Paranoid

I thought it was time to tackle one of the labels that had been used in the article, What's Behind The Internet Conspiracy Empires? The community at times has been labeled as paranoid. I feel that the label in some instances can have merit, but for the most part is groundless and unfounded.

The idea is that Gang Stalking websites and even conspiracy websites run the risk of making someone that is already paranoid even more so. Well I thought about this and I decided it was best to review other materials that might render someone even more paranoid than they were before.

Let's start with Books, Movies, Music, and then the Internet.

First there were books, these dangerous things which became more prevalent with the advent of the Gutenberg printing press. The ideas in books at times have not only been considered dangerous, they have been considered revolutionary, and yes some books contain material that some would say has the ability to make others become paranoid. Let's look at some examples.
1. The Bible. This book teaches us that an invisible entity created the earth. Using energy much like you see in those star trek movies he created matter. That matter became the earth and everything therein. The old testament of the bible is the main and guiding force of the Jewish religion, Christian religion, and Islamic religion.

The bible teaches that other realms and other beings exist that are not visible to the naked eye, such as heaven and angels.

The bible teaches that if we have faith we took can create and change the course of things.
I often wonder how psychologist and psychiatrist would interpret these groups of people who believe this stuff if they were not protected by freedom of religion? Would they be persecuted and called paranoid? Would they be studied and probed wondering how such beliefs will affect the person who is already paranoid?

Eg. If someone believes that the world is evil, and being ruled by evil forces and evil influences, then starts reading the bible and it proves to them the existence of the devil and evil, should we then be worried about the influence that the bible is having on those that are already paranoid about evil in the world?

Yet the bible has been around for centuries and it's believes and those who gather around such beliefs have been around for an equally long time and we don't have these communities online or offline being probed about whither people reading the bible could become more paranoid.
I thought I would point out one of the many gathering places that this group hangs out.

http://www.bible-discussion.com/message-board-forum/

2. Movies.

That is number two on my list for things that could make people who are already paranoid even more paranoid.

We have seen the movies come over the years, the Exorcist, The Omen, Kerry, Constantine, Rosemary's Baby, Skeleton Key, just to name a few.

http://www.scene-stealers.com/top-10/top-10-scariest-movie-themes/

Most of these movies have themes where if someone had a belief or was already paranoid these movies could add to and enhance that belief. These movies unlike the Internet which requires you to read and interpret material, provide a visual and audio interpretation so that you don't even have to read or think about the material being presented. You don't have to use your imagination or anything, all the proof is right there in front of you. Therefore I wonder if psychologist and psychiatrists are out patrolling these movies, discussions around these movies, the websites, and books that have been spawned from the movies to see what effect they would have on someone who is already paranoid?

I think they might be discussing zombie and vampire movies here. You might want to keep an eye on these people. They are talking about the movie Twilight. Mind reading vampires? What's up with that? Better keep an eye on these paranoids, clearly watching and discussing these movies could be adding to paranoia about the undead walking around in society, and we don't know what will happen if they gather together. Better observe them.

http://allhorrormovies.com/

3. Radio and Music.

In the 80s people were told that if they listened to or let their children listen to Black Metal music, things like Black Sabbath or Ozzy Osbourne that it could cause violence, it was associated with black magic. If you played the music backwards, there were backwards lyrics. There was a real move at one time to ban some of these albums. Now if someone is paranoid and they go out listen to one of these albums or another and hear backwards messages which make them more paranoid, and go and discuss it with other groups of people who have heard the same things should we be worried?

Well I can tell you most of the 80's survived this trend, there were many young and older persons who tried this and discussed it, talked about what they thought they were hearing and survived, despite what some of the experts were saying about the evils of the music of that time period.

Black Metal is not the only music that has ever been considered to be dangerous or a concern, but it's the one that comes to mind.

4. Role Playing Games. Remember when these were bad for you? Well I do and so do some others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_&_Dragons_controversies

[quote]At various times in its history, Dungeons & Dragons has received negative publicity for alleged promotion of such practices as devil worship, witchcraft, suicide, and murder. In the 1980s especially, some religious groups accused the game of encouraging interest in sorcery and demons.[1] Throughout the history of roleplaying games, many of these criticisms have been aimed specifically at Dungeons & Dragons, but touch on the genre of fantasy roleplaying games as a whole.[/quote]

Anyone remember this. We were told that the kids that got into this stuff would kill, commit suicide, or become paranoid. Today with so many different role playing games offline and online, this is no longer being parroted by concerned health professional, but there was a time where this game and others like it were a focus. It seems the more members that belong to an organization, the harder it is to demonize it and call it paranoid.

If someone is paranoid, then virtually any medium or method could add to that paranoia, picking up the phone, listening to the radio, watching T.V., or even just reading a book. These other mediums have been around long before the Internet has.

5. The Internet.

Conspiracy websites and Gang Stalking Websites. The most recent flavor of the month and the focus of concerned health professionals.

I will focus on the Gang Stalking websites. Primarily some Gang Stalking Websites, such as Gang Stalking World explain that a covert investigation is opened up on an individual. The person is then followed around using covert and overt methods. The person is followed out in public by foot patrols and vehicle patrols, that use various methods to communicate, including a one handed sign language. These patrols use covert human intelligence sources or Informants as part of the surveillance.

The individual complains that those around them seem to be aware of what is happening, and are taking part in the ongoing investigation.

The individual life is disrupted, by rumour and slander campaigns similar to what we saw in Cointelpro. Some complain of home break in's and various other forms of life disruptions.
Those are some of the basic elements of the Gang Stalking. They are not all the methods, or complaints but they are the primary ones.

In the case of the Gang Stalking community to label someone as paranoid without first investigating each case might be considered by some to be irresponsible and unprofessional, considering that much of what targets complain about have been parts of covert investigations in the past, and many of the methods complained about have been used previously in programs
such as Cointelpro and others.

Gang Stalking United

http://www.gangstalkingunited.com/

Gang Stalking United, because the world was just not enough. I want an empire. :lol: :wink:

Seriously I liked the way the name sounded. It reminded me of Manchester United, or X-Men United. The site is about coming together and getting to the heart of the matter. Real targets want a place to hang out and share ideas and information. Informants and government agents want to find a place to hang out, disrupt and pass on disinformation. Researchers want to look into this matter a little more. Social Psychologist students want to study this, so therefore Gang Stalking United was created for this purpose.

I can assure you that there will be disinformation agents on the site. They will probably out number targets, but the way the site is set up, hopefully they will do limited damage, and the research will outwiegh what they are able to do. We will also be able to report posts on the site, so if something really harmful is posted, we can self moderate. It's not a sure fire method, but in anticipation of various matters, the site was created.

Here is my first post.

[quote]
Hi extratired1,

I will say welcome to the forum.

Since Cointelpro was suppose to be officially disbanded, we might have trouble saying that it's definitely Cointelpro, even though I do think it did carry over probably under other names. I see
the obvious connections in recent times, to what has happened in the past.

What we do know is that other countries had similar programs to Cointelpro. Canada had V.I.P.S., and there does seem to have been cooperation between Canada and the US even back then.

http://www.gangstalkingworld.com/Social/article.php?sid=161

The reason there has been so much discussion and debate about what is happening is because Cointelpro was the name the American program was known to use, where the targeting that we are seeing is being done by various governments.

Eg. Other targets have said, that they see the targeting continue even after moving to various countries. This suggests wide scale corporation between many governments. Which we can show is currently happening using anti-terror laws.

There are reports coming in from many other countries reports that this type of surveillance is happening.

Cointelpro in theory was suppose to be limited to the states, that's why it might not be correct to label it all Cointelpro, but again I agree that we are pretty well seeing many of the same old traits, with some new ones that were not previously reported.

This website is going to go through all the information, and then take it from there. On a ground level I am still personally going to refer to the targeting as Gang Stalking.

In addition to the above, much of the research conducted by myself and others shows that what is happening is much wider than just a program to control dissent. What we are seeing is multifaceted. It's government cooperation across many countries, and at various levels. The indication is that this might be a part of a pre step towards what some are calling the one world government.

Again that is why this forum is about research. Trying to find current information to corroborate the findings. I will be placing links relevant videos on the site over the next few weeks. Anyone on this website, disinformation agents, genuine targets, the general public, psychologist, social psychology students, etc are welcome to also share their findings, research, ask questions, and help us come to a collective conclusion if possible.quote]

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.

Extreme assessments and paranoid conclusions

After giving the New York Times article a little bit more time to settle there are three points that I wanted to review further.

The first was how the article came to use the term extreme communities. I did read over the Vaughan Bell article where a reference is made to such communities.

http://arginine.spc.org/vaughan/Bell_2007_JMH_Preprint.pdf

Extreme communities
One feature that has garnered relatively little
attention in the clinical research literature is the existence of what might be
termed ‘extreme communities’. Owing to the difficulty with which material can be
effectively censored or suppressed online, views considered extreme or
unacceptable to the mainstream can be expressed relatively freely, with online
communities often formed by those who share similar opinions. Some of these are
of particular interest to mental health professionals, as they attempt to
reframe what would otherwise be classified as ‘mental disorder’ in an entirely
different light.

According to what Dr Bell wrote in the article it was views considered extreme or unacceptable by the mainstream. Using this definition I wondered if things such as the 9/11 truth movement would be an extreme community? Their views are not considered mainstream. I also wondered who else might fall into this list based on Dr Bell's definition?

Websites that cover conspiracy topics might well meet his definition of extreme communities. Many of the subject matters covered on websites such as http://www.abovetopsecret.com/ would fall into this category. They would be a website of mini patches of extreme communities.

Another factor that I thought should be calculated in when defining a community as an extreme community is the obvious, is the community helpful vs harmful? What kind of purpose do they serve? If I go to a website that has what by some is considered an extreme view that encourages me to kill myself, then that should be considered different than going to a website that expounds none traditional views, but steers the website viewer away from inflicting harm to themselves?

There are lot's of websites that conform to traditional or more traditional mainstream views that in my opinion are probably fairly harmful to some aspects of society, but we turn a blind eye, because it does pass mainstream muster.

The definition as is, in my opinion is fairly broad, and the references to the term were limited except for references to Dr Bell's work and the New York Times article.

The other point that I am wondering about is who or what now defines what is mainstream or normal? In today's society we have so many different variables to consider. At one time spending all your time online might have been considered the actions of lonely desperate people. Now with websites such as Facebook, and much of web 2.0 culture, being online is considered normal, and spending many hours online as long as it's spent socialising is considered a fairly normal and healthy activity.

According to a report from Mediamark Research in a 30 day period 2.5 million adults participated in online dating. I am sure they find this to be completely normal and mainstream, but I am sure there are patches of that do not agree with this.
http://www.mediamark.com/PDF/Nearly%202.5%20Million%20Adults%20Participated%20in%20Online%20Dating%20in%20Last%2030%20Days.pdf

World of WarCraft reached 11 Million monthly Subscribers. Many of them sane individuals who go online to take part in these roleplaying games. For that community, I am sure they consider themselves normal and mainstream, just by their sheer numbers. I am sure there are still many in society who would not however consider going online to roleplay normal, mainstream or even healthy.
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3170971

Thus what would be considered as abnormal or extreme view offline is often a normal and accepted view online, in many different circles. Eg. 9/11 conspiracy offline, might still be considered anti-government or none traditional, but online they are a fairly regular part of web culture and discussions. When defining mainstream and referencing the Internet, we might have to start finding different ways to do so.

Eg. I just read an article today, that talks about a real life couple getting divorced because he is cheating online with a virtual girlfriend. Traditional definitions are having to be adapted and redefined to accommodate an online culture.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/081114/world/lifestyle_britain_family_divorce_internet_offbeat

A second woman in Japan was arrested because she killed her online husband. She killed his virtual self. That's right, she did not kill him, or have any intention of killing the real him, but when his online virtual self divorced her, she got even and killed him. She was arrested for hacking into the computer and other things, and now if she is formally charged, she could face up to 5 years in jail.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081023/koddities/japan_avatar_murder

It is becoming more and more clear that it is the offline world that is having to adapt to the new online realities and not often the other way around. Therefore what we considered traditional and mainstream yesterday for an offline reality, in many ways is being redefined, and it does not seem as if some offline structures are keeping up to date with this reality.

The third point of concern with the New York Times article is that people were being considered paranoid with simple offline assessments. Are these offline assessments adequate for some of the challenges that people are facing in the modern day world to define Targeted Individuals as paranoid?

Recent research has unearth a great deal of information to show that when people are being termed as paranoid, it might not be the case.

Research is showing that there are in fact networks of individuals being hired by the state in various countries to track and spy on average citizens. The spying includes email and phone taps. Being followed around in public by hired Covert Human Intelligence Sources. Having these same Informants move into the houses around the target when possible. Following them around in vehicle and foot patrols, plus many other forms of intrusive surveillance.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04_02/007graphic1_468x1052.jpg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-559123/Why-earth-Stasi-state-spying-families.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-559123/Why-earth-Stasi-state-spying-families.html

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2342364.0.how_local_counay%20cils_use_antiterror_laws_to_spy_on_ordinary_people.php

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/privacy/fusion_update_20080729.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLpHitaKk1s

Individuals and Families under these types of surveillance are often not aware, and if they do become aware and go to seek help, they are often written off by the establishment as paranoid, psychotic, or crazy. The modern day reality is that without proper investigations, Freedom Of Information Act requests, and other proper forms of inquiry a true assessment might be impossible to determine. The secondary problem is that many of these investigations are ending up in secret databases, which the public has no access to. F.O.I.A. requests are no longer a sure fire way to determine if an individual is under surveillance.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-559130/Why-didnt-just-knock-door-ask-couple-tailed-weeks-council-spies.html
http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20080214_snitch_state.htm

I think it's fair and safe to say that before a community is considered extreme many factors should be considered, and the definition itself should factor into consideration what's considered normal online as well as offline. Assessing if a community or individual is paranoid or psychotic in today's modern surveillance society should be done with care and caution. It's been shown time and time again that anti-terror laws are being abused, National Security Letters are being handed out left right and center, with over 30,000 being issued per year, and many groups and individuals are being spied upon and placed on watch lists, unfairly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html

In a society as the one described above, it is not only normal to have concerns about surveillance, but when there is a suspicion of such, the job of therapists in the future might not be first subscribing the patient to medication, it might be first asking if they have placed a F.O.I.A. request.

Society might even have to make it a mandatory law for psychiatrist to be notified if a person is under surveillance so that they are not falsely labelled, committed or medicated. This does not happen, the culture and society have changed within the last decade, but the methods used for determining paranoia, psychosis, and mental illness, in regards to the belief that one is under surveillance are still fairly antiquated in many cases, and might not pass muster for the realities of a modern day surveillance society.

Bridging the gap.

Misdiagnosed as having paranoid delusions. This is exactly where many of our workplace mobbing cousins were 15 years ago before credible research was done into the phenomenon of workplace mobbing. They were often thought to be paranoid, some I am sure were equally locked away or put on medications, but a decade and a half later with more understanding into this deliberate phenomenon we not only realise how far reaching it is, but how systemic it is as well.

[quote]As a clinician, Leymann made his priority the healing of post-traumatic stress in those most severely affected by mobbing. With the support of the Swedish health service, he opened a clinic for mobbing victims in 1994, and published detailed research on the first 64 patients treated there. That clinic no longer exists and Leymann himself died in 1999, but 200 patients are currently treated in a similar clinic that opened in Saarbruecken, Germany, this year.

Competent, well-informed treatment of the many mobbing targets who suffer mental breakdown is obviously in order, especially since they have often in the past been misdiagnosed as having paranoid delusions.

Psychiatric injury, however, is but one possible harmful result of being mobbed. Some mobbing targets keep their sanity but succumb to cardiovascular disease–hypertension, heart attack, or stroke. Most suffer loss of income and reputation. Marital breakdown and isolation from friends and family are also common outcomes. [/quote]

When a problem is not understood, especially by outsides who might have a cold, calculating, or even dispassionate interest in the subject matter it's easy to falsely label something that is not understood. Such as the people that are part of that phenomenon or the phenomenon itself.
Today the concept of workplace mobbing is well understood, and has become more normalised in society, thanks to research by credible professors such as K. Westhues. Himself a target of workplace mobbing, he was able to ward off what was happening to him, and spent the next decade studying the phenomenon and assisting other targets. He is now a widely respected researcher in the field.

With subject matters such as bullying, gang stalking, mobbing, mind control, because the outside world is often unaware of the devastating effect the harassment is having, it's often up to the insiders of that community to bring knowledge and understanding to the forefront, and to the outside world at large.

10 years ago, bullying was not understood that well, but with the persistence of people like Tim Fields, it's now a household word, and a very well understood concept.

We as a community in the Gang Stalking World are on the precipice, where the term is becoming more well known, but with limited understanding, and preconceived prejudices about gang stalking, by people in various fields and outside communities.

This might also have been recently complicated by being falsely termed as an extreme community. We are not so much an extreme community as a misunderstood community. We are about 3-5 years behind where our fellow counterparts were. We do need more research into the subject matter, but because what is happening to us, is being enacted by the very governments we trust, this further complicates exposing what's happening to the general population, and then getting assistance, validation and understanding from the world at large.

We are at the crossing over stage, and for every move we do try to make forward, we have silent watchers in the background, from what the New York Times article stated, at times misdiagnosing our community, and mislabeling the members of that community, without giving any actual credence to the research being presented and the very real possibility that what we are saying is true, and that this is in fact really happening to us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/fashion/13psych.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

The key emphasis then still relies on mechanisms within the Gang Stalking community to prove our innocence, because we have already been declared by some as guilty, or rather mislabeled as paranoid, delusional, or mentally ill. There is strength in unity, we have seen this with our cousin community, yet this is still a key point that alludes our community due to several key internal factors.

In moving forward, there has to be more focus on maintaining a unified community, which is hard at times because we do remain fragmented in many ways. We still have to place key emphasis on Awareness, and exposure. There is a lot of good research coming out in high profile mediums and those should be used to bridge that gaps that have hitherto prevented us from crossing over to where our cousins in the mobbing community are.