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...


bakkagirl


















































My definition of g.s. (I am offering one, as there appears not yet to exist a formal legal definition) would be:

I will second that, though I have no experience at the corporate level. I do firmly believe that gangstalking is real, based on personal experience, and that the Scientologists are not the only ones guilty of it. Nor do you have to be a person of influence.

Okay, if we don't want to say "gangstalking," let's just say "a rose by any other name..."

I don't see your definition here, but I can say that I experienced what seemed to be:

1) Organized surveillance
2) Organized harassment
3) Odd, seemingly staged conversations, (commonly referred to as "street theater"). These typically centered around topics over which I had argued with people, and seemed intended to drive home some point without actually engaging me.
4) Sudden ostracism/seeming "blacklisting"
5) Signs of stalking and gaslighting, (objects being moved around on my property)
6) and considerably more.

...and that these things began when I made a few mildly critical comments about some things I had noticed in regards to Landmark, and intensified when I told my recruiter that I would be leaving the program.

Sorry for my lousy editing. This topic upsets me GREATLY. My definition was in the text:


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.

OK, let's call it "a rose".

Thanks for your list of what you have experienced.

I think this can take many forms depending on the context, and objective.

In my own case, I would cite:

1) Disruption/infiltration of events/public programs, e.g. program goals are openly stated as 'X', which is countered by the chorus of A,B,C demanding a 'new' agenda, generally completely off point.

2) Commitments made and not honored...followed by adamant denial of commitment made, if this is 1-2-1 it is a 'misunderstanding', if B,C,D say commitment not made, its gaslighting.

3) Ostensible strangers using the language of familiarity at first introduction.

4) Odd expressions being dropped into conversations -- really odd, maybe, a Latin phrase, or the repeated use of an expression by multiple parties, e.g. "that coach is really switched on"..."yeh, yeh, that coach is really switched on"..."yeh, yeh, really switched on, you are right!"

5) Taking liberty with names, and brands -- "I'm a good friend of bakkagirl's"..

6) Misrepresentation of credentials/experience/even country of birth - this is a constant.

7) Odd, and extremely unlikely professional alliances. There are hierarchies in any field, so why is the neurosurgeon partnering with the nurse's aid to deliver a presentation at a scholarly event?

8) I recall arriving very late in a city in China, was headed for my hotel, and there stood my host who said he had been contacted by "x" -- a complete stranger to him.

9) Ostracism/blacklisting -- FOR SURE.

10) Inappropriate sharing of information between ostensible competitors -- a constant.


This is small potatoes compared to your travails, but related, I think. Stalking is not the right term, but there is collusion, and VERY ODD behavior.

bakkagirl

Well, I see there has not been a lot of uptake on this topic.

Perhaps this relates to a general discomfort around whether government entities could be involved in organized harassment of recalcitrant individuals.

As for the cultic structures discussed at length in the forum, I have seen evidence of organized harassment in many posts, be it hectoring, unwelcome telephone solicitations, people waking up after years of involvement in an organization to realize they had been psychologically coerced into that activity, people recognizing they had lost their relationships with family and friends owing to their own coercive behaviors.

Government entities aside, I know that the community-generated harassment I and other have experienced in my region, and the others include clinical psychologists who are now afraid to speak up, has a logic, and has a scope that goes well beyond a small professional networking group that when off its charter.

bakkagirl

Hi bakka,

I consider organized harrassment that actually intrudes into my own private property to qualify as stalking, especially when you add on the surveillance. I don't necessarily think you were saying it wasn't, but just wanted to clarify my reason for using the term.

For me, a simplified definition of stalking would be surveillance + harrassment = stalking.

Gangstalking would be the involvement/collusion of more than one person, so would be, (in the simplest terms)

Organized surveillance + organized harrassment

I know that theres a lot more to it than that, at least with these organizations.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/03/2018 03:10PM by kdag.

kdag,

I wasn't contesting anything you reported of your own experience. My point was only that based on data contained in this forum, there is ample evidence of organized harassment in the context of groups we are choosing to call cults.

Your point has consistently been that this harassment has crossed over into your personal space, and in every sense of that term.

As for remedies, and why just calling the police may not be an option:

I have a dear friend who fulfilled his life goal. He wanted to become a dentist and practice in a small town. Coincidentally, and because it is a very small town, he also became the community's sheriff. That town is located in AZ and on Utah border. My friend tells me that at least once a month, a female or females (group) present in his office complaining of serious dental maladies, which turn out to not exist. These are Mormon women who come cross the border and ask him for 'help' in escaping the LDS. Why don't they just go to their local law enforcement?

My friend describes the LDS as "a global open air woman's prison."

My point is that there seems to be high tolerance for certain cults, coercive influence groups in the U.S., and this would include groups that do not claim religious exemption, e.g. Landmark.

On surveillance -- I would like to say that this can take a lot of forms. In my own case, I never discuss business activities in ANY circle, or with any individuals beyond my closest collaborators, EVER. This means no practice discussions, no sharing case studies with peers, no disclosure of research activities. I would not even share an 'idea' at a conference...nothing, nowhere, ever again.

There is a difference between gathering market intelligence, and being mindful of your competitors, and the gathering of that information and sharing it among groups that are cultic'ally-oriented and organized. And, it ain't even about 'business'.

bakkagirl

bakkagirl,

I think i get what you're saying. I'm not in the corporate world, so my mind doesn't automatically go there, but i see the difference.

The story about the dentist/sheriff is interesting. I can't count the number of people who told me to call the police. If i look up gangstalking on the internet, i see people who have dealt with it. They consistently warn against calling the police, because the people who have tried it were dismissed as nut jobs. That's exactly what i was afraid of, and why most people don't handle it that way. I leave information in other places, and report incidents to other people - my "trail of bread crumbs."

kdag,

IMHO, there are simply too many people, from too many backgrounds/walks of life describing the SAME experience for the g.s. phenomenon NOT to have some basis in reality.

I have friends from Eastern European countries who describe having experienced similar organized behaviors against their persons, or members of their families. I don't see how anyone would derive any benefit from making up stories about this, quite the contrary, so I am tending to believe.

One can, I think, debate the source of these behaviors, the organizing principle, but many experiences in my own life have informed me that group behavior is easily manipulated.

Additionally, on the surveillance thing, any PI can find at Radio Shack the technology to perform fairly advanced surveillance on others. My belief is, that if the technology is available, it will be used, appropriately and inappropriately. Human nature.

I would assume that the people describing their experiences on YouTube videos are past the point of caring about their reputations, and are leaving "bread crumb" trails, as well.

Finally, I am thinking that this phenomenon resembles in some ways the so-called "Satanic Panic" of the 80's, and is being similarly dismissed, or spun.

bakkagirl

IMO the overwhelming majority of "gang stalking" claims are simply made up fiction spun by people who are often dealing with a mental problems. Typically paranoid delusions.

These are baseless conspiracy theories used to rationalize a mental problem that should be addressed by a doctor. Rather than seek such medical help people claim that they are being "gang stalked."

I have received numerous calls from such people claiming that some "cult," which they cannot identify is somehow stalking them. Because they have no objective evidence the police and other professionals don't believe them and take action.That's why people encouraging such delusional thinking warn against calling the police. Because the police represent reality and therefore will not reinforce the delusion.

Feeding into and enabling such delusional thinking is not helpful. It's better that the troubled person either prove objectively that such stalking actually exists, or admit that they have a mental problem and seek help from a mental health professional.

Sadly, the Internet provides a platform for people with paranoid delusions and baseless conspiracy theories to spin such stories endlessly. And such people network online and refer to each other and related websites, etc. that effectively create a kind of alternate universe on the Web. This contrived and false social proof is then used to reinforce, enable and support delusional thinking.

I don't think this message board, which is all about real cults and cult victims with real problems, should be cluttered with conspiracy theories and speculation about unproven claims of "gang stalking."

There have been proven situations when groups called "cults" like Scientology and NXIVM stalked and harassed their perceived enemies. There are police reports and court records to substantiate this.

Unless it is proven by such objective evidence baseless claims of "stalking" are inappropriate at this message board.

It is not necessary to be a "believer" if something is established fact.

There is an excellent article published by the New York Times about the conspiracy theories revolving around gang stalking.

"United States of Paranoia: They See Gangs of Stalkers"

See [www.nytimes.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2018 12:59AM by rrmoderator.

rrmoderator wrote:

"It's better that the troubled person either prove objectively that such stalking actually exists..."

I agree with this completely. What you have to understand is that it is like trying to catch a peeping tom. That is now becoming easier for people who have security cameras mounted around their homes. For those who cannot afford that, it is still difficult. Up until recently, catching them was extremely difficult, because when seconds count, the police are minutes away. Many voyeurs were able to continue their activities for years before they were caught because of this.

"There have been proven situations when groups called "cults" like Scientology and NXIVM stalked and harassed their perceived enemies. There are police reports and court records to substantiate this."

I hope that, as these groups are investigated, their typical methods of operation will be noted, and other groups will be investigated.

Also, the "patients" need to be looked at. When an LGAT states, on their own consent form, that psychiatric casualties have occurred, even among participants who had no history of mental illness, that would draw my interest. There are factors, such as signalment, that might point the way. Most schizophrenics, for example, are diagnosed in their teens or early twenties. When someone in their 40's suddenly starts exhibiting symptoms, with no previous history, maybe that case should be revisited. Also, are there other signs of mental illness? Can the patient carry on a perfectly lucid conversation with the psychiatrist/therapist about any/all other topic(s), showing no sign of mental illness? Is the "craziness" limited to when they speak of their LGAT/cult experience?

Mental illness obviously exists, and cults can exacerbate it, I am sure. I just wish that professionals dealing with people exiting cults would put a little more effort into separating the wheat from the chaffe.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2018 03:28AM by kdag.