensitive to use this user name on your forum.

I am well aware of the sensitivity of these issues, having championed and dealth with these issues on a peer to peer support basis. I have conversed with several of these other support sites, and they did not come to the same conclusions that you have, thus I am trying to understand what is behind this concern with the user name.

I respect your forum guidelines, I however am still not clear why you personally feel that the user name will have a negative effect on your members, when it has not on other forums thus mentioned. I am just trying to understand what is at the heart of this matter. Regards, gangstalking.[/quote]

At this stage I am going to trust that Dr Baxter understands his community better than I do, and they may be more sensitive than other communities of a similar nature, and so I am going to decline to be a part of his community, because if my user name would offend, then what might my commenting do? Since the term Gang Stalking is likely to come up? Also if the term is so offensive that I can't use the user name, then why have an article with this on your forum?

http://forum.psychlinks.ca/showthread.php?p=103474

I don't want to be mean, but I am thinking that there are people coming across this article on that forum, seeing the name and wigging out. Either way, so that I don't risk offending, I am going to refrain from posting on this forum and responding to the article.

I really wanted to respond to the article, as I have on several other Internet websites, to help facilitate a better understanding of our community and what we are about and why we felt some portions of the New York Times article were unbalanced, but I feel at this stage, anything I write there, might be construed as harmful to the members. So out of respect for that, I will refrain from posting my article response, which many of you have now seen.

http://www.gangstalkingworld.com/Social/article.php?sid=315&mode=thread&order=0

For better or for worst the term Gang Stalking is now a household name, offline and online. The question now is how do we as a community help facilitate further understanding and awareness to the general public, who still get their information from the mainstream media, in many cases without any relevant questions being asked?

Remotely Insane.

I was on my usual weekend hunt for more information about how these situations are being created and I came across something really interesting. The case referenced below is about a police office who blew the whistle, only to have his workplace hire 1 psychologist and a psychiatrist, to basically without speaking to him, fully remotely declare that he was unstable, even suicidal, could be a danger to others. Also they were advised that if they could get him arrested and placed in a psychiatric facility to just do it.

Now can you imagine an assessment like that followed by a little high tech harassment? http://www.Hightechharassment.com

I find the scenario so interesting for so many reasons. The site says that this is the sort of thing that was done in China, Russia to dissidents and those considered to be enemies of the State. Ever notice that more and more research from various sources are starting to link to the fact that we are doing this like communist regimes have in the past? Does this concern anyone?
http://www.PsychologistEthics.net

[quote] A Canadian Police Department and the Canadian College of Psychologists
Kenneth Westhues, Professor of Sociology at the University of Waterloo, studied a case of a police officer targeted for elimination after reporting corruption to provincial authorities. The Police Department had enlisted the services of both a psychologist and a psychiatrist in support of its aim to get rid of the whistleblower. The latter, however, withstood the campaign against him and successfully held onto his job. Subsequently, he sought sanctions against the psychologist and the psychiatrist, and asked Westhues to set down in writing his reflections on the actions against him. Here is Westhues’s account, with names and other identifying information removed.

You have asked that I give you my reflections on the actions of the Police Department against you from the mid-1990s until 2000. I write on the basis of the documentation you have provided to me in connection with my research on workplace mobbing, an uncommon but severe organizational pathology that can have unwarranted, devastating effects on the mobbing target’s career and life. I understand that the reason you have requested this letter is so that you might include it with your request to the Ontario Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, that it review the decision of the Complaints Committee of the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, and the separate decision of the Complaints Committee of the Ontario College of Psychologists.

In the mid-1990s, you reported in good faith to the appropriate provincial authorities what you saw as corruption in the Police Department. The appropriate body investigated, and found your allegations to have merit. In the wake of this conflict, your Police Department engaged psychologist Dr. X and psychiatrist Dr. Y to give their opinions on your mental health. Without speaking with you, both Dr. X and Dr. Y signed their names to reports that strongly suggested you were mentally ill. Dr. X wrote in December 1998, that your “thinking appears delusional to the extreme,” and he wrote in his own hand, “I essentially agree,” on a police investigator’s memo summarizing his meeting with them. The memo included these assertions:

• The issue is that the man’s thinking is disordered.

• You need to find a way to get him to a psychiatric assessment by compulsion, because he’s probably not going to accept that he has a problem.

• If you have enough information to arrest him and take him to a psychiatric facility - do it.

• It is easier to contain an explosion than an implosion - you shouldn’t blame yourself if he commits suicide.

Dr. Y wrote in January, 1999, that it was “in the realm of possibility” that you had a “Paranoid Personality Disorder,” and that “a psychiatric assessment would be required to rule this out.”

Shortly after Dr. X’s and Dr. Y’s reports, neither of which was provided to you, you were suspended from your position and charged under the Police Services Act. This was in January of 1999. It took almost two years, until November of 2000, for you to clear your name and get free of the stress and stigma of administrative sanction. In the end, you were found guilty of no offense. You have continued as before, to fulfill capably and with honour your responsibilities as a police officer.

In your complaints to their respective colleges, you fault Dr. X and Dr. Y for failing to live up to the ethical codes of their professions. The Complaints Committee of the College of Psychologists dismissed almost all of your complaint; the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons dismissed your complaint entirely.

The decision of the Complaints Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons contains obviously false statements about the most basic facts of the case:

• The Committee says you were “later dismissed from the police force.” You were not and have never been dismissed. You were and remain an officer with an unblemished record.

• The Committee accepted the word of Dr. Y that your Police Department required you to undergo an assessment by Dr. X, the psychologist. Further, according to the Committee, Dr. Y reported that Dr. X had concluded from his assessment that you posed a possible risk of harm to others, that you are the type of personality that could “go postal,” that your thinking was disordered, that you were at high risk for suicide, and that you should be examined by a psychiatrist.

In fact, your Police Department never required, and you did not at any time undergo, such an assessment. The decision of the Complaints Committee of the College of Psychology admits that Dr. X made his comments about you without having assessed you.

An organization’s employment of mental-health practitioners to stigmatize, discredit, and harm a targeted worker is a common mobbing technique. The harm is exacerbated when the professional bodies to which the worker may appeal, fail to investigate thoroughly and to hold the practitioners responsible for their part in the mobbing process.

I would not presume to say what corrective action the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board should take. Public safety requires, however, that regulatory bodies not be allowed to gloss over any complicity of mental-health professionals in efforts by employers to discredit sane, responsible employees who have blown the whistle on administrative misconduct.

I hope that you and the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board may find these reflections on the actions against you helpful toward a fair and truthful resolution of your complaints. Best wishes. Postscript. The body to which the police officer appealed, and to which he submitted Westhues’s letter, dismissed the appeal. One member of the hearing committee told the police officer at the hearing that when you stick your finger in a hornets’ nest, you can expect to get stung. [/quote]

Can you believe that workplaces are doing this crap?
http://www.harassment101.com/Article5.html

Think of what this could mean. You make a complaint, the company hires 2 people to evaluate you, they write up an assessment like the one above, you have no idea, then suddenly because you are so unstable and mentally ill and won't go in for an assessment of your own free will suddenly you have this problem, and for your own good they put you on some watch list.
If you do ever get into this situation and think that going in for an evaluation is a good thing, think again. There was an article or website that tells you the exact methods that will be used to railroad you.

See I know what we are up against is horrific, but if we can find anything in this madness to use, then it's in our best interest to use it and find out if that is indeed what is happening. I think this is worth further examination.

Could something like the above scenario also happen in communities where they want to get rid of someone. I am sure this could happen to activist, dissidents, anyone who goes up against a school board, etc. How easy is this to be used against someone in the exact method as described above. How would the target even know it? They really would not. How could they find out?
I think this is really exciting to find this information, because it could further explain just how the state is getting some people listed for being mentally ill/unstable remotely. There should be some kind of a paper trail, because someone is pulling the strings.