I gotta go there -- "gangstalking"
Date: September 30, 2018 02:27PM
I would seem that some folks in the CEI community believe that gangstalking is stuff of "conspiracy theory".
I might have been in that camp myself, a few years back, but, owing to personal experience, I am a qualified 'believer'.
For purposes of this discussion, I will avoid the MK-ULTRA, COINTELPRO, Mind Control dimensions (real or false) associated in many minds with with g.s.
I will suggest that very few weapons have been developed that are not ultimately used in some context. As for "mind control", I will just call this "behavioral engineering". I live in a country that features full-spectrum behavioral engineering. Many years ago, this would be most perceptible in consumer habits, as in 1,000,000 Japanese women all donning the same style/color of coat, within maybe, a 48 hour period. These days, one might hear in the course of one day, six Japanese say, "I take a walk everyday because it is good for my health"
I have no issue with the concept of mind control, 'benevolent', 'malevolent'.
I can't find a legal definition for "gang-stalking" though it would appear that one congresswoman is attempting to define and criminalize a constellation of behaviors she associates with government programs.
In the absence of an accepted definition, I would say that it involves a coordinated effort by a group of individuals to inflict psychological, (and, ultimately, physical harm) on a targeted individual. Purpose: to exact conformity , or could be to drain off and manage the internal rage experienced by members in good standing.
I would posit that the coordinated shaming and shunning directed at dissident or departing members by certain religious groups would be an example of what I have described above. This has included, in the case of whistle blowers, active stalking and attempts to undermine the ability of the target to remain employed.
White-collar religions such as Scientology are well-known for aggressive and coordinated actions against dissident or departing members.
I would suggest, and based on my experience, that so-called professional organizations are cable of generating this behavior, and I am told it also occurs in civic groups such as PTA's, or, even condominium associations.
This shades into corporate mobbing, very common in Japan, and with predictable consequences -- workplace suicides.
Back to the darker, darkest side, we have countless historical examples of governments turning populations into elaborate spy networks, see the Stazi, see the NKVD. See, to this day, the positioning by the government of the PRC of agents in every company, school, and civic association. These agents are adept at identifying dissidents, and in leveraging groups against individuals.
As for the professional network/organization going in this direction, I would say that many, most, maybe all of the self-, and executive improvement-focused organizations discussed in this forum are very capable of generating this behavior, more capable than other bodies in that that they can exert influence over the employment opportunities of members, and non-members. Couple this, with significant amounts of covert manipulation brought to bear via LGAT technologies, NLP, collateral collection, etc.,and I think you have an absolute formula for coordinated forms of harassment.
I would say these behaviors are probably 'staged', and may start with application of "the look" when one asks a question. Virtue signalling seems to be an ever-present feature of these groups. Leaders, who are coincidentally work opportunity providers, signal their preferred attitude, political positioning, and members echo this. These are not excellence cultures, meaning there is no healthy competition. There is only the ability to conform to a group vision, which may be based on the fiat of whoever is perceived as being most successful/powerful on a given day, or hour. These are principle-free environments.
Market conditions do not seem to impact the behavior of these groups. In a sense, there are no competitors, only different groups vying for even greater conformity.
Once you cut a professional activity free of objective standards, anything goes.
If the 'leader' says winter wheat will grow in the spring, you plant it in the spring. The corporate buyer is doing pretty much the same thing...see the recent Google video with Sergie Brin schooling his beanie-wearing acolytes in proper political views. Was James Damore (the Google dissident) corporately mobbed outof an organization? I would say, probably.
Maybe if we consider what is the desired effect of community-driven harassment, we can be way more open as what form that harassment may take, and we can avoid semantic rabbit holes.
Hope this makes sense...
My definition of g.s. (I am offering one, as there appears not yet to exist a formal legal definition) would be: