Targeted Individuals

Post Reply
User avatar
carpe verum
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:45 pm

Targeted Individuals

Post by carpe verum » Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:17 pm

Whatever you think of Agenda 21--or whatever it's called right now-- I thought this was interesting. I will continue to add to it as I get the time.
Targeted Individuals vs the state of Grease

From [de]ontic [noumenal- possessing the character of real rather than phenomenal existence] social constructivism to [de]ontological sociocybernetics: communitarian ethos and its “other” in the context of a multi-participant, multi-act attempted murder case of indirect perpetration in the context of the “third realm” and freemansonry as organized institutional/private alliances and power mechanisms

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………p9

CHAPTER 1……………………………………………………………………… p12

1.1 Why agenda 21 as a blueprint for societal engineering and a new communitarian ethos throughmandating inclusion in social networks constitutes a silently legitimating platform or animus socii for targeting activities? Agenda 21 as a blueprint for microsocial engineering is embedded in a discourse of clouded, highly abstract and not at all “actionable” language. The case for “open system dynamics” masking a crypto-totalitarian agenda favoring the dystopian feedback loophyperreal ecosystem fabricated and imposed on targets

1.2 Agenda 21 is discriminatory regarding social groupings and the demopsychographic profile of participants

1.3 Agenda 21 promotes conspiratorial attempts at redistribution of wealth through the formation of “secret microsocial committees” that constitute “informal referenda” against “pragmatically overloaded adhocratic rules” and is violating of all sorts of local criminal laws, such as violation of the right to privacy and freedom of movement, illicit break-ins in targets’ property and causing property damage, while promoting psychological warfare and covert operations

1.4 Agenda 21: the cultivation of a new communitarian ethos and the indirect legitimation of transgression of the right to privacy

1.5 An agenda for depopulation

1.6 Agenda 21 as a blueprint for indoctrination on communitarian ideals

1.7 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT or ANOTHER UTOPIAN VISION?

1.8 IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN THROUGH SOCIAL PYRAMIDS- BOTTOM-UP SOCIAL REENGINEERING

1.9 The historical evolution of the new communitarian ethos

1.10 Microsocial engineering through Local Agenda 21: open system dynamics or groupings of pragmatically driven individuals legitimating their redistribution of wealth interests under a“communitarian cloak”? Consensus masks ubiquitous psychological mechanisms operative ingroup decision making (see chapter 3)

1.11 The New Age vs “Old system” rhetoric: simply a matter of redistribution of power and indirectlegitimation for “multiparticipant, multiact perpetration” in the context of organized power mechanisms (see chapter 4) against an emergent discursive dominant paradigm

1.12 Agenda 21 not by accident contains as part of the project's descriptor the first degree of freemasonry (that is 21)

1.13 Conclusions

CHAPTER 2……………………………………………………………………… p45

2.1 Introduction: Targeting- the new silent massacreWhat is targeting and why is it a new phenomenon (or at least an old phenomenon in new clothing)of silent massacre/premeditated murder?

2.2 The phenomenology of the torture situation2.3 Methods of targeting : the case for a new form of sociocybernetic terrorism

2.3.1 Classical conditioning

2.3.2 Investigations

2.3.3 Surveillance

2.3.4 Gang Stalking

2.3.5 Break-ins & Property damage & petty thefts

2.3.6 Buzzsaw2.3.7 Framings2.3.8 Sabotage & Vandalism

2.3.9 Mail interference

2.3.10 Blacklisting

2.3.11 Collisions & Cut-offs

2.3.12 Blocking, Swarming & Space invasion

2.3.13 Synchronization

2.3.14 Convoys of vehicles

2.3.15 Mobbing

2.3.16 Brighting

2.3.17 Noise campaigns

2.3.18 Food tamperring

2.3.19 Sensitivity Programs

2.3.20 Street theater

2.3.21 Electromagnetic weapons: the technological enablers of the slow-kill method

2.4 Usual mode of treatment of targeting allegations on behalf of institutional mechanisms agents and the silent (psychic, discursive, pragmatic) complicity or a complicit multi-referential signifying system: The ontic and the ontological facets, the multiple referential planes, the “signifying regimes” [see chapters 3 and 4] , the latent/background assumptions operative in each referential plane assignifying attractor between linguistic/protosemiotic/corporeal signs and their respective signifieds [see chapter 3]- An instance of circulalry demarcated predespositional causality [κυκλικάοριοθετημένη προδιαθετική αιτιότητα] or the [de]ontic reinscription of minor premises in a social constructivist/sociocybernetic paradigm of [de]ontological major premises as latent conditionals of multiple signifying regimes [From Parmenides’ virtuously circular truth to a pragmatically overloaded web of Husserlian noemata as cunningly interwoven minor premises against the background of a collective intentionality]

2.5 The psychological effects of the targeting sociocybernetic mechanism and why/how the reported symptoms often match the diagnostic criteria of DSM (chance or premeditated“institutional cover-up” of the true causal mechanism that is responsible for generating these effects?)- Another typical instance of discursively complicit cover-up and semantic/pragmatic aleatoric bifurcation of a phenomenon in ever multiplying signifying regimes [see chapter 3]

2.6 A Peircian analysis of how the aforementioned conditioning tactics self-referentially and through the employed sociocybernetic mechanisms model their effects: the pragmatics of sociocybernetic conditioning

2.7 The creation of an institutionally sanctioned exclusionary mechanism. How an abductive stratagem crystallizes in an institutional practice through social constructivism and sociocybernetics: further notes on discursive complicity- a functionalist paradigm as apologetic for systemic dysfunctions or sedation as a way of coping with targeting : it’s a win-win situation for everyone butthe target

2.8 The ontological issue with the notion of the psyche : empirical fact, fact of reason or of epistemological reification against the background of economic interests?

2.9 The legal issues with psychiatric diagnosis: violating freedom of speech for the sake of reducing complexity? For whom?

2.10 omitted

2.11 Reasons for targeting – the case for multilayered motives [cf. chapters 3 and 4]

2.12 Who participates in targeting activities? – the case for a multiparticipant, multiact crime with composite multiple causality

2.13 How do direct perpetrators communicate and how is communication facilitated by satellite audiovisual surveillance? – C.Roxin’s functional platform as animus auctoris (cf chapter 4)

2.14 What is the organizational structure between direct and indirect perpetrators and how recordings of incidents on behalf of institutional agents act in complicity to the incidents?

2.15 Conclusions

CHAPTER 3 The epistemological/ontological/pragmatic framework for making sense of targeting in the context of the new communitarian ethos enforced throughagenda 21…………………………………………………………………………. p170

3.1 Habermas theory of pragmatics of social interaction: Community of rational/disinterested or irrational/interested agents and by implication of social networks as constellations of social agents?Talking non-sense may be of limited truth, but of amplified relational validity

3.2 Social representations as a mechanism for fabricating and filtering information about targeted individuals: between epistemological fallacies and lay discourse perceptual inertia lies the silent legitimation of information as the outcome of social networks members decision making

3.3 Social representations or cognitive/interpretive schemata in action: Accounting for the blindspots in Habermas’ theory of the pragmatics of social interaction by demonstrating how fabricated“social contexts”, “social situations” , “scripts” and “social episodes” shape the hyperreal world of atarget

3.4 How does ethnomethodology and Conversation/Discourse analysis aid in further elucidating the discourse of targeted individuals whereupon an ontologically coherent lifeworld is imprinted?

3.5 Conversation/discourse analysis in action: Unearthing the experiential building blocks and the ontologically coherent nature of “open systems” targeting lifeworld in the context of agenda 21social networking

3.6 The implication of agenda 21 as a platform for effecting sociocybernetic solidarity on a global scale

3.7 Conversion as a change in one’s universe of discourse and the legal issue of freedom of willand responsibility (at least for the direct perpetrators) in the context of indoctrination and coercive persuasion

3.8 Agenda 21 and Viral Marketing techniques: A NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENT of pyramidically interdependent formal and informal social networks spreading virally through indoctrination techniques?

Chapter 4

The legal framework of targeting: A case of premeditated, multiparticipant,multiact murder attempt of indirect perpetration in the context of organizedmechanisms of power and institutional/private alliances (agenda 21/thirdrealm) and freemasonry ………………………………………………………………………. p287

4.1 Reasons why the silent massacre phenomenon should be typified as an exceptional form of criminal activity in dogmatgic penal law: the analogy with the typified chapter on “Duel” in the Greekcriminal law (Chapter IZ of the Particular Part of the Greek Criminal Law)

4.2 Main findings from chapter 3 and their relationship to the justification for using the proposedlegal framework : targeting experiential categories as argumentative third terms and their usefulness in the interpretation and application of dogmatic law concepts

4.3 The “informal” and “formal” judiciary aspects of the silent massacre phenomenon as regards separate criminal activities and the ontologically coherent nature of their plenum

4.4 My allegations regarding individual instances of the ontologically coherent plenum of the attempted premeditated murder against me

4.5 What are the apodeictic conditionals for premeditated attempted murder?

4.6 The beginning of the act of attempted premeditated murder as silent massacre (with yet overt and demonstrable objective facets) against me and why it constitutes a multi-act crime with multiple perpetrators

4.7 Why my case constitues an attempt at multi-act premeditated murder with multiple perpetrators?

4.8 Why the multiple acts of perpetration as above cited are not isolated, hence not falling under the umbrella of simple participation?

4.9 Why this is not a case of acting in parallel with others while not being motivated necessarily by the same cause?

4.10 Is it a case of complicity in the context of indirect perpetration carried out through organized mechanisms of power? Whose dolus and who is animus auctoris and who is animus socii?

4.10.2 What is the difference between closed and open system dynamics?

4.11 Legal precedents in criminal activties perpetrated in the context of organized power mechanims (in closed systems) and further elaboration of terms based on precedents

4.12 In a nutshell: Subjective and objective conditionals / Actus reus and mens rea that must be met in order to determine the existence of indirect perpetration in the exceptional case of the silent massacre phenomenon in the context of organized power mechanisms and against the background of the secret societies of agenda 21 and freemasonry

4.13 Intermezzo: Notes on legal argumentation and evidentiary methodological rationale

4.13.1 The necessity of using the silent massacre 10 third terms as nodes iin legal syllogistic chains

4.13.2 What are the limits between subjectivism and objective facts and between admissible and inadmissible evidentiary materials?

4.13.3 Justification of judiciary decisions: need for applying greater emphasis than usual on particular evidentiary materials as against general evidentiary typologies in order to avoid impressions management propagandist techniques and the complicity of the judiciary in the very methods that favor targeting as silent massacre (even though formally the judiciary is covered for not providing detailed argumentation as to which specific parts of the evidentiary materials and witness testimonies led to the formation of specific premises)- TRUTH OR AXIOLOGICALJUDGMENTS CONDITIONED BY A COLLECTIVE INTENTIONALITY AS A SUM OF DOXICPOSITINGS?

4.14 Bringing it all together: Formalizing and subsuming under dogmatic criminal law clauses mycase of premeditated attempted murder with the aid of Wigmore’s diagrams

4.15 Summary / conclusions and Demand for compensation………………………….… p464

Chapters Overview

In chapter 1 I provide an exposition of why agenda 21 as a blueprint for societal engineering and a new communitarian ethos through mandating inclusion in social networks constitutes a silently legitimating platform or animus socii for targeting activities and draw parallels on a nominal and structural level with freemasonry.

In Chapter 2 Ι provide a definition of targeting , alongside the usual methods employed in targeting activities, the reasons for targeting, who participates in targeting activities, the organizational structure of targeting groups and the usual mode of treatment of targeting allegations on behalf of institutional authorities.

In Chapter 3 I provide the epistemological framework and the requisiste methodology for making sense of the targeting phenomenon as silent massacre against the background of social networks and the new communitarian ethos of agenda 21 by drawing on the social theory pesrpectives of pragmatics of social interaction, cultural pragmatics, ethnomethodology, conversation analysis and discourse analysis, sociocybernetics, the Christological paradigm and the sociology of coercion/indoctrination while demonstrating their usefulness for understanding individual acts of perpetration as “social episodes” upon “preplanned scripts” in the context of a fabricated ontologically coherent empirical reality.

In Chapter 4 I provide the legal framework wherein the targeting phenomenon must be approached as multiact, multiparticipant premeditated attempted murder with the involvement of “third realm”public/private alliances and freemasonry. By drawing on Claus Roxin’s theory of indirect perpetration in organized power mechanisms, I point to the individual clauses of Greek criminal law and Human Rights Statute clauses that have been violated by individual acts of perpetration against me and justify why the silent massacre phenomenon is not a simple case of coperpetration, joint criminal enterprise and offshoot theories of participation in a criminal activity, but a composite crime with a composite causal pattern, including multiple remote and efficient causes and one causa finalis, viz the completion of the premeditated attempted murder. Additionally the learnings from chapters 2 and 3 are combined with the legal framework and a demonstration is provided as to why the individual acts of perpetration pertinent to my case must be subsumed under the premeditated attempted murder clause, as well as which articles of the Human Rights Statute have been violated. Last, but not least, I conclude with my demand for compensation.

INTRODUCTION

In this case I seek to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that I have been victmized for over four years with targeting activities, involving land-based and electromagnetic harassment, with view to proving a premeditated murder attempt against me.

I will abide by the dogmatic tenets of legal truth finding, while engaging in interpretive exercises where necessary in order to clarify which legal clauses (encompassing Greek Criminal law,International Criminal law and European Human Rights Law) are more pertinent both to individualacts of perpetration, as well as to the “ontologically coherent plenum” of targeting activities. At the same time, I will point out why certain omissions in formal law may be silently legitimating acts of perpetration under the umbrella of targeting.

The arguments and facts backing up my case involve both ad hominem and ad humanitatem facets. Ad hominem insofar as individual perpetrators are involved in discrete spatio temporally situated acts of perpetration and ad humanitatem insofar as institutional mechanisms are involved as enablers or as “perpetrators behind the individual perpetrators”, to use a familiar term coined by Claus Roxin, whose applied theory of indirect perpetration and relationship of dominance over individual perpetration acts in the context of organized power mechanisms will be employed in the process of grounding the particularities of this relatively new phenomenon involving a system of multi-agent perpetrators, in dogmatic law.

In the course of establishing the validity of my claims as empirical minor premises of which the contents of legal causes as major premises are predicated I shall provide sufficient information alongside both the subjective [mens rea] and objective aspects [actus reus] of the individual criminal activities and shall justify why they constitute a chain of events leading up to a premeditated murder attempt. In parallel, I will point out why certain aspects of the evidentiary rationale rest neither with inductive (that is building the argument bottom-up starting with the plausibility of inferring the validity of linking emprical facts with legal clauses) nor with deductive(that is starting with the assumption of a given legal clause and working backwards in order to unearth the relevant empirical facts that validate the relevant clause), but with abductive reasoning(that is by eliminating other plausible explanations of the causal nexus between empirical facts and their consequences),while reducing to absurdity claims to the opposite by allusion to precedentsand to omissions

Complementary to the above I will provide a robust, valid and reliable epistemological perspective in order to make sense of an ontologically coherent plenum of individual and necessarily interconnected acts of direct perpetration and the provision of sufficient evidence about my“lifeworld" in the context of targeting (coined against the background of the popular approaches of
phenomenology and ethnomethodology, as will be illustrated in Chapter 3), while pointing to systemic aspects of institutional discursive and psychic complicity, favoring targeting activities.

One of the primary reasons why this uncommon , exceptional criminal activity of multiple composite causality, alternating perpetrators and their clear relationship to a system of indirect perpetration has not been brought to the attention of the judiciary authorities to such an extent as and with equivalent to the intensity and frequency to the torture cases themselves , which yet are informally reported and vindicated on a daily basis in countless informal associations blogs and individual torture cases consists largely in the fact that it has not yet been engraved in public mores as a despicable act meriting outcry. On the contrary, as it will be demonstrated in due course, the silent massacre phenomenon is part and parcel of a new communitarian ethos that has been informally instituted across the globe over the last 20 years, as a way of affirming communitarian bonds through the formation of a projective relationships with Others upon whom the vices ,repressed wishes and all sorts of often implicit and deeply laden mechanisms of desire, demand and repression that have always been actively operative in a collective unconscious and occasionally surface as pathological phenomena of everydayness are transferred either symbolically or in a tactile manner to targets.

In essence the phenomenon is not new, but novel in its rendition. The collective pathology underpinning and enabling it has been lucidly described by various scholars in the fields of psychoanalysis, cultural and social anthropology (Freud, Lacan, Moscovici, Lewin to name a few) What is different at this historical juncture is the technologies available for carrying out these practices (eg surveillance mechanisms enabled through technologies such as Haarp and Echelon) and the advanced procedures for coordinating social actors towards their accomplishment (eg secret services directed sociocybernetic mechanisms). What is called for, in order to render this phenomenon descriptively valid and perhaps prescriptively valid in the context of dogmatic criminal law, is an epistemological, methodological and ontological framework for putting these practices in perspective, thus enabling a judiciary committee to recognize them as such by subsuming allegations under the correct legal clauses , while recognizing their ontologically coherent nature, as against seemingly discreet and unrelated activities that violatespecific clauses of local and international criminal law.

Attempts have already been made by targeted individuals at synthesizing their experiences under particular experiential categories in an attempt to descriptively encapsulate their lived reality or “lifeworld”. What is still lacking in the already vast literature, mainly consisting of individual stories and sparse allegations on the particular instances of the silent massacre phenomenon, is a set of interpretive principles that would enhance sense making and would enable outsiders to recognize the implications of this phenomenon both for the individuals concerned as well as for what is revealed through these actions about the members of the community that is carrying them out.Based on the extensive review of numerous targeted individuals’ allegations, also matching my individual case, of which a selective portion is cited in chapter 3 as the groundwork for building bpttom-up with the employment of discourse analysis the interpretive framework supporting the dogmatic law apodeictic principles of mens rea and actus reus, a set of “targeting conditionals” or third terms is provided in chapter 4.

The epistemological framework provided in chapter 3 acts as an enabler in meeting the principle of nullum crimen sine lege insofar as in order to make sense of why this multi-perpetrator, multi-act crime, involving organized institutional mechanisms and private/public sectors’ agents cooperation,we have to synthesize individual acts of perpetration under a coherent epistemological platform and then to subsume them under the relevant clauses of criminal law. The targeting conditionals or interpretive third terms essentially provide nodes in syllogistic chains for enhancing the validity of the legal inferences drawn in chapter 4 and the subsumption of individual activities and the plenum of these activities under the equivalent clauses of criminal law and the Human Rights Statute.

In summary, I hereby allege that there is a new phenomenon of psychosomatic torture termed the silent massacre and that I have been a target of overt and identifiable acts of perpetration and covert, less perfectly evidenced acts of perpetration over the course of the past four years, resulting in serious aggravations with regard to my moral integrity, my professional and personal life and my future prospects. The silent massacre phenomenon constitutes a case of premeditated attempted murder though a multi-stage process spanning a prolonged time period and involving multiple accomplices, while the indirect responsibility or the relationship of domination over the acts of perpetration , in Roxin’s terms, rests with institutional agencies and in particular secret services that control the involved technologies and the flow of information regarding targeted individuals, whose agents seek to legitimate a state within state with concomitant attempts at redistributing resources and power among them and the legitimation of their decisions at enforcing slow kill methods by complicitly taking on board members of distinctive communities, also involving agenda 21 and freemasonry as “secret societies within society.

Chapter 1

“A series of paradigmatic shifts have resulted in social networking as the primary source of power; knowledge as once the domain of privileged access gave way to information as privileged access to processing technologies, the popularization of and easy access to which gave place to social networks as the only domain where access is by default controllable”

1.1 Why agenda 21 as a blueprint for societal engineering and a new communitarian ethos through mandating inclusion in social networks constitutes a silently legitimating platform or animus socii for targeting activities? Agenda 21 as a blueprint for microsocial engineering is embedded in a discourse of clouded, highly abstract and not at all“actionable” language. The case for “open system dynamics” masking a crypto-totalitarian agenda favoring the dystopian feedback loop hyperreal ecosystem fabricated and imposed on targets

Agenda 21 as a macro/micro societal engineering paradigm emerged in the 1992 UN RIODeclaration as a means for attaining “global sustainable development”.

Since its inception and upon its application in various parts of the golbe, civilian organizations emerged (such as Project Freedom against agenda 21, The North American alliance against agenda 21) making severe allegations against the program as being uncpnstitutionally binding in terms of compulsory social engineering, while masking attempts at redistribution of wealth and land among its participants or “change agents”. Indeed, as it will be demonstrated, not only this is the very aim of the agenda, as a reading between the lines will confirm, but striking case studies, such as its application in Oregon (US), constitute realizations of this hidden agenda beyond any reasonable doubt. .

The notion of sustainability is systemic and does not apply to concrete individuals that constitute the very foundation for the application of legal responsibility. Its mandating participation in undefinable and informal social groupings with fluid boundaries demonstrates its communitarian outlook, which is unconstitutional. No laws mandate participation in informal social groupings.

Moreover, there is no “prescriptive” literature suggesting that participation in informal social groupings by necessity promotes greater welfare for individuals. Hence, the mandatory aspect of participation in informal social groupings constitutes an ungrounded mandate, which is purely pragmatically driven as will be illustrated in due course. The emphasis on “localizing” the mandate makes things even worse as it assumes that geographical proximity among social actors is a defining demographic variable in the formation of informal social groupings Personally, I don’t wish to enter in any informal relationship with geographically proximate “actors” and I am perfectly entitled not to do so

Thus, passages such as “Activities that will contribute to the integrated promotion of sustainable development and environmental protection cover a variety of sectoral interventions involving a range of actors from local to global and are essential at every level, especially the community and local levels. Enabling actions will be necessary at the national and international level, taking full account of regional and subregional conditions to support a locally driven and country specific approach. In general design,the programme should:

a.Focus on the empowerment of local and community groups through the principle of delegating authority,accountability and resources to the most appropriate level to ensure that the programme will be geographically and ecologically specific

b.Contain immediate measures to enable those groups to alleviate poverty and to develop sustainability

c.Contain a long term strategy aimed at establishing the best possible conditions for sustainable local, regional and national development between various population groups. It should assist the most disadvantaged groups-in particular women, children and youth within those groups- and refugees. The groups will include poor smallholders, pastoralists, artisans, fishing communities,landless people, indigenous communities, migrants and the urban informal sector

(Section 3.5 of the UN Conference on Environment & Development, Rio de Janeiro 1992)

”not only are unconstitutional but the very social groupings designated as “change agents” by default have an interest in redistribution of land and wealth.

So, sustainability by definition concerns particular groups [mostly underprivileged] at the expense[by implication] of property holders who may be also advancing in their careers. Not only the mandate is highly selective, but, in the context of both my targeting case and other similar cases,the multiple perpetrators participating in the targeting activities consist in couriers, women(especially in the workplace) , immigrants, designated in the agenda as “change agents” and persons from all walks of life.

Not only there is a clear and beyond any reasonable doubt causal relationship between the programmatic declarations of agenda 21 and the individuals/groups that participate in the targeting activities, but also with the very mode of carrying out these activities, that is covertly and through participation in social networks, as attested by the concerted mode of operation in targeting activities.

In particular (referring to the above quote which is as exemplary as any passage from this and similar agenda 21 declarations) “focus on local groups by delegating authority, accountability and resources” clearly states and DELEGATES DECISION MAKING POWER AND AUTHORITY to members of such informal groups. In short, they are empowered to take action for alleviating their hardships through targeting others! The latter conclusion is by necessity inferred as no ways whereby their position may be alleviated is explicitly stated save for a generic and in abstractococeived MEMBERSHIP IN INFORMAL SOCIAL GROUPINGS. A reasonable person might ask,are these members going to generate extra money out of nothing simply by being informally related in an informal grouping? Or is the decision making AUTHORITY granted to these members by default legitimating them through informal referenda to make decisions about others’ lives, not to mention the natural feelings of envy and remorse for more privileged groups that naturally emergein making decisions about others who constitute their goal or TARGET? It doesn’t take an existential phenomenological account to reliably discern that insofar as one’s horizon of possibilities is by default dependent on others’ horizons and it is precisely at the juncture of conflicting interests that some possibilities materialize at the expense of others, then granting authority to informal and underprivileged groups members essentially legitimates intentional actions geared towards the attainment of redistribution of wealth against the background of adhocratic rules developed in the context of informal social groupings and hidden referenda. Not only this manner of MANDATED social organization contravenes fundamental human rights (in its formal exposition), but in essence and by implication it legitimates members of informal social groupings to engage in illegal activities with view to ameliorating their position. It is no accident that this mode of social reengineering,bottom up and through the formation of informal social groupings has been coupled with an exclusionary lingo and a pragmatic language as a “form of life” in Wittgenstein’s terms with view to masking the pragmatic decisions that are made during informal referenda against pseudo moral adhocratic rules aiming at redistributing property and tangible/intangible assets among them

Additionally, directives such as “raising awareness of demographic and sustainable development interactions” not only are ill-founded, insofar as DEMOGRAPHICS (and here I am speaking as professional) are in various instances not overdetermining over psychographics and lifestyle, but restrictive and deterministic about the potential for forming relationships with others, asthey reduce interaction to demographic variables. There is no legitimacy in mandating of a civilianto interact informally with particular age groups, nationalities, genders or geographical locations.This is completely unconstitutional.

Certainly it is of no wonder that 10 years down the line since the initial RIO programmatic declarations, no STRICT MEASUREMENTS had been determined as to how microsocial bonding through participation in these informal social constellations may be accounted for:“Thin et al highlight four key themes within socially sustainable development:

a.Social justice (equal opportunity and the achievement of human rights)

b.Solidarity: empathy, cooperation and associational life

c.Participation : opportunity for everyone to play a meaningful part in development

d.Security: livelihood security and safety from physical threats”

So, what has been attained by this microsocial reengineering project is the drafting of a highly abstract (in terms of sustainability principles) blueprint, which upon declaration and with the assistance of social scientists spread virally through “uknown to the concerned civilians” change agents on a microsocial level, as suggested in the above quoted paper which attempts to gauge quantitative indices as measurement tools of sustainaibility progress, which again is unconstitutional as it restricts flow of movement and goods to a LOCAL paradigm, over determined by an assumption of GEOGRAPHICAL PROXIMITY as defining variable for the choice of significant others and social interaction and moreover, THEIR AUTHORITY to confer judgments about proximally situated social actors. .

As demonstrated the agenda 21 blueprint delegates by implication and through an uncritical assumption of regulatory hypotheses as first principles (eg geographical proximity, underprivileged groups as focal members determining sustainability), authority to social actors from all walks of life to conspire with informal group peers for carrying out targeting activities against others. This is the pragmatic perspective that will be qualified by the even more cogent ontological perspective inchapter 3,

1.2 Agenda 21 is discriminatory regarding social groupings and the demopsychographic profile of participants

Hints about the essentially discriminating aspect of agenda 21 regarding the typologies of social actors suggested as key stakeholders in [a fuzzily, and rather hazily] conceived sustainable development were made in the previous section.

In this section I will illustrate that argument from universals is essentially laden with fallacies

The key universal category concerns gender. As is well-known in market research literature, gender is just one among many psychodemographic variables that make up the profile of social actors It is defining in certain aspects, but definitely not defining in others. Claiming an overarchnig determining relationship across a logical set of instances where it may potentially apply as a qualifying difference constitutes by definition a fallacy as there is no empirical theory suggesting that all actions are carried out differentially on a gender basis. Moreover, inversing an intuitive proposition about relatively higher instances of gender based inequality in income distribution ,which must be further qualified by sector and industry, into a universally applying principle of social action is fallacious, as it amounts to claiming that X are less privileged overall than S, but X are more privileged in sector P than S, therefore all X should become overprivileged over S in all instances. For example, in the professional practice of marketing, advertising and marketing research, women hold more positions than men, and I have experienced conspiratorial attempts at exclusion from my profession mainly from women.therefore, for me, the universal principle and explicit mandate throughout all agenda 21 documents to employ women as primary agents for social reengineering under the auspices of agenda 21 has resulted in an evidently criminal act against me, consisting in ongoing conspiratorial attempts at job exclusion, which is corroborated by my current status of long term unemployment. Thus , not only, as demonstrated, arguing from universals constitutes a logical fallacy embedded in the very heart of a universally binding document, but in my particular case it constitutes a causally necessary legitimation for illegal conspiratorial acts against “pursuing one’s happiness” and career objective, which are grounded both in domestic criminal law and the European Statute of Human Rights. As you may gather from my attached resume, which illustrates my professional and academic path, my focus has always rested with an ongoing engagement to the achievement of an Aristotelian eudaimonia by continuously cultivating the necessary virtues and skills necessary for achieving goal oriented actions. Yet, thanks to the “informal social groupings” and the “adhocratic referenda”LEGITIMATED by an unsustainable (for me) abstract blueprint, my goals have been brought to a standstill and evidently through the participation of multiple social agents whose profile converges with the MEMBERS’ profile that are WANTED for participation in agenda 21 INFORMAL SOCIAL GROUPINGS

The very crux of the argument in this section is that (i) argument from universals –in this case- is fallacious, hence there is nothing in principle legitimating a sub-species to act as driver for social reengineering, which reengineering is in itself unconstitutional (and the same apparently would apply to men in toto) (ii) it is UNDER THE AUSPICES of agenda 21 that that certain demographically demarcated social groups legitimately engage in conspiratorial attempts at job and social exclusion (which is corroborated by the exact opposite phenomenon I had experienced prior to the popularization and diffusion of the agenda in Greece- for example, I have more positive professional references from women compared to men, if someone wished to draw a conclusion of causal necessity from this point, while, needless to say I never demonstrated, not even had a latent negative predisposition against women in the workplace) (iii) my targeting (in terms of methods,participants, and reasons for targeting) has been facilitated by agenda 21, therefore, agenda 21 is the “Ideological motivator” (even under a cloak of pseudo open system dynamics) behind perpetrating activities or the MACHINE, to use Claus Roxin’s metaphor..

The above claims are evidently backed by allegations on behalf of professional colleagues and particular, clear and distinct incidents demonstrating that participants fit the profile of agenda 21’sSOCIAL ACTORS.

1.3 Agenda 21 promotes conspiratorial attempts at redistribution of wealth through the formation of “secret microsocial committees” that constitute “informal referenda” against“pragmatically overloaded adhocratic rules” and is violating of all sorts of local criminal laws, such as violation of the right to privacy and freedom of movement, illicit break-ins in targets’ property and causing property damage, while promoting psychological warfare and covert operations

It is by virtue of the non-concretized and highly abstract character of the programmatic declarations(as regards how specific acts cohere with a sustainability agenda) , the already proved senseless and “non-signifying” and “unrealistic” use of meta epistemologically abstract and epistemologically void terms such as “sustainability, the fallacy of arguing from universals as a springboard of meaningful and goal oriented action that the complicitly interested and pragmatically drivencharacter of the agenda (as will be further qualified in chapter 3) acts as a “psychic motivator” for individual social actors who form informal groupings with view to attaining their individual and collective agendas. Also, it is by virtue of the compulsory and clearly mandated PARTICIPATION that non-participants are by default placed in a weak spot, which gives rise or animates the decision for engaging in targeting activities. Therefore, the mandate for participation is tantamount to aviolation of the right to not participate, and by implication the far reaching materalization of the participatory mechanism in a “co-evolving communities paradigm” legitimates members to exert violence on non participants. CLEARLY, VICTIMIZATION IS A LEGITIMATE ACT IN THE CONTEXT OF AGENDA 21.

1.4 Agenda 21: the cultivation of a new communitarian ethos and the indirect legitimation of transgression of the right to privacy

If sustainability really just meant a benign way of healing the planet from corporate poisoning, it would not include so many mandatory principles that govern civilians’ lives. There is nothing benign about Sustainable Development to civilians. SD is a set of global community laws that supplant individual liberty, formally maintained within national, state and local property and privacy laws.

Secondly, communitarian laws always "balance" the rights of the individual against the community;therefore SD only protects a selectively delineated notion of community. Every nation in the world is experiencing a "wrenching transformation" of national laws into compliance with international SD indircetly legitimated principles

What kind of system puts monitors on garbage trucks so that the trucks can scan our garbage cans in order to spot the cans that have recyclable items in the wrong cans? What kind of a system establishes neighborhood groups who monitor their neighbors for SD compliance and report infractions of new community biased regulations? What kind of a system puts RFID trackers in garments and Retinal Scans in Driver's Licenses? What kind of a system builds a huge database of every one's most private and personal information?

1.5 An agenda for depopulation

The “internationally binding SD principles” would limit not only the size of the world population but also housing, production, consumption, parenting, communication, and religious expression.Its alarming resemblance to the former USSR Constitution implies far greater restrictions than those specifically stated in the Habitat Agenda. Since many specifics were detailed at previous UN conferences, it cannot be fully understood outside the context of the progressive plan for global governance as outlined in all the documents

Traditional beliefs simply don’t fit the UN vision for 21st Century communities. To find moreuniversal values, Habitat leaders convened a day-long “Dialogue” on the meaning of Solidarity at the elegant Ciragan Palace in Istanbul. The official list of 21 panel members included former Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kollek, historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr, and Maurice Strong who led the1992 UN conference on environment.

“I have gathered leaders with tremendous wisdom and prestige,” began Habitat Secretary-General Wally N’Dow. “They are bringing the spiritual dimension (???)-the only ingredient that can bind societies together.” He had chosen an American moderator who would add credibility to the discussion: Robert MacNeil (of MacNeil-Lehrer), “one of the spiritual lights of the media industry today.”

This hand-picked “interfaith group” left little doubt that solidarity meant a universal shift to the new globalist-New Age paradigm (or world-view). “Change your whole way of thinking,because the new order of the spirit is confronting and challenging you,” said Millard Fuller,President of Habitat for Humanity.

“Citizenship for the next century is learning to live together,” said Federico Mayor, Director General of UNESCO. “The 21st Century city will be a city of social solidarity…. We have to redefine the words… [and write a new] social contract.”

“We should stop bemoaning the growth of cities,” added Dr. Ismail Serageldin, Vice President of The World Bank. “It’s going to happen and it’s a good thing, because cities are the vectors of social change and transformation. Let’s just make sure that social change and transformation are going inthe right direction.” Later he added, “The media must act as part of the education process that counters individualism” or the very foundation on which formal law is grounded

1.6 Agenda 21 as a blueprint for indoctrination on communitarian ideals

The heart of lifelong education would be spiritual training. ????? “What’s needed is an interfaith center in every city of the globe,” said James Morton, dean of the Episcopal Cathedral of St. Johnthe Divine, who organized the panel. “The new interfaith centers will honor the rituals of every…faith tradition: Islam, Hinduism, Jain, Christian and provide opportunity for sacred expressionsneeded to bind the people of the planet into a viable, meaningful, and sustainable solidarity.”

1.7 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT or ANOTHER UTOPIAN VISION?

The guiding principle of the new universal education system is “sustainable development.” People everywhere must be taught “facts” about environmental “risks” that are sensational enough to scare them into compliance. They must be persuaded to accept unthinkable limits on consumption,land use, transportation, and family size. Everyone must protect resources for future generations, say UN leaders, but they agree that the real meaning of sustainability is based on theE’s: Environment, Economy, and Equity, which point to a redistribution of the world’s resources-money, energy, water, and people-in order to create global equality.???? Judging from the social groups to which the agenda appeals and the lack of any mention as to HOW the seextra funds allowing for less inequalities in distribution of income it is clearly a case of legitimating less privileged socioeconimic groups in targeting others for the sake of redistribution of wealth (well, the funds must be generated somehow)


History has shown the emptiness of these promises. Long ago the Communist Manifestoannounced a proletarian revolution which would empower the poor by redistributing wealth.Everyone would be equal. Men and women alike would join the socialist workforce, and children would be trained by the state, which materialized in a state formation. All but the leaders became equally poor , and all the children were indoctrinated with an anti-Christian socialist philosophy. Morally and economically, the masses sank to the level of the lowest common denominator

1.8 IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN THROUGH SOCIAL PYRAMIDS- BOTTOM-UP SOCIAL REENGINEERING

The US Network for Habitat II is one of a myriad of national and international UN organizationscommitted to carry out the UN plan in local communities. “The Network is a forum for making surepeople are heard,” explained one of its leaders. “Its role is to tie together the messages from all sixUN conferences into practical action.”

The resemblances to the “People’s Government” that characterized the local “soviets” in the former USSR are striking.
Lenin knew he couldn’t win through representative democracy, so he organized local assemblies called Soviets. Linked through a national federation of Soviets,each local Soviet was ruled by the uneducated proletariat, the “raw material to be molded by an audacious leader” skilled in the use of propaganda. Private merchants, landlords, and priests were excluded from leadership. The chosen elites were supervised and disciplined by ruler sat a higher level. Few dared complain. As Andrei Vishinsky wrote in The Law of the Soviet State,“There can be no place for freedom of speech, press, and so on for the foes of socialism

• The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, the Habitat II action plan based on Agenda 21, theenvironmental program negotiated at the 1992 UN World Conference on Environment and Development.
• Sustainable America: A New Consensus, a report by The President’s Council for Sustainable Development.

The striking similarities amongst these plans consist in the following buzzwords or concepts:partnerships, consensus, lifelong learning, baselines or benchmarks, monitoring, assessment, data gathering, systemic change, system thinking, social development, etc. All stress the need to measure, assess, and monitor progress- THE CASE FOR SELF-LEGITIMATED CO-EVOLVING COMMUNITIES AT THE EXPENSE OF INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS

All are designed to bypass traditional government and govern people through a form of “citizens” or “grassroots participation” which the Encyclopedia Britannica refers to as“totalitarian democracy” and Communist leaders have called “People’s Government.”

1.9 The historical evolution of the new communitarian ethos

From New York to Rio (1992)

A heat wave and an extended period of drought the last few years of the decade gave credence toa coordinated media campaign of global environmental disaster. The Union of Concerned Scientists published a “Warning to Humanity” which said: “A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.”The annual “State of the Planet” report, issued by the World Watch Institute, predicted progressively worsening environmental disasters. And the mainstream media joined the campaign to convince the world that the planet was on the brink of collapse

•Charles Alexander, Time magazine: “As the science editor at Time, I would freely admitthat on this issue [the environment] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting toadvocacy;”

•Barbara Pyle, CNN environmental director: “l do have an ax to grind . . . . l want to be thelittle subversive person in television;”

•Dianne Dumanoski, Boston Globe environmental reporter: “There is no such thing asobjective reporting . . . I’ve become even more crafty about finding the voices to say thethings I think are true. That is my subversive mission;”

•Bernard Goldberg, CBS 48 Hours: “We in the press like to say we’re honest brokers of information, and it’s just not true. The press does have an agenda.

To this mix of extravagant propaganda, then-Senator Al Gore added his best-selling book, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. Like Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring thirty years earlier,what Gore’s book lacked in scientific accuracy was more than compensated for by an abundance of emotion. He called for a tax on fossil fuels. He called for a “global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over say, a twenty-five year period.”And he called for the reorganization of society:

“I have come to believe that we must take bold and unequivocal action: we must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization . . . . Adopting a central organizing principle — one agreed to voluntarily — means embarking on an all out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action — to use. In short every means to halt the destruction of the environment and to preserve and nurture our ecological system

Despite significant, legitimate objections from the scientific community, which were ignored by the media and ridiculed by environmental organizations, the public perception of impending environmental disaster was successfully blamed on exploding human population; human-caused global warming; and human-caused loss of biological diversity. The stage was set for the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) scheduled to be held in Rio de Janeiro in1992. No previous UN conference had ever received such planning and promotion. Maurice Strong was named to head the conference, which was dubbed “Earth Summit II.” He had chaired the first“Earth Summit” in 1972 and had participated in every environmental commission and conference since. (Strong became Chairman of the Board of WRI in 1994). To guide the agenda for the conference, UNEP and its NGO partners published two major documents: Caring for the Earth,(1991 via UNEP/IUCN/WWF), and Global Biodiversity Strategy, (1992 via UNEP/IUCN/WWF/WRI). These documents contained the material from which the revolutionary UNCED documents would be produced.

The NGO community, coordinated through the IUCN and the WRI publication Networking, used the igc.apc.org computer networks extensively to funnel information to and from the UNCED agenda planners, and to plan the NGO Forum. UNCED provided an opportunity for the NGOs to perfect the lobbying process. With the blessings of and assistance from the UNEP, the NGOs scheduled a“Forum” the week immediately preceding the official conference. Nearly 8,000 NGOs were officially certified to participate in the UNCED Forum, and another 4,000 NGOs were observers, swelling the total attendance at UNCED to more than 40,000 people — the largest environmental gathering the world has ever known. UNCED may be recorded in history as the most significant event the world has ever known; it was the watershed event that began the final march to global governance.

Agenda 21, the underlying conference document, was a distillation of the UNEP/IUCN/WWF/WRI documents. It consisted of 294 pages and 115 specific program recommendations. Agenda 21 was further distilled into another document called The Rio Declaration which was a succinct statement of 27 principles on which the recommendations were based, and which would guide the global environmental agenda. Two major international treaties had also been prepared for presentation UNCED: the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on BiologicalDiversity.

In the summer of 1992, President George Bush faced a difficult reelection campaign. He expressed little interest in the Rio conference and was savagely ridiculed by then-Senator Al Gore and his own EPA Administrator, William Reilly, who publicly urged Bush to attend. Bush relented and was one of more than 100 heads of state that adopted the UNCED documents. Bush, however, did not sign the Convention on Biological Diversity due to ambiguities relating to the transfer of technology. He told the conference audience:

“Our efforts to protect biodiversity itself will exceed the requirements of the treaty. But that proposed agreement threatens to retard biotechnology and undermine the protection of ideas, . . . it is never easy to stand alone on principle, but sometimes leadership requires that you do. And now is such a time.

Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration are not binding documents. They are “soft law” documents which are the foundation for future binding documents such as the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity. These two treaties contained important new features that are not present in the hundreds of other international treaties that the U.S. has ratified. These treaties do not allow any reservations or exceptions. Other treaties provide for parties to specify particular reservations or exceptions to which they are not bound. The UNCED treaties require all-or-nothing participation. The UNCED treaties created a “Conference of the Parties” (COP) which is a permanent body of delegates which has the authority to adopt“protocols,” or regulations, through which to implement and administer the treaty. The UNCED treaties were non-specific. The treaties were actually a list of goals and objectives; the COP was created to develop the protocols necessary to achieve the objectives — after the treaties had been ratified.

The Framework Convention on Climate Change, for example, binds participating nations to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000; the COP develops the protocols necessary to achieve that goal, and the member nations are legally obligated to comply.The Convention on Biological Diversity requires the creation of “a system of protected areas.” The COP will adopt protocols to define what is an acceptable system of protected areas long after the treaty has been ratified. The binding treaties are written in language that appears to pursue environmental objectives: however, the principles upon which the treaties are based (The Rio Declaration) are in fact a refined re-statement of the principles for social change developed by the various socialist-dominated commission of the 1980s.
Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect."

User avatar
carpe verum
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:45 pm

Re: Targeted Individuals

Post by carpe verum » Wed Mar 29, 2017 10:49 pm

Continued:
For example,

Principle 1: “Human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development . . ."

Principle 2:“National sovereignty is subject to international law . . . ”

Principle 3:“The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental andenvironmental needs of present and future generations;”

Social change is clearly the first objective of the Declaration.Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, who attended the conference, reported:

“The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises — whether real or not — is expected to lead to compliance.”

To assure that the COPs of the respective treaties were properly guided in their discussions of the protocols necessary for implementation, the UNEP/IUCN/WWF/WRI partnership launched a Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA). Robert T. Watson, NASA chemist and co-chair of UNEP’s OzonePanel, was chosen to chair the project. IUCN’s Jeffrey McNeely was selected to produce the important section on “Human Influences on Biodiversity,” and WRI’s Kenton Miller coordinated the critical section on “Measures for the Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable use of Its Components.” The work was begun before the treaty had been ratified by a single nation, and involved more than 2000 scientists and activists from around the world.UNCED adjourned and the thousands of NGO representatives went home to begin the campaign to ratify the treaties andimplement Agenda 21 and the principles of the Rio Declaration.

A Chicago Tribune article by Jon Margolis, September 30, 1994, said that the Global Biodiversity Assessment was a process that had just begun, that no document existed. A participant in the GBA process had secretly photocopied several hundred pages of the peer-review draft of the document.Summaries of the draft documents were prepared and provided to every member of the U.S.Senate. The shocking details of the bizarre plan to transform societies was sufficient to block aratification vote in the closing days of the 103rd Congress, despite the fact that the treaty had been approved by the Foreign Relations Committee by a vote of 16 to 3.

Agenda 21 called for each nation to create a plan for sustainable development consistent with the principles of the Rio Declaration. The UN created a new Commission on Sustainable Development,and Maurice Strong created a new NGO called Earth Council, based in Costa Rica, to coordinate NGO activity to implement the Rio Declaration principles through national Sustainable Development Programs. Earth Council has produced a directory listing more than 100 nations that have formal sustainable development plans under development. The UN created another program to “empower children” to help implement the sustainable development program: “Rescue Mission: Planet Earth.”In a Rescue Mission newsletter Action Update, their work is described as getting governments together “who try to make the others feel guilty for not having done what they promised on Agenda21.”

To implement Agenda 21 and the principles of the Rio Declaration in America, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order No. 12852, June 29, 1993, which created the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). Jonathan Lash, President of the World Resources Institute(WRI) was named as co-chair. Jay D. Hair, President of the IUCN, and former President of theNational Wildlife Federation was one of eight NGO leaders appointed to the Council. Elevengovernment officials, along with the eight NGO leaders, easily dominated the discussions and produced a predictable report from the 28-member Council. Not surprisingly, the final report,Sustainable America: A New Consensus, presents 154 action items to achieve 38 specificrecommendations that are precisely the recommendations called for in Agenda 21.

The most casual reading of the PCSD’s 16 “We Believe” statements, compared with the 27 principles of the Rio Declaration, reveals that the PCSD has simply Americanized the Rio language to form the foundation for implementing the UN agenda in America. PCSD Belief No. 10, for example: “Economic growth,, environmental protection, and social equity are linked. We need to develop integrated policies to achieve these national goals” sounds very much like Rio Principle No. 3 “The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.”

The PCSD is Agenda 21 at work in America.The PCSD also provides a glimpse of the global governance process to come. Public policy is initiated by non-elected officials, massaged into specific proposals by an NGO-dominated “stake-holders council,” written into regulations administratively by willing bureaucrats (who themselves, are frequently former NGO officials), or presented to Congress for approval — along with the threat of retaliation at the ballot box from the millions of NGO members represented by the stakeholders council.

The UNCED and Agenda 21 covered an extremely wide range of issues that affect virtually every person on the planet. The purpose for the array of policy recommendations put forth for public consumption is, ostensibly, to protect the planet from inevitable destruction at the hands of greedy,uncaring, or unaware humans. At the core, however, the policies recommended are socialist policies, built on the assumption that government is sovereign and must manage the affairs of its citizens. Nothing in Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration, or the PCSD recommendations even acknowledges the idea that humans are born free, and are sovereign over the governments they create. Nothing acknowledges the idea that government’s first responsibility is to protect the inherent freedom of its citizens, particularly, the freedom to own and use property. To the contrary,everything about the UNCED documents aims to limit human freedom and to restrict the use of private property until it can be placed in the public domain. As sweeping as the UNCED documents are, they are but the first step in the final march to global governance.

The IUCN held its triennial session in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1993. Dr. Jay D. Hair assumed Presidency of the organization, as Shirdath Ramphal stepped down to devote more time to his position as co-chair of the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance. His parting message is illuminating:

“Rio, for all its disappointments, set the seal on a new agenda for the world: the agenda of sustainable development. It was not, of course, new for IUCN, which had blazed a trail for sustainable development since 1980 with the World Conservation Strategy. In the final analysis, it is a matter of equity. There are also other aspects to the claims of equity. If there are limits to the use of some resources, they must be fairly shared. Early users, who have prospered, must not pre-empt them but must begin to use less so that others may also progress. The rich must moderate their demands on resources so that the poor may raise theirs to levels that allow them a decent standard of living. Equity calls for no less. We need . . . to persuade others that, for the Earth’s sake consumption, must be better balanced between rich and poor.”

Equity, or wealth redistribution, is clearly the underlying purpose for “sustainable development,” in the IUCN agenda. Its influence over UNEP activities and upon the global agenda cannot be overstated. Its membership includes 68 sovereign nations, 103 government agencies,and more than 640 NGOs. Among the government agencies listed as contributors in the 1993 Annual report are: the U.S. Department of State; U.S. Agency for International Development(USAID); and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The U.S. State Department contributes more than$1 million per year to the IUCN.

The IUCN evaluates every proposed World Heritage site and recommends to UNESCO whether or not it should be listed, or listed “in danger.”George Frampton, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, asked UNESCO specifically to send a representative from IUCN to evaluate Yellowstone Park as a site “in danger” in 1995.On January 18, 1996, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12986, which says:

“I hereby extend to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources the privileges and immunities that provide or pertain to immunity from suit.”

The IUCN is the driving force behind UNEP and the global environmental agenda. The Convention on Biological Diversity was developed and proposed by the IUCN in 1981 to the World Commission on Environment and Development.The IUCN is the architect and engineer designing the road to global governance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Rio to Vienna (1993)

The UN Conference on Human Rights was held in Vienna, June 1993. The primary objective of this conference was to promote the pending Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Few Americans have ever heard of such a treaty and would probably not object on the basis of the title alone. However, as is always the case, the devil is in the details. The treaty would “guarantee” the right to housing for women, the right to “choice,”or abortion (Article 16e). Cecilia Acevedo Royals, President of the National Institute of Womanhood, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:“

This Convention is deeply flawed. It will, in fact, harm women, men and children by establishing an international policy instrument that can be used as a weapon against the family, the institution of marriage, and cultural and religious values, and that can be turned into a tool for the societal control of women.”

While the Convention aims at guaranteeing certain “rights” to women, it would, in fact, give to the UN the power to enforce those rights. Instead of empowering women, it would, in fact, empower the state, the global state, the United Nations. The Convention has been ratified by 130 nations, though not by the United States. The Clinton Administration prodded State Department officials to urge Senate ratification.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Vienna to Uruguay (1994)


On April 15, The New York Times carried a full-page ad that hailed the World Trade Organizationas “the third pillar of the new world order.”The World Trade Organization (WTO) sailed through the Senate in the closing days of the 103rd Congress, handing over to the UN system the authority and the mechanism to impose and enforce its agenda on America. The WTO Charter requires “the optimal use of the world resources” in accordance with the objective of sustainable development(Preamble). It requires the WTO to “make appropriate arrangement for effective cooperation” with NGOs and intergovernmental organizations (Article V). It requires member nations to change their laws to conform to the WTO: “each member shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with its obligations as provided in the annexed Agreements” (Article XVI). Although the U.S. must pay a disproportionate share of the WTO cost, it has only one vote and noveto (Article IX).

The WTO may impose trade sanctions on a nation that it determines is not in compliance with any international treaty. It may impose sanctions, fines, and penalties on a nation, or on an industry.Members are bound by the dispute resolutions dictated by the WTO (Section 2, Annex 2). Bilateral trade deals must meet the approval of the WTO. Bilateral or multilateral trade agreements can be changed by a vote of the members of the WTO (Article X (4)). Article XVI says: “No reservations may be made in respect to any provision of the Agreement.”

The WTO could not have survived without the U.S. The UN could not have controlled world trade without the WTO. But now the facility is in place and the bureaucracy is gearing up to become the first-line enforcement mechanism of global governance

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Uruguay to Cairo (1994)


Population control has long been a high priority for the United Nations, though promoted for different reasons, by different names, at different times. Currently, the population explosion is cited as the underlying cause of the human impact on biodiversity and on climate change. Population control entered the UN agenda as a eugenics issue by virtue of Julian Huxley’s involvement with British Population Investigation Commission and the Eugenics Society. In 1954, the Rome conference promoted the concept of fertility as an economic factor. By 1974, the Bucharest conference integrated population and development issues with the developed nations insisting that population reduction was essential to economic development. When the issue emerged at the Mexico City Conference, it appeared as a matter of “women’s rights” and freedom of choice. In Cairo at the September International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD),population control was seen by some to be a matter of “women’s empowerment by the state”while others saw population control as an essential requirement of sustainable development initiatives.The Cairo “Programme of Action” said:

“. . . unsustainable consumption and production patterns are contributing to the unsustainable use of natural resources and environmental degradation as well as to…social inequities and poverty”(Chapter 3.1); and “Governments should establish the requisite internal institutional mechanisms . . . to ensure that population factors are appropriately addressed within the decision-making and administrative processes” (Chapter 3.7).

The conference agenda focused on gender equality; the eradication of poverty; family in its various forms; children’s rights; education; as well as population policies, human rights, and sustainable development. Population control is critical to the overall global environmental agenda. The Global Biodiversity Assessment concludes that:

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 1 to 3 billion would be possible. An ‘agricultural world,’ in which most human beings are peasants, should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people . . . .”

The cost of the various UN population programs discussed at the conference was estimated to bebetween $17 and $75 billion. The World Resources Institute (WRI) reported in the NGO Networker that Zero Population Growth was the NGO coordinating lobbying activities for the Cairo conference

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Cairo to Copenhagen (1995)

In Copenhagen, the UN’s World Summit on Social Development was the occasion for advancing the road to global governance. The central theme of the conference was the “eradication of poverty.” The agenda also included population policies, the reduction of consumption, and elevating NGO participation. More than anything else, the conference was about money, getting it to the UN,and increasing the power of the UN to collect it and spend it.

The conference proposed an international “20/20 Compact” which would require developing countries and aid donors to allocate 20 percent Official Development Assistance (OAD) to “human development priorities.” Commitment 8 in the Draft Conference Document calls on nations to target .07 percent of Gross Domestic Product to Official Development Assistance.

The conference was used by the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance to float a trial balloon: global taxation. Buried in the UNDP’s 1994 Human Development Report was an idea advanced by James Tobin calling for a “uniform international tax on international currency transactions.” When the UNDP report was presented to the conference, it was heralded as the way to provide “substantial reliable funds for sustainable human development.” Conference documents describe the proceeds from the tax as “immense, over $1.5 trillion per year (150 times the current total UN budget) to be devoted to international and humanitarian purposes and to be placed at the disposal of international institutions.”

Other global taxes were also proposed: international travel; telecommunications; and taxes on resource use — especially energy resources.

Paragraph 75 of the conference document calls for the “strengthening of…non-government organizations . . . enabling them to participate actively in policy-making . . . involving these organizations in the design, implementation and evaluation of social development strategies and specific programmes.” It was clear to Rita Joseph, who attended the conference for Population Research Institute, that

“The thrust currently behind the latest declarations is to set up not only monitoring bodies, but enforcement agencies, to which individual and group petitions concerning perceived grievances may be mounted. There is a push on to expand international government so that it reaches right down to communities and homes, there to dabble in values reorientation.”

NGO lobbying activities for this conference were coordinated by the Overseas Development Council in Washington, DC., according to WRl’s NGO Networker. (The editor of the NGO Networker, Sarah Burns, went to work for the UNDP in Washington as NGO Liaison in 1994).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Copenhagen to New York (1995)


The UN Commission on Sustainable Development held its third meeting in New York, April 1995.This was a Commission meeting rather than a World Conference. The pomp was not as pompous,but the circumstance was as significant as any UN meeting. The agenda focused on land degradation, desertification, forests and biodiversity; patterns of consumption, financial resources,and technology transfer. The Commission is said to be developing a new international Conventionon Sustainable Development, but a new strategy is being used. Other Conventions have been developed through a long series of Commission meetings until they are complete. Then they are presented to the world at a World Conference, as was the case with the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Maurice Strong’s strategy is to get individual nations to develop their own sustainable development plan, all of which are developed within the framework of Agenda 21, so that when the Convention on Sustainable Development is finally completed, most of the nations will already be doing what the Convention calls for. Until the Convention is complete and ratified, the sustainable development programs within individual nations will be authorized by national law. When the Convention is ratified, the programs will come under the authority — and under the regulatory and enforcement procedures — of the United Nations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From New York to Beijing (1995)

All the pomp that was missing in New York was present in Beijing for the fourth World Women’s Congress in September 1995, preceded by a week-long NGO Forum. The event was expected to produce a Platform for Action to guide national and international policy on women’s issues into the21st century. The event was the culmination of a “180-Day Local-to-Global-to-Local Women’s Empowerment Campaign” organized by the NGO WEDO (Women for Environment and Development Organization).

WEDO’s parent organization, Women U.S.A. Fund, Inc, is headed by Bella Abzug,Congresswomen Patsy Mink and Maxine Waters, and Gloria Steinem. Funding for the NGO comes from the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation and the Turner Foundation. The campaign featured the coordinated release of press kits to the media,boycotts, “take over the legislature for a day” rallies, forums, lunchtime workshops with fellow workers, and a “myriad of actions” all over the world. The purpose of the campaign was to focus public attention on the Beijing Conference, and more particularly, on WEDO’s conference agenda.

WEDO called for the tracking of all national and international economic and development programs by social and gender impact studies; restrictions on economic growth in industrialized countries; the transfer of common property (water, forests, grazing lands and fishing waters) to international control; prohibiting ownership of such common property to national or international corporations;national and international strategies to alleviate women’s poverty; remuneration for women’s unpaid work (housekeeping, child rearing, etc.); taxes shifted from income to consumption; universal guaranteed income and payment for childcare and other socially productive activities; and a universal 50/50 program that would require all business and government entities to have a 50/50men/women work force.

The conference produced more hype, hoopla, and hyperbole than anything else. First there was aflap about having a World Conference on Women’s issues in a nation which so severely oppressed women. Then there was a flap about the facilities. Then there was a flap about the extreme security measures. Then there was Hillary Clinton, who put in a personal appearance. Of significance is the reappearance of the “Tobin Tax” as a recommended way to fund the extravagant programs demanded by the delegates. There reappeared new calls to elevate the status and authority of NGO’s in decision-making and in program administration. And there was a new idea advanced —the FDR (not Franklin D. Roosevelt).

The FDR means “Family Dependency Ratio.” The idea calls for extensive monitoring of the activities, consumption, and production of every member of every family to determine whether a family is a net “consumer” or “producer.” This idea grew out of WEDO’s demand to “value and remunerate” women for their unpaid work.

Throughout the Conference, debate on the serious issues as well as the frivolous issues proceeded with virtually no challenge to the appropriateness of UN jurisdiction over a range of issues that should be at least national, if not extremely personal. Taxation, employment policies, and land use policies were all offered up to the UN. Delegates and the NGO lobbyists passed the stage of questioning the appropriateness of global governance; it is now a question of how much and how soon. There is no longer any discussion of freedom,property rights, or national sovereignty. The discussion centers around how best to get the wealth from developed countries into the UN for redistribution to the undeveloped countries. The documents coming from each of the successive World Conferences continue to reflect the assumption that government — the United Nations Government — should be sovereign, and that nation states are secondary, and individuals are cannon-fodder

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Beijing to San Francisco (1995)

The Beijing Conference had hardly adjourned when Gorbachev’s State of the World Forum convened in San Francisco, September 27, 1995. Though not an official UN function, the Forum was designed to advance global governance. Forum President and founder of the Christic Institute,Jim Garrison, told the San Francisco Weekly, “We are going to end up with world government . . .we have to govern and regulate human interaction.”Gorbachev told the hand-picked audience of celebrities and dignitaries that “we are giving birth to the first Global Civilization.” Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Advisor, told the audience that “regionalism” must precede world government. New-age guru, Sam Keen received enthusiastic applause for his pronouncement:

“If we cut the world’s population by 90%, there won’t be enough people left to do ecological damage.”


The Forum’s agenda called for the transfer of all armaments to the UN, the initiation of global taxation, stricter population control programs, and the elimination of nationalism and national borders. The highlight of the event was a joint presentation by Gorbachev, former President George Bush, and former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Gorbachev is the founding President of Green Cross and the Gorbachev Foundation. He along with Maurice Strong were regarded as candidates to replace Boutros Boutros-Ghali as Secretary-General of the United Nations at the expiration of Ghali’s term December 31, 1996.However since UN rules have required that an African hold the position of Secretary-General for another term, Kofi Annan has assumed this position. Maurice Strong has been designated his “Senior Advisor” for restructuring the United Nations. On 16 July1997, Kofi Annan released a report on UN “reform” plans. They coincide with the blueprint drawn in Our Global Neighborhood: Report of the Commission on Global Governance. It is noteworthy that its lead author is Maurice Strong.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From San Francisco to Istanbul (1996)


Habitat II, the UN Conference on Human Settlements, convened in Istanbul in June 1996. Despite the fact that Habitat I called for the elimination of private property in 1976, the U.S. has contributed more than $32 million to its operations and sent an enthusiastic delegation to Istanbul to assure the Conference that America is supporting its objectives. The entire agenda was bathed in the ambiguous language of sustainable development. Two of the major issues to emerge through the noise of 4000 delegates and 25,000 NGO representatives, were: (1) the right to housing, and (2) good governance.

Although at least three previous UN documents declare the right to housing, two of them have not been ratified by the U.S. Consequently, the universal right to housing is in question. Article 5 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination declares a right to housing. The U.S. has ratified that Convention. The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Human Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, both of which declare the right to housing,have not been ratified by the U.S. As the leader of one NGO, called the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, says: “The right to housing is a powerful, mobilizing tool for women’s groups, street children and so on. Denying this right would be a great step backwards.”If housing is declared to be a universal right, then the UN would have the responsibility of guaranteeing and enforcing that right. And to have meaning, the UN would have to have the authority to collect the money necessary to provide universal housing.

Of more direct importance is the issue of “good governance.” Throughout all the conferences of the1990s, emphasis has been placed on expanding the role and functions of NGOs in the decision-making process and the management and administration of government programs at every level.Habitat II Director-General, Wally N’Dow, said:

“The road to Istanbul has been marked by many innovations. One of seminal importance has been a pioneering change in the rules of procedure — a change that was initiated during the preparatory process and subsequently endorsed by the General Assembly [Rule 61] in recognition of the important role of local authorities and NGOs. As a result, all the organizations and institutions of civil society will receive unparalleled recognition at a UN conference, nominating their representatives to participate in a formal session . . . . They speak for countless millions of men and women in the cities and towns across the planet, the true constituents of Habitat II.”

This rule change officially elevates NGOs to participatory status in the policy-making process of the United Nations.
It is common — in fact expected — in socialist countries.Moreover, Rule 61 invites participation by local officials. Heretofore, the UN has served its member nations as represented by official delegates. This rule is the first step toward bypassing the official national government to extend UN influence, programs, and eventually money, regulations, and enforcement — directly to the people within the nation. This is the essence of governance by civil society, orchestrated by the United Nations. This is the first wave of the reality of global governance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Istanbul to Geneva (1996)

The second meeting of The Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (COPII-FCCC), convened in Geneva, Switzerland July 8-19, 1996. The treaty was presented in 1992 at the Rio “Earth Summit,” and has now been ratified by 159 nations, including the U.S. The treaty requires participating Annex I (developed) nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.

At COPI, however, meeting in Berlin in 1995, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) proposed that developed nations reduce emissions to a level 20%, less than 1990 levels. The COP did not adopt the proposal, but did adopt the “Berlin Mandate” which was an agreement to develop a legally binding Protocol by 1997. COPII was designed to negotiate The terms of the Protocol for adoption at COPlII in Kyoto, Japan in 1997.

To influence the proceedings, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Second Assessment Report (SAR). For the first time, the official UN body claimed that “. . . the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” Although 100scientists — some of whom were participants in the IPCC process — publicly objected to the report’s findings in a statement called the “Leipzig Declaration,” the Conference pushed forward toward a legally binding Protocol. The conference document, called the “Ministerial Declaration,”endorses The SAR; declares that emissions will eventually have to be reduced by 50%; and callson developed nations to initiate policies to reduce emissions within specific industries: energy,transportation, agriculture, forestry, waste management, and economic instruments

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Geneva to Global Governance (1998)

When Shirdath Ramphal handed over the IUCN gavel to Jay Hair in 1993, he turned his attention tothe Commission on Global Governance which he co-chaired along with Ingvar Carlsson, former Prime Minister of Sweden and then-Leader of the Social Democratic Party in Sweden. Like the Commissions of the 1980s (Brandt, Palme, MacBride, and Brundtland) it was an independent commission, meaning that it was not created by a resolution of the UN General Assembly. It operated officially as an NGO but, as a practical matter, it was an instrument of the United Nations.The Commission on Global Governance received the formal endorsement of Butrous-ButrousGhali, UN Secretary-General, and funding from the United Nations Development Program. Nine nations and several private foundations also supplied funding. Oscar Arias, former President of Costa Rica was a member of the Commission. Arias won the Nobel Peace Prize for his “peace plan” which called on nations to direct disarmament savings to the UN’s development programs.

Adele Simmons, President of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, was a member. Maurice Strong also served on the 28-member Commission.

Several of the Commission’s ideas were advanced experimentally at the various world conferences during the early 1990s. They tested the waters particularly for the several global taxation ideas, and for their ideas about global governance through civil society. Their final report was released in conjunction with the 50th anniversary of the United Nations in the fall of 1995, entitled Our Global Neighborhood: The Report of the Commission on Global Governance.The Commission recommended that:

“the General Assembly should agree to hold a World Conference on Governance in 1998, with its decisions to be ratified and put into effect by 2000.”

Hereafter, numbers in parentheses indicate the reference page number in Our Global Neighborhood.

The Commission bases its recommendations on the belief that human activities have irreversible environmental impacts and that human activities need to be “managed” to keep the “adverse outcomes within prudent bounds” (p. 11). “Effective and equitable management calls for a systemic,long-term, global approach guided by the principle of sustainable development. Its universal application is a priority among the tasks of global governance” (p. 30).

The Commission is convinced that the world is ready to accept “a set of core values that can unite people of all cultural, political, religious, or philosophical backgrounds….It is fundamentally important that governance should be underpinned by democracy at all levels and ultimately by the rule of enforceable law” (p.48).

The “core values” upon which global governance is to be based include liberty.

Voluntary acceptance of global governance is the preferred means of achieving it. Education programs to teach the “global ethic” have been underway by UNESCO and by UNEP for more than20 years. That the U.S. government, through its representatives to the various UN agencies, has not already crushed this global governance agenda is a testament to the effectiveness of the UN’s education program. But the Commission is not content to rely upon voluntary acceptance. An intricate maze of international, enforceable law is encircling the planet in the form of Conventions,Treaties, and Executive Agreements.

To implement, administer, and enforce global governance, the Commission has recommended a major restructuring of the UN system. The Commission recommends an “Assembly of the People” which “should consist of representatives of organizations accredited to the General Assembly as Civil Society Organizations . . . . A Forum of 300-600 organs of global civil society would be desirable and practicable” (p. 258-259). A new “Petitions Council” is recommended, to consist of five to seven representatives of “civil society,” for the purpose of reviewing petitions from NGOs in the field to direct to the appropriate UN agency for enforcement action (p. 260).

A new Economic Security Council (ESC) would replace the existing Economic and Social Council.The new ESC would consist of no more than 23 members who would have responsibility for all international financial and development activities. The IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO —virtually all finance and development activities — would be under the authority of this body. There would be no veto power by any nation, nor would there be permanent member status for any nation(p. 266f).

The existing Security Council would be restructured. Veto power of the five permanent members would be eliminated, as would permanent member status over time. With the Secretary-General’s office expanded to include the function of Commander-in-Chief, the Security Council would oversee a new UN standing army, complete with support and transport car capabilities. (p. 100f) The Commission calls for an international convention on curtailment of the arms trade (p. 129), a demilitarization of international society, and disarming of civilians. (p. 131)

A new International Criminal Court would be created, complete with its own “independent prosecutor or a panel of prosecutors of the highest moral character.” (p. 324) The International Court of Justice would become “compulsory” and it would issue binding verdicts in order to “strengthen international law.” (p.308f)

Unconstitutional intrusion into aspects of privacy – If the “phantasmatic community” is entitled to “control your lifestyle” , then why aren’t they entitled to “break in your house”?"

...current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable. A shift is necessary. which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations..." [1] Maurice Strong , opening speech at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development

This global contract binds all nations and spreading regions to the the collective vision of "sustainable development." They must commit to pursue the three E's of "sustainability":Environment, Economy and Equity referring to the UN blueprint for environmental regulations,economic regulations, and social equity.

Agenda 21, the UN blueprint for global transformation, sounds good to many well meaning people.Drafted for the purpose of creating "sustainable societies", it has been welcomed by nations around the world. Political, cultural, and media leaders have embraced its alluring visions of social justice and a healthy planet. They hide the lies behind its doomsday scenarios and fraudulent science. Relatively few consider the contrary facts and colossal costs.

After all, what could be wrong with preserving resources for the next generation? Why not limit consumption and reduce energy use? Why not abolish poverty and establish a global welfare system to train parents, monitor intolerance, and meet all our needs? Why not save the planet by trading cars for bikes, an open market for "self-sustaining communities," and single dwellings for dense "human settlements" (located on transit lines) where everyone would dialogue, share common ground, and be equal?

The answer is simple. Marxist economics has never worked. Socialism produces poverty, not prosperity. Collectivism creates oppression, not freedom. Trusting environmental"scientists" who depend on government funding and must produce politically useful"information" will lead to economic and social disaster.

This global contract binds governments around the world to the UN plan for changing the ways civilians live, eat, learn, and communicate - all under the noble banner of saving the earth. Its regulations would severely limit water, electricity, and transportation - even deny human access to our most treasured wilderness areas. If implemented, it would manage and monitor all lands and people.

This agenda for the 21st Century was signed by 179 nations at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Among other things, it called for a Global Biodiversity Assessment of the state of the planet. Prepared by the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), thisGBA armed UN leaders with the "information" and "science" they needed to validate their global management system. Its doomsday predictions were designed to excuse radical population reduction, oppressive lifestyle regulations, and a coercive return to earth-centered religions as the basis for environmental values and self-sustaining human settlements

The GBA concluded on page 763 that "the root causes of the loss of biodiversity are embedded in the way societies use resources." The main culprit? Judeo-Christian values. Chapter 12.2.3 states that-

"This world view is characteristic of large scale societies, heavily dependent on resources brought from considerable distances. It is a world view that is characterized by the denial of sacred attributes in nature, a characteristic that became firmly established about 2000 years ago with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions.

"Eastern cultures with religious traditions such as Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism did not depart as drastically from the perspective of humans as members of a community of beings including other living and non-living elements."

Maurice Strong, who led the Rio conference, seems to agree. His ranch in Colorado is a gathering place for Buddhist, Bahai, Native American, and other earth-centered religions. And in his introduction to The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, he called local leaders around the world to"undertake a consultative process with their populations and achieve a consensus on 'Local Agenda 21' for their communities."

1.10 Microsocial engineering through Local Agenda 21: open system dynamics or groupingsof pragmatically driven individuals legitimating their redistribution of wealth interests under a “communitarian cloak”? Consensus masks ubiquitous psychological mechanisms operative in group decision making (see chapter 3)

Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 specifically calls for each community to formulate its own Local Agenda21:

"Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations, and private enterprises and adopt 'a local Agenda 21.' Through consultation and consensus-building, local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies." (Agenda 21,Chapter 28, sec 1,3.)

This tactic may sound reasonable until one realizes that the dedicated "Stakeholder Group' that organizes and oversees local transformation is not elected by the public. And the people selected to represent the 'citizens' in a community do not necessarily represent one’s legally bound interests.The chosen 'partners', professional staff, and working groups are implementing a new system of governance without asking for clearance and moreover through covert operations, evidenced through exclusionary tactics against the backdrop of pragmatic interests. These are sufficient indications that the plan is moving forward behind the scenes

1.11 The New Age vs “Old system” rhetoric: simply a matter of redistribution of power andindirect legitimation for “multiparticipant, multiact perpetration” in the context of organizedpower mechanisms (see chapter 4) against an emergent discursive dominant paradigm

The ICLEI Planning Guide suggests that Stakeholders select two kinds of people to serve their agenda: (1) ordinary people
who don't have "a stake" in the old system and would expect to gain power by establishing a new political system, and (2) media, business, political, church,and education leaders who must be wooed and persuaded to promote the transformation withintheir sphere of influence. The following ICLEI list includes both:

A. Community Residents: women, youth, indigenous people, community leaders, teachers
B. Community-Based Organizations: churches, formal women's groups, traditional social groups,special interest groups
C. Independent Sector: Non-governmental organizations (NGO). academia, media
D. Private/Entrepreneurial Sector: environmental service agencies, small business/cooperatives,banks
E. Local Government and Associations: elected officials, management staff, regional associations
F. National/Regional Government: planning commission, utilities, service agencies, financial agencies.7

All participants must embrace the collective vision of a " sustainable community". They must commit to pursue the three E's of "sustainable development": Environment, Economy and Equity referring to the UN blueprint for environmental regulations, economic controls, and social equity.

"Sustainable development is a process of bringing these three development processes into balance with each other," states ICLEID's Agenda 21 Planning Guide on page 21. "The implementation of a sustainable development strategy therefore involves negotiation among the primary interest groups(stakeholders) involved in these development processes. Once an Action Plan for balancing these development processes is established, these stakeholders must each take responsibility and leadership to implement the plan.

"Meanwhile, opposing voices must be silenced. "Implementing the 'sustainable agenda' requires marginalizing critics," says Craig Rucker, Executive Director of CFACT, a conservative public interest group in Washington, D.C. dealing with consumer and environmental issues. He explains,

"Distinguished scientists who disagree with the globalist agenda are ridiculed and said to speak for conservative interests or industry (whether or not they receive industry funding) and their scientific arguments are never heard. Some of these marginalized critics are very distinguished scientists,like Dr. Frederic Seitz, former president of the National Academies of Science and a sharp critic of ozone depletion and global warming theories, Dr. S. Fred Singer, who help establish the satellite and balloon measuring devices to track global warming, and Dr. Edward Krug, who served on NAPAAP, among others. Some, like Dr. William Happer were even fired from their jobs questioning environmental dogma (in his case, on the issue of ozone depletion)."8

Ignoring these facts, nearly two thousand communities around the world are following this blueprint for change with support from ICLEID - and subject to its tracking system.

Local Agenda 21-Santa Cruz was birthed in 1993 by the local chapters of the United Nations Association and ACTION (Agenda 21 Community Team Work in Operation). The original stakeholders began to "envision a sustainable future," choose compatible "partners", and organize the twelve Round Tables which evolved into twelve Special Focus Areas (for summaries of each plan, read Local Agenda 21 Pt.2 -Santa Cruz - Key points from the twelve Focus Groups):

Agriculture
Biodiversity & Ecosystem Management
Education
Energy
Housing
Population
Public Health
Resources and Recycling
Social Justice
Toxic Technology & Waste Management
Transportation
Viable Economy

Each item is linked to special interest groups, non-governmental organizations, who have been given authority (by no elected official) to plan the regulations that will control our lives

The list of interest groups, donors and supporters includes feminist, globalist, environmental, and welfare organizations such as the Sierra Club, Earthlinks, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Greener Alternatives, Pacific Bell, Peace Child, United Nations Association-USA,Environmental Ecological Services, Change Management System, Countywide Joint Task Force on Sexual Harassment, Prevention and Education, and the Human Care Alliance (about 80 service providers and community groups), and the Welfare and Low-Income Support Network.

The National Organization for Women (NOW), The Regional Alliance for Progressive Policy,Women's International League for Peace & Freedom, and Beyond Beijing (primarily feminists who attended the 1995 UN Conference on Women) are all part of a Task Force helping establish the guidelines for the Social Justice (Equity) and welfare branch of the Agenda. According to Local Agenda 21-Santa Cruz, their focus is the exploration of viable means to "alleviate the violence of poverty."

"Educational systems encourage relevant, experiential learning and promote a sustainable, healthy life for all beings. Students embrace. global interdependence and the need to adopt fully sustainable practices locally and globally.... Focus is placed on teaching how to learn and how to enjoy learning. This involves:
Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect."

User avatar
carpe verum
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:45 pm

Re: Targeted Individuals

Post by carpe verum » Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:56 pm

Continued:
1. Cooperative learning in groups which is learner-directed, empowering and participatory

2. Development of an integrated core curriculum at all levels which emphasized the theme of unity and interdependence of humanity, all species and the Earth.

3. Development of an integrated core curriculum at all levels which emphasized the theme of unity and interdependence of humanity, all species and the Earth.

4. Student participation in developing their own curriculum.

5. Mixed age groups in the learning process.

"Learning that seems "democratic" (in contrast to authoritative) and cooperative (in contrast to individual) is key to winning the consent of the masses. All ages must participate, and each group member becomes accountable to the group - and to the politically correct "science" information used by the trained facilitator to move the dialogue toward the "right" choices and actions. Few realize the extent of the manipulation.

In the Soviet Union, this consensus process was used to shift the loyalties of Soviet children from absolute truths to the evolving soviet ideology. Today it is used in American schools, communities, and workplaces - with support and direction from the President's Council on Sustainable Development and other NGOs that share its global vision.
Far-reaching Networks. "Encourage networking,"states the Santa Cruz Action Plan. No wonder, since networking, helps spread the word virally and COST-EFFICIENTLY.

Remember, those who define the terms will write the rules. Those whose "science" will "educate"the masses, will control public beliefs and behavior.

Social Justice. The PARTICIPATING stakeholders are defining social justice and preparing its standards (AN INCIDENCE OF EXTRA JUDICIOUSNESS, as demonstrated in CHAPTER 4). They include NOW, Beyond Beijing, social welfare leaders, environmental groups - all the voices that demand the abolition of Western culture, male leadership, and biblical absolutes. Look at their vision for Santa Cruz County:
1.12 Agenda 21 not by accident contains as part of the project's descriptor the first degree of freemasonry (that is 21)

Freemasonry, as amply demonstrated, is a secret society favoring social networking among its members. Over and above, the influence of freemasonry (political and institutional) and its active involvement in shaping political landscapes (from Albert Pike’s originating the KKK, presidents as members of the “brotherhood”, the Italian P2 and recently P3 scandals, the Bavarian Illuminati and the list goes on) its intra network favoritism at the expense of “profane” has also received considerable attention from both private and public authorities realms. The resemblance of the social networking paradigm imposed by agenda 21 to freemasonry is not only nominal, but in essence structural. The striking structural similarities between these instances of “societies within societies” consist in the following:

-mandatory social networking

-preferential treatment of members vs non members

-concern with overthrowing existing regimes and placing “proteges” in key places

-conspiratorial attempts against those judged to be unfit to their standards

-mentor/student organizational form

-extra-judicial judiciary systems and referenda by raise of hand and adhocratic sanctions imposed on “members” on the occasion of agreed upon “transgressions”

-The cryptic ethos of agenda 21 has been popularized as a point system of “ascendance” to higher “truth levels” designated by numerical descriptors and echoing freemasonry’s degrees (eg 37 being the equivalent of 23 or master mason, 57 being the equivalent of 25or most perfect master and so forth) , a highly informal and adhocratic system, depending on a social network mentor’s “extra-judiciary” right to grant degress

-Advanced dissimulation tactics aiming at masking membership , motives and liaisons,evident both in freemasonry and agenda 21 members

-Ritual killings (eg Captain Morgan) and the transposition of symbolically univocal tactics to“semiotic ritual killings” or “mock executions” (see chapters 2 & 3) through acts and public spectacles, such as mobbing, street theater etc (see chapters 2 & 3) – a structurally homonymous turn from closed/univocally symbolic systems to open, aleatoric signifyings ystems (see chapter 3 and allusion to Deleuze’s “multiple regimes of signs” from AntiOedipus) ; in Deleuze’s terms agenda 21 communicative tropes consist infreemasonry’s communicative modes becoming “hypermolecular”

However, there are also structural differences:

-Open system dynamics (agenda 21) vs closed system dynamics (freemasonry) : no formal degrees and vertically controlled ascent to higher echelons of political power -Horizontal vs vertical structures

-No apparent elitist attitude in members recruitment

-No strict symbolic language AND SYMBOLIC COLONIZATION OF SOCIAL MILIEUS AND POLITICAL LANDSCAPES but openess to perspectival diversity, whose endorsement and level of appeal is incumbent on group decision making during microsocial referenda

-Whereas freemasonry’s “extra-judiciary system” consists of more formalized principles for conferring judgments about normative transgressions, agenda 21 , by virtue to its highly“open” character favors “adhocism”. At least it is a form of more attenuated adhocism compared to freemasonry.

The nominal and structural similarities between agenda and freemasonry are beyond any reasonable doubt. However, freemasonry over the centuries has been severely vindicated and repudiated in various countries as promoting favoritism and conspiratorial attempts, from a micro to a macro level of societal organization

By analogy to freemasonry's being AT LEAST OPENLY vindicated in various parts of the world, such as in the UK (increasing demands especially on behalf of public officials at declaring membership) ,the Italian juridical system, based on antecedents, declaring freemasonry as being an illegal organization and banning judges from joining it on the grounds of potential involvement in criminal activities (which interestingly was overruled by the ECHR), involvement in agenda 21 social networks may lead to conspiratorial attempts at non member societal exclusion and redistribution of assets.

From working hypothesis to reality: the examples of Florida and other areas where the program has been used as an excuse for redistribution of wealth among informal council members. The demand for the agenda’s enforcement on behalf of authorities is suggestive of INSTITUTIONAL
1.13 Conclusions

In this chapter it was shown that Agenda 21, in its localized aspect, evidently and beyond all reasonable doubt:

-constitutes a blueprint for mandatory social networking

-is unconstitutionally selective regarding stakeholder groups and “change agents”

-is poised to overthrow an “old regime” by favoring and mandating the cultivation of “a new communitarian ethos”

-constitutes an application of socio-cybernetics in the context of co-evolving, self legitimated communities against the background of “pseudo open system dynamics” or simulated movements and probabilistic controls in power distribution among predefined social groupings

-it is covertly spreading with a stated intent to overthrow a hazily conceived of “old regime”

-it violates multiple aspects of formal national law and constitutional rights

-is sheltered in a mystical language and “mysticism” in terms of belief structures [echoing animistic beliefs, in Weber’s terms] animates its exponents as a pseudo-ideological system of scientifically ill-founded principia acting as enablers behind their WILL to enforce the agenda and masking pragmatic interests stemming from its enforcement and evidently is coupled with a new lingo

-it is crypto totalitarian, both as regards structural/organizational elements, as well as particular “ethical” principles echoed in pejorative statements about thus far accepted and widely shared lifestyles and habits

-is nominally and structurally continguous to freemasonry and in fact constitutes its “dissemination” in the context of “open system dynamics”

-through the legitimation of stringent “ethical” and “structural/organizational”controls on a micro social level it aims at bringing forth the latent depopulation agenda

-the role of secret services consists in enforcing wealth redistribution decisions made during “secret referenda” by [as denoted in secret services lingo] “putting the target in the fridge” or “freezing the target”, or “putting the target in the washing machine”, meaning isolating him and attempting to reify/realize the social representations that have been predicated of him by powerful members capable of “directing decisions” during group decision making processes through sociocybernetic methods (as will be demonstrated in chapters 2 and 3).

Ultimately, it is a blueprint that indirectly legitimates adhocratic power plays among latent interest groups: the case for pseudo open system dynamics
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 2

2.1 Introduction: Targeting- the new silent massacre

What is targeting and why is it a new phenomenon (or at least an old phenomenon in new clothing) of silent massacre /premeditated murder?

Targeting in the context of the new communitarian ethos cultivated by the covertly operating agenda 21 and its Habitat micrco-social counterpart/correlate consists in methods of psychosomatic harassment and NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING [NLP- see subsequent definition in 2.3.19Sensitivity Programs] with the aim of social exclusion as the outcome of social networks covert decision making processes that take place during secret referendum. In the context of a self-legitimated ethos and co-evolving communities under the auspices of a generic blueprint for micro-social engineering with the ultimate aim of bringing about the depopulation agenda members of social networks are encouraged to engage in targeting activities for pragmatic, psychological, economic and all sorts of reasons, as will be illustrated in due course. Targeting methods consist indistinct acts of perpetration (covert and overt as LAID OUT IN MY ALLEGATIONS IN CHAPTER4) resulting in the target’s psychosomatic torture,
IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS STATUTE and are fueled by pragmatic interests, viz redistribution of
TANGIBLE [“material things” as defined in dogmatic law] AND INTANGIBLE ASSETS [intellectual property, career prospects]
among network members. Under the auspices of hypocritical objectives , such as “participatory democracy” and “greater participation of women and other social groupings and NGOs in INFORMAL SOCIAL NETWORKS with fluid boundaries and objectives”decisions are made COVERTLY about which individuals will be targeted with view to redistributing their assets among them. Secret services and institutional mechanisms are involved in such attempts at premeditated murder and LEGITIMATELY so insofar as their active involvement in effecting agenda 21 is provided for in the blueprint
2.2 The phenomenology of the torture situation

More detailed exposition of the relevance of phenomenological perspectives and methodologies in accounting for the targeting phenomenon in the context of the new communitarian ethos will beprovided in Chapter 3. For the sake of setting the interpretive stage OR META-LINGUISTIC RENDERING OF THE ONTOLOGICALLY COHERENT FABRICATED LIFEWORLD OF TARGETS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMMUNITARIAN ETHOS AS A METHODOLOGICAL STEP ALLOWING FOR ITS SUBSEQUENT SUBSUMPTION UNDER THE RESPECTIVE CLAUSES OF CRIMINAL LAW AND WITH VIEW TO AVOIDING JURIDICAL DECEPTION (cf CHAPTER 4) BY OMITTING TO DO SO it suffices to allude to the following fundamental traits, listed in C.Walsh’s2006 paper “The government mind control debate”:

1. an asymmetry of power;
2. the anonymity of the torturer to the victim;
3. the “double bind” of either enduring or betraying others;
4. the systematic “falsehood” of trumped-up charges, cunning deceptions
5. confinement in distinctive spaces signifying “displacement, trapping, narrowness and destruction”; and
6. a temporality “characterized by some unpredictability and much circularity, having no end.
2.3 Methods of targeting : the case for a new form of sociocybernetic terrorism or a BLUEPRINT FOR A DYSTOPIAN AGENDA
"We need a program of psycho-surgery for political control of our society. The purpose is physical control of the mind. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be surgically mutilated. The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective. Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electrically control the brain. Someday armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain." --Dr. Jose Delgado
2.3.1 Classical conditioning

The target over a period of months, or even years is negatively sensitized to everyday stimuli,which is then used to harass him. It’s used out in public to let him know he is constantly being harassed and monitored. Some examples of everyday stimuli that are used include: sounds, colors, patterns, actions. eg. red, white, yellow, strips, pens clicking, key jangling, loud coughing, loud whistling, loud clapping of hands together, etc.

2.3.2 Investigations

The bogus investigation appears to be the platform used to launch the smear campaign and remove a person s support structure. Bogus investigations orchestrated by the secret services using a person s friends, family and employers appear to be a standard part of the targeting apparatus. The motive is the isolation of the target from friends, family members or employers. When recruiting neighbors they will probably show them this case file and indicate that you are the target of an investigation. This case file will contain a combination of half-truths, setups & outright lies. The case file may contain information about a person or people who have complained about you. These are most likely informants (civilians paid or given favors to help frame the target). Or they may simply claim that the target is under investigation but they can't disclose why for reasons of national security.

The "reasons of national security" blanket is used by secret services to help frame people for crimes as well as cover up for mind-control and torture. Their informants may be a single person used to help frame the target, such as a tagger. Or they may be multiple PARTICIPANTS remotely related to each other. Again, these stalking groups usually have hundreds of local members. For example, in the context of Cointelpro operations, there were routine setups and fabrications of evidence used as discrediting campaigns and excuses for incarceration. They may string together arbitrary pieces of unrelated incidents from a target’s and arrange them in such a decontextualized way as to legitimate the enforcement of a dystopian loop system on the target.They normally recruit stores’ , restaurants’ personnel and PARTICIPANTS from all walks of life.They will sublet, lease, rent property above, below or to the sides of your living space to effect this.

2.3.3 Surveillance

Surveillance (sic) on a residence by using triangulation and satellite based technologies (eg HAARP, Echelon). Surveillance is conducted 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. When a target leaves his residence they will alert the group, either by cell phone or business band radio. Other members who are patrolling the perimeter will race to the location to begin pursuit.

2.3.4 Gang Stalking

Gang Stalking consists in covert surveillance of targets’ activities in public places. . Gang Stalking is a systemic form of control, which seeks to control every aspect of a Targeted Individuals life.Many Targeted Individuals are harassed in this way for months or even years before they realise that they are being targeted by an organised protocol of harassment.

What happens during Gang Stalking is very similar to what happened to many innocent individuals in the former East Germany or Activists and Dissidents in ex USSR. Many innocent people in the former East Germany would be targeted for these harassment programs, and then their friends, family, and the community atlarge would be used to monitor, prosecute, and harass them. In the USSR it was used by the state to declare activist, dissidents or anyone they thought to be an enemy of the state as mentally unfit and many were institutionalised using this form of systemic control.

Civilian spies are recruited from every level and sector of society. Just like with Cointel proinvestigations, everyone in the targets life is made a part of this ongoing never ending, systemic psychological harassment and manipulation of the target. These actions are specifically designed to control the target and to keep them in line. These actions are also designed to destroy the target over years, make them look crazy and leave them with no form of support.For the targets of this harassment, Gang Stalking is experienced as a covert psychological,emotional and physical attack, that is capable of immobilizing and destroying a target over time. For the state it’s a way to keep the targets in line, control them, or destroy them.

The goal is to isolate the target from all forms of support, so that the target can be set up in the future for arrest, institutionalisation, or forced suicide. Other goals of this harassment is to destroy the target’s reputation and credibility. Other goals involve sensitizing the target to every day stimuli’s as a form of control, which is used to control targets when they get out of line.The majority of targets are often not aware that they are being targeted in this way. When a target moves, changes jobs, the harassment still continues. Every time the target moves, the same lies and slander will be spread and the systemic monitoring and harassment will continue.

2.3.5 Break-ins , Property damage , petty thefts

This happens in and around the home as well as the workplace if the target is fortunate enough to be employed. Thefts may be reduced to small inexpensive items. But some targets have reported jewelry, passports and other important items stolen. Small things such as pens, shoes, and silverware are taken or tampered with so that you will seem delusional if you report this to the police. The logic is that a thief would never break into your home and leave a computer, stereo or other valuables and just steal a toothbrush, or pour out a portion of your milk. There is usually no sign of forced entry. This is the case even if there is a Hi-Tech security system in place. Psychological warfare tactics are sometimes employed such as moving bits of furniture or clothing slightly out of place. Items may be stolen and brought back at a later date, and they may move items and place them in a slightly different spot.. This is done to let you know that they've been in your home. These social networks are obsessed with all aspects of a targeted person s life.Personal items may be passed around to group members and are apparently symbolic of the
control the group has over their target. Targets have reported clothing being ripped, milk, coffee and other items poured out .

2.3.6 Buzzsaw

The Buzzsaw cuts right through their careers, goals, ambitions, and they are cast out into socialisolation, with their once good reputations in taters. Under such circumstances the target of thisharassment often do not have anyone that they can turn to, or means of getting the stories out tothe public.

2.3.7 Framings

Any weakness a person has can be used in one of these setups. A person may not be aware of some of these set-ups, but they may be added to a case file to assist with the smear campaign.They may try to provoke a confrontation when Mobbing the target out in public. Group members also try to entice the target to assault them, but this is never done without having witnesses present. The criminal conviction of the target, following the testimony of numerous concerned citizens can be followed by a civil lawsuit..

2.3.8 Sabotage & Vandalism (both land based and electromagnetically induced)


Occurs both at home and in the workplace. Electronic equipment may constantly be failing. Projects you ve worked on the previous day may suddenly disappear. This type of vandalism is usually just below what one would report to the police. For instance, a small but noticeable portion of your masonry has been chipped off, and a crack has appeared in one of your windows. This may be restricted to minor vandalism, just to let you know that you re being stalked. However large-scale property damage is also done to vehicles, such as slashed tires, broken windows, tampering with break lines,destruction of electrical equipment.Vandalism and pets being tortured may also be in retaliation for you taking action to expose them.

2.3.9 Mail interference

The motive is to get as much information as possible to aid in the harassment and intimidation of the target. Currently some targets also experience tampering with mail, altering, delaying or disappearing, email being filtered/blocked.

2.3.10 Blacklisting

Gang Stalking groups will interfere with every personal & business relationship you have.. Insofar as they take place in a public/private alliances framework under the auspices of the new communitarian ethos , they usually deter employment prospects and block advancement opportunities.Most targeted individuals are unemployed. Many would be homeless if it weren t for parents, siblings, or friends. If you re targeted and are lucky enough to still be employed, you maybe harassed into leaving by your employer and coworkers. In addition to slander and keeping you unemployed, they may also use companies or recruiters in harassment campaigns (Mobbing). This is particularly the case with recruiters. It appears that they are often used to try to further traumatize a person using Mobbing tactics during interviews.

If you re Blacklisted and you re being harassed, you will probably not be able to prove it. Like all Mobbing & Organized Stalking tactics, it will be conducted in a covert manner.

2.3.11 Collisions & Cut-offs

The cut-offs are fabricated, but like most Gang Stalking tactics they are designed to look like normal cut-offs that we all experience from time to time. They occur with vehicles, on foot, or a combination of these tactics. This type of space invasion is designed to startle you and create tension. It can be thought of as a virtual slap. They are used in blind areas such as corners, hallways, restrooms, or intersections where you constantly have people or cars cutting you off, or almost hitting you. The perpetrator is unseen until he jumps out in front of you. This happens in stores, buildings and on the street, involving people and vehicles. Generally, anywhere there is a blind corner

They will ATTAIN PERFECT SYNCHRONICITY to your movements so that they always meet you at a designated point, so that you will have to squeeze through, stop, or go around because of their deliberate cut-offs. The motive is to grab your attention , make you feel uncomfortable and maintain you in the dystopian loop system.

2.3.12 Blocking, Swarming & Space invasion

In parking lots, on foot, on the road, in stores / restaurants. These are staged events that may temporarily prevent you, eg from leaving if you’re in a parking lot.

THE MODE OF COMMUNICATION IN SUCH INDICDENTS IS USUALLY PROTOSEMIOTIC (cf Chapter 3):

1. Movements, gestures, postures

2. Spatial relationships.

The study of communication using distance/space is called Proxemics.This type of communication is used to harass a person. For instance, while in stores, restaurants and public places that are not busy, a target will have people crowding around them, invading their personal space. This happens even if there are only two customers in a store. If a person makes amove from one place to another in a store several people may suddenly appear and jump out in front of him from around corners and isles. A common experience reported is the sudden movement of a crowd of people into a checkout line towards which a target is moving. This tactic is implemented indoors and outdoors. Sometimes they may blatantly adjust their timing, or linger for awhile until you begin to move again, then they'll continue. This program was tailored to represent a target as someone suffering from schizophrenia when explained to health professionals (cf below and Chapter 3 on discursive complicity) .

2.3.13 Synchronization

Synchronization is prevalent in Organized Stalking cases. Groups will try to synchronize their tactics with a target’s ordinary activities, such as entering or leaving his residence.Movements are synchronized with noise, vehicles coming or going, people coming or going, or other movements. These synchronization tactics are often times done several times, perhaps three or more.

2.3.14 Convoys of vehicles

An unnatural amount of vehicles driving by your house (even if you're on a side or dead-end street)and/or following you while out of home. Common practice is for vehicles to drive by screeching their tires, blowing their horns, playing loud music, yelling as they drive by your residence, also including fire trucks, ambulances, city/utility vehicles and postal vehicles.. Some targets have even mentioned that local police vehicles have participated in the harassment.

2.3.15 Mobbing

Mobbing also referred to by some as bullying, psychological terrorism, and organizational violence is described as a collective form of psychological violence in which many individuals unite to persecute an individual by making constant negative remarks, repeated criticism or sarcasm,intimidation, threats, insinuations, attempts at humiliation, circulation of false information concerning the individual, and social isolation. Mobbing is a way of destroying a person without using any physical means. A group attacks an individual’s dignity, integrity, self-image, self-confidence, self-esteem, place in doubt of competence, threaten their careers, and means of subsistence. One method used to induce distress or suffering in a person is by systematically isolating them from their peers.

2.3.16 Brighting

Vehicular brighting seems to be strategically used in corners. Or, as one walks down a side street there is one or more cars parked on the side, facing his direction with the lights on. They will also wait for you to approach them and then pull out into the street, thereby brighting you as you walk by. You may also be followed by convoys of vehicles that have their Hi-beams on during the day.

2.3.17 Noise campaigns

All targets of Organized Stalking are quite familiar with noise campaigns. Basically, there will be a steady stream of noise consisting of a rotation of various types of disturbances around your house.This noise may even follow you wherever you go. This includes car doors slamming, people coming/going, people yelling, car alarms, horns, tires screeching, etc. Your neighbors will probably be bribed with free home repairs that will result in a very noisy construction process.An ongoing noise campaign appears to be most effective. Like the collisions and cut-offs, these noises constitute disorientation tactics. For instance, there will be doors slamming for a few moments,then a motorcycle will drive by and rev its engine outside your house. After that you ll have someone mowing the lawn. Then there will be alarms going on and off. After that you ll hear a loud crowd of people walk by your house. You may then hear fire or ambulance sirens. Then there are hammering & sawing sounds. Then you ll hear car alarms being turned on/off in succession multiple times from multiple vehicles around your house. After that it will switch back to car alarms& horns. Then drilling, & doors slamming.Often, activity such as noise will be synchronized with you coming, going or doing some other type of activity

2.3.18 Food tampering

With psychotroipcs and other undetectable substances, while the target is out of home and while the target orders in public places and in “SEVERE DANGEROUSNESS” cases in selective retail outlets where the target frequents, based on knowledge on the part of the perpetrators of his eating habits

2.3.19 Sensitivity Programs

Cause Stalking groups usually begin their campaigns with sensitivity programs. The goals of a sensitivity program are:to get the person's attention and let them know they re being harassed, anchor damaging emotions to common objects/sounds so a target can then be covertly harassed openly in public These sensitivity programs are based on a science called NeuroLinguisticProgramming (NLP).

The parts of this science that groups use are anchors & triggers. We're unconsciously creating anchors in our environment all the time with people, music, places, & objects. Initially, the target may not be consciously aware of the harassment, but this is not necessary. One reason people may not realize that they're targeted or can't remember exactly when it began, is because these groups may slowly & gradually increase the harassment over time.But groups can let you know you're being targeted any time they choose by turning up the volume with a blitz attack. Groups use sensitivity programs in an attempt to create phobias

What is a NLP anchor?


"A stimulus which is linked to and triggers a physiological state is called an anchor in NLP”. (Introducing NLP, Joseph O Connor & John Seymour)How are anchors created?

First by repetition.

Secondly, and much more importantly, anchors can be set in a single instance if the emotion is strong and the timing is right. In extreme cases an external stimulus can trigger a very powerful negative state. This is the realm of phobias. “You can think of NLP as a very powerful tool that can be used to produce rapid, profound change”.(NLP-The New Technology of Achievement, Steve Andreas & Charles Faulkner)

Some of these insults are very subtle (implied), but powerful. For instance, while at a restaurant a couple will sit at a table next to you and start mentioning some events that are taking place in your personal life, in order to grab your attention and then make repeated, indirect references to you by using words such as paranoid, crazy, scared, panic, insane, freak, sad,depressed, etc.This may be done repeatedly while the trigger words are emphasized. The idea is that the words that will invoke your emotions. Not only is this possible, but it works best when you don t know it s being done to you. Some words carry with them a particular weight to potentially trigger an effect on a person's emotional state.Some of these harassment skits are designed to transfer the emotions of those weighted words to affect a negative emotional state upon a target. In addition these words can be emphasized by changing their tone and volume when they are spoken. This is called meta-communication. Meta-messages are suggestions hidden in a statement, perhaps a compliment (Messages-The Communication Skills Book, Matthew McKay, Ph.D., Martha Davis, PhD., Patrick Fanning)

2.3.20 Street theater

Agents on the street mimicking thoughts and actions. Most victims describe a phenomenon they call “street theater.” For example, people around the victim utter repeated verbatims, echoing the victim’s immediate thoughts, or harassive and personalized statements are repeated by strangers wherever the victim may go.

Street Theater is actually an elaborate psychology experiment. The behaviorist school reduces all human behavior to stimulus and response, looking at human beings without regard to their spiritual capacities. They are treated no differently than mice (AT LEAST THIS IS THE MOTIVE ON BEHALF OF THE PERPETRATORS SYSTEM- THE LEVEL TO WHICH IT IS SUCCESSFULLY INSCRIBED IN A TARGET’S BEHAVIORAL COMPORTMENT VARIES ACCORDING TO HIS SYLLOGISTIC POTENTIAL, HIS COGNITIVE CAPACITIES, THE INTENSITY/FREQUENCY OF THE STIMULI etc). The target is walking through a reality construct known as a Grox Box where they are subjected to staged stimuli and their responses are recorded.

The stalkers are also experimental subjects used to understand what it takes to make perpetrators go past a certain point of antisocial behavior.

2.3.21 Electromagnetic weapons: the technological enablers of the slow-kill method

INDICATIVE LEGAL PRECEDENTS AND CASE

1.JESUS MENDOZA CASE IN TEXAS (POSITIVE RULING AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT)
2.John St. Clair Akwei vs. NSA, Ft. Meade, MD, USA (attached in this chapter’s appendices)
3.JOHN FINCH PETITION TO ECHR AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
4.CASE OF VICTOR MONCHAMP vs GREECE DEMAND PRESENTED/DISPLAYED BEFORE THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THE 17th OF JULY 2006 Council of Europe Presented/displayed provisional measures in the application of article 39 of the regulation of the European Court of Human rights.
AND COUNTLESS OTHER CASES, AVAILABLE ON DEMAND

"Radio Stimulation on different points in the amygdala and hippocampus … produce a variety of effects, including pleasant sensations, elation, deep thoughtful concentration, odd feelings, super relaxation (an essential precursor for deep hypnosis) colored visions, and other responses.

"Non-lethal weapons [NLWs] sound harmless in relation to guns and bombs. However, non-lethal weapons are not just tazers and annoying sounds. Nor are they harmless. In fact, NLWs are such a concern that many countries have treaties demanding transparency [cf APPENDIX I].

On other sources of EMF (electromagnetic frequencies), like cell phones and microwaves, the jury still seems to be out, although directed microwaves at non-ionizing strength can induce all sorts of behavioral changes through direct influence of the nervous system.

“EMF, used in nefarious ways, can destabilize the brain, and potentially generate feelings of violence or apathy"

“In February 1998, I testified before the European Union parliament for an hour and a half and convinced them of the detrimental effects of non lethal weapons on humans, their behavior and their minds. The EU was convinced and passed a resolution banning the use of weapons that can manipulate a person (see Parliament Resolution A4-005/99 entitled "Resolution on the Environment, Security, and Foreign Policy" passed on January 29, 1999).

“Any device that invades a persons mind, either through induction of “evoked potentials” (EEGs)through electromagnetic means or through the various “crazy-making” tactics employed in both information warfare and psychological operations is a violation of human rights and cognitive liberty

”Mind control techniques can be used for political purposes. The goal of mind controllers today is to induce the targeted person or group to act against his or her own convictions and best interests. This “silent war” is being conducted against unknowing civilians and soldiers by military and intelligence agencies. Since 1980 electronic stimulation of the brain (ESB) has been secretly used to control people targeted without their knowledge or consent. Dr. John Goldsmith, an epidemiologist from Israel described the Soviet microwave bombardment of the Moscow Embassy from 1953 to 1976. He said the that the Soviets could have been trying to produce radio frequency sickness in the U.S. embassy staff by causing interference with the "ability to think, to concentrate and to sleep". The Soviets conducted scientific studies of workers who were exposed to emr emissions in the 1940sand 1950s and found detrimental health effects such as the above. The Soviets called the set of symptoms `Radiofrequency sickness syndrome'. Dr. Goldsmith believed that the Soviets were experimenting and testing radio frequency radiation as a weapon. The U.S.government's epidemiologist documented high white blood counts, leukemia in two of the Ambassadors and other health problems in the embassy employees. Then the U.S.government ignored the findings.

The targeted individual’s EEG is captured by two pulsed microwaves that intersect with the TI’sEEG brain wave and the resulting interference wave pattern is downloaded and demodulated to capture their physiological responses, EKG,galvanic skin response, respiration rate, BP,everything, including their inner voice.

This rather improbable feat involving the inner voice was accomplished at the Stanford Research Institute in 1971. The TI [targeted individual] is an open book that represents all future target sting like them, how they think, how they react, in short how to defeat them. The TI sits down in public and the perpetrating system sends out a stimulus in front of them, say an attractive woman or a directed conversation takes place in front of the TI and thoughts/feelings are recorded ..Every thought, memory, emotion, and physiological response that the women evokes in the TI is now captured data. Often a TI is observed by a psychology student sitting unobtrusively off to the side to record and link overt behaviors to the data stream collected in real time. The entire arsenal of psychology and medicine is aimed at learning to break and control this one person, such that they represent all future people like them.

The technology that renders the TI an open page also allows them to be a blank page to be written on. Thoughts, images, and emotional states can be imposed on the TI remotely with a startlingly diverse tool box of weapons in the electromagnetic spectrum. The TI can be put in stressful situations and agitated with open microwave attacks that physically burn them, or less obvious manipulation of their emotional state. The ability of the technology to secretly obstruct purposeful human behavior should not be underestimated. Targets are often seemingly toyed with, but the ultimate aim of the experiment is the terminal destruction of the TI [CausaFinalis, see Chapter 4]. Not everyone watching the drama on satellite TV, the internet, or listening on radio will understand exactly what it is they are watching. The TI is both a very expensive lab rat for the health effects of microwave weapons, a training tool for a stalking army, a psychology experiment to perfect mind control and fodder for a dozen psychology papers,and a commodity to be sold for entertainment purposes a la
reality TV [MULTILAYERED MOTIVES- see chapter 4]. Everyone, everywhere is at risk from this calculated derangement.

In addition, all of the results of any satellite surveillance can be computer transferred, and fed to numerous not so innocent agency “ghost” writers [FABRICATED SCRIPTS, SOCIAL EPISODES,SOCIAL SITUATIONS- see CHAPTER 3] or any criminally corrupt media [eg TV SERIES INVOLVING ACTORS AS PSYCHIATRISTS COMMENTING ON REAL LIFE EVENTS OF THE TARGET AND PRECONDITIONING THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE LEGITIMACY OF PSYCHIATRY AS THE ONLY VALID DISCOURSE CAUSALLY EXPLAINING ORDINARY PHENOMENA AND ACTIVITY PATTERNS] outlet (as well as any operative or dupe) so that they can be intertwined into presented material so as to subtlety/covertly humiliate, terrorize, destroy and discredit targets.

The modulations of electromagnetic frequencies produce different effects/symptoms, according tothe intention of the handlers in each case [See Appendix IV]:

“My research has found that microwave weapons are targeted on middle class troublemakers and researchers who cause problems for the establishment. Russian and American research has found that pulse modulated microwaves (as used for mobile phones) can, when modulated with ELF which mimics specific brain patterns change the behaviour of the victim at the flick of a switch. It has been found that UK security police, such as MI5 use the 450 MHz frequency used for this research (legally allowed to be used by the police) for behavioral control. A vast catalogue of mind control frequencies in the MHz range, FM radio, TV and mobile phone frequencies, have been measured, which are used in the UK for mind control and killing or disabling victims: 147, 153, 197,199, 447, 453, 456, 466, 853, 883, 884, 887... Symptoms can be depression, befuddled thinking,loss of memory, stress, not being able to cope, manic behavior, schizophrenia, nervous breakdowns, physical collapse, brain and nervous system damage, heart attacks, cancer.....Readings I have taken show that the 750-1000 MHz range is used by the intelligence services for inducing nervous and physical collapse. Microwave ovens give off 1000 MHz.MICROWAVE MIND CONTROL by Tim Rifat” (Federation against Mind Control Europe,www.fedame.org)

Dr Persinger wrote an article a few years ago, titled "On the Possibility of Directly Accessing Every Human Brain by Electromagnetic Induction of Fundamental Algorithms". The abstract reads:"Contemporary neuroscience suggests the existence of fundamental algorithms by which all sensory transduction is translated into an intrinsic, brain-specific code. Direct stimulation of these codes within the human temporal or limbic cortices by applied electromagnetic patterns may require energy levels which are within the range of both geomagnetic activity and contemporary communication networks. A process which is coupled to the narrow band of brain temperature could allow all normal human brains to be affected by a sub-harmonic whose frequency range at about 10 Hz would only vary by 0. 1 Hz."

He concludes the article thus:

"Within the last two decades a potential has emerged which was improbable, but which is now marginally feasible. This potential is the technical capability to influence directly the major portion of the approximately six billion brains of the human species, without mediation through classical sensory modalities, by generating neural information within a physical medium within which all members of the species are immersed."

Indicative Bibliography on available psychotronic weapons, case studies, legal cases and and their psychosomatic effects

36. Organized Stalking Activities. Please check all that apply.

Appliance Tampering
Helicopter/Airplane home flyovers
Being Followed
Blacklisting
Car Tampering
Home Monitoring
Community-based Harassment
Workplace Harassment Activity
Mail Tampering
Computer Tampering
Noise Campaigns
E-mail Monitoring/Interference
Street Theater
Emergency Vehicle Harassment (police, fire trucks,. ambulances)
Targeting of Pets
Unexplained Sounds in Home
Estrangement of Family or Friends
Wiretapping/Electronic Surveillance
Food Tampering

If other, please specify

37. Directed Energy Weapons Assaults. Please check all that apply.

Benign or Malignant Tumors
Induced Imagery/Thoughts
Ringing in Ears
Body Manipulation
Holograms
Induced Sleep
Seizures
Chilling of Skin/ Instant Coldness - Generalized or Localized
Thermal heating, daytime, discernible "microwave hot spots" on skull
Thermal heating, nighttime, severe night sweats
Induced Smells
Sensation of Blunt Trauma to Head
Coughing up Blood
Intense Itching
Sensation of Electric Current Running through the Body
Dehydration
Sudden onset asthma
Irregular Heartbeat
Hyperactive bladder, sudden incontinence
Sensation of Objects being Forced into various areas of the Body
Deterioration of Cognitive Abilities
Jaw or Tooth Pain
Severe facial and glandular swelling.
Sleep Deprivation
Dizziness or Loss of Balance
Blackouts or loss of consciousness
Severe disorientation while driving
Lesions on Internal Organs
Sudden Rashes
Sudden appearance of large burn marks
Dream Manipulation
Memory Loss
Thought Monitoring/Manipulation
Electronic Rape
Metallic Taste in Mouth
Thyroid Problems
Electroshocks
Nausea
Tingling
Extreme Fatigue
Nosebleeds
Topical & Internal Burning
Genital Manipulation
Numbness
Vision Loss/Impairment
Hair Loss

If other, please specify


2.4 Usual mode of treatment of targeting allegations on behalf of institutional mechanisms’ agents and the silent (psychic, discursive, pragmatic) complicity or a complicit multi-referential signifying system:

The ontic and the ontological facets, the multiple referential planes, the “signifying regimes” [see chapters 3 and 4] , the latent/background assumptions operative in each referential plane as signifying attractor between linguistic/protosemiotic/corporeal signs and their respective signifieds [see chapter 3]- An instance of circulalry demarcated predespositional causality [κυκλικά οριοθετημένηπροδιαθετική αιτιότητα] or the [de]ontic reinscription of minor premises in a social constructivist/sociocy bernetic paradigm of [de]ontological major premises as latent conditionals of multiple signifying regimes [From Parmenides’ virtuously circular truth to a pragmatically overloaded web of Husserlian noemata as cunningly interwoven minor premises against the background of a collective intentionality

«1. Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil. What the perp institutional agent knows about theT.I.'s perps, he won't discuss. If he doesn't report it, it didn't happen and he doesn't have to deal with the T.I.'s charges/issues.

2.The "How dare you!" gambit/Incredulity and Indignation He will avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct theme, idea or practice.

3. The perp institutional agent listens to the harassing perps' counter charges/rumors, then avoids discussing the T.I.'s issues by describing all of the harassing perps' counter charges against the T.I. Regardless of venue or evidence, he will treat the harassing perps rumors as truth and T.I.s complaints as wild and unfounded accusations. Derogatory terms, mutually exclusive of truth, will be used against the T.I. This method works especially well when the perp institutional agent writes his Incident Report or talks to his superior officers, the D.A. or judge. And is used by D.A.s during trial or pretrial hearings. If the perp institutional agent can associate the T.I.'s evidence with the Internet, he will use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact [which doesn’t hold as web sites are the only cost effective way of mass communication for informal organizations].

4. 'Straw Man' argument/selective use of evidentiary and discursive materials. He will find or create a seeming element of the T.I.'s argument which he can easily knock down to make himself look reasonable and the T.I. to look irrational. He will either make up an issue he can safely imply exists based on his interpretation of the T.I.'s situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest of the T.I.'s charges. Then, the perp institutional agent will amplify its significance and destroy it in a way which appears to debunk all of the T.I.'s issues, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Attack the Messenger, aka sidetrack the T.I. with name calling and ridicule. The perp institutional agent will associate the T.I. with unpopular titles such as "crazy", "drunk", "drugged", "kook", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy theorist", "radical", "militia", "racist", "religious fanatic", "sexual deviate", and so forth. This makes any others who may be present shrink from supporting the T.I. out of fear of gaining the same label, and the perp institutional agent avoids dealing with the T.I.'s issues.

6. Hit and Run. When the perp institutional agent speaks to the T.I. he will briefly attack the T.I.'s position and then change the subject before the T.I. can make an intelligent or acceptable response. Or, he will ignore any reasonable answer. This works extremely well when the perp institutional agent is in the presence of a gullible new institutional agent, judge or jury, when a steady stream of new questions can be called upon without having to explain the perp institutionalagent's reasoning ("Just follow my lead, I've been handling doing this a long time and can tell if a person is crazy/lying"). The perp institutional agent simply accuses or makes more attacks, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the T.I.'s viewpoint.

7. Question Motives He will twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the T.I.operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the T.I. on the defensive.

8. The perp institutional agent will Invoke Authority. Claim for himself or associate himself with authority and present his argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate he is "one who knows", and simply say the T.I.'s complaints aren't legitimate, without actually discussing the T.I.'s issues.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, he will avoid discussing the T.I.'s issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. He will mix these tactics for maximum effect

10. Associate Charges with Old News. A derivative of the 'straw man' argument, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, the T.I. will make charges early on, which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, the perp institutional agent will have his own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues --so much the better where the T.I. is or was involved with the harassing perp.

11. Establish and Rely upon Fall-Back Positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, he may take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that the T.I. has seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others will reinforce this on the institutional agent's behalf,later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to the institutional agent's mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas Having No Solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events described by the T.I., the perp institutional agent will paint the entire affair as too complex to solve or be true. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. He will avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand Complete Solutions. He will avoid the issues by requiring the T.I. to solve the crime at hand completely

15. Fit the Facts to Alternate Conclusions. This requires being schooled with preplanned contingency conclusions memorized well in advance of confronting the T.I.

16. Vanishing Evidence and Witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and the perp institutionalagent or D.A. won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, he will find away to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can"argue" with the institutional agent over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If the perp institutional agent can't do anything else, he will chide and taunt the T.I. and draw him into emotional responses which will tend to make the T.I. look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render the T.I.'s story somewhat less coherent. Not only will the perp institutional agent avoid discussing the issues in the first instance,but even if the T.I.'s emotional response addresses the issue, the perp institutional agent can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive the T.I. is to criticism".

19. Ignore Proof Presented, Demand Impossible Proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by the T.I., the perp institutional agent will claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the T.I. to come by (it may exist, but may not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld. In order to completely avoid discussing issues the perp institutional agent may categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that the T.I.'s witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that witness or expert statements meaning or relevance

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, the perp institutional agent will introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with the T.I.'s presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the(process) to benefit the D.A. and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion.Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, the prosecuting attorney can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed as unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually,this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a T.I.) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if the perp D.A. must actually address issues, he can do so authoritatively. as happened in Shan's case, when the opposition brought in 20 to 30 homeless witnesses to testify that Shan had been harassing and photographing them.)

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as a trial in which a T.I.is suing the Government, then create bigger local news stories that will take precedent over coverage.

24. Silence critics.If the above methods do not prevail, the T.I. will be removed from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is entirely alleviated. This can be by the T.I.s can be by death (an apparent or real suicide), arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of falsified arrest records or falsified psychiatric determinations, or blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with implied or overt blackmail or other threats. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as a trial in which a T.I. is suing the Government, then create discrediting news stories (such as arresting the T.I. on false charges of bank robbery, rape, pedophilia, drug trafficking, drunken and disorderly behavior, or insanity, or treat them as such) to distract the public.

25. Vanish. If the T.I.-supporting witness, harassing perp, or perp institutional agent, who is the key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and the situation is not going against the T.I. as planned, then that witness, harassing perp or institutional agent perp will be suddenly transferred, or otherwise unavailable.(quoted from the International Alliance against covert abuse web-site)However, thanks to concerted pressure on behalf of international targeted individuals communities authorities and representatives of the psychiatric establishment have recognized the existence of the targeting phenomenon (albeit not in Greece), but fail to take action. Why? Who’s pulling the strings of this “public spectacle?
Last edited by carpe verum on Thu Mar 30, 2017 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect."

User avatar
carpe verum
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:45 pm

Re: Targeted Individuals

Post by carpe verum » Thu Mar 30, 2017 5:01 pm

Continued
2.5 The psychological effects of the targeting socio-cybernetic mechanism and why/how the reported symptoms often match the diagnostic criteria of DSM (chance or premeditated“institutional cover-up” of the true causal mechanism that is responsible for generating these effects?)- Another typical instance of discursively complicit cover-ups and semantic/pragmatic aleatoric bifurcation of a phenomenon in ever multiplying signifying regimes [cf chapter 3]

“Psychotherapist Otto Doerr-Zegers found that victims suffer “a mistrust bordering on paranoia, and a loss of interest that greatly surpasses anything observed in anxiety disorders.” (not evident in mycase as I continued being attracted to my career oriented polar attractor despite the “cybernetic noise”) . The subject “does not only react to torture with a tiredness of days, weeks, or months, but remains a tired human being, relatively uninterested and unable to concentrate.”

These findings led him to a revealing question: “What in torture makes possible a change of such nature that it appears similar to psychotic processes and to disorders of organic origin?” (Question of Torture, 10-11) Doerr-Zegers explained that techniques of torture work by creating deception, mistrust, fear,disorientation, a “kind of total theater ” that leaves the victim disoriented and “emotionally and psychological damaged.” The similarity of the explanation below to “street theater” found in mind control allegations is remarkable;As Doerr-Zegers describes it, the psychological component of torture becomes a kind of total theater, a constructed unreality of lies and inversion, in a plot that ends inexorably with the victim’s self-betrayal and destruction. As the torturer manipulates circumstances to “maximize confusion,” the victim feels “prior schemas of the self and the world ... shattered” and becomes receptive to the “torturer’s construction of reality.

The psychological terror and mistrust bordering on paranoia of torture victims is remarkably similar to the mind control alleged by Naylor and the drug-induced paranoia of Waugh. The “street theater”described by most TIs also appears similar to the paranoia of mental illness and most people think “street theater” sounds crazy.

Victims are subjected to various kinds of harassment and torture, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, for years on end. Most believe that some type of technology can remotely track, target, and control every nerve in their bodies. Heart and respiration rate can speed up and slow down, and stomach and bowel functions are regulated. Illnesses and all types of pain can turn on and off in an instant. Microwave burns are reported.Most TIs described “street theater” or similarly staged events in distinctive spaces signifying“displacement,trapping, narrowness and destruction”.

To summarize, the CIA’s psychological paradigm [which may have been generated by the secret services, but does not rest for its application exclusively with secret services personnel] fused two new methods, “sensory disorientation” and “self-inflicted pain,” whose combination, in theory, would cause victims to feel responsible for their own suffering and thus capitulate more readily to their torturers ... The fusion of these two techniques, sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain, creates a synergy of physical and psychological trauma whose sum is a hammer-blow to the existential platforms of personal identity.

Most alleged cases of mind control describe the considerable repetition of seemingly innocuous and banal stimuli in the TIs environment, as if engineered by computer

2.6 A Peircian analysis of how the aforementioned conditioning tactics self-referentially and through the employed sociocybernetic mechanisms model their effects: the pragmatics of socio-cybernetic conditioning

The significance of what I term THE PRAGMATICS OF SOCIO-CYBERNETIC CONDITIONING rests with what was termed as "
pre-designation" by Peirce,insofar as the definition of an inductive inference is that the predicate P [or pejorative/disorderly judgment predicated of the target] must already be known before the sample (S', S'', S''') [the employment of particular targeting methods and individual scripts] is selected from the totality (M) of targeting conditionals „ If, however, the property to be examined must be defined before the sample is selected, this is only possible on the basis of a conjecture that the property exists in the corresponding totality before the inductive inference is made. How else could the property be known in advance of sample selection?

Valid induction, therefore, already presupposes as a hypothesis the conclusion that is to be inferred.

More precisely, inductive reasoning is based on a given hypothesis (M is P) and then, by means of samples (S', s''), seeks to establish the relative frequency (p) of the property (P) in the totality (M)with regard to that hypothesis...“The condition that the property to be examined must be pre-designated in advance of sample selection makes Peirce conclude explicitly that induction cannot lead to new discoveries.

IN ESSENCE, THE PERPETRATING MECHANISM AIMS AT CREATING CLOSED FEED BACKLOOPS- SYMPTOMS ARE PRE SELECTED FOR GENERATION, THEN THE SUBJECT IS HOOKED BY DISPLAYING SYMPTOMS, WHICH HAVE BEEN GENERATED BY THE PERPETRATING MECHANISM, WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE PERSPECTIVE FROM WHICH THEY ARE VIEWED, ARE INTERPRETED INVARIABLY; thus, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY CONSTITUTE RESPONSES IN THE CONTEXT OF DAILY SOCIAL INTERACTION, IF VIEWED FROM A SOLIPSISTIC PERSPECTIVE, SUCH AS BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY, THEY MAY BE ATTRIBUTED TO INNATE, ATTITUDINAL OR BIOLOGICAL FACTORS THE SAME HOLDS FOR THE MECHANISMS OF NARRATIVE CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYED BY DIFFERENT SCHOOLS OF PSYCHIATRY , PSYCHOANALYSIS ETC. IN THE FORMER THE ORDINARY DISCOURSE IS NEVER CHALLENGED, BUT TAKEN AT FACE VALUE, AS AGAINST THE LATTER, WHERE AN ATTEMPT IS MADE TO UNEARTH LATENT INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS (IN A POST STRUCTURALIST FASHION) THAT CONDITION SENSE MAKING AND WORLD VIEWS.

This is also the reason why in a state mechanism psychiatry is favored as an institutionally dominant paradigm over and above other disciplines; complementary to the fact that state income from pharmaceuticals is not to be neglected. From a methodological point of view it favors the perpetrating mechanism in that it sanctions institutionally the sedation of those tagged by social networks’ members pragmatic interests as threats.

However, are diagnoses simply inferential or necessarily abductive, while suffering from petitio principii ?


Diagnostic inferences are abductive, too. An example of a medical diagnosis, involving inferring :a cause from effects, logically constitutes fallacia consequentis or non sequitur. Every diagnostic statement by a “medical expert” functions as an abductive inference or there construction of meaning from and in a system of signs. In an abductive inference as semiotic exegesis /interpretation, as a process of finding a premise (hypothesis), abduction is the basis of all hermeneutical procedures, the inference from phenomena (behaviours, actions) to motives/intentions/purposes.

If we replace the surprising fact by the incomprehensible behaviour of a person, then an abductive inference may help us to construct an intentionalist explanation through motives (reasons) that makes the behaviour intelligible. All intentionalist or functionalist explanations in psychotherapy thus become interpretable as hypothetical constructions with abduction as their modus operandi.

(1) Observation: Person A shows behaviour V in context K, utters x, etc.
(2) Hypothetical rule: A behaviour x in context K has the meaning/function (f).
(3) Case/conclusion: A's behaviour V has the meaning (f) (is motivated by f).

If we consider the mechanism on the semiotic plane, a sign is introduced as an unexplained resultto which, by way of the construction of an encoding rule, or the application of a familiar encoding rule, meaning is or can be assigned (contexts, frames, etc. being of significance, too). Abduction, as a cognitive operation, creates the framework which makes it possible to attribute a singular meaning to signs. The interpretation of signs - as the schema shows - is always abductive or in other words: the fundamental constructive principle of all semiotic interpretation is the finding or inventing of a hypothesis (abduction), i.e. the act of semiotic understanding on the part of a hearer can consist only in the attribution of meaning through a his/her - frame of reference (encoding rule). Therefore, abductive inference is the basic principle of all hermeneutical procedures.

In terms of cybernetics, and on a 2nd cybernetic [or meta epistemic] order, the intention for interpreting phenomena through a univocal interpretive mechanism [a dominant and state sanctioned discourse, such as psychiatry] may not lie strictly with economic benefits, such as the psycho-pharmaceutical complex (even though not excluding them), but with maintaining the very univocity of the interpretive schema imposed on automata that replicate it in their behavioral encounters. Again, an instance of maintaing the Same/Other dialectic through the selective targeting of individuals who function as community totems [for greater detail see Chapter 3
2.7 The creation of an institutionally sanctioned exclusionary mechanism. How an abductive stratagem crystallizes in an institutional practice through social constructivism and socio-cybernetics : further notes on discursive complicity- a functionalist paradigm as apologetic for systemic dysfunctions or sedation as a way of coping with targeting : it’s a win-win situation for everyone but the target

Peirce writes about abduction, that Its only justification is that, if we are ever to understand things at all, it must be in that way.“. How do we proceed from seeing to knowing, from the affection of our senses to the description of our perception in language? Here, too, abductive procedures areat work: as soon as I describe my perception linguistically, I interpret non-verbal signs abductively and transform them into language in a rule-governed way. Against the background of abduction theory it is trivial that perceptual judgments are constructive in themselves, as being already interpretations.

All perception is, therefore, in principle construction [this is a simplified echoof Kant’s account of how the sensory manifold is filtered through perception and subsumed under synthetic a posteriori concepts of empirical understanding].

Carrying out inferences,therefore, does not always involve conscious reflections before we reach our conclusions;frequently these inferential processes take place below our level of awareness, as Peirce himself repeatedly states and defends . Deductive inferences ("inference a priori") do not yield anything new, only abductive reasoning leads to really new paradigms and can, therefore, be considered as knowledge-increasing..Applying the theory of abduction to the brain brings out the precise logic of Maturana's theory of autopoiesis. For the observer, the brain thus becomes comprehensible as an autonomous organ of abduction which, under the control of internal "rules" (cognitive maps,memory) which are not fixed/determined by the external world, neuronally encodes the stimuli(perturbations) impinging upon the sensory receptors (this would quite literally be "in-formare") and so generates information from those stimuli. Again, in logical terms this is a case of non sequitur,but in a cybernetic/pragmatic paradigm,such as Maturana’s, it assumes the character of “pre-phenomenological giveness”, which will be challenged in Chapter 3 in the context of the pragmatics of social interaction.

The seeds of all kinds of ways of world making are contained in abductive inference.In semiotic terms, an abduction functions as the incorporation of a sign into a coding system (minimal theories,hypotheses) the logic of which forms the frame within which the phenomena that have become signs acquire meaning. Abductive inference, in comparison with logical rationality, is para-logical,irrational and yet this mode of inference grounds the majority of causal chains embedded in ordinary discourse, coupled with latent assumptions and pragmatic interests (and from a systemic point of view in maintaining the univocity of an institutional discourse). Psychiatric discourse is still in the first step of the evolution of phenomenology (see chapter 3), where, insteadof attempting to reconcile transcendental explanatory schemata with the contingencies of being in the world and the social forces that shape it, it takes even more steps back (towards Descartes,hence suffering from solipsistic fallacy) and attempts to replicate his mechanistic outlook on the functioning of human consciousness by seeking grounding in biological processes. In this context,biological factors are not precluded, but by no means must be assumed as causal factors behind the appearance of phenomena, for reasons that have been extensively covered in the critiques against evolutionary theory and biological determinism, positivism and which have led epistemologists to differentiate amongst hard natural sciences, soft natural sciences and social sciences. As already explained , the silent massacre is not only clearly a social constructivist phenomenon, but also a political phenomenon, which necessitates delving into institutional aspects,hence it may not be accounted for by a hard science. Psychiatry deals with phenomena, which, by default, are not the object of hard science, which also affirms its reductionist character, while being highly prone to falsificationism (alongside criticisms of positivism and biological determinism).Quoting Feyarbend (from Against Method), “In the Logic of Scientific Discovery, Popper argued thata scientific hypothesis could never be proven to be absolutely true. We might observe a thousandwhite swans but that can never prove beyond doubt the theory that all swans are white. On the other hand, the first black swan observed conclusively 'falsifies' the theory From this basic insight,Popper argued that scientists should spend their time concocting new and radical theories which they then endeavour to disprove”.

The project is still metaphysical (ie quest for explanatory grounds in primary principles), while still suffering from the same empirical fallacies encountered n pre-Kantian empiricists, that is reduction of a series of repeated observations among phenomena to a necessary causal nexus between cause and effect, this time rooted in biological processes. The positivistic accounts of neuro-psychological epistemology remain within the confines of a modernist dualistic/binarist mind/body perspective and indeed the majority of the exemplifications of how representations are fashioned/conditioned concern visible objects, while disregarding any other tactile variables that register alongside the represented object in the memory - classical analytical fallacy. When I see something qua an attributed object it is most likely that I will be hearing , smelling touching something alongside. How can we isolate the representation from the entire spectrum of sensory input that is registered alongside the visual imprint? In fact, as already illustrated, the aim of the perpetrating system in targeting activities is not to enter into a discursive relationship with the target, but to paralyze, disorient and kill it, where from stems the “experiential blanketing and over-sensitization” of the target with seemingly “senseless” activities (pure experiential noise) ,which only afford to bring about automatism, reduction of complexity and confinement (aims that match exactly the sedative purpose of a psychiatric institution, which acts in complicity to the aims of the perpetrating system , therefore participating in the organized system of premeditated murder or the silent massacre).

In order to avoid these criticisms the discipline has invented explanatory tactics, such as psycho-socio-dynamics, which attempt to account for the various forces that are operative in the formation of a series of perceptions about being in the world. However, without clear pathways for quantifying the relative contribution of each of these forces in the grand narrative, the project remains highly speculative and indeed grounded on collective opinions [“expert agreement”], in the same way whereby the alleged disorders are formulated during colloquia

Functional explanations are found in many scientific contexts, in social and behavioral sciences as well as evolutionary biology. Ethnologists, for example,explain social practices on the basis of their roles in fostering social cohesiveness. Freudian psychologists explain dreams in terms of wish fulfillments. In most, if not all, such cases, functional equivalents— alternative mechanisms that would achieve the same result—appear to be possible. I find no reason to suppose that such explanations are acceptable only on the supposition that it is possible in principle to show that one rather than another of these alternatives had to occur in the circumstances. Totemic worship of the wolf can be explained in terms of its social end function even if totemic worship of the bear would have worked as well. Functional explanations do not cease to be explanations just because wecannot rule out functional equivalents”. Even disregarding all pretensions to its being a dominant paradigm, discursive complicity may be discerned by looking attentively at how “common discourse axiological judgments” are interwoven in a presumed epistemic discourse:

“The stages of engagement, pattern identification, pattern change, and pattern maintenance are described below and will be illustrated in subsequent chapters with regard to specific persona disorders” [In brief, manufacturing of response patterns through well acted out engagements (eg street theater) attain to manufacture the exact sympotomatology that is needed for labeling an individual under a deductively defined set of disorders]“One early indication that engagement has been achieved is the patient’s willingness to collaborate and take increasing responsibility for making necessary changes in his or her life”.“Disordered styles are either under modulated or over modulated, and the goal of treatment is to achieve some measure of modulation. Modulation is the state in which thought precedes action,spontaneity is experienced without pretense or exaggeration, and coping with problems leads to effective and responsible behavior. Needless to say, many individuals with personality disorders never adequately learned these skills during their formative years. Prognosis will also depend in part on the prominence of the psychological dimensions (Siever & Davis, 1993; Reich, 2005):cognitive/perceptual disorganization; impulsivity/ aggression, and affective instability or anxiety/inhibition. To the extent that such dimensions as impulsivity or anxiety respond to medication,concurrent psychosocial intervention efforts should be facilitated..” [.;,](from Cognitive behavior therapy of dsm iv book

It is noticeable in the above exemplary passages how language is purely speculative throughout,starting (AS A GIVEN OR VICIOUSLY CIRCULAR HYPOTHESIS) with intended behavioral modification; then proceeding to attributing this modification to personality traits and temperament,irrespective of the stage setting that has been orchestrated; In fact, allusion to orchestration is met with a ready made explanation of paranoia etc; thus, the system safeguards its intactness by manufacturing opposition and moreover, by labeling opposition under ready made "diseases

"The same holds for conditioning.; the repetition of the conditions that give rise to a particular response pattern, once sufficiently repeated at the required intensity will give rise to a patterned behavior that will appear as such even though the initial conditions that triggered them are lacking

For example see the DSM IV definition of an attribute falling under the over vigilance umbrella;“unrelenting standards/hypercriticalness”- yet, in most serious corporate environments, these standards are prescribed in the code of conduct under the heading passion for excellence and in TQM (which is also endorsed in the United Nations code for sustainable development), it is termedas need for self transcendence- also echoed in zen culture- language as a necessary prerequisite for achieving zero-defects! The DSM “analytical categories” are HIGHLY judgmental, grounded in pseudo morals, adhocist and not at all disinterested and all encompassing with regard to polar opposites , thus legitimating any possible attempt at subsuming phenomena under one of the categories.

Unfortunately, it lends itself to some of the most fundamental positivistic premises, such as the attempt to establish a causal chain of events/phenomena that lead to the formation of latent behavioral schemata through a process of elicitation during the interview/observation/report formation stages, where the presumed patient essentially establishes through his own recollections and narrative some of the phenomena, which are part and parcel of the discursive constructions of the manual – also see Garfinkel’s research in clinical discourse cited in chapter 3 !!!“To understand an individual consciousness one must situate it within the broader cultural and historical world in which it lives and breathes. This cultural world consists of language, of social rules and institutions,of cultural objects like houses and city streets and artworks, of ideologies, and so forth all of which are situated within ongoing historical traditions. Meaning is a broadly historical-cultural phenomenon, not an (individual) psychological one,and the interpretation of meaning (and the search for its source of meaning) must turn from the minds of people to the historically situated public world of shared practice.

Moreover, attributions , ascriptions and predications seem to be context independent; again a necessary precondition for the dominance of a solipsistic paradigm, as if the individual lives in a giant glass jar, while disregarding any orchestrated system of social exclusion, cunning depopulation enforced through pseudo morals and hidden power stuctures (wherein distribution of power has been pre ordained) and masking of a system of inequalities, which are in stark contrast to constitutionally sanctioned freedoms.

In other words, and this is the decisive point, there is a transition from fallacious thinking to a different kind of thinking. And it is precisely this sort of transition that cannot be managed with and in traditional logic because it consists essentially in its violation. From this point of view, abductive inferences do indeed violate logical laws, but they may be interpreted as creative changes of the semantic content of concepts or conceptual systems (language games), - as is, by the way, the case with all "paradigm changes".

In informal logic (wherein ordinary discourse is grounded and of which DSM analytical principles constitute a direct and uncritical reflection, masking power plays) , there is no absolute standard for the rationality of thought and action, but only a relational one. By means of creative abductions -where a new "major premise" (hypothesis: M is P) is invented – new and different standards are constructed. Standards - like the laws of logic - are not true or false in themselves but only more or less useful in the realisation of particular interests or goals. Here one must distinguish between logical correctness and what is right in the sense of a standard borne out by ordinary practical living, - this is the meaning of fit. It is, therefore, ultimately pragmatic – and not logical - criteria that determine whether para-logical thinking permits viable action capable of inductive corroboration.

Pure logic is inadequate to judge the rationality or irrationality of an utterance or an action because para-logical (abductive) inferences or hypotheses may, in fact, be rational (i.e. correct). Their rationality, however, is different from the rationality chained to Aristotelian logic (and by implication, apodeictic principles of legal logic, such as “beyond all reasonable doubt” are reduced by definition to the best possible explanatory hypothesis).

If abductively constructed hypotheses are corroborated inductively then the experience-prior rules (logic) of a conceptual system are transformed or adjusted, - as is the case with all "scientific revolutions". Such creative abductions must be seen as adjustments of theories, logics, standards and norms of thought, in fact, of our total conceptual universe(or lifeworld, in Husserl’s terms- see chapter 3), they change our mental map(s) more or less fundamentally.

“A representationist conception of logic cannot be consistently upheld. Logic does not mirror an independently existing order, logic, too, and all its "laws", are much rather "posited", i.e. manufactured by a community in communication, and not discovered. The "laws of logic" may be understood as the discursive rules of a game that cannot be justified "retrogressively"by having recourse to some real or fictitious ontology, but only "pro-gressively",pragmatically, i.e. by their fitting into the discursive and material environment constraining the game (von Wright , Fischer ). that logically false inferences may in fact be right because - in contrast to logical rationality - they actually enlarge our knowledge of the world or fit certain purposes.
This does not only mean that logically true inferences say nothing about the world, but also that all our - logical or paralogical
- inferences are invented hypotheses the adequacy of which cannot be proved within logic but only pragmatically, i.e. by showing that they improve both our orientation in the world and the way we control or manage our lives.” Fischer interestingly continues by claiming that “It thus becomes evident, furthermore, that radical constructivism AND SOCIO-CYBERNETICS has no need for the idea of 'representation' (re-praesentatio) and an ontology in the classical sense”.

Moreover, the establishment of a relational / social networking paradigm as the ground of legitimacy of causal patterns among social actors and states of affairs (such as agenda 21) over and above an epistemological one silently does away with the need for grounding empirical inferential chains in metaphysical principles (no need for an Aristotelian causa prima or a Heideggerian ontological horizon as meta-narratives, insofar as a dominant paradigm of radical immanence has been legitimated in practice under the auspices of a communitarian ethos .The validity of a claim or the subsumption of empirically verified events under minor premises and then under major premises or hypotheticals within this paradigm stops at the juncture of network members’ agreement. Radical constructivism tries to avoid ontological statements about the "real"nature of the world and leaves behind the idealist notion of an immanent essence or an immanent nature of the world which is alleged to be amenable to human knowing, which paves the way to epistemologically frail, yet pragmatically forceful disciplines such as cybernetics and socio-cybernetics, of which the silent massacre phenomenon is an outcome, as clarified in Chapter 3 in the context of the arguing why Habermas’ ideal speech community is unattainable. Thus, the silent massacre phenomenon not only is not a case of the target’s responsibility or guilt for being tortured, but the entire dystopian condition that has been fabricated by a system of perpetrators,involving institutional agents, is a clear case of social constructivism, Artificial Intelligence modelling and sociocybernetics and hardly, one may even argue, a case of either opting for aninherentist/reductionist paradigm (such as psychiatry) or aninteractionist/intersubjective/structuralist or poststructuralist paradigm (such as social phenomenology and ethno-methodology) . “Radical constructivism, as a psychology of knowing, first and foremost discards the loaded concept of representation and specifies knowing as a predominantly self-referential process: human subjects possess no knowledge other than the knowledge they have themselves created through operations within their own cognitive systems”. (or sociocybernetic ecosystems, cf chapter 3)“Knowing means inferring, inferring means rule-governed interpreting, interpreting is a constructive, synthetic act, and a construction that proves adequate (viable- in relation to S.Beer’s VSM archetype) in the "world of experience" (German:"Wirklichkeit"), in life, in the praxis of living, is, to the constructivist mind, knowledge. It is the practice of living which provides the orienting standards [and this echoes Wittgenestein’s empirical linguistic conceptualization of orientation as “learning to take turns in a form of language”- a maxim that has been reified in the engineered landscape of agenda 21 communitarian ethos and its respective lingo] for constructivist thinking and its judgments of viability.
The question of truth is replaced by the question of viability, and viability depends on the (right) kind of experiential fit." Well, if the notion of viability does not ring any bells about viable sustainable development against the background of self legitimated , co-evolving communities, then something must be definitely interpretively wrong.

“A more stubborn problem, however, is circularity. “Natures” or inner purposes were theoretical properties of things that could only be understood by inferring them from their effects.

Were these inferences bogus, and if so why? The locus classicus for the sense that these were bogus explanations that depended on linguistic flummery to conceal their emptiness is the ridicule heaped upon medics by Molière. He [Moliere] targeted the practice of physicians (which continues to this day) of giving a Latin name for a disease which is nothing more than the name of the unknown condition that is supposed to be the cause of the “disease,” thus giving the illusion of explanatory knowledge… But, in many of the relevant cases, problems posed in these terms could not be solved by science. And in the numerous cases where intrinsic natures and the like could not be identified except in terms of their effects, this causal theory was circular. The problem of circularity and the problem of the arbitrariness of the asymmetries are distinct problems,and they arise in different ways in the later history. To these may be added a third: the natures, powers, and the like which are mysterious inner properties, unobservable, and irreducible to ordinary material features of things. They are, as Descartes put it, “attached to substances, like so many little souls to their bodies”, echoed in metaphysical heuristic terms , such as Kant’s“sensory manifold”, Aristotle’s “materia prima” Heraclitus’ “flux”, Derrida’s unsublatable exteriority, Levinas’ “wholly other” which yet point to a per definitionem impossibility of totalizing experience in a deterministic manner, even under the auspices of a socio-cybernetic paradigm

2.8 The ontological issue with the notion of the psyche : empirical fact, fact of reason or of epistemological reification against the background of economic interests?

The soul does not exist as such and as an empirical phenomenon. Its access as such throughempirical understanding leads inevitably to an antinomy of Pure Reason, in Kant’s terms and accprding to the argumentative process deployed in the 3rd
Antinomy of Pure Reason in the Critiqueof Pure Reason. Empirical understanding as a faculty of Reason, in Kantian terms, is charged with synthesizing phenomena according to concepts (whence the critical difference between a priori anda posteriori concepts). All inductively synthesized phenomena constitute empirical concepts,sunthezied against the background of “an experiential manifold” that appears to the senses, hence all accounts on empirical phenomena constitute a posteriori concepts of empirical understanding.The only thing Reason may grant as objective is the meta epistemological validity of its own functions and faculties, which, according to the Kantian rhetorical topography, reside in the“noumenal”, rather than in the “phenomenal” world. By implication, what a rational agent may be objectively certain of is his capacity to reason self-reflexively about the apparatus of Reason (or an epistemological self-referential approach with systemically intertwined concepts), but not about the concepts that are synthesized a posteriori upon reception of fragments of an exterior manifold (or a Heraclitean flux, so to speak). This is the solipsistic approach.

The certainty about the existence and the descriptive validity of empirical concepts is yielded only through communicative agreement against the background of interaction with other social agents,hence concepts and judgments of empirical understanding are pragmatically loaded and not at all disinterested. Kant, for example, in the Critique of Practical Reason lays claim to an inner moral sense when acting out of Goodness, which principles may not be qualified or exemplified in empirical terms, save only verified intuitively (based not on intuitus empiricus, but on intuitus purus),which constitutes a cryptic remark and a mystical way-out of a syllogistic aporia, while not being amenable to empirical verification over and above self-centered, intrests.Similar cryptic remarkswhen it comes to grounding metaepistemologically terms in scientific discourse are more often than not encountered in the philosophical tradition. For example, Wittgenstein’s definition of language asa form of life constitutes a metaphorical heuristic way out of a lengthy path of formal logical calculi,which paved the way to subsequent attempts at making sense of everyday discourse through informal logic, Austin’s and Searle’s speech act theories, discourse analysis, pragmatism and other perspectives.

The argumentative thrust concerning the issue of the ontological status of the soul or the possibility for proving its existence is that it is not possible through empirical syllogisms. Hence, in Kantianterms it is a logical fallacy or an antinomy of Pure Reason and in Wittgenestein’s terms it does not make sense. The psyche is an abstract schema that was generated abductively by Aristotle in De Anima and through a process of progressive eliminations of plausible arguments about what is that within someone that may be moved without the presence of external stimuli. Thus the concept of the psyche developed as an epistemological schema in an attempt to answer questions about an ontological issue [at this point ontological is conflated with metaphysical, even if a crucial distinction should be made, but this will be clarified in due course] concerning the intuitively verified existence of “something” that may be moved even in the absence of external stimuli. Its ontological existence may be verified in Heideggerian terms as what appears in the horizon of Being, as mode of appearance, but this would take us into a wholly new field of petitio principii. Not only the psyche isan oblique concept, but it is illusory as it is not biologically situated. Thus, by implication, the very notion of psychiatric disorder is illusory, as a disorder is predicated of something that does not existor of an abstract schema that became reified through its uncritical adoption in common discourse over the millenia. When a conditional statement is made in order to confer a causal relatiosnhip between two phenomena of empirical understanding, it is assumed that they are both grounded within the horizon of intersubjectively verifiable empirical understanding. For example, I find a eyeshaped mark on my oven and clearly someone must have imprinted it in an act of illicit break-in andproperty damage. The perpetrator is a concrete person and the outcome of his action empirically verifiable. But how can a conditional statement be transformed into a descriptive sentence of an outcome that is predicated of something that does not exist? Thus, insofar as the concept of thepsyche does not make sense, the concept of a psychiatric disorder does not make sense either. Are collection or a representation of an event may be distorted or false, but what I can be certain of instrictly epistemological terms is memory as a function of empirical understanding and not the content of the memory or the empirical representation. Again, the descriptive validity of a phenomenon of empirical understanding may be granted only intersubjectively [let’s grant validity to this argument provisionally]. Thus, not only is the notion of a disorder predicated on something that does not exist, but the very predicate is illusory as no sense-certainty may be granted to a phenomenon of empirical understanding.

Now, the critical turn to intersubjectivity that has taken place in sociology over the past century is an attempt to dispel some of the epistemological impasses with which traditional logic and metaphysics are laden. Notions such as intersubjective reality, collective myths, rituals of passage,empirical accounts constitute an attempt to describe how empirical reality evolves out of the dynamics of social actors and social groups, given that attempts to root the validity of empirical reality in strict epistemological terms has been found to be wanting. However, in parallel to the emergence of descriptive notions about empirical phenomena, notions about power and conflict whereby certain accounts dominate over others in an attempt to solidify “collective mindshare” as univocally as possible have also appeared as attempts at demonstrating that even though inter-subjectively generated, these accounts are far from disinterested, hence objective.

The postmodern turn, for example, has given priority to “narratives of otherness”, local narratives as against“grand narratives”, multivocal viewpoints, how biased judgments emerge as an outcome of stereotyping (especially in the case of minorities), how institutional mechanisms evolve (eg Foucault’s Discipline and Punish on the evolution of the punitive system, the History of Madness as the evolution of institutionally sanctioned mechanisms whereby “otherness discourses” are generated, Goffman’s discourse analyses on asylums etc). These accounts of social epistemology, despite their methodological differences and variations in epistemic frameworks, lay claim almost unanimously to relationships of power and conflict out of which distinctive classes of discourse emerge and stabilize through stifling “other” voices. This is why a distinction is usually made in post-modern analyses between dominant paradigms and alternative paradigms. Psychiatry, as an epistemological paradigm among many (eg Freudian, Lacanian, Kleinian, Guattarian psychoanalysis, social psychology, social phenomenology) managed to solidify as a dominant paradigm and concomitantly a dominant discourse largely thanks to its simplicity.. Ample accounts of participants in decisions about which social phenomena should be tagged as disorders during “scientific colloquia” report that the decision is made by a raise of hands (!) and by a who manages to speak louder during the meeting (!). Also, official resignation letters by former APA presidents lament the increasing dependence of the “psychiatric community” on pharmaceutical companies’ financial targets, as against a presumed “therapeutic” mission of the profession. Thus,not only has the psychiatric paradigm been institutionalized at the expense of conflicting paradigms,thanks to its simplicity, but the key value driver or the motivating force behind the epistemological validity of the diagnostic process and the drugging of civilians rests with clear economic interests on behalf of select companies. This is sufficient reason to confirm the power play among interest groups hypothesis made by various social theorists in the formation of dominant epistemological paradigms.

Intermezzo: Further notes on the “political” aspects of psychiatry as “a legitimately dominant discursive paradigm”

-The role of the psychiatric establishment and the psychopharmaceutical complex
-In the context of targeting, if framing fails or in cases where no objective proof of criminal activity is evident, this is a usual method of effecting the massacre
-the DSM, the witch hunt, the epistemological gaps
-the sedative vs therapeutic aspect, the diagnostic process, the criteria as complexityreducers
-the DIAGNOSIS method: the questionnaire as washing out mechanism (“I'd like tobe a gardener”), the biased interview process
-the freemasonry precedents, the Tavistock institute (and its interdependence with Illumisnim and secret agencies, the MK ULTRA archives
-psychiatrists acknowledging gang stalking
-psychiatry is not an exact science
-the FDA drugs approval process
-the thousands of cases against pharmaceuticals from disgruntled“victims/experiments”
-the thousands of legal cases about relatives vying on relatives' property using involuntary commitment as an exclusion mechanism
-why it is unconstitutional
-during incarceration which legal breaches are noted (no information on which drugs are committed, no information on potential side effects, selective communication with outside world
-the epistemological deficits and the grounding in cartesian dualism, the prioritization of inherentist and cognitivist / solipsitic theories of truth over more plausible accounts yielded by conventionalist/coherentist paradigms
-state complicity in favoring the inherentist paradigm thus violating the freedom of speech right and the right to refuse drugging
-the solipsistic paradigm serves pragmatically the judiciary purpose of individual accountability even where mind control mechanisms are evidently used
-evidence from the DSM VI research agenda that "we are far from establishing a causal chain between symptoms and causes" , also attetsing to the viciously circular relationship between "symptoms" and “presumed causes” against the background of inexisting illnesses and their merely affording to ratify speculative analytical principles
-the model is self-referential thus does not escape the petitio principii fallacy
Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect."

User avatar
carpe verum
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:45 pm

Re: Targeted Individuals

Post by carpe verum » Thu Mar 30, 2017 5:02 pm

Continued:

2.9 The legal issues with psychiatric diagnosis: violating freedom of speech, violation of privacy and the right to refuse drugging for the sake of reducing complexity? For whom?

Myself being a marketing person with significant experience in business decision making andexposure to a comprehensive set of brand development stages, consumer marketing research, adverting development and exponent of freedom of trade principles, I fail to see where the free-trade principle applies in cases where a company becomes institutionally sanctioned to forcibly provide its products down consumers’ throats. Certainly a company or a brand may outwit competitors thanks to the availability of superior investment (R&D, promotion) funds, but at the end of the day it rests with the consumer to either take the product or leave it. Insofar as state institutions are based in principle on least common denominators among citizens in an attempt to “secure” social peace, complexity should ideally be reduced to such an extent as to avoid conflicts. But this is a subjective value judgment, as valid as any else, thus if the primary reason for selecting psychiatry as a dominant and institutionally sanctioned discourse is simplicity and an “inherentist paradigm” that is appealing to a vast array of not epistemologically savvy lay people, who would be willing to accept the “violence of mean values” as “normative requirements” , not because they make an informed decision to buy the paradigm, but because they are not in a position to exercise their freedom of speech in order to challenge the validity and the legality of the paradigm in case it infringes their rights, then epistemological superiority is not a matter of making more accurate diagnoses to conflicting paradigms, but a matter of an audience not being critically predisposed tothe endorsement of a set of principia that constitute a pseudo-epistemic translation of locicommunes. In fact, insofar as folkways are more intuitively reflected on a discourse that “speaks its language” , intuitive endorsement of the discourse by lay members is more easily and uncritically granted. However, this relationship is (i) circular, meaning that it neither legitimates a natural language or form of life that is silently predicated of phantasmatic least common denominators andviolating mean values, nor a discursive apparatus that appears self-allegedly as deductively valid,even though it has been generated through a process of empirical abstractions from folkways (ii)epistemologically invalid, as it fails to account for the hidden power play behind the institutional currency of the discourse, as previously exposed (iii) rooted in a maze of pre-phenomenological understanding and by implication of concepts of empirical understanding, of which, as previosuly established, one may not by definition be certain, while recourse to intersubjective agreement (both in terms of lay as well as scientific community members) as a heuristic way out of a syllogisticaporia merely repeats the vicious circle fallacy noted in (i), (iv) common discourse, which constitutes natural language, is laden within logical fallacies, such as the slippery slope argument(or answering in a communicative turn-taking encounter by changing the subject), logical inconsistency, affirming the consequent, modus tollens, modus ponens (where a simple shift in the referential plane leads the equivalence of terms to absurdity), hence an epistemic edifice that is are flection of a natural language is by default laden with all sorts of fallacies.

Therefore, returning to the context of a new communiatrian ethos that imposes interpretive perspectives that are legitimated by informal referenda among members of fluidly conceived of social constellations, not only is natural language as a form of life cryptically legitimated by dominant groups, but the institution of a new lingo and its endorsement by community members asan index of membership point to a cryptic form of socio-linguistic terrorism, insofar as non-membership to the linguistic community and by implication the non-member’s non-ec-sistence in that community’s lifeworld (insofar as humans ec-sist linguistically) constitutes a perfect excuse for criminalization, due to being tagged as transgressor of the very linguistic apparatus that grants community members their identity through their participation in language-games as parts of a transcedentally conceived natural language or form of life. Especially when the convivial interests blend with pragmatic ones, such as conflicting career pathways, property issues, the “reasons” for opting for exclusion through tagging, targeting, incarceration and perhaps criminalization emergeeven more forcefully. Thus, a posteriori dystopian empirical concepts based on agreement among pragmatic community members about phenomenal particulars are invoked in order to morally legitimate a priori conceived decisions based on interested judgments. Insofar as a judgment by default and based on existential phenomenology terms, forces a social actot to make a selection among alternative pathways or potentialities of being in the world, it rests with a collective judgment to affirm the openess of its actionable pathways by excluding others from pursuing theirs.Therefore, group decision making does not necessarily concern itself with making a valid judgment(in epistemological terms), but with a beneficial judgment (in pragmatic terms). The more powerful group members are involved in the decision making process with whom the target of the judgment is in either direct conflict or in indirect conflict (insofar as a protégé or affiliate member of that person is involved), the less lkely the outcome of the judgment will be for the target. Given that, as already established, the dominant discourse of psychiatry is intuitively endorsed as a reflection of communitarian mores and insofar as communitarianism as a societal organization paradigm has been growing in popularity, appeal to the dominant discourse for exclusion purposes is gaining ground in terms of legitimacy.

Acting out of moral sense in the context of an ideal principle of practical reason of goodness is phenomenally unattainable, yet noumenally intuititevely accessible (as established by Kant in his 2nd Critique). Even Kant himself stressed, merely echoing public mores, that no one can verify to what extent an action’s motives rest with disinterested judgments in so far as the decision making process on an individual level is not accessible. Hence, a more realistic way of making sense of judgments about others is by applying pragmatic criteria. In the context of group interests and collective decision making and especially in the context of hidden from view informal referenda judgments are made for securing group interests. Thus, goodness is equivalent to interests. The more widely and openly an individual is exposed to the public, the more its social representation becomes a concern of public interests.

As previously noted, public or folk myths have always helped in enforcing communal bonds, while from Girard’s christological perspective, to become branded as challenger to public interests by default paves the way for sacrifice. Especially in the face of a new communitarian ethos, speaking against this ethos as violating basic constitutional rights be default places one in a targeting spot.Thus, a person is secluded as potentially threatening to public security. Thus, membership to thenew communitarian ethos and the psychic community formed among members thereupon is potentially complicit to violations of the criminal law and human rights, by virtue of willingly entering a relationship of agreement with peers, part of which is conferring specific judgments about targets who have been cast out as threatening to the interests of group members

In sum, it is by virtue of the existence of the mechanism, as Roxin argues, that members become complicit. Now, such forms of agreement will be counteracted by a target, unless he is a masochist, who will seek to expose the decision making practices on behalf of the community members. The more powerful the members that target specific individuals or the more powerful their affiliates, the more widely they will seek to spread the social representations [see chapter 3] that were created of the target with view to legitimating their decisions. Now, this is the tricky part, insofar as a member, for example, from a weakly linked social network to the one(s) to which the initial members that demanded the “mythopoetic” opening up of the social representations created of a target, does not necessarily possess knowledge of the precedents that conditioned the mythopoetic opening up of a target. Thus, given that the information that has been diffused about the target not only is not reflective of him and his actions, but has been intentionally falsified [refer to the so called discrediting campaigns] in order to condition other members’ perceptions of him in a specific manner, implying acting upon one’s will in agreeing about the specifics of a phenomenon, we may infer that the lack of symmetric information diffusion waives the existence of a community of rational agents and by implication what is dogmatically formulated as public security is equivalent to a community of irrational agents, driven bv pragmatic requirements.In fact, as attestsed by Lynne Rudder Baker in her book The Metaphysics of Everyday Life (Cambridge University Press 2007),the ascription of properties to an individual is highly dependent on background assumptions, thus a matter of informal logic and arguing “in favor of” (hence a logical fallacy) and not a matter of rational fact/truth finding, which contravenes the very foundations of legal decision making process

The implications for the evidentiary rationale are immense given that what must be granted as a confirmation to the above is the subjective dimension of the existence of such psychic complicity based on members’ confessions. However, given the previously established fact that social networking on a microsocial level has spread virally and silently (few people speak openly of the microsocial agenda of agenda 21, yet everyone participates in it) members are bound by an oath of silence not to disclose the indoctrination tactics whereby they became members of the new communitarian ethos, in the same vein as secrecy is demanded of members of freemasonry. Alas,actions speak for themselves and the very temporal horizon within which targeting activities have occurred in conjunction with converging accounts from allover the world, also coupled with the programmatic declarations in the relevant Agenda 21 documents favoring social networking and redistribution of resources and with the ethno-methodologically valid method of participant observation of “members” actions, I can safely speak of a perpetrating mechanism with alternating perpetrators in the context of open system dynamics favoring the establishment of a communitarian ethos which co-evolves alongside shifting power and conflict dynamics of fluidly conceived of social formations. This is the key area for marking the distinction between this communitarian ethos and the ideologically loaded regimes where Roxin;s theory has been applied so far, which consists in the seemingly open character of the new ethos as against the closed system dynamics present in closed totalitarian regimes, which favored vertical organizational structures and decision making and a clear system of top-down command [as illustrated in Chapter 4]. The new ethos, in tandem with the available literature on the new world order, consists of horizontal networks with no clear and distinct power and command structures and no uniform ideology underpinning the legitimacy of decisions and actions, which has paved the way for the emergence of all sorts of conspiracy theories, which do constitute valid proxies for describing the seemingly fluid social reengineering project that has been taking place over the past years (eg the Aquarian conspiracy theory). However,the very fact that no traceable indirect perpetrators who maintain a relationship of control over discreet acts of direct perpetration in a clear chain of command may be found does not imply that the violations that are allegedly committed do not exist (as lucidly described in thousands of individual targeting accounts and the emergence of a plethora of specialized activist groups and informal communities, while the commonality of the features reported in the accounts confirm beyond any reasonable doubt the existence of the new communitarian ethos)

By the same token, the European Court of Human Rights acknowledges compensation for torture victims, even where the perpetrators cannot be tracked down, which implies the acceptability and credibility of ad humanitatem arguments.

Given that agenda 21 has attained almost 100% coverage in terms of populations indoctrination, chances are that the vast majority of psychiatrists are bound by an oath of silence not to reveal their membership which otherwise would raise suspicions about their objectivity in making diagnostic claims, in the same vein as judges have been , at least formally, excluded from participating in freemasonry in Italy against the background of precedents that suggest that secret organizations membership is BY NECESSITY conducive to conspiratorial acts against the interests of the public and against individual rights embedded in the Human Rights Statute.

But the secrecy whereby agenda 21has spread and the population coverage it has attained, in relationship to the rest proofs that were laid out in chapter 1, are suggestive of the existence of a secret society within society or of societal members entering by oath of secrecy in relationships of alliance with others against the background of various motives (rational and irrational). Therefore, membership of institutionally professional members, such as psychiatrists, may be gauged by the very manner in which they insist about the ascription of disorders based on non members’ accounts, even when these diagnoses are merely developed by arguing in favor of background assumptions generated by interest groups and circulated to ever widening spheres of “public interest”, which public interest has been found to be tautologous to irrational agents’ interests [cf Chapter 3]. This psychic complicity of institutional agents not only affirms the Roxinian thesis on “criminal activities carried out in the context of organized instutional networks”, but the very manner in which agreement is manufactured on the validity of diagnoses through channeling the fact finding procedure through rhetorical questions, by intentionally omitting to record aspects of the narratives, by the lack of a method of factoring in the narrative generation procedure that the individual is in a state of ecosystemic instability and conditions of incarceration (cf paper on the social manufacture of psychopathy) and given that the psychiatric episteme as previously established is a rendition of public mores we may infer validly that psychiatry as an institutional practice is an accomplice to the slow kill phenomenon.

This argument is further amplified by the clearly mandatorily stated in the programmatic declarations pertaining to the microscocial engineering aspect of the agenda 21 sustainable development project that “in case a member does not fit the profile of a social grouping it is advised to spread it in the wider society”, which simply welcomes mobbing and falls prey to the asymmetrical information diffusion fallacy as above noted and moreover it constitutes a clear violation of the right to privacy and the right to freedom of action. Furthemore, it displays the crypto-totalitarian outlook of agenda 21, given that it promotes the segregation or ghetto-ization of social agents by forcing them to compulsory cobelonging in social networks with unidentified boundaries and with unclear intentions and motives on behalf of fellow-members, especially given that it has already been established that an ideal community of rational and disinterested agents is unattainable [see chapter 3]

In my case and in my profession the ability to synthesize and act on information compiled from multivariate sources constitutes a core competence and I have demonstrable experience and positive references on my ability to add value to business issues. The very fact that the exclusionary methods that have been employed at the expense of my career and my personal life over the past four years in Greek territory, encompassing the entire spectrum of targeting activities and a complicitly and silently acting closed doors phenomenon on behalf of companies, and in marked distinction to my course of life up until that point in time, which is assumed as the beginning of the premeditated murder attempt, and involves perpetrators from all walks of life and from both private/public sectors constitute proof beyond all reasonable doubt that (i) the political and social reengineering program of agenda 21 has functioned at my expense (ii) that agenda 21 is the key perpetrating mechanism, as proven by the involvement of local authorities charged in the agenda 21 documents with enforcing the communitarian ethos, as well as by the involvement of private organizations, such as couriers and female organizations in targeting activities (iii) that by agenda’s21 acting as an enabler of diffusing a social agent to the wider socius at the pretext of finding a social network that better matches his needs, aspirations or whatever other abstract and intuitively sensed terms may be used it has promoted at my expense the employment of targeting activities,such as mobbing, gang-stalking, gas lighting, violations of property, electromagnetic harassment (iv)it is responsible for the devastating effect on my hard earned career insofar as the social networking imperative has allowed for my construction as a free-floating signifier or a set of social representations circulating in the socius and animating it on the inverse (v) agenda 21 is responsible for my reduction to christological status and as a dystopian sacrificial emblem granting communitarian members their identities by applying a symbolic- yet with clear tactile repercussions on my behalf – cannibalistic appropriation of me as social representation whose presumed systemic function as transgressor of a natural language or a form of life merits being sacrificed

Further to the above that are backed up with clear and distinct evidence and to the preceding analysis and justification of how targeted individuals are reduced to free floating signifiers circulating as social representations among members of the nouceau communitarian ethos,therefore acting as “totemic glue and sacrificial emblems in a political community” , the political role of psychiatry is affirmed, hence the process of involuntary commitment is deemed to be an act of political intention and with political significance for a “new communitarian republic” the identity of which the sacrificial victim has served symbolically and projectively through an arche-signifier of otherness.
2.11 Reasons for targeting – the case for multilayered motives [cf. chapters 3 and 4]

How are targets chosen? Targets can be chosen because of many reasons. They can be chosen for political views. They can be chosen for whistle blowing. They can be chosen because they belong to a dissident movement. They can be chosen because they asserted there rights at work. They can be chosen because they made the wrong enemy, were considered to be too outspoken, unwittingly investigated something that the state did not want investigated, signed a petition, wrote a letter. They were deemed as suspicious by a civilian spy/snitch and their names were handed over. These people also want to make the targets of this harassment vulnerable, they want to make them destitute, to make the target homeless, jobless, give them a breakdown, Covert surveillance is also used to rob inventors, writers etc who have been rejected or"excluded". The published, in fact, often feed off the unpublished, especially through editors "sympathetic" with "establishment" organisations and "business" interests.
Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect."

User avatar
carpe verum
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:45 pm

Re: Targeted Individuals

Post by carpe verum » Sat Apr 01, 2017 12:35 pm

continued:
2.12 Who participates in targeting activities? – the case for a multi-participant, multi-act crime with composite multiple causality

People from all walks of life are being recruited to be the eyes and ears of this maliciously operating state of affairs. People from all races, ages, genders. Every sector of society one may think of is apart of this. Civilian Spies/Snitches include, but are not limited to: General laborers, the wealthy,bikers, drug dealers, drug users, street people,punks, hip hop culture, activists, church groups,youth groups. Your best friend, lawyer, policeman, doctor,emergency services, neighbor,military forces, family, social services, politician, judge, dentist, tradesman, vet,supermarket,council, postman, religious leader, care worker, etc.

1. Some do it for the sense of power yielded from participation (especially applicable in cases of dis-empowered and less privileged social actors, coming back to the “change agents” profile of agenda 21)

2. Others do this as a way to make friends and keep friends. It’s something social and fun for them to do.

3. Others are forced or black mailed by the [supra]state or the police into taking part.

4. They are told that they are part of homeland or national security and being used to help keep an eye on dangerous or emotionally disturbed individuals. They see themselves as heroic spies for the state.

5. Others are just local thugs or Informants who are already being used for other activities, and their energies are just diverted over into these community spy programs. eg. some may be given the choice of Spying for the State or the police vs going to jail.

6. Others are told outright lies and slander about the target to get them to go along with ruining the targets life.

7. Many are however just average citizens who have been recruited by the state, in the same way citizens were recruited in former totalitarian regimes
2.13 How do direct perpetrators communicate and how is communication facilitated by satellite audiovisual surveillance? – C.Roxin’s functional platform as animus auctoris (cf chapter 4)

Thanks to audiovisual surveillance, they attain perfect synchronicity with the target’s movements during routine activities (from the point he walks out of his door, while driving, in places he frequents etc). Communication is carried out in a number of ways. When on the street or in cars patrolling, they use Stasi like signals.These include things like tapping the side of the nose, corner of the eye, brushing back the hair , etc.

If in the future, an innocent citizen drinks a coke in front of the target they will be triggered again,and may consider the act sinister,even though there is no intent to make the victim of torture relive their experience.

In the same way an empirical observation during scientific research gains epistemic currency, once validated due to the frequency of occurrence under certain observational conditions, the stalking tactics may be reduced to research hypotheses. For example, if conversations playing back one's personal life events occur at regular intervals (or even on a daily basis), then this may be cited as a more than plausible validation for the stalking hypothesis. How often would you expect a coincidence between the contents of non significant others' discourse and your personal life events during a normal course of daily life?
2.14 What is the organizational structure between direct and indirect perpetrators and how recordings of incidents on behalf of institutional agents act in complicity to the incidents?

Evidently, both in the relevant literature and in my case, there is a clear oganizational structure and division of labor among direct and indirect perpetrators. In the context of a perpetrating team’s group dynamics there are “watchers”, “direct harassers” and “senior controllers” supervising the deployment of the incident and intervening if necessary (cf July Athens incident involving a group of young mobsters in chapter 4).

In the apologetic discourse of a group harassment incidence, the causal chain will be inversed pointing to the target as the perpetrator.The selective and highly directed recording of direct perpetration incidents on behalf of institutional agents are indicative of ongoing attempts at legitimating the univocal rhetoric of the multiact, multiparticipant system, even when this latent intention based on precedents is explicitly mentioned to the institutional agent(s) and warning is given not to indulge in this “cover up” operation.
Actual direct perpetrator involved in targeting activities speaks out regarding the organizational structure of multi-participant targeting teams“

To: eleanor@shoestringradio.net
Subject: inside info on 'gang stalking'
Date sent: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:22:13 +1100

Hello Eleanor,

I have been a "vigilante" (as you call it) for over five years. I would like to take the time to tell you about the gang stalking situation in Xxxxx, Xxxxxx.

I first began involved in gang stalking when I worked with animals at Xxxxx's Zoo. I had a string of jobs involving animals at various places, and the referral process was very selective (the first sign of a gang-stalking controlled operation). Basically, even though I was sure that there were a lot of jobs available for somebody with animal-related expertise, each employer preferred to personally refer me to another employer that they were connected with, rather than just give me a letter and let me find the job myself. The one time I tried to find my own job, every animal-related employer (I mean everybody, every single animal shelter, national park, zoo, etc.) immediately said that they weren't interested in hiring anybody new when they saw my name on the letter. So I went through a daisy chain of employers, zoos, national parks, vets, and similar employers.

Anyway, while I was working with animals I noticed a range of strange happenings. I wasn't actually a victim/TI or a"perp" at this point, but I saw it happening around me, or at least noticed the fact that the employers I worked for seemed to have set aside a certain amount of resources to gang stalking. When I worked in the zoo, I noticed that several zookeepers would habitually let gorillas loose "by accident" whenever certain people passed by, and then crowd around them, make a fuss, apologize, and goad the animals back into their cages. One of the animal shelters I worked for was concerned with unscrupulously training animals.

Dogs (especially dobermans and rottweilers) were trained to bark ferociously, with the loudest and scariest dogs rewarded with biscuits. These dogs were then (as I later learnt) chained, with a long chain, of course, outside certain houses in the suburbs, always when "targets" went outside to take walks. Even more bizarre was the training given to some of the zoo animals. Trainers would be sent in and the zoo keepers would be dismissed on certain nights.

The animals would then be trained to leer at selected people. A photograph was usually used to train them, and at other times, film footage was used. All of the photographs were expertly taken, often when the target was sleeping. One woman's photograph was taken while she was under general anesthetic at her dentist. Her eyes were held open, so the animals could be familiar with her, and a high resolution photo was taken, in addition to samples of armpit sweat and hair.

Xxxxxs (a bird in Xxxxx which often attacks people when defending its nests) were also trained, and placed in trees for animal "street theater".

Because xxxxxxs are hardly lethal, but can cause minor injury, they prove annoying enough to use. When working at the vet, I sometimes noticed that tracking devices were inserted in some pets, which could then be tracked and mutilated. The absence of a "pet coroner" means that a dog can be dragged from its home at the dead of night, tied down with a brick, run over by a car, and have the bricks and restraints removed without any investigation that would reveal foul play. All sorts of unscrupulous activities happened here. Poisons were tested on some animals, some of them slow-acting, and a healthy dog would be taken to a check-up, a "diagnosis" fabricated to explain its decline in health after its visit, while poisons were administered to it. During some operations, heart worms were inserted in the pets of TIs.

I was eventually offered a place in the syndicate. The syndicate was presented to me as a kind of fraternity, a masonic-like mutual profit organization with strong police-like overtones. I was told that I was helping to build a better society. However, I have never been given any of the advancement opportunities I was promised. The "advancement system" of the syndicate is a slippery slope. They make you give up your security privileges, so eventually all of your communications are watched (which is why I composed this email offline where they can't see me, and sent it via an internet cafe) and you have to attend meeting after meeting of mind-numbing pledges and chants. The premise is that if you sign contracts giving up personal liberties for the group, and you are genuinely innocent, then you will be promoted. I have only been promoted once, to the rank of manager, and I don't feel as if it is a rewarding experience.

Worse, you are never allowed to leave because they think you will give away secrets. Leaving is only permissible with a special contract that permits the syndicate to destroy your credibility (usually they make sure that the most attention any secrets that you reveal get is from crackpot UFO magazines, or diagnose you with schizophrenia).

There are other problems. If you have children, you have to send them to education in syndicate owned schools. If you have a wife, you have to report on her, allow her to be spied upon, and be prepared to target her if they decide to turn her into a TI. The official "compensation" policy is that you will get to keep the children if she lodges a divorce. However, you won't get to keep most of her material goods. They only want her to lose in the divorce proceedings so she gets nothing, not so the husband gets anything, so the syndicate takes it back as a tithe.

I suppose I should introduce the syndicate in a little more detail. I'm still not sure precisely what it is trying to do. To everyday citizens, it presents itself as a group trying to monitor terrorists (or any other kind of flavor-of-the-month undesirables like gays/communists/witches) and drive them out. To other people, its a rotary club/chamber of commerce type operation. To others still, the most twisted conspiratorial minds, it is an organization that pulls the strings behind everything. To the puritan, it is a cleansing force. To the deviant, it is a gang of other deviants where everything is permissible. It's the syndicate to everyone, though. I don't know the extent of what it owns.

I do, however, know a great deal about the targeting process. When we get targets, we divide them into four categories: mercenary, practice, planning, and enemy. Mercenary targets are bought by outside parties. We advertise under a range of guises, from ads by "individuals" claiming to be able to kidnap people, to practical jokers. Some groups, like big corporations and some governments (the government of Xxxxxx pays us to keep some people busy, so do the Xxxxxxs when they have too many people protesting whaling) know fully well what sort of services we do, so we don't really hide them.

We get a lot of money from them, but we can still muster up a fair bit if worst comes to worst. I'm not sure so much about the NWO theory. Maybe the Xxxxxxx count, but you'd be surprised at how much money we can get from crime. I don't mean that we go out robbing people, but we can outsource money from biker gangs/skinheads/drug dealers pretty easily. Our syndicate gets a lot of support from people in rough areas like Xxxxxx and Xxxx's Xxxx. Because there are areas with a lot of people in genuine need, who would leap at the thought of fighting back at the criminals,we can always find allies to pressure the criminal portions of society. Of course, they are only pressuring them into giving us money, but it's a pretty cozy arrangement.

The second type of target is the practice target. We use them to train mobs. The targets don't actually change,because we don't want TOO many people fighting back at us. But we do rotate trainees between practice targets. This stops the person seeing the same people every time there's a street show.

Then there are planning targets. These are selected by the syndicate for some reason or rather but aren't paid for by mercenaries. You can usually tell the difference between planning and practice targets because they send people with experience after them. They're still chosen by the same people though. The practice ones are of course chosen for their timidity. I don't know how the planning ones are chosen.

Enemy targets are people that decide they've had enough and turn against us. Since they protest and try to foil our plans (which, considering that our jobs are already nervy, is a real pain in the arse), we try to really give them hell. The best way, of course, is through the psychs. My supervisor used to say that the Soviets had it right with Sluggishly Progressing Schizophrenia.

Some people up-top are proposing that we just kill them and have them declared Natural Causes or Accidental by the coroner. It isn't likely to happen, though.

Anyway, I should introduce the main branches of the syndicate. Each branch recruits its own (everybody is a member of one of the branches) instead of people just joining a common pool. This keeps the work separate and stops people from finding stuff out that they shouldn't. [compartmentalization]

My branch is the Scripting, Observation, and Execution Bureau (or "The Theatre" as it is popularly known). By execution, I mean the execution of orders, not the other kind. We do the work that the majority of people with any knowledge of gang-stalking will be familiar with: pestering and scripting minor incidents.

The Theatre is actually divided into two sub-branches: Scripting Orchestration Officers (or "playwrights" as they call themselves) and Field Officers (or "thespians" as we call ourselves).

We have the most variety in our recruits. Popular sources are the police, the fire department, the zoo, and technicians of any kind. But we recruit from all places. Most members are neighborhood watch types (not official Neighborhood Watch, but "concerned people"). Ironically, we make sure that we do a lot of good, just to get some credibility.Then there is the Bureau of Authority ("The Moneybags"). They don't actually control the syndicate, but they have all the right jobs and connections. So, a judge might have control over the judicial process, but he will answer to a superior in the syndicate. Psychiatrists belong here too.

The Moneybags are so-called because they raise a lot of the money. It would be suspicious if big corporations funded groups like this, but they can invest money into front-groups. And the majority of the syndicate's work is done through completely legitimate fronts. We can tap phone lines and access people's records from behind government agencies. Usually, these are the guys that go after Enemy Targets. Normally, harassment is organized under several "action policies". If a target isn't an enemy, a standard policy is enforced. Low level organizers (the aforementioned"playwrights") play around with the target for a while and rotate crews.

When a target is an "enemy", the policy doesn't immediately change, but orders filter down from high-level organizers (usually the Supreme Council) which direct 'Thespians' to provoke the target or a similar action, and Moneybags to crack down on them once they get in the way of the system. This is called Mincing, because the thespians lure the"meat" (by making it complain or fight back) into the"mincer".

The Bureau also protects members of the syndicate. Normally, in a court case/psych examination or similar situation where a syndicate member is at the mercy of a moneybag, a special order arrives from above telling the moneybag to take it easy on the guy and let him off scott free. The order is always printed in blue, on fancy cherry-blossom paper, but in a very official border/font.

"Cherrying" is the name for this secret process. The Bureau of Authority has a very organized system of lawyers, judges, medical officers, etc. Whenever you're committing a crime for the good of the syndicate, you must always report your location. Then they send Cousin Nancy (this is an affectionate term for the police in the employment of the syndicate that they send to arrest you instead of non-syndicate cops, so you can go straight through the appropriate channels without anything suspicious being seen) to tail you and "arrest" you the moment somebody calls 911.

They all follow a minimalist strategy though. For example,the mayor of Xxxxx isn't a member of the syndicate. But several of his advisors and aides are. This way we can get laws passed in a discreet manner, and if a high-profile figure is targeted, our hold on an organization doesn't loosen. We try to arrange elections of mayors that aren't too headstrong. Though the government is mainly used as a minor nuisance. We prefer the courts for most activities. [From what I've seen and heard, this is very true. ]

The Bureau of Technology (Field), BoT(F) is the group in charge of the electrical equipment. They work alongside us thespians and "gaffer" the targets by giving them the usual fatigue/headaches/medical problems. They can also destroy equipment, screw up televisions, the works. I think they are particularly sadistic.

Different crews use different Techs, but they're all unpleasant. The incapacitators come in a lot of different forms. There are ones that come as a light bulb that slowly gives people eye-strain and makes them tired. You can fit some in computer/TV monitors and the glare irritates people.

I've heard they're even building fridge magnets with electronic devices in them. That isn't the extent of the BoT(F)'s machinery.

They manufacture pills that can cause deformities in the womb, as well as miscarriage and give them to women in their food. They can fake HIV/AIDS so the test shows up positive the first time, but subsequent tests show that it was a false positive. This faux-HIV can be put in the target's food. They usually give the target a few health scares, but they don't like to physically hurt anyone.

One Field Tech I knew had a penchant for giving people Syphillis. They could treat it easily enough with pennicillin (and the syndicate always made sure that it would be diagnosed on time), but it showed up on the targets' permanent records for medical treatment. They also conduct extensive testing without the target's knowledge.

One TI we were monitoring was found to have a malignant tumor in his head (not our doing). He wasn't experiencing any of the symptoms, so we gave him some through the incapacitators and had a few of his friends warn him about cancer. He had a test done, and just for fun, we had the doctor tell him how dangerous it could be and how he could die soon. We gave him a six month waiting period and told him that by then the tumor could progress so far that it could never be removed. That's a lie, of course. Our BoT(F) had it out in a jiffy by sending one of their brain surgeons to do the job, but it's the fear that counts.

The Bureau of Technology (Communications) monitors the target's phone calls, emails, and absolutely everything else. They tend to recruit from the national archives, census takers office, records office, credit card companies, medicare, insurance, etc. They are the slogitics branch. As I said, most of the syndicate's work is done from within legitimate areas.

What the BoT(C) does (very often) is send a "receptionist applicant" over to a credit card company or government agency pretending she knows nothing about hacking computers or accessing records. We pull a few strings and she's in. She then steals information while nobody is looking. A few old-timers like to have 100% control over the "records farm" but most prefer the minimalist approach. This is the bureau that gives out information and orders to everybody else, and also acts as a communications post for the whole syndicate.

The Supreme Council delivers orders through them. Outside orders are also taken in through the BoT(C), which advertises as a mercenary group through certain channels.

The Bureau of Alliances, or "trading partners" handles our allies. As far as I know, the syndicate is Xxxxxxan only. The only other gang stalking group in this country is a West Xxxxxxxxan organization called the confederacy. Very often they try to move into the xxxxx xxxxx so we have to hold them back, diplomatically or otherwise. However, we have contracts with Xxxxxxan groups whereby we handle their targets when they move into Xxxxxx. The same with the Xxxxan groups and the confederacy. The other groups pay for their targets to be "handled" while they travel here. We make millions of dollars this way.

Finally, the Supreme Council controls the entire operation.I have no idea who they are, except that they have a fancy name instead of being a Bureau. They do not recruit their own men. They promote from the other departments.

Most of them seem to be wealthy individuals with inheritances that manage to maintain their fortunes from investments. Not one is a CEO, Judge, or Politician. They are all just old money family types that live in the Xxxxxx Xxxxx and seem unusually lucky with their money (no doubt through insider trading).

Despite this, they have a lot of spiffy technology. They have a kind of reverse incapacitator that improves their health and increases their performance. Most of them look incredibly young for their age. We don't see them much,though. Often, an audience with one of them is a kind of reward for good service.

There are also ranks in our syndicate. The lowest members are pawns. They're not technically members, because there's no permanent service contract and they don't know they're working for us. They take orders from us but they're not expected to attend meetings. We call our pawns "concerned citizens", the Authority bureau has "office boys" or "secretaries", the BoT(F) has "lab rats" (who very often are paid volunteers for experiments, or people who don't know what they're testing), the BoT(C) has "spelunkers",the BoA has "travel agents".

Unfortunately, we're not obligated to give protection to any of these people. So, we can give a vet an order to put down a dog, without telling him that it isn't consented to by the owner, and he will do the job and get sued without us giving him legal protection. A lot of our street theater is done by people that don't even know they're part of a syndicate. They think they're a grass roots movement and don't know that there are other people harassing the target.

The BoT(C) recruits people that think they're joining l33t hacker groups on the internet, or people that think that they're just following orders from the archives. The BoT(F) does 80% of its research at legitimate agencies like Xxxxxx's XXXXX and its drug companies. The task of pawns is to think that what they're doing is either normal and routine, or criminal in an individual isolated manner.

Recruits, however, are aware of a conspiracy. However,they still remain at a misinformed level. We simultaneously maintain teams of "religious" actors and "punk" actors. A person might join us thinking he's going to clean up the community. Another person might join us thinking he's going to cause trouble and anarchy. And they can go about their merry ways.

We even deliver information to them in different ways. To the religious ones, it's wrapped up in prophecy and revelation. To the punks, it's given a communist candy coating. However, they're all aware that the group is large.

They're also aware of a mutual benefit aspect to the operation. Only greedy un-idealistic people get beyond the recruit rank.

All the Bureaus wrap themselves up in different colours. The Moneybags pretend to be a secret club for the elite (and many of them are indeed quite powerful and wealthy, second only to the Supreme Council). The BoT(F) claims to be a "humane" research agency, or a means by which scientists can resist corporate greed, though it still attracts deviants. The BoT(C) is conspiratorially minded, and pretends to be a group searching for the 'secrets of the illuminati' or the illuminati themselves. The BoA claims to be a contract agency, traveler's club, or accounting firm.

Recruits perform tasks that they know are illegal, or immoral, but they still generally believe that they're doing it for a reason.

Managers like me come above the recruits and do some actual organization, whether leading a crew to a street theater match or planning an attack. Generally, managers know everything about the syndicate except what its goal is. Most are greedy enough to accept that it isn't a morally motivated group. We also engage in communication with other Bureaus to co-ordinate our activites.

Different terms are used for different MOs.

The Theater has "Playwrights" and "Leading Roles". The moneybags have "Success Stories". The BoT(F) has "Research Directors". The BoT(C) has "Information Awareness Officers".The BoA has "Arrangers".

Finally, a rare few are promoted to the Supreme Council.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS (both colloquial and official):

Contract: A TI or Target. This is the official term. Used as "Enemy Contract" or "Planning Contract". Enemy contract is often referred to as "hostile contract".

CHERRYING: Getting out of a legal tangle through the syndicate's intervention.

NIPPLE-KISSER: a 'deviant' recruit, recruited because of a desire for sadism.

HOLY POLY: a 'religious' puritan recruit.

THE EFFECT: the fact that greedy and sadistic recruits are selected for managing jobs more readily than anybody with integrity.

FBG (fertile breeding ground): a crew of nipple-kissers,based on the idea that they are a fertile breeding ground for future managers.

MINCING: Luring a target into the legal system.

DEFACING: making faces at a contract, or otherwise intimidating them.

XXXXXX XXXXX SYNDROME: having a target so socially unpredictable and badly-off that you can't really think of many ways to make their life much worse.

RAINBOW SHOCK: the fact that you have to act nice to the rest of the public immediately after you've stopped defacing a contract.

BREAK-A-LEG JOB: a particularly hostile attack against a contract, or a plan which involves approaching the target and talking to them.

SAKURAKAI: a crew that is particularly overt in its stalking and gets caught too often. In other words, it has to be cherried all the time.

CREW: A unit of recruits and pawns under a single MO. In other words, a group of gang stalkers.

ZAPPERATING: using electronic devices to affect the healthof a target.

XXXXXXX XXXXX: rhyming slang. for big mistake, roughly means "we shouldn't have used this method".

UNCHAINED, UNCOVERED: authorities that are not pawns or recruits.

COVERED: A member of the public that is under the controlof the syndicate (as a pawn).

PUBLIC FACE: A recruit or manager's official life outside of the syndicate.

PRIVATE LIFE: a syndicate member's activities with the syndicate.

INCAPACITATOR: a device that affects the sleeping patterns/stress/fatigue/headaches of a contract.VOODOO: the means of acting hostile to a target (pointing,staring, etc).

LOMOSEXUAL: a syndicate member with a knack for photography. ("There's a lomo in every crew!")

NYUNKIA: (Not Your Usual Nipple-Kissing Incapacitator Asshole), the "yu" is pronounced as the "oo" in 'moon'. refers to a particuarly sadistic or deviant BoT(F) member.

BONER: another word for an enemy target.

YELLOW MEAT: criminals, as opposed to "concerned citizens". refers to criminals recruited into the syndicate.

XXXXXXXX (verb): to Xxxxxx somebody is to run them over or chase them with a car.

GIGOLO-BOP: to make sexual advances to an unattractive target, term mainly used by "nipple kisser" deviants.

CANCELLING: causing a miscarriage.

CRASH TEST DUMMY: a practice target.

HANG-JOB: the experience of having a target that one has enjoyed tormenting suddenly commit suicide. Term used mainly by nipple kissers/nyunkias.

COUSIN NANCY: a police unit sent to tail a crew and arrest them before an unchained police unit can do it.

XXXXXX NECKTIE: a death threat made with no intention of it being carried out.

GENERAL LEEING: randomly chasing after a target and threatening to rape them before immediately running away.

XXXX'S LAW: a police department that is thoroughly under the syndicate's control.

THE GOOD OLD GANG AT THE OFFICE: the Syndicate.

SHALLOW THROAT: see NYUNKIACLITWEED: see NYUNKIA

DEJA VOOOO: doing the same skit over and over again.

I hope this glossary is of help. If you have any questions, please reply”
2.15 Conclusions

In this chapter it was demonstrated how a perpetrating mechanism under the auspices of agenda 21 is legitimated and based on asymmetrical information diffusion about individuals from and to individuals by virtue of their participation in informal social groups how it attains to involve seemingly distantly related to the target social actors through group decision making that culminates in unfavorable outcomes for the target.

THIS POINT ALSO CONSTITUTES A KEY APORIA FOR ESTABLISHING THE CONNECTEDNESS AMONG SEEMINGLY DISTANT PERPETRATORS IN THE DOGMATIC LEGAL INTERPRETATION OF PHENOMENA OF MULTI-PARTICIPANT PERPETRATION AND INDIRECT PERPETRATION, as stressed by Claus Roxin, in his 2008 article in the Poinikologos Greek legal publication “Organizational dominance asa self-sufficient form of indirect perpetration”, where he stresses that “the fact that the direct perpetrator and the one issuing the command are in principle unknown to each other reduces the commonly agreed upon activity to an illusory perception, while proceeding through an abductive turn to render this very lack of [at least demonstrable or stated as such] lack of prior acquaintance between the two parties in the agreement and the existence of MULTIPLE PARTICIPANTS in this particular scheme of perpetration as A NECESSARY APODEICTIC CONDITION FOR GROUNDING INDIRECT PERPETRATION. Complementary to this conditional apodeictic statement and in isomorphic validity to its predicative potential I would like to add that the very SILENT and SECRET formation of these social groups and their members’ engagement in INDIRECT SPEECH lays bare the very insidious foundations of a yet holistic paradigm on social engineering, or, in legal terms, the INHERENT AND INDISPENSABLE ELEMENT OF DOLUS AS A PSYCHIC PRECONDITION FOR PARTICIPATION, WHICH LED ME TO COIN THE TERM“ONTOLOGICAL COMMUNITY OF DOLUS INDIRECTUS”, as will be further illustrated in chapter 4. At the same time it has been demonstrated how perfect synchronicity with a target’s movements and conditioning through dystopian experiential loops is enabled by audiovisual surveillance technology, which is owned and operated by secret services, how distinctive social actor typologies participate in common in activities of direct perpetration, the reasons why this phenomenon does not constitute a clear case of conspiracy, but a multi-participant multi-act novel and exceptional type of co-perpetration and indirect perpetration, as will be further dicsussed in Chapter 4.

In summary, my targeting case (just like similar cases in the relevant literature) constitutes a dystopian phenomenon of socio-cybernetics and social constructivism, as an inverse reflection and logically validating on the inverse the utopian vision of agenda 21 for microsocial engineering
An lengthy appendix follows this.
Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect."

User avatar
carpe verum
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:45 pm

Re: Targeted Individuals

Post by carpe verum » Mon Apr 03, 2017 2:28 pm

Continued:
CHAPTER 3 – The epistemological/ontological/pragmatic framework for making sense of targeting in the context of the new communitarian ethos enforced through agenda 21

Attempts have already been made by targeted individuals at synthesizing their experiences under particular experiential categories in an attempt to descriptively encapsulate their lived reality. What is still lacking in the already vast literature, mainly consisting of individual stories and sparse allegations on the particular instances of the silent massacre phenomenon, is a set of interpretive principles that would enhance sense making and would enable outsiders to recognize the implications of this phenomenon both for the individuals concerned as well as for what is revealed through these actions about the members of the community that is carrying them out.The need for approaching the silent massacre phenomenon through an epistemological interpretive model with the employment of an acute abductive rationale surfaces in the face of its novelty and the new ethos (coupled with a new lingo and new causal patterns among social actors and actions)predicated thereupon.
3.1 Habermas theory of pragmatics of social interaction: Community of rational/disinterested or irrational/interested agents and by implication of social networks as constellations of social agents? Talking non-sense may be of limited truth, but of amplified relational validity

Why should we assume phenomenology and its offshoots as the main interpretive framework for making sense of and mapping the targeting phenomenon?“It is no accident that the most influential constitutive social theory in contemporary social sociology is based on the work of Husserl . For Husserl’s phenomenology is better suited than Kant’s transcendental philosophy to expanding the constitutive theory of knowledge into a theory of society. First, Husserl differs from Kant through his recourse to the lifeworld as the level in which the theory of knowledge is grounded. Second, he uses the concept of constitution in a descriptive manner ”.

The quality of a perceived phenomenon or its being perceived as such and such is a product of meaningful negotiation on behalf of community members that predicate qualia of a phenomenon“Inter-subjectively communalized experience is expressed in symbolic systems, especially natural language , in which accumulated knowledge is pregiven to the individual subject as cultural tradition”

Thus, it is within the provinces of a community (either scientific or lay) that agreement as to which qualia will be ascribed to a phenomenon is reached, either a priori, based on the uncritical endorsement of a pre-phenomenological giveness or a posteriori, as an outcome of synthesizing information into concepts of empirical understanding.

“Husserl makes us realize that Kant naively took as his starting point the object domain of physics and failed to see that scientific theories of this type are produced in a community of investigators (Peirce)”

In a communitarian setting or regime, reduction of the decision making processes that are socially embedded to natural processes constitutes an attempt to mask power plays through transcendental leap of faith. Social phenomenology and its offshoots allows us to discern how agreement about the lifeworld is reached both among members of scientific and lay communities,thus its scope is also meta-epistemic. In legal terms, it also allows us to discern and justify the admissibility of an expansionist approach in discerning remote causes in a criminal activity. “Every society that we conceive of as a meaningfully structured system of life has an immanent relation to truth. For the reality of meaning structures is based on the peculiar facticity of claims to validity”

This cryptic remark marks a distinction between disinterested truth claims or claims about the truth value of phenomena and pragmatic truth claims, hence being open to legitimacy questions.

“Husserl introduces his theory of truth without further justification. He considers it simply the principle of all principles that everything originally offered to us in intuition is to be accepted simply as what it is presented as being.. However, “the lifeworld as a whole is also posited. For the meaning structures that constitute the lifeworld exist only in the manifold of validity claims inherent in them”. THIS IS EQUIVALENT TO THE WELL KNOWN FACT IN LAW THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AXIOLOGICAL JUDGMENTS AND CLAIMS TO TRUTH. But what kind of ontological community conditions agreement among social actors on the features of phenomena or what is it that I know pre phenomenologically about another that allows me to discern sameness to myself?

«… Husserl tries to make the case that the meaning of the appresentation of the other’s inner life unproblematically gives rise to the community of monads” But is the amplification of the Cartesian solipsistic paradigm sufficient ground for recognizing another as same to myself regarding his meriting to participate in the same network? Not at all, as such foundational statements beg the same questions as the solipsistic paradigm. It is through the participation in a common discourse that I am capable of recognizing him as similar to myself and not through an “appresentation of his psychic inner life”

“Unlike spatial perspectives , they can be interchanged and objectified as perspectives of a common world only on the assumption of the complete reciprocity of all participating subjects. PHYSICAL SPACE IS REPLACED BY SOCIAL SPACE. ALFRED SCHUTZ DISCERNED THIS WEAKNESS: THE GENERATION OF INTERSUBJECTIVELY COMMUNALIZED EXPERIENCE WHICH IS IDENTICAL FOR ME AND ALL OTHERS CANNOT BE MADE PLAUSIBLE B ASSUMING AS THE STARTING POINT THE NOTION OF A TRANSCENDENTAL EGO.EXPERIENCE THAT IS INTER-SUBJECTIVELY COMMUNALIZED IN THE STRICT SENSE CANNOT BE CONCEIVED WITHOUT THE CONCEPT OF MEANING THAT IS COMMUNICATED AND SHARED BY DIFFERENT SUBJECTS. IDENTICAL MEANINGS ARE NOT FORMED IN THE INTENTIONAL STRUCTURE OF A SOLITARY SUBJECT THAT CONFRONTS ITS WORLD INISOLATION. FOR MEANING TO BE IDENTICAL IN ANY INTELLIGIBLE SENSE THEY MUST HAVE THE SAME VALIDITY FOR DIFFERENT SUBJECTS. TO ACCOUNT FOR THE IDENTITY OF SEMANTIC CONVENTIONS WITTGENSTEIN PROPOSED THE MODEL OF A RULE THAT AT LEAST TWO SUBJECTS MUST BE ABLE TO FOLLOW. Mead recommends the model of a role that establishes reciprocally INTERCHANGEABLE EXPECTATIONS ABOUT BEHAVIOR FOR AT LEAST TWO SUBJECTS”.

Habermas seeks to reinstate the epistemological validity of the concept of intentionality as a dispositional state that allows interlocutors who participate in a language game to agree onits rule. Now, this intentionality is tantamount to the legally accepted notion of motive behind an action, as a mental disposition that is conducive towards a particular action. The intended action in the exclusionary language games is the maintenance of a common lingo or the sum of rules that enable gamers to make sense of their mutual situation. By positing a person situated in the same social milieu as potentially transgressing the rules of the language games , through the enactment of which they affirm intersubjectively their shared reality, they attain to maintain stability and self sameness.Thus, the motive is dispositionally legitimated, while a tacit agreement on the validity of the motive as conducive to the setting in motion of exclusionary mechanisms affords to maintain the communitarian bond among members of a discursive community

“Intentions are meaningfully structured expectations that are oriented to identical meanings and whose content can be understood”. As a result interpretive social analysis does not consist of delving into the psyches of individuals but of deciphering the public world of culture which consists of structures of signification. This involves attention not to the experience of social agents hidden in the inner recesses of their minds but to the concrete actions, relations, and objects of particular people in particular places.

A crucial conceptual distinction that may allow us to grasp the epistemological difference between formal logic and pragmatic requirements that must be met in order to ascribe validity to a string of statements about facts is between “truth value” and “doxic positing” *the latter instituted by Husserl. Essentially, the truth value of a statement consists in the similarity of doxic positings on behalf of a linguistic/pragmatic community or the adoption and diffusion of a univocal rhetoric about states of affairs and others. There is nothing strictly physical or metaphysical about positings, save for pragmatic agreement.

IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LINGUISATIC TURN AND ACCORDING TO WIITGENSTEIN “TO UNDERSTAND AN INTENTION IS TO UNDERSTAND THE ROLE OF A SENTENCE IN A LINGUISTIC SYSTEM. BUT IN WHAT WAY CAN WE SPEAK HERE OF A SYSTEM OF LANGUAGE?

What is the difference between rules of language games (and by extension rules of discursive formations alongside paradigmatic and syntagmatic axes) and rules of grammar?

“The former encompasses the rules according to which situations of possible mutual understandings are brought about.
The structure of a language game determines how I can use sentences in utterances that can be subject to consensus
The competence that I acquire in learning a rule of a game or a grammatical rule is a generative capacity.” Language games materialize as speech acts.and it is through engagement in speech acts that the horizon of a commonly shared language surfaces. Therefore, what is deemed to be valid in a communicative/communitarian inter-subjective encounter is the use of a speech act as language game and not necessarily the semantic content that slips underneath the speech act.

“These validity claims that a speaker raises by performing speech acts ground intersubjective relations, that is, the facticity of social facts”, AND THE REASON WHY THIS CLASS OF FACTS APPEARS IN THE SOCIAL SPACE AS AGAINST NATURAL SPACE, THAT IS SPACE PRIOR TO BEING COLONIZED BY A PRAGMATIC/SEMANTIC NEXUS AND DEVOID OF ANY COLLECTIVELY INTENTIONAL APPROPRIATION OF ITS COORDINATES.

“The phenomenological attempt to elucidate the universal structures of the lifeworld returns in the form of an attempt in the philosophy of language to discover and reconstruct the universal structures of the communicative form of life in the universal pragmatics of language games” “The key phenomenon that a universal pragmatics must explain is the peculiar reflexivity of natural languages.

“How does the above stated hypothesis of language or discursive games as affording to effect communal bonds in situated discourse materialize in the context of universal pragmatics? As Habermas notes, by shifting the end of communication from simply establishing a common understanding of objects or states of affairs to effecting an inter-subjective relationship
.. In other words, it is by virtue of social actors being related in social networks that doxic positings about others come to pass as such and such. There is nothing inherent in a person that causes the doxic positing, it is rather a matter of appropriating another person qua object of collective intentionality through doxic positings that it appears in such and such a manner.Does this mean that another person is “monadically irresponsible”? Not to the extent that it has participated consciously and willingly in the formation of collectively intentioned doxic positings.Otherwise yes.

“The level of communication that is the end in one case is made into a means in the other. In cognitive language the use of propositional contents are the topic. But communicative use mentions propositional contents only in order to ESTABLISH PERFORMATIVELY an inter-subjective relation between speakers-hearers”. Therefore the pragmatic aspect of communicative action is primarily relational ,that is as a media res for establishing relationship with others in a context of collective intentionality, while the content of the propositions is of secondary value.By analogy, the very fact that agenda 21 is so open in terms of potential “topics” and “actions” is an attestation to the primarily relational “motive” behind the “blueprint”, where from stems the mandate to immerse in social networks or engage in communicative or, rather, COMMUNITARIAN action.

“The correct use of the denotative system [MY NOTE: OR THE ASCRIPTION OF PREDICATESTO PERSONS AND STATES OF AFFAIRS] seems to depend on integrating language with cognitive schemata [MY NOTE: OR SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS, cf MOSCOVICI, LEWIN AND MEAD] on the one hand and types of action on the other” In short, the motive behind the use of a speech act consists in the activation of a cognitive schema towards the attainment of a goal.

Having thus far established that the primary purpose of the use of speech acts against rules determining the ramificatory potential of language games consists in the attainment of relationships among communicative community members, Habermas continues with exposing the five classes of speech acts according to the paradigm of universal pragmatics (pp82-85)

Consensus about the states of affairs and persons in a communicative situation depends on using the above classes of cultural pragmatics.

THE PROBLEM IN THE SUGGESTED CLASSIFICATORY SYSTEM IS THAT IT IS QUESTION BEGGING INSOFAR AS IT PURPORTS TO ESTABLISH THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL STATUS OF THE CATEGORIES AND THEN INFERENTIALLY VALIDATE THE EXISTENCE OF A COMMUNITY OF RATIONAL AGENTS INSOFAR AS EVERY SPEECH ACT FALLS UNDER ONE OF THE SUGGESTED UNIVERSAL PRAGMATICS CATEGORIES.IN PRACTICE, THE EMPLOYMENT OF A TYPOLOGY OF SPEECH ACTS BY A COMMUNICATIVE AGENT DOES NOT IMPLY NECESSARILY ITS CORRECT USE THAT IS ITS FULLY ADEQUATE TO THE TYPOLOGY CORRESPONDENCE, WHICH BREACHES THE SERIOUSNESS OR SINCERETY CONDITIONAL. THIS BREACH IS NOT NECESSARILY SELF REFLEXIVE, BUT MAY TURN UP IN THE COURSE OF NATURAL LANGUAGE USE. THUS RECOGNITION OF THE USE OF A SPEECH ACT TYPOLOGY COMES EX POST FACTO AND ONCE UNIVERSAL PRAGMATICS CONDITIONALS HAVE BEEN MET. BUT THIS RESTS WITH THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE NATURAL LANGUAGE USE PREDICAMENT BY THE UNIVERSAL PRAGMATICIST AND CERTAINLY DOES NOT REFLECT THE FULL DISPOSITIONAL SPECTRUM OF THE INTERLOCUTORS.THUS, CONSENSUS AS THE OUTCOME OF A COMMUNICATIVE RELATIONSHIP ON THE OCCASION OF THE EMPLOYMENT OF A SET OF SPEECH ACTS DOES NOT NECESSARILY AND FULLY ADEQUATELY REFLECT THE COMMON INTENTIONALITY AND THE PHENOMENA TOWARDS WHICH THE SPEECH ACTS ARE ORIENTED , BUT TO A LATENT NEED FOR REACHING CONSENSUS, WHICH IMPLIES THAT IT IS NOT FULLY RATIONAL,IT IS CONSENSUAL, IT IS CONVENTIONALIST , IT IS COHERENTIST, BUT THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT IT IS RATIONAL , IN TERMS OF FORMAL LOGIC. IT IS INSTRUMENTALLY RATIONAL, BUT THIS BEGS ANOTHER QUESTION AS TO THE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRUTH SEEKING PROCESS AND THE CONDITIONALS THAT HAVE BEEN USED, EITHER IMPLICITLY OR EXPLICITLY.

Habermas recognizes the risk of reaching an illusory consensus and attempts to furnish valid justificatory grounds through abductive heuristic mechanisms, that is by excluding certain agents on the grounds of idiocy, non expertise (even though recognizing the inherent conceptual conflict in the employment of these terms) in short of not holding competency traits. This process by default leads to infinite regress , while laying open the frailty of the rational consensus theory. Evidently, methodological issues are more pertinent in resolving validity issues and the choice of methodology is purely an issue of power relationships and not a disinterestedly epistemic one.

ΤΗΕ FOLLOWING CONDITIONAL STATEMENT AS A WAY-OUT OF THE “ILLUSORY CONSENSUS” APORIA THAT IS GENERATED FROM THE IDEAL SPEECH COMMUNITY HYPOTHESIS SIMPLY AFFIRMS THE UTOPIAN CHARACTER OF THE CULTURAL PRAGMATICS PERSPECTIVE:

“Only if there is a symmetrical distribution the opportunities for all possible participants to choose and perform speech acts does the structure of communication itself produce no constraints” (p98)

HOWEVER, ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND DISTRIBUTION TO SOCIAL ACTORS IS BY DEFAULT ASYMMETRICAL.

«For the previous definitions do not by themselves guarantee that interlocutors not merely imagine themselves to be engaged in a discourse while they are in fact trapped in communication subject to coercion…

INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH THE IDEAL SPEECH SITUATION REQUIRES DETERMINATIONS THAT REFER DIRECTLY TO HOW CONTEXTS OF INTERACTION ARE ORGANIZED AND ONLY INDIRECTLY TO DISCOURSES” (p98) THIS CONDITIONAL IS MORE PLAUSIBLE THAN MERELY ASSUMING AN EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION (WHICH OF COURSE IS DEVOID OF VALUE JUDGMENTS) AS IT POINTS OUT TO THE NECESSITY OF DESCRIBING CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AS ENABLERS (OR INHIBITORS) FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF MEETING THE UNIVERSAL PRAGMATICS SPEECH ACTS CONDITIONALS (cf VAN DIJK, GOFFMAN ON ASYLUM DISCOURSE, FOUCAULT ON INSTITUTIONAL DISCOURSES etc)

Irrespective of the technical complexities regarding the details of the universal pragmatics perspective (eg the speech acts classificatory system), it is of paramount interpretive importance in that it opens up the following areas of research/potential criticism of inter-subjective communicative action in social networks as processes of rational decision making about states of affairs and others:

1.Is the discourse as horizon wherein prephenomenological relationships among social networks members are maintained, uncritically given and/or endorsed, that is devoid of pragmatic interests? (and the same applies to implicit rules for language games and speech acts)

2.If relationship among members is a prephenomenological or ontological condition for consensus and insofar as relationship is attained through paralinguistic means either over and above the use of speech acts or in tandem with speech acts, then isn’t consensus predicated of irrational “membership criteria”? Validity claims are over determined by relationship structures, which ground collective doxic positings and by virtue of which X is predicated of P and motive for predication conflates with collective intentionality for appropriating a person qua part of the collective’s lifeworld through cognitive schemata. Insofar as intentionality is prephenomenological causality or an ontological directedness, yet filled prephenomenologically with meaning,where from stems the importance of cognitive schemata, we may infer that cognitive schemata are causally connected with doxic positings through their very merit of giving directions to collective intentionality- these directions will be further elucidated by recourse to the notions of “scripts” and “social episodes” or, in Habermas terms, “how the context of interaction is organized” and how the target’s empirical reality is fabricated with the aid of targeting methods and audio visual surveillance

3.Insofar as (2) holds cognitive schemata constitute irrational causes for appropriating a person or an object in the lifeworld through doxic positings

4.Even if (2) and (3) were not the case, the perspective assumes that the “sincerity” conditional is used in all communicative exchanges, which is hardly the case in real settings

5.(4) is further aggravated by the fact that the asymmetry of information and decision making power among members in social networks by default waives the existence of a speech community of rational agents and/or a rational and disinterested process of decision making about states of affairs and others among social actors

6.Therefore, talking non-sense and situating within language games a target may be of paramount relational activity among speech community members, but it is criminally causative of embedding a target in a collective intentionality [by analogy to the way whereby during a criminal case process hearings a suspect is implicated in the criminalization procedure merely by being engaged in the process mechanism- see relevant article from Poinikologos] albeit in an extrajudiciary manner, which affirms, on an ontological level, one of Roxin’s objective conditionals for the existence of indirect perpetration in the context of organized power mechanisms

Unfortunately, the unaccounted for “social relationships” and “contexts of interaction” in Habermas’ theory of pragmatics of social interaction constitute key ontological aspects in multi-participant crimes.

N. Bitzilekis notes that ”Real world legal precedents are embedded in a complex jurisprudential context that includes the level and jurisdiction of the prior court, the procedural posture of the prior case (ie what formal claim or motion was before the court), and the influence of dissenting opinions. Legal precedents are also embedded in a political context, where competing policies and values are balanced by the courts, and where legal doctrines evolve to accommodate new social and economic realities”. “

Bitzilekis’ main arguments consist in the following:

-The ontological dimension of social networking and the ontology of relationships as fundamental modes whereby social meaning is ascribed to both humans and objects may not be unaccounted for by a judge and criminal law

-Insofar as a crime is ontologically embedded in a network of social relationships its sense and meaning are always already socially mediated

-The degree of involvement (either as solicitor of an act, or motivator or plain participant) of amember of a social network and his contribution in a causal chain leading up to a criminal incident is not materially reflected in criminal law up until the point where that involvement has tactile impact on an individual One of the most important “middle terms” grounding the pragmatics of social interaction is“cognitive schemata” or social representations. In the next section the implications of the notion inthe context of targeting activities is further qualified.
3.2 Social representations as a mechanism for fabricating and filtering information about targeted individuals: between epistemological fallacies and lay discourse perceptual inertia lies the silent legitimation of information as the outcome of social networks members decision making

The truth finding procedure behind random allegations and defamatory information stemming from social networks participants as “the cycle of information”, which, as already quoted from the Handbook of Intelligence studies, is amply used by secret services, is a double-bind situation for targeted individuals. Certainly in cases of involvement in criminal activities it is a useful method in fact finding. However, in the context of using this method for fabricating social representations about targets who have been selected as instantiations of the Christological paradigm or as arche signifiers for the new communitarian ethos of dolus indirectus legitimated by agenda 21 the cycle of information constitutes part of a well thought out and pre-planned case of attempted murder (personal, professional, and physical). S.Moscovici, the founder of the theory of social representations, explains the interpretively systemic function of social representations in every human being. In a traditional epistemological model as laid out by various philosophers throughout the centuries,what always emerges as a priority is an account or a systemic topography of how fundamental notions of perception, stimuli, memory, imagination cohere and interact in the formation of representations. In social theory, and given the precedence of intersubjective paradigms, this priority shifts to the provision of explanations as to how the validity of information is negotiated through background assumptions. Moscovici’s use of social representations as embedded schemata between perception and memory affords to elucidate the background assumptions or information constellations that are embedded in social actors’ empirical understanding and help filter new perceptual stimuli about the targeted individual according to information that has been stocked about him in memory. The procedure is taxonomical insofar as stimuli about the target are primarily tied up to a generic interpretive schema , such as the category of “exclusion”. Hence, the target is by definition and by default perceived of as partaking of a specific interpretative schema.Not only do social representations as interpretive schemata allow us to draw uncritical inferences about others , but they mediate in a causal chain as the third term uniting outcomes and causes,therefore acting as sufficient grounds for drawing judgments about the series of events or as efficient causes of events and by virtue of being legitimated by a “commonly shared and agreed upon interpretive schema” to point to certain individuals as being responsible for setting in motion a series of events or certain individuals of which a series of events are predicated as causal agents.

Thus, the series of predicating causality shifts from a primary state of affairs such as agreement among social network participants about the features or attributes of an interpretive schema, which agreement functioned as the causa prima [or the PRIMUS in terms of the locus of decision making responsibility for a criminal activity] of the schema’s extrajudiciary formation and predication of the targeted individual, to the SECUNDUS, for whom the schema functions as causa efficiens for engaging in a targeting incident and through a post-incident agreement between PRIMUS and SECUNDUS back to the target in an attempt to cover up their initial PARTAKING OF THE COMMON INTERPRETIVE SCHEMA. What recedes in the background is the group of social network participants who decided to coin this schema and what remains is the schema as such,thus waiving the remote causality that rests with the group decision making and the relative decision making authority of certain individuals within that network. Thus, incidents whose features are filtered or interpreted by virtue of and on the occasion of schemata constitute scripts (or episodes as I shall demonstrate in due course by allusion to Van Dijk’s cultural pragmatics), as Graumann and Sommer point out, which aim at reinscribing in memory a prior situation and to point to an adequate interpretive comportment in the current situation”. But what adequacy means and how is it established? It is established as an one-to-one referential correspondence to the features of the targeted individual qua social representation. But insofar as the social representation was coined by participants in social networks it is a matter of convention, thus what is confirmed in an episode as a causal nexus involving the target and situational factors is the convention of a social representation. The very scripting or fabrication of incidents by secret services is an attempt to perpetuate the social representation as communal bond among social networks participants through a conventionalist or coherenitist truth paradigm.Interestingly, and this is another area of discursive complicity amongst institutional agents in organized mechanisms of power, one of the “symptoms” of the yet non existent illness of schizophrenia or the manufactured “illness” of schizophrenia is an attempt on behalf of the “ill”person to establish a relationship among remotely related phenomena. Despite the utterly unfounded claim of this pseudo scientific axiom, which if it held true then all philosophers would be schizophrenic, it is self defeasible for the very community of psychologists /psychiatrists. The below quote from Moscovici is a striking attestation of the above claim:

Not only the very “we” of a community of self professed “scientists” practice what they preach against, but lay bare the complicity of POWER MECHANISMS as responsible for deciding WHO IS ENTITLED to draw relationships AMONG WHAT PHENOMENA and MOREOVER BY WHAT METHOD. Not only is this statement unconstitutional , but it violates all methodological innovations in hard and soft sciences. Moreover, it displays how institutional mechanisms avert civilians from discovering CAUSAL CHAINS that may lead to revelations about HIDDEN POWER MECHANISMS and in this case REVEALING THE MECHANISMS of the psycho-pharmaceutical complex is a PERFECT OCCASION for POLITICAL PSYCHIATRY. In strictly epistemological terms, psychoanalysis as a far more elaborate and advanced social science than institutional psychiatry in establishing relationships among phenomena should by default be WITCHUNTED, which it is, based on the ongoing conflicts among psychiatry and psychoanalysis. Also, by analogy to journalists’ investigations and police/secret services’ investigations, where by default micro and macro phenomena are intertwined as operational hypotheses in truth finding, who legitimates their methodological endeavors? Are they schizophrenic? According to DSM, yes, but who would dare tag them as such? Another clear case of institutional complicity. In my case, parts of my intellectual property have been appropriated (in at least two demonstrable instances) by other self proclaimed “scientists”. Isn’t there a clear motive on behalf of indirect institutional perpetrators to legitimate pejorative judgments against me in the face of cases of intellectual property theft?

Not only there is a clear case of discursive complicity, but what is silently legitimated is the existence of perceptual inertia on behalf of lay people , which in itself acts as an enabler of the perpetuation of the targeting phenomenon, which is what social psychologist Ross called a“fundamental flaw”. Thus, not only institutional mechanisms act complicitly to social representations fabricated of the target through participants in social networks with demonstrable motives, but in an attempt to “cover up” their ulterior motives they enhance the complexity of the social context by encouraging to disseminate the target to such an extent, as to waive the possibility of discerning the remote cause that triggered the dissemination of the target qua socia representation, which is clearly facilitated by common people’s perceptual inertia and by the sheer proclivity to engage in Ross’s “fundamental flaw”, that is univocally ascribing causality to the target by disregarding circumstantial evidence or counter evidence. As the below passage suggests, this mode of treatment is false from the perspective of social psychology as it disregards the “societal force fields” that intervene in the formation of causal chains.

And yet this “falsity” or this “fundamental flaw” constitutes the very basis of inherentist / solipsistic paradigms, which have gained institutional currency not thanks to a discursive superiority (which is not provable) but to their acting complicitly in covering up the complexity of the process of the formation of social representations through social networks and the implicit power play inherent thereto. Hence, instead of investigating the complex mechanisms of information diffusion and perceptions management, the solution that is opted for is the reduction of the complexity of the target by blocking his synapses with psychiatric drugs, thus maintaining the balance of the indirect system of perpetration and legitimating scapegoatism and the silent massacre phenomenon.

Moscovici concludes with a note on the methodological process whereby the formation of social representations may be accounted for, which amounts to investigating the social groups through which they emerge and the “Lingos” that shape the intersubjective reality of such social formations,in line with secret societies.

“More complex sign languages used for secrecy are those employed by religious cults or secret societies where ritual codes are meant to manipulate problematic social relationships between ‘insiders’ vs. ‘outsiders “

“The concerned subject matter is cognitive systems with a particular rationale and language and theories geared towards the exploration and taxonomical categorization of their reality”

The way causal patterns and causal chains are embedded in lay discourse is largely through contiguity among phenomena. The process is similarly fallacious to reducing a statistical correlation to a status of causality between the observed phenomena and the judgments of empirical understanding made about this relationship of contiguity. And yet, the way causal statements on contiguously related phenomena and the concomitant observations about them assume common currency is through the phenomenon of “illusory correlation”. It is through this phenomenon,coupled with the above mentioned perceptual inertia , that social representations and interpretive schemata crystallize as such.

“The particular attraction of the illusory correlations effect has been in the explanation of the formulation and development of stereotypes of minorities, largely because minority members are held to be attention grabbing”

As above noted, perceptual inertia is a complexity reduction heuristic intuitively employed in ordinary settings. Again, it is a double-bind insofar as it also functions as an enabler in criminally diffusing information passed among social network members about targets.”If stereotypes are seen as energy-saving devices involving erroneous perceptions of people as group members rather than as individuals, then an account of stereotype formation as a process of illusory correlation is quite satisfactory.” In experimental settings, “differential attention toward infrequent events was predictive of illusory correlation”. which amounts to the sociological phenomenon of background expectations as grounds of predictability about the emergence of certain phenomena.

Therefore, as demonstrated, social representations by default function as reductionist mechanisms that allow us to make sense of states of affairs and others through background assumptions.Perceptual inertia and illusory correlations constitute indispensable mechanisms for the fabrication,diffusion and uncritical endorsement about others. At the same time, they constitute intersubjective dispositional enablers for the perpetuation of “scripts” that have been coined by powerful agents in social networks about targets. Therefore the social representations that are predicated of targets function as social glue among communitarian members or silent underpinnings of their mythic reality, pointing , on an ontological level, not merely to the shared features of social networks, but on the inverse to the method whereby they have come to pass qua social constellations.

This exploratory endeavor to the formation process of social networks by pointing through the inverse to the situational aspects of information diffusion and social representations crystallization among social actors is attainable by the application of cultural pragmatics and ethno-methodology
3.3 Social representations or cognitive/interpretive schemata in action: Accounting for the blind spots in Habermas’ theory of the pragmatics of social interaction by demonstrating how fabricated “social contexts”, “social situations”, “scripts” and “social episodes”shape the hyperreal world of a target

What I shall demonstrate is that the essential motivating contribution of animus socii and animusauctoris rests with the provision of the necessary “context” [AS CUM-TEXT or THE NECESSARY ONTOLOGICAL CONDITIONALS THAT COME ALONGSIDE INDIVIDUAL NARRATIVES ABOUT THE TARGET] to participants, wherein their decision to participate in targeting activities is situated, irrespective of particular motives of direct perpetrators, which do not necessarily coincide with the indirect perpetrators’ ulterior motive(s) and why contexts are instances of cultural pragmatics rather than disinterested judgmental frameworks animating social actors.

Van Dijk’s recent work Society and Discourse (2009), just like Habermas ‘ theory of communicative action and Garfinkel’s ethnο-methodological heritage are instrumental in operationalizing my interpretive approach to the reasons for and the methods whereby targeting activities are carried out. Not only they constitute well known and valid paradigms in social theory, but moreover, thanks to their multidimensional scope they afford to shed light on the multiact, multiparticipant,exceptional type of criminal activity at stake, as against inherentist paradigms or deterministic paradigms starting with macrostructures and while working top down attempting to demonstrate their normative inscription in social actors’ decisions and notions of selfhood. The aforementioned perspectives’ commonality that rests with a “co-evolving intersubectivity” paradigm are more relevant as micro-sociological approaches to discerning how information about individuals forms into collectively shared social representations through social networking and how daily situations are manufactured around the target with view to maintaining social networks’ bonds in participants’ goal directed actions, which goals or motives are multilayered, ranging from affirming group sanctioned selfhood through participation in targeting activities, affirming core self hood through projecting self-perceived negative traits to a target, reaping material benefits by enacting a role in an situationally located organizational structure of perpetration, while through collective action maintaining inter social networks cohesion (the incidence of multilayered motives).

Starting with a definition of “social contexts” [and continuing from where Habermas’ analys is stopped], Van Dijk stresses that “contexts as ongoing mental models of communicative situations are obviously the result of many processes of social understanding, involving the attribution of social identities, roles, intentions, purposes and goals to social actors, the reduction of complex information about social actors through stereotyping, schema-formation, heuristics, biases”. The shaping of the social context about the target is, according to Bitzilekis’ terms, the causa remotabehind targeting social situations. Its spatio-temporal remoteness and essential hiddeness waives its status as demonstrable sufficient cause or imbued motive to participants’ engagement inparticular targeting activities. However, social situations are demonstrably existent, hence there must be a causa remota or several causae remotae, whose situatedness is even more difficult to discern due to the horizontal networking paradigm over vertical networking, as proven.Now, social situations are embedded within social context. or constitute instantiations of the social context or “variations on a theme”. This point is crucial in accounting for how flagging and tagging is created through directed conversations, street theater, staged accidents and the rest well known targeting techniques. In fact, the social cybernetics notion of dynamically co-evolving multi-agent normative ecosystems (eg the bottom-up approach) is a quasi-myth, insofar as the goal is reduction of complexity (for targeted individuals) and the application of control sanctions in case a priori conceived flagging is not adhered to. This is facilitated by the application of reductionist models, eg those that draw on cognitivism and offshoots.“

Situations have goals, and they are not properties of the actors, as would be the case for motivations” (p36). This distinction between a cognitive-inherentist perspective and a situationalist/social interactionist one is important in making sense of the enactment of roles on behalf of perpetrators in situations of staged conflict-eg gaslighting, which does not reflect, at least not necessarily, embedded traits of participants’ core self, but of the situational self, which also waives a stricto sensu motive behind an act of perpetration. The chain from remote to sufficient cause for perpetration and why the linkage between situational participation on behalf of alternating participants and remote causes resting with indirect perpetrators is seemingly broken, hence why, based on the theory of the equivalence of terms IT MIGHT SEEM to an external judge that discreet phenomena are not directly related is due to the fact that targeting situations constitute a matter of multiple, composite causality, where (i) alternating direct participants and (ii) indirect perpetrators as “selves” and motives as “reasons for participating” for (i) and (ii)respectively rest with different referential planes not only between (i) and (ii)- which in itself does not waive the indirect perpetration hypothesis insofar as both participate and are motivated by a causa finalis, yet differ in terms of causae efficiens- but also among indirect perpetrators themselves and among direct participants themselves and throughout time insofar as the very structure of social networks changes. What remains the same throughout goal oriented situations is the modality of their staging and their causa finalis,that is the extinction of the target.

In terms of modality, what evidences itself as a micro-structural element across all fabricated social situations is an overarching motive of “keeping the target within the contextual loop of social representations” and the latent and shifting interaction rules, such as the use of indirect speech and the avoidance of causing bodily harm [with striking exceptions as demonstrated in my allegations in Chapter 4]. Language games, such as “playback” of the target’s prior movements inside and outside his home constitute enactments of the above stated motive and attestations of prior and latent agreement on behalf of participating social actors in fabricated social situations about the exclusionary features that are predicated of the actor. Coupled with the employment of anew lingo [consisting of both linguistic signifiers and corporeal pragmatic/proto-semiotic signs] as affirmative of the communitarian ethos, and, in Wittgensteinian terms, as a “form of life”, by inversion the target is employed as a zero limit (in Barthe’s terms) of collective narratology or the tain of a collectively reflective mirror (in Derrida’s terms).

Thus, coming back to Bitzileki’s argument,the admissibility of motive(s) for participants and indirect perpetrators respectively does not reststricto sensu, or at least exhaustively, with the appropriation and redistribution of material things {in terms of dogmatic law and applied legal practice, such as one’s house, kitchen table and other items of value, as well as one’s career prospects), but PRIMARILY, FOUNDATIONALLY and over-archingly with the ontological dimension underpinning as the horizon for appropriation of ontic elements, that is with the maintenance of the relationships among social actors in social networks.Thus, the target functions on the inverse as a ground of legitimacy for a nexus of social relationships,albeit informally and as a “lacuna” in the center of social networks that must be “closed” or ritually annihilated [in terms of Collins’ “interaction ritual chains”] as a systemic sacrifice celebrating the cohesion among group members. The legal technicalities and formal objective/subjective conditionals for affirming this ulterior motive on behalf of a multiparticipant system of indirect perpetration in the context of organized institutional mechanisms and public/private third realm alliances will be proven in Chapter 4 to be operative in open system dynamics, such as, and based on Roxin;s theory, subjectively (i) not-knowingness among multiple participants (ii) participant motive not necessarily the same with the solicitor of the act, objectively (i) alternating direct perpetrators (ii) extrajudicial system conferring decision based on informal referenda and the precedent of similarly covertly operating secret societies, such as freemasonry(iii) institutional mechanisms’ complicity, where institutional agents act as ex post facto legitimators of prior made decisions through the extra judicial system of informal social networks.

“Semantics and pragmatics overlap in this case, because the referents of such expressions are part of the communicative situation” (p48) “Places do not simply constitute physical attributes of buildings etc, but social milieus generated through group interaction” (p49) and time is sociocognitive time that is “time that participants jointly produce” (p61) “Overall, the Setting provides the scene of action, sets temporal and spatial constraints that allow social coordination of social interaction in the first place, helps organize the placement and development of the current action and provides a pragmatic time frame for the relative semantics of the events and action stalked or written about as well as the conditions of speech acts” (p68), wherein pragmatic schematics or the enactment of shared schemata and social representations are enacted.Therefore, in an already loaded social milieu of pre-given time and pre-given space, the impressions of the target are not created in the social situation, but rather the text [or the narrative fabricated and predicated of the target] comes to life through the contextual circumstances that circumscribe the speech acts. Hence, instead of inferential extrapolation we are confronted with a situation of meaning infusion through the preconceived, preplanned, premeditated staging of performative acts or social episodes. Thus, as previously stressed, it is a clear case of reenactment of universal concepts or flags through their instantiation in particular circumstances. Diachronic analysis of the common elements transpiercing the disparate instantiations may yield a robust interpretive account into the stage setting phenomenon of everyday rituals of exclusion and affirmation, or the ways whereby the mythic identity of social collectives is maintained., thus pointing to the fabricated character of a target’s reality and by implication to the motives behind the fabrications as the subjective conditions of a premeditated murder attempt. The ritualistic aspect of social situations, social episodes and scripts becomes evident through their encoding in cultural patterns by disciplines and scholars in social/cultural anthropology and with the employment of ethno-methodological/ethnographic methods, such as participant observation. One of the primary tasks of social anthropology is to make sense of rituals and practices that are enacted by group members as part of forming communal bonds. In the majority of the primitive social collectives that have been explored by social anthropologists, interpretive categories, such as animism and totemism have been coined in an attempt to make sense of the teleological framework in which ritual practices are embedded. Complementary to the quest for a rationale behind seemingly irrational practices, individual practices of primitive clans and groups have been
extensively recorded as part of mapping out the culturally sanctioned practices and the rituals of passage whereby membership to a clan is granted, as well as how power is distributed among group members.

Van Dijk further argues that “ there are many ways in which the complexity of current context models can be reduced through (a) the previous and ongoing application (instantiation) of general socio-cultural knowledge (schemas ) about social roles (b) the previous and ongoing application of socially shared person schemas about a given person (c) the previous and ongoing application of individual, subjective schemas about a given person (d) the previous and ongoing selection of currently relevant characteristics of a participant in the ongoing communicative event (e) the current ideologies, interests, goals etc of the participant. The theory of context accounts for both the static and the dynamic aspects of the social identities of social actors as participants in communicative situations”.

The ongoing dynamic aspect of social contexts regarding (i) the negotiation of participants’ self hood through participation in one or more networks (ii) the negotiation of targets’ self hood through shifts in networks membership structures (iii) the negotiation of inter network alliances and boundaries in the context of open system dynamics affords to demonstrate both how targeting tactics tend to change over time, as well as to how social representations and collective myths predicated of targets tend to vary over time. Again, it is a matter of antonomasia salve veritate or the constant changing of exclusionary names against the background of maintaining the self-sameness of a co-evolving ontological community.

“Hence, [my note: dynamic] social context first of all controls the formation of the mental models of the events we talk about, that is the semantics of text and talk. Social contexts not only control what we talk about, but also our representation of the current communicative event itself, our model of ourselves as speakers, as well as of other participants and of what they are doing”.

Thus far we have made clear by drawing on Van Dijk’s analysis on the formation of social contexts that (i) they are different to and conditioning of social situations as causae remotae (ii) they are the outcome of social networks’ participants’ discursive practices (iii) they are dynamic, in line with dynamics of participants both within and across networks and in themselves

What Van Dijk does not display is how semantic negotiations about others in the context of social networks culminate in pragmatic judgments and the inequalities in decision making authority that by default emerge in a social grouping. The decision making process and the relative influence of certain social actors over others on which shared interpretive schemas, heuristics and biases crystallize in social contexts as the outcome of agreement on behalf of social actors remains unaccounted for. In closed systems, the generation of such schemata rests with propaganda services and it is diffused top down through chains of command while their uncritical endorsement is expected. In open systems one would expect more open levels of meaning negotiation. But is this the case in reality?

Psychological phenomena in group decision making in open system dynamics , such as the Prisoner’s Dilemma and the Abilene paradox experiment, where communicative inertia and/or unwillingness to speak against a more powerful member of a group [the so-called “red tape”phenomenon] or social network forces members to agree on the specifics of a decision making situation, as against engaging in active processing of the presented information, are striking examples of why in essence group decision making processes do not differ that much after all between closed system and open system dynamics. Inertia as a precondition for agreement, brought upon members of the speech community either through fear or other states that would induce someone to act otherwise must be factored in the situational context of decision making. For the purpose of our analysis it suffices to point to the usefulness of Van Dijk’s approach in making sense micro-sociologically of how collective experience is structured around “social situations” and how a streamline of repetitive “social episodes” conditions the reality of a target against the background of social networks participants’ agreement. The “rationality” or “irrationality”of agreement has already been demonstrated by allusion to Habermas’ theory of communicativ eaction and by the existence of inertia inducing mechanisms during group decision making.Group dynamics and the formation of identity through group dynamics is another crucial adjacent area. Identities locate a person in social space by virtue of their relationships that these identitie simply and are themselves symbols whose meanings vary across actors and situations In line with Goffman, identities are strategic social constructions created through interaction, with social and material consequences.“

The central tenet of social identity theory is that individuals define their identities along two dimensions, social , defined by membership in various social groups, and personal , the idiosyncratic attributes that distinguish an individual from others. These two are essentially in interplay. Because people are motivated to evaluate themselves positively, they tend to evaluate positively those groups to which they belong and to discriminate against groups they perceive a threat to their social identity”.

One key question is whether attributional patterns are biased in accord with intergroup identification and allegiances; many studies show a pattern of in group favoritism such that positive behaviors of in group members are attributed to internal factors and negative behaviors to external factors. “Using conversation analysis Antaki et al (1996) show how identities change as interaction proceeds , that is, how contextual variations shift identity claims.Their examples show speakers not only avowing contradictory identities but also invoking both group distinctiveness and similarity”.

In the chapter on “Social episodes as basic units of social order” (p97) Van Dijk demonstrates how “within the continuity of the everyday lives of actors or of the histories of collectivities, episodes are flexibly defined by time periods and changes in one of their relevant dimensions, such as participating actors, their intentions or goals, or the constituent action”. Also, from classical sociological theory we know that episodes may be more or less repetitive and hence routine in the lives of social actors. Such accumulated experiences will result in the construction of more or less fixed. socially shared schemas that organize the understanding of the communicative situation that frames the interaction.

Thus, the motives on behalf of alternating participants in targeting activities do not rest necessarily(or at least exhaustively) with a direct benefit rationally expected from the social situation, but with an affirmation of their empirical continuity qua members of social networks, the cultural pragmatics of which mandate that they engage in ordinary ritual communicative activities whereby their situational self is negotiated in interaction with others. In essence, mutual recognition among participants as partaking of the same symbolic order is activated through putting shared schematain practice in social situations OR CONSTANTLY REANIMATING SOCIAL CONTEXTS INDESCRETE SOCIAL SITUATIONS THAT ARE REPEATED AS SOCIAL EPISODES. The inverse(in terms of recognition) is the case of the target, who is part of participants’ socially shared schemas, therefore a phantasmatic copula granting the hyper real continuity of social milieus, but not negotiating his situational selfhood, as he is not a recognizable member of the speech community. In more concrete terms, in repetitive social situations as social episodes, such as“gaslighting” and “street theater” the target is essentially used as “training device” on behalf of social networks’ members for affirming their collective identity through engagement in common discursive rituals. The necessity of the target in discursive ordinary contexts consists in a pre-phenomenological spectacle of ritual killing wherein the methexis of participants is affirmative of their unconditional sameness within the differentiating distancing from a zero point of collective narratological continuity.By drawing on the following schematic interpretation of the social situation by Van Dijk an attempt will be made to put all of the above in interactionist practice in the context of targeting incidents,such as gaslighting and street theater, while exposing the private/public third realm complicity in the context of organized mechanisms of power.

In legal terms, the gaslighting and street theater instances in the targeting phenomenology are individual “acts” or repetitive episodes in a multi act crime as attempted ritual killings of the target ,as judging from the “summative or amplified or multiplicative” character of their repetition (or Lipton’s more of the same principle) in an ontologically coherent continuum in a “social context” of causae remotae and pragmatic motives resting with indirect perpetrators [secret services] acting asanimus socii and maintaining synchronicity in the staging of the events and the target’s movements against a background of a communitarian blueprint for social action as animus auctoris that silently legitimates these actions in a social reengineering context coupled with a linguistic and corporeally pragmatic lingo and an extra-judiciary system masking decisions and motives and a set of alternating participants as direct perpetrators who by virtue of a participatory mandate are forced to maintain their hyperreal empirical self-hood through methexis in social situations repetitively rendered as social episodes and including the target projectively as the inverse point zero of their narratological continuity qua community/social networks members. Therefore, the motives for participating in social episodes involving the target do not rest exclusively with stricto sensupragmatic interests, but also with psychological interests in terms of safeguarding security as members of social networks through participation in exclusionary mechanisms, which resembles the prisoner’s dilemma, in a stretched rendition [eg inflict harm on the target before the target inflicts harm on you],but not precisely, as that would amount to acting on force and waive the existence of dolus. These are interpretive technicalities resting with group behavior and dynamics.

Here below I expose by allusion to Van Dijk’s method for portraying the deployment of social situations, how targeting activities constitute fabricated events aimed at keeping the target within the silent massacre “closed loop mechanism”:
Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect."

User avatar
carpe verum
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:45 pm

Re: Targeted Individuals

Post by carpe verum » Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:14 pm

Continued...
3.3 (continued (diagrams and photos omitted)

Scene settings are “natural”, there is no knowledge either on behalf of the target or necessarily on behalf of the surrounding social actors about the incident that will be enacted. In short, there is no“background expectation” regarding the pragmatic context of social interaction

In the context of the social situation and its pragmatic contours, judging the motive on behalf of the direct perpetrator is not feasible or visible to bystanders, save for the target himself, judging upon precedents. After all, it is an ordinary setting and judging from consequences no “materials” were removed from the target (eg stealing a wallet while waiting in a cue) and due to the lack of collectively shared background expectations about the outcome of the incident, no one will claim to be witness to a staged incident of a fat lady bumping onto the target. However, based on the similarity of accounts from targeted individuals, this tactic is a matter of course, it is a background expectation and nothing unusual or counterfactual emerges as an explanatory causal pattern, as a result of “conditioning mechanisms.

In essence it is a win-win situation for the direct perpetrator and the indirect perpetrator who suggested to the fat lady to engage in this activity and the only one who has been aggravated or harassed is the target. What are the conditionals or remote causes that allow this incident to happen? (i) Audiovisual surveillance allowing for perfect synchronicity between the target’s movements and the participant’s actions as animus auctoris (ii)a social reengineering blueprint as animus socii promising benefits to networked social actors. In strict circumstantial sense, has the particular actor managed to augment her wealth by bumping onto the target in a SM queue? No, but it is by virtue of engaging in the particular activity that she managed to maintain her partaking in a social collective that promises higher returns through the participation in similar activities that she legitimated her actions and especially in the face of no one else being able to verify the opposite.

Thus, through engagement in a social situation for the sake of a causa finalis of maintaining the social representation or interpretive schema of a target qua inversely affirmative of the legitimacy of a communitarian ethos, the core self-hood of the direct perpetrator may not have been altered by committing an act of “covert harassment” (the encounter did not yield any direct material benefits) ,but her situational or extended self has been renegotiated or reaffirmed qua member of social networks that have remotely conditioned through information diffusion the emergence of the target as collective myth or social representation

PS: Even though, as already illustrated, in a ritualistic interactionist setting , the mythic entity as pragmatically cultural arche signifier is symbolically appropriated in an act of ritual sacrifice as spectacle of encounter, which is as material as appropriating one’s career prospects insofar as the horizon of materiality opens up in a plane of immanent virtuality

Now if the target responds in an aggressive manner (either on a locutionary level or actionably, egpushing her back) the interpretive community of surrounding social actors who partake of the interpretive schemas and know of the target qua social representation may agree on the causal pattern leading to an observation of the target’s fighting back as in fact having been instigated by him. This is the reason why, as often quoted in the targeting literature, “once the target gives in to the perpetrators demands and does not resist, then targeting activities seize”, which amounts to saying insofar as the target accepts the dystopian spot reserved through silently complicit communitarian agreement and accepts social representations, then targeting seizes, which is the very end and causa remota of targeting, hence self defeasible. Now, are the participants silently complicit by disseminating the agreed upon description of the incident through their social networks? There is no law prohibiting someone to pass negative information about others to their peers , unless this is accomplished with dolus and with the intention to cause harm by passing defamatory information. But defamatory information is the exact way that kick started the spiralling dystopian feedback loops and the crystallization of interpretive schemas through which the target’s actions came to be filtered. Certainly participants did not engage in a rational communicative action to clarify the veracity of these schemas and they were not obliged to do so, BUT THEY PARTICIPATED IN THEIR PERPETUATION, therefore acting with dolus indirectus or doluseventualis in bringing about a causa finalis and through omission of undercutting the information diffusion. Therefore, the surrounding participants are silently complicit in the dissemination of defamatory information

In the context of the social situation and its pragmatic contours, judging the motive on behalf of the direct perpetrator is not feasible or visible to bystanders, save for the target himself, However,there is clear and beyond all reasonable doubt evidence that it was the other party’s fault, insofar as the picture taken by the road assistance personnel indicates that only the right hand mirror of my car was smashed and there was no scratch on the right hand side of my car, which is clearly indicative of a parallel movement of the two vehicles, which my lawyer who filed the lawsuit also verified upon display of the picture and relevant videos taken on the scene [OR THE RITUALISTIC EPISODE]. Even one of the two officers that recorded the incident verified this , to whom I displayed the right hand side of my car. However, the chain of events that deployed pursuant to this event , which again displayed perfect synchronocity with my movements, was an attempt with dolus directus to appropriate assets and cause defamation through:

1.The biker’s being so thoughtless OR MOTIVATED UPON SUGGESTION ON BEHALF OF LOW LIFE PEERS as to file a lawsuit for reckless driving , to which I replied by demonstrably waiving my responsibility and TO WHICH I SHOULD HAVE FILED A COUNTER LAWSUIT

2.I was informed about the pending lawsuit by the police on Sunday, ACCIDENTALLY two days after having quit from the company I was working for at that time (Sep 09) and despite that the incident had occurred in January 09!!!

3.The presumed of the biker obtained my phone number through unidentified sources and called my insurance agent and myself claiming that I had visited her son at the hospital,WHICH I NEVER DID and attempting to fabricate a pseudo moral incident

4.My [THE SOMEHOW UBIQUITOUS COPERPETRATOR] was informed of the incident from an unidentifiable source and stressed “be careful” without my having displayed any intention of engaging in conversation with her and to my amazement with how such an uncritical statement [IMBUED GUILT] was made

5.I had also filed a negative responsibility claim with my insurance agency, as I had no intention to pay for damages caused by not just reckless driving on behalf of a courier, but WITH CLEAR INTENTION TO CAUSE MATERIAL DAMAGES AND PSYCHOLOGICAL HARASSMENT AGAINST ME

6. The description in the police report was complicit or functioned as an enabler to making his claim as it stressed that I attempted to turn to the right while driving in the middle lane ,which EVIDENTLY was FALSE and I WAS AMAZED TO WITNESS THIS DESCRIPTION given that I had displayed the right hand side of my car to the police office

The mode whereby this act of direct perpetration in the context of a targeting activities continuum was attained and the chain of events that took place subsequently to the accomplishment of the incident clearly demonstrate a staged social episode against an intentionally drafted background script {potentially make the target look like a reckless driver and through the repetition of similarly staged incidents the target could be seen as indeed dangerous to the public, thus confirming the intention behind my commitment and explaining beyond any reasonable doubt my ’s interest and motive in maintaining the univocal “blame” rhetoric, also transposing through symbolic projection her psychopathology to the target .Thus, through a chain of ritualistic events or fabricated social situations the target could be portrayed [THIS TIME OVERTLY] as indeed meriting THE BLAME BROUGHT UPON HIM THROUGH SECRET REFERENDA and the ritual annihilation would amount to the realization of the causa finalis.

In terms of the direct perpetrator in the particular incident, his motive was clearly pragmatically driven, while also communitarian driven as partaking of the causa finalis of a community whose affirmation on the inverse as negative simulacrum is the target at hand. This is where the causative role of collective intentionality as grounding ontologically individual motives comes into play. Is this unconditional communitarian ethos rationally motivating social actors? Judging from this among a plethora of incidents, certainly not.

Proof of agenda 21 as animus socii:

Direct perpetrator – a courier

Coperpetrators (in terms of the subsequent chain of events); women- in fact my had obtained a copy of the incident’s description from the police department WITHOUT MY CONSENT AND WITHOUT HAVING MENTIONED TO HER THE INCIDENT!!!! CLEARLY DEMONSTRATING BASED ON PRECEDENTS , THAT IS INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT, HER ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT ACTING OUT OF DOLUS TO CONTINUE HER ATTEMPTS

The silent public/private partnership emerged not only against the background of an evidently falsifiable claim, but through the deployment of consequences of the incident, which are indicative of an attempted cover up of the targeting setting through an inversion of the chain of conditionals leading up to the incident.

Dual motive: making money (the pragmatic driver), partaking of the collective ethos through targeting its inverse reflection (the ontological driver). Complicity of the perpetrators’ affiliates in amplifying the event and cloaking the silent agreement about targeting through pseudo moral and false claims , such as ‘he visited in the hospital”, which never occurred and taking on board family peers, who submit willfully to the perspective .

MOREOVER, with the blessings of a falsified and evidently so recording of the incident by institutional agents. NOW THIS IS A STRIKING EXAMPLE OF HOW AGREEMENT IS FABRICATED OF AN EVENT AND HOW AN ATTEMPT TO LEND CREDIBILITY TO BACKGROUND ASSUMPTIONS AND SOCIAL REPRESENTATIOSN BY HYPOSTASIZING PHANTASMS and REIFYING HYPOTHESES BY PROGRESSIVELY (OR THROUGH REPETITION) PREDICATING THE CAUSE OF THE FABRICATION OF INHERENT ATTRIBUTES OF THE SOCIAL ACTOR IS MADE. This is clearly a crime of fraud and defamation with dolus directus and conspiratorial attempt (insofar as there is overt agreement) regarding private sector agents and complicity on behalf of institutional agents insofar as there is evidence of falsifying evidence with dolus indirectus, insofar as it recognizes the potential harm for the individual (in terms of material compensation and defamation) yet proceeding with legitimating a falsified account. THE VERY FACT THAT THE TIMING OF REPORTING THE INTENT ON BEHALF OF THE PERPETRATOR TO PURSUE A LAWSUIT UPON A PRECEEDING INCIDENT COINCIDED (IN A LIST OF WEIRD COINCIDENCES) WITH MY QUITTING MY LATEST JOB ROLE AND IN THE FACE OF A TIME LAG OF 9 MONTHS SINCE THE INCIDENT ORIGINALLY OCCURRED IS CLEARLY INDICATIVE OF A FAR WIDER SURVEILLANCE MECHANISM.

The involvement of women and couriers is a clear indication of the involvement of agenda 21 , as these groups constitute identifiable agents through which the agenda is fleshed out. Coupled with precedents and the involvement of family members in the shaping of the events with the blessings of institutional agents, it is clear that there is a targeting case. Other noteworthy circumstantial evidence is the advent of an aged man in the location who claimed “I heard you saying “I’m not alright” which was clearly false and while I was fully conscious and indeed calm, as I had been accustomed to recognizing similar targeting activities in the targeting apparatus. What is striking is the attempt to imbue a psychological deficit by leveraging a seemingly incidence of weakness through suggestibility. That person looked and acted like a freemason,
3.4 How does ethnomethodology and Conversation/Discourse analysis aid in further elucidating the discourse of targeted individuals whereupon an ontologically coherent lifeworld is imprinted?

“I use the term ethno-methodology to refer to the investigation of the rational properties of indexical expressions and other practical actions as contingent ongoing accomplishments of organized artful practices of everyday life”

HOW IS AGREEMENT REACHED IN AN ORDINARY SOCIAL SETTING? THROUGH THE USE OF EMPHATIC DESCRIPTORS , SUCH AS “ACTUALLY” IN THE CONTEXT OF A DESCRIPTIVE SENTENCE. UPON FURTHER ELABORATION OF WHAT “ACTUALLY” DENOTES, GARFINKEL found through the codification of group decision making process that “ this assurance would be obtained by seeking to establish the presence in the conversationalists’ relationship of warranting virtues such as their having spoken honestly, openly, candidly, sincerely and the like. ALL OF WHICH IS TO SAY THAT [MEMBERS] WOULD INVOKE THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMMUNITY OF UNDERSTANDINGS AND THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF SHARED AGREEMENTS TO RECOMMEND THE ADEQUACY OF THEIR ACCOUNTS OF WHAT THE PARTIES HAD BEEN TALKING ABOUT, ie WHAT THE PARTIES UNDERSTOOD IN COMMON. THEY COULD ASSUME THAT I AS A COMPETENT CO-MEMBER OF THE SAME COMMUNITY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THE CORRESPONDENCE AND ITS GROUNDS

From the point of view of sociological theory the moral order consists of the rule governed activities of everyday life. In accounting for the stable features of everyday activities sociologists commonly select familiar settings such as familial households or work places and ask for the variables that contribute to their stable features. Recognizable scenes, or fact, or methodic character or objectivity of accounts are not independent of the socially organized occasions of their use(p10).

A member uses background expectancies as a scheme of interpretation . With their use actual appearances are for him recognizable and intelligible as the appearances of familiar events. For these background expectations to come into view one must either be a stranger to the life as usual character of everyday scenes or become estranged from them. AS ALFRED SCHULTZ POINTED OUT, A SPECIAL MOTIVE IS REQUIRED TO MAKE THEM PROBLEMATIC.

In the sociologist’s case this special motive consists in the programmatic task of treating a societal member’s practical circumstances which include from the member’s point of view the morally necessary character of many of its background features as matters of theoretic interest.

In a nutshell, ethno-methodology seeks to decode what is given in ordinary social settings, or latent intentions of individual and group structures, thus laying bare how seemingly accidental and circumstantial aspects of ordinary events assume a patterned and goal oriented character or causafinalis motivated and perpetuated by a collective intentionality against (i) fabricated interpretive schemas as the outcome of agreement among social networks’ participating social actors (ii)fabricated scripts and social situations as observable and verifiable aspects of the target’s and the community’s lifeworld.

The documentary method and the mental institution diagnostic or coding of empirical reality process constitute two exemplary cases of applied ethno-methodology and particularly pertinent to the decoding, through conversation and discourse analysis of latent intentions behind targeting methods.

In the case of the documentary method, the underlying pattern was not only derived from a course of individual documentary evidences but the documentary evidence in their turn were interpreted on the basis of “what was known” and anticipatorily knowable about the underlying patterns. The sense of the expressions depended upon where the expression occurred in serial order, the expressive character of the terms that comprised it and the importance to the conversationalists of the events depicted.

The anticipation that persons will understand, the occasionality of expressions, the specific vagueness of references, the retrospective prospective sense of a present occurrence, waiting for something later in order to see what was meant before are sanctioned properties of common discourse.

According to Schultz: the meanings of events are products of a socially standardized process of naming, reification, and idealization of the user’s stream of experience, ie are the products of language It is not unusual for sociologists to speak of their “fact production” procedures as processes of “seeing through” appearances to an underlying reality.

The suggestion is recommended that when researchers call upon “reasonableness” in assigning the status of findings to their research results ,they are inviting the use of such features as these as a context of interpretation for deciding sensibility and warrant. Findings as outcomes of documentary work, decided under circumstances of common sense situations of choice, define the term “reasonable findings” Not only is the underlying pattern derived from its individual documentary evidences, but the individual documentary evidences, in their turn, are interpreted on the basis of what is known about the underlying pattern.

Insofar as social situations and episodes in a targeting empirical continuum depend upon social networks powerful members and an animus auctoris controlling target’s activities, “the decision maker is conceived to have set for himself the task of devising a program of manipulations upon each successive present state of affairs that will alter each present state so that over their succession they are brought into conformity with an anticipated state, is the goal, the solved problem. THESE FEATURES MAY BE RESTATED IN TERMS OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE”

In the case of the mental institution coding process, instead of assuming that coders,proceeding in whatever ways they did, might have been in error, in greater or lesser amount , the assumption was made that whatever they did could be counted correct procedure in some coding game. The question was, what were these games? HOW DID THEY DO IT TO GET WHAT THEY GOT? Coding instructions ought to be read instead as consisting of a grammar or rhetoric, they furnish a social science a way of talking so as to drive consensus and action within the practical circumstances of the clinic’s organized daily activities, a grasp of which members are expected to have as a matter of course.

According to conventional reasoning, the amount of agreement furnishes one set of grounds for lending credence to coded events as actual clinic events. A critical feature of conventional reliability of assessments is that the agreement between coders consists of agreement on the end results The “reliability”: of coded results was addressed by asking how the coders had actually brought folder contents under the jurisdiction of the Coded Sheet’s items. Garfinkel called these ad hoc considerations “adhocism”. AD HOCISM OCCURS WHENEVER THE CODER ASSUMES THE POSITION OF A SOCIALLY COMPETENT MEMBER OF THE ARRANGEMENT THAT HE SEEKS TO ASSEMBLE AN ACCOUNT OF AND, WHEN FROM THIS POSITION HE TREATS ACTUAL FOLDER CONTENTS AS STANDING IN A RELATIONSHIP OF TRUSTED SIGNIFICATION TO THE “SYSTEM” IN THE CLINIC’s ACTIVITIES.IN SUM,
CODING OF EMPIRICAL DATA (MAINLY VERBATIMS) IN AN INSTITUTIONAL SETTING AIMS PRIMARILY AT VALIDATING THE ANALYTICAL CATEGORIES (OR TAGS) OF THE CODE SHEET, RATHER THAN MAKING SENSE OF PARTICULAR CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING UP TO AND MAKING UP THE VERY FABRIC OF THE EMPIRICAL REALITY OF THE CODED STATEMENTS . THIS IS EVEN MORE EVIDENT IN CASES WHERE EITHER CLAIMS ARE OMITTED OR DISTORTED OR ELLIPTICALLY TRANSCRIBED IN ORDERTO PRODUCE A BETTER FIT BETWEEN THE ANALYTICAL CATEGORIES AND THEIR INSCRIPTION IN PARTICULAR VERBATIMS.

In addition to Garfinkel’s uncovering the coding process and the assumptions relevant thereto in mental illness diagnostic procedures, other ethnomethodologists have delved into reasons for ascribing mental illness to individuals, where, strikingly and most relevant to the tagging procedure in targeting cases, “membership issues” were discerned:Membership is a central notion in ethnomethodology. “Garfinkel uses the term to refer to anyone who has mastery of a natural language. Our concern here is with the relationship between membership , rules and mental illness. Blum characterizes psychiatric troubles as necessarily being a matter of problems of membership.

How are natural language rules learnt?

“An individual does not learn the common culture, ie membership requisites, by memorizing abstract concepts and rules, but rather by experiencing concrete situations which serve as exemplars, to be relied upon in subsequent situations.,

“Like Schutz’s typical situations, cultural exemplars are learned by members through encountering concrete instances of varying situations which can be characterized as “typical”.. Furthermore, most of the typifications are not exhaustively of the individual’s own making, but are handed down as apart of the common culture which he acquires in the learning of a common language”.

BY THE SAME TOKEN, THE SILENT MASSACRE ACTIVITIES AND THE MASSIVE LITERATURE AND INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS ON THE NEW GLOBAL ETHOS POINT TO EXACTLY THE SAME EXCLUSIONARY METHODS AND MECHANISMS,

“Membership failure itself does not constitute mental illness; rather, it constitutes an occasion for the imputation of mental illness”

How mental illness is manufactured as “agenda 21’s lingo learning deficit”?

“Cultural paradigms provide exemplars concerning what madness looks like , just as exemplars concerning other forms of behavior are provided”.

As above stated, agreement on acceptable turn-taking rules and their variations may be granted only against the background of an ideal speech community of rational actors, while the definition of what constitutes rationality, especially in lay terms, has been found not only to be wanting and far from disinterested when it comes to conferring value judgments, but to be highly incumbent on situational and contextual aspects and schematic idealizations that constitute background assumptions not only about the pragmatic contours of discrete situations, but also and more importantly about the social actors that engage in these situations. Now, what the targeting phenomenon consists in is the pre planning or the manufacturing of these ordinary encounters and engagements in language and discursive games in such a manner as to pre conditionally elicit such responses on behalf of the targeted social actor as to enable the participants in the scene to confer exclusionary judgments about the targeted individual. As already noted, the social constructivist approach to reality generation, which is also largely affirmed by a bottom-up micro sociological approach as ethnomethodology, suggests that a descriptive account of an incident necessarily involves a selection of salient features. What is lacking in the context of targeting , which at the same time poses significant questions about the objectivity and the validity of value judgments that are made about the targeted social actor on the occasion of his having been enmeshed in such encounters is Habermas’ requirement of symmetrical information distribution among them. Insofar as the targeted social actor is always already laden with background assumptions, which imply thatin the manufactured incidents not only is he not participating in an informationally symmetrical manner, but on the contrary is informationally at a disadvantageous position vis a vis the rest participating social actors, the amount of control he can exercise on the outcome of an encounter isby default compromised. Therefore, agreement on behalf of other social actors about the outcome of an encounter does not surface in the context of an “ideal speech community”, but of evidently pragmatic and not at all disinterested inferential chains or ritual chains, as above quoted

Ethnomethodology since Garfinkel’s seminal work has been instrumental to systematically accounting for both ordinary social phenomena, as well as institutional discursive practices(including the codification procedure during the justification of judiciary verdicts and the normative constraints in a juridical trial).

Several such normative orders can be cited as rules that governed what jurors could correctly treatas “the case”. Conformity with these orders served thereby to determine jurors’ satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the verdict. Stated as rules of correct decision making they run as follows:Those decisions on the facts are correct:

1.That are made within a respect for the time that it takes to arrive at them

3.That do not require of the juror as a condition for making them, that he adopt a neutral attitude toward the everyday relationships that exist among the persons on the jury

4. That do not require that the juror call into doubt what anyone knows about the ways in which competence, authority, responsibility and knowledge are usually distributed among and evidenced by social types of persons

5.If the number of variables defining the problem (and thereby the adequacy of the solution)can be reduced to a minimum by trusting that the other persons on the jury subscribe to the same common sense models

6. If only as much of the situation is called into question as is required for a socially supportable solution to the immediate problem in hand

7.If the jurors emerge from the inquiry with their reputation intact

The level of fit between ethno-methodological processes and legal discourse has also been explored to a considerable length

The employment of ethno-methodology also has important implications for legal discourse and legal argumentation insofar as it addresses crucial contextual aspects in which social action is situated,thus it is revelatory not only of the semantic aspects of utterances (that more often than not constitute the focal point of dogmatic law interpretation), but, even more importantly, of their pragmatic aspects, “those features of the context in which the argument occurs that shape and constrain the proper interpretive reconstruction of its logical form. THE EXPANSION(OR RATHER STRETCHABILITY) OF THE APPLICATION OF RULES OF DOGMATIC LAW IS TRULY TESTED THROUGH THE CONSIDERATION OF PRAGMATIC ALONGSIDE THE SEMANTIC ASPECTS OF ARGUMENTATION AND THE FACTS THEY PORTRAY, INSOFAR AS “exemplary reasoning processes that abduce deductively applicable principles operate not just at the level of testing arguments for validity, but also at the deeper level of discerning the very rules of deductive inference that help to define the concept of validity itself ” The dialectical relationship between deductive and abductive logic in the formation of deductive principles has already been illustrated in chapter 2 by allusion to the Peircian approach. Given the above potential of factoring in the interpretive equation pragmatic qualifiers by putting the phenomenon at hand in perspective through an ethnomethodolgical approach (especially useful in the face of (i) radically changing mores demanding a reevalutation of fundamental premises (ii) the novelty , thus indeterminacy based on legal precedents, of the phenomenon under scrutiny both as regards the technicalities whereby it is operationally carried out, as well as the motives and objectives that condition it) what is evidenced is the mandatory task of emphasizing contextual and abductively rich facets.

Most often indeterminacy and manipulation surface in STANDARDS OF REVIEW and DEMANDS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

Contemporary jurisprudence approaches claim that in important respects, laws and other legal rules cannot be stable , consistent or unchanging with regard to what particular rules mean and how they should be applied

Context dependent rules are socially constructed in a strong sense: in any given instance ,meaning and application can only be ad hoc. Even a contextualizing jurisprudence fails to grasp how people actually use many legal rules in an indeterminate world.

To apply a rule, therefore, we often draw on knowledge or competence or interpretations not contained in the rule itself Garfinkel defines rules for orderly social action as tacit background assumptions . The co-evolution paradigm: the generation and maintenance of social order are not available in purely psychological categories of internalization , no more than they are available in purely mechanical categories of rule application free of all interpretive judgments WE STRETCH A RULE TO FIT THE PARTICULAR SITUATION, OR RECONSTRUCT THE RELEVANT EVENTS OF A SITUATION TO FIT THE RULE’S CRITERIA OR REINTERPRET THE SITUATION TO FIT A RULE OR IGNORE FEATURES AND EVENTS OF A SITUATION THAT CONTRADICT A RULE SO AS TO SUSTAIN THE RULE’S APPLICABILITY Such behaviors reflects a rule’s indexicality: the “rational properties” of indexical expressions and other practical actions are contingent ongoing accomplishments or organized artful practices of everyday life (Garfinkel).

INDIVIDUALS TREAT NEW PHENOMENA AS INDEXES OR MARKERS FOR PHENOMENA ALREADY RECOGNIZED :GROUPS OR COMMUNITIES OF INDIVIDUALS RENDER THE UNFAMILIAR FAMILIAR BY RELATING WHAT THEY NEWLY ENCOUNTER TO WHAT THEY ALREADY KNOW. WHAT THEY ALREADY KNOW PRODUCES AN INDEX IN TERMS OF WHICH THEY EXPLAIN NEW OBJECTS OR EXPERIENCES TO THEMSELVES AND OTHERS . THESE ACCOUNTS THEMSELVES CONSTITUTE THE CONTEXT OR SETTING OR CONDITION THEY PURPORT TO BE DESCRIBING AND OF COURSE THEY THEREBY DESCRIBE THE VERY CONTEXT THEY ARE ΙΝ FACT CONSTITUTING. THE ACCOUNT CONSTITUTES THE SETTING

Six ways whereby the ethnomethodological approach is unique and offers insights otherwise unavailable even to contextualizing jurisprudence

-What is challenged is conventional jurisprudence, which seems to follow a naturalist/evolutionist paradigm

- Competence not correctness :

  • If rule application is ad hoc , as it must be when it is indeterminate, then each case of application must have its own, unique standard of correctness
  • Stanley Fish according to whom a legal professional arguing a case of drafting an opinion presupposes specific understandings of the relevant law, its terms and its applications. … The difference between reaching political conclusions and beginning with political intentions is that if you are doing the second you are not really doing a job of legal work
-Known/uknown not legal/illegal:
  • The binarism just/unjust is applicable in a set of fully determinate phenomena.WHENEVER THE EXPLICIT PROCEDURES FOR CODING COULD NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT ARE DEVELOPED IN THE COURSE OF CODING, THE PROCEDURES ALLOWED THE ORDER TO IMPROVISE DECISIONS AND THUS GENERATE THE ANSWERS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE CODING
  • Such a perspective does not presuppose that rules and behavior are directly and causally linked
-Rule autonomous procedures not rule needy procedures
  • Where a judge or a police officer or some other user of legal rules experiences difficulty in correlating a codified general rule with a specific instance of application, he or she cannot appeal to the legal code for clarification: like legal rules in general, a legal code is not self interpreting
  • As Zimmerman stresses, the individual discovers a given rule’s true meaning and proper application in the course of employing the rule over a series of actual situations [MY NOTE: Or , quoting Wittgenstein, by engaging in language games in the course of life, retaining the epi-phenomenological discourse of language as a metaphor of life revealing itself through language games]
-Creative non compliance , not narrow compliance

-Practical methods, not abstract principles
  • Ethno-methodology offers a perspective that can go further and tease out the methods or ways in which indeterminate rules are actually applied by uncovering one or the other calculus for the application of indeterminate rules [MY NOTE, eg BY STARTING FROM CODING EITHER ANALYTICALLY OR SYNTHETICALLY INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS IN ORDER TO MICRO-SOCIOLOGICALLY GENERATE PATTERNS OF LIFEWORLD, WHICH BY ANALOGY MAY BE OF INTREPRETIVE VALIDITY TO MACRO PHENOMENA- see previous notes on the micro/macro mutually supposing evolution of the lifeworld]
-Situations applied to rules, not rules to situations
  • Jurisprudence emphasizes ways in which rules are applied to situations , while ethno-methodology reveals ways not in which rules are applied to situations, but situations to rules
  • Ethno-methodology and conventional jurisprudence agree that rules determine behavior. But only ETHNOMETHODOLOGY RECOGNIZES HOW RULES ARE DEPENDENT ON THE CONTEXT OF THEIR APPLICATION AND HOW RULES ARE RELATED INTERNALLY AND NOT MERELY EXTERNALLY TO THE BEHAVIOR THEY DETERMINE. ONLY ETHNO-METHODOLOGY RECOGNIZES THAT IN PERFORMING A ROLE, RULE USERS DO NOT PASSIVELY FOLLOW RULES AND ROLES BUT ACTIVELY MANIPULATE THEM, EVEN INSTRUMENTALIZE THEM, TOWARD ACHIEVING THEIR GOALS. RULES THEN ARE LIVED FEATURES OF THE SETTINGS IN WHICH THEY FUNCTION
  • NOT NECESSARILY FORMAL RULES OF ACTION, BUT WHAT FISH CALLS INTERPRETIVE COMMUNITIES THAT PROVIDE MEMBERS WITH ACCESS TO PUBLIC MEANINGS AND DELIMIT TO THOSE MEANINGS MEMBERS’ UNDERSTANDINGS
WHERE ETHNO-METHODOLOGICAL AND JURISPRUDENCE INTERPRETATIONS CONVERGE IS ON THEIR PRAGMATIC ORIENTATION, VIZ. WE CHANGE FROM ONE INTERPRETATION OR APPLICATION TO ANOTHER FOR PRAGMATIC, CONTINGENT REASONS.

In terms of method for conducting ethno-methodological research, Conversation and discourse analyses are usually employed.“ At the most general level, CA is concerned with the methodical construction in and through talk of member productive and analyzable social action. Exemplary topics include the organization of sequences (as perhaps the identifying mark of most conversation analytic studies), the structure of repair, the “preference” for certain conversational forms as an organizational, rather than psychological phenomenon, the primacy of ordinary conversation and its relation to social structure and institutional environments, the interrelation of vocal and nonvocal activities and others”. IT IS A STRATEGY OR METHOD FOR DEALING WITH THE INVISIBILITY OF COMMON SENSE.

“The organization of summons-answer [or stimulus-response] sequences can be decomposed to appreciate that any comparability of a ringing phone across settings, rather than residing in the nature of phone rings as uniform and context –free stimuli, is the outcome of situated work as an embodied presence in settings of social action, wherein exists an in vivo coherence to the phenomenal details of which the object of ringing phone originally consists”.

For example, noise campaigns (sirens, bikers etc) are customarily employed as targeting methods. Unless they are viewed from a target’s experiential plenum, their interdependence with the tactical toolbox is not made apparent. What is unusual about an ambulance driving by one’s car with sirens ringing? The frequency with which this tactic is experienced by a target in conjunction with a pre-planned experiential blanket of conditional mechanisms. It is of circumstantial validity in an experiential continuum and not of absolute validity in the standalone context of an isolated social situation. It is part of a script in a series of social episodes and not a standalone social situation or in a “chain of ritual events” in Collins’ terms.

In the following paragraphs I am citing targeted individuals “accounts” (some among a plethora) prior to applying a conversational or discourse analysis with view to unearthing the latent intentions and assumptions behind seemingly ordinary activities and issues of “common sense” and “common experience”:

(C1) Max Williams, Board member of the Freedom from covert harassment and surveillance organization (FFCHS) and retired diplomat

“In recent years, scientists have learned how to locate, focus on, and lock onto a person’s brain by remote to manipulate that person’s thoughts and thus his actions. Mind control assaults now loom as one of the main challenges of the 21st century. The targeted person often never discovers that he has become a mind control victim, and he ends up hurting others, taking his own life, or simply becoming another “Alzheimer” statistic. This paper discusses some of the elements of what I call electronic stalking and mind control (ESMC). I am one of the targeted individuals (TIs) of those activities.

ESMC does not happen randomly. The power brokers behind it identify and attempt to destroy the lives of targets through hirelings, whom I call “handlers,” for their own purposes. Their handlers in turn seek to neutralize TIs in any possible way. Curtailing the targets’ ability to communicate aids the handlers in neutralizing the targets. My handlers, who have had access to my computer for years, tried their best to prevent my communicating via this paper. They especially interfered with my writing the section on psychiatrists and their role in ESMC by continually deleting my text, keeping me from saving the text to the computer, and causing countless other mechanical problems. But they failed to silence me, just as they are destined to fail in perpetuating their evil practices.

Unfortunately, electronic stalking and mind control has become a science, much of which is still secret. That does not necessarily mean that the science is particularly complicated. It is more likely that it consists of several new technologies that in combination with each other produce the ESMC. Nothing remains a secret forever. We shall know, probably very soon, how the ESMC operates and who does it.

In The Silent Massacre, I discuss my particular case, inform readers of what I know for certain about the ESMC, and speculate about other facets of it. Targeted individuals will readily identify with what I talk about in this paper. They understand the veracity of my descriptions of the effects of electronic and mind control attacks, which to others read like science fiction. This paper is written principally for those victims. However, readers who are not TIs but who are intellectually curious about electronic and mind control assault will learn much about a sick attack on tens of thousands of targets that also indirectly affects everybody in those targets’ lives. The attackers are known as the perpetrators, or perps

The human resources and the enormous cost required to carry out electronic stalking and mind control, re-enforced in many cases by gang stalking, almost certainly limit its use to governments

Only governments can mobilize the enormous outlay of funds and successfully camouflage the use of those funds. Only governments have the sophisticated equipment and computers required for electronic abuse and mind control.

Only governments can train in secrecy the cadre of handlers who administer the electronic assault and mind control activities, using deception and psychology I know that even back in the mid-1970’s somebody was either attempting to take over my mind or that it had already been “hooked.”


The local dentist found in the tooth a tiny cylindrical pin-like object less than a quarter of an inch long that he thought perhaps was the point of a file

My computer has been hacked and my phone tapped for years.

Although it is now obvious that I had been targeted since the mid-1970’s, I did not discover it until December 7, 2005, when my assailants, or handlers, started bombarding me with electrical-like jolts, strong vibrations, and other physical torture. The first electronic vibrations struck me with such force that I could hardly stand on my feet. I gradually learned that the physical electronic effects, although annoying and painful, were simply used to “soften” or “sensitize” or “pre-condition” me for the real objective – mind control.

As an historian and former government employee, I understand the value of documentation. Thus,on the very day that the electronic effects first pounded me, I started recording a detailed journal in which I recount my experiences and my thoughts concerning that topic. I later realized that my handlers could utilize my journal as a written record of the effects of their torture, could adjust their effects on my mind and body accordingly, and could circulate a written copy of my journal among themselves. Yet, I felt that it was more important to keep a record of those occurrences than to attempt to beguile the handlers. The journal today comprises seven volumes and over a thousand pages of single spaced typescript.

Satellites now possess amazing capabilities, all performed by remote, and they may very well be utilized in electronic assaults and mind control. In a 2003 article called Shocking Menace of Satellite Surveillance, John Fleming wrote about the use of satellites in ESMC assault. Discussing the realities of satellite-driven ESMC, Fleming said:

“The victim’s movements will be known, his conversations heard, his thoughts picked clean, and his whole life subjected to bogus moralizing, should his tormentor diabolically use the information gained. A sadist could harass his target with sound bites, or audio messages, directly broadcast into his room; with physical assault with a laser; with subliminal audio messages that disturb his sleep or manipulate persons around him into saying something that emotionally distresses him . . .

Some evidence also suggests that targets’ minds can be “hooked” if the handlers know the targets’ DNA. If that is true, targets would not necessarily have to have a microchip or other object or substance in his body to be hooked In my case, the handlers often show me holographic pictures of a man in robes who is generally believed by Christians to be Jesus and tell me that I am going to hell.

The phone’s Caller I.D. showed, “Unknown name.” Some of those communications providers probably do allow the use of their facilities by the handlers at the request of the Government. Handlers can even hack into targets’ email accounts to send messages that damage the reputation and credibility of those hapless victims. Several targets have accidentally found some of those fake messages on the internet while communicating with others.

One of the handlers’ favorite deceptions involves sex… They use that as a tool to induce anxiety,confusion, fright, frustration, and humiliation in the target.

They also deceive targets concerning their food and drink. Many targets complain that the food and beverage kept in the refrigerator taste strange, and they think that their handlers have poisoned it.

Here are some of the capabilities of the target’s handlers through the types of patents seen above.

(1) Monitor movements. The handlers not only know one’s vehicular movements but they can also view him and follow his movements on his property and even inside his house. Once they “hook”the target with their equipment, they have ready access to him at all times. Their torture follows the target wherever he goes, even to other states and abroad. The handlers seemingly track the target within his dwelling, and when the target stands or sits in a particular grid square, the handlers can use their computer software that works with their device to perform various effects on the target

(2) Hear and record one’s conversations along with those with whom one talks. This can be done even in a moving vehicle or while on foot in a rural area. The harassers occasionally record and play back to the victim excerpts of some of those conversations in his brain

(4) View the victim’s body whether it is clothed or not and zoom in on any part or organ of the body, even in the darkness Those effects include:
  • sensation of pin pricks in the eyes, shoulders, face, feet, elbows, and other areas. The pin prick can be instantaneous or can be prolonged. In my case, the handlers have long caused an enduring pin prick on the rear of my neck,… They have also frequently pricked underneath the toenail on my right foot, causing the toenail to recede for a quarter of an inch between it and the skin, much like laser is used for ingrown toenails.
  • restless legs. A sensation begins in the small of the back and extends into the extremities, causing the “restless legs” syndrome
  • electrical jolts, tremors, or vibrations,

  • zapping in/on the head,

  • clicking in the left ear,

  • stomach aches and pains, indigestion, nausea, and dizziness,

  • sodomizing and virtual rape, lethargy and listlessness. I suspect that many people suffering from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome are actually victims of ESMC,
  • sleep deprivation,

  • intense itching,

  • twitching of the fingers,
  • partial loss of sight. The handlers do something to the eyes that make them feel as if a grain of sand is underneath the eyelid,

  • unnatural salivation,

  • involuntary physical movements,

  • sores in various areas,
  • high and sudden temperature rises in the body
The electronic jolts and vibrations also affect domesticated animal

(7) Cause the target financial problems

Making the target spend thousands of dollars on remedies and gadgets that supposedly neutralize or ameliorate the effects of ESMC and causing him to hire detectives to investigate the ESMC.

Destroying expensive household and other items, making targets have to replace them. In my case,they have ruined two printers, two blenders, and other household items. Their device, however, can only affect machines that have small motors or batteries. My coffee makers, which have no motor, are not affected.

Fomenting personal and other problems that require that targets hire lawyers. A TI correspondent wrote about her taking videos of neighbors overtly harassing her and then being arrested for that action. She had to hire a lawyer to get out of jail. Of course, nothing happened to the harassers. Moreover, now that law abiding citizen has an arrest record that will follow her to the grave.

Robbing targets of their time by harassing them continually with electronic assault and mind control, thus keeping them from tending to their business affairs. Very often targets lose their jobs because of the ESMC distractions in their lives. I have spent countless hours taking notes, recording them in my journal, corresponding with other TIs, researching on the internet, and trying objects and ways to neutralize the ESMC effects, time that I could have spent on home improvement projects an other useful activities. I am a very able genealogical researcher, and I used to spend hours a day at that pastime. Now I very seldom do family research because of the many distractions that affect my concentration.

Causing targets financial ruin is one of the aims of the handlers. Broke people are usually harmless and defenseless. Many of the targets with whom I have corresponded have depleted their savings and have gone into bankruptcy because of the perverts. Others have become virtually street people. The handlers set out to break targets financially, and they often do

9) Manipulate the target’s computer and telephones. By hacking the computer and tapping the phones, the handlers are able to interfere with the target’s communication system and thus harm his relationships with family members and friends. One of the chief aims of the handlers is to totally isolate the target from society.

Interference with the target’s PC and telephone is designed to annoy the target, isolate him, and find out who his contacts are. Information gained about the target by tapping his phones and hacking his computer is minimal, as the handlers ALREADY know the target’s most intimate thoughts, actions, and his life history.

(10) Discredit the target by making him appear insane or demented. They will also spread rumors about the target designed to isolate him from neighbors. Those rumors will usually suggest that the target is a drug pusher or user, a child molester (one of their favorites), a wife-beater, a common street walker or male prostitute, a rip-off artist, a closet drunkard, a white collar thief, a racist, an anti-Semite (another of their favorites), and others. In addition to socially isolating the target, the handlers also seek to cause the target anxiety and other psychological problems that drive him to a psychiatrist, who then diagnoses him as schizophrenic. The handlers know that once the target sees a psychiatrist and it becomes a matter of record, the target’s sanity becomes an issue. Afterward, whatever the target says will be treated as suspect. This is important to the handlers, as they know that the target will be discredited if he seeks out law enforcement.

(11) Register the target’s emotions. Their software allows them to use the target’s pulse rate and probably other methods to record emotions such as anxiety, panic, fear, frustration, anger,sadness, loneliness, and others. The emotions actually appear in the form of words that surface in your thoughts, e.g., frustration, loneliness, anger. In addition, the perverts continually whisper those words into your brain to actually cause those emotions. Handlers prepare loop play tapes of their talking whose design is to play on the target’s emotions. (More about subconscious talking later.)

(12) Cause mood swings. The handlers’ mind control programs can cause moods that range from explosive anger to total complacency. This causes erratic behavior in the target that is seen by many observers as a mental disorder.

(13) Transmit voices into the brain that only the victim can hear. Targets usually refer to this as voice-to-skull (V2K), synthetic communication, or microwave hearing. When I first heard the voices, I was driving. Knowing my thoughts also gives the stalkers my computer passwords (and thus control over my communications), information about my business matters, and previous knowledge of my actions and movements.

In those skits, the handlers actually direct the actors while looking for signs of phobias, sexual foibles, anxiety, and other human characteristics that they can exploit. The handlers’ objective is to learn increasingly more about targets’ weaknesses. What only a few targets realize is that their handlers not only want them to appear mentally disturbed but also physically unappealing. I can only imagine that the handlers receive much sick pleasure out of doing that. However, another reason for wanting targets unattractive is to socially isolate them. Here again psychology plays a role, as a target becomes very self-conscious about his/her looks and stays home alone to avoid people. Here are some of the ways that the handlers accomplish that objective

Cause targets either to gain an enormous amount of weight or lose enough weight to look emaciated. They prefer to make targets gain weight. They do this by making suggestions about food and eating by using second layer voices to the targets’ subconscious. Loop play tapes played to targets’ brains constantly urge targets to eat sweets and greasy un-nutritious foods. The handlers even show the targets pictures of food in their minds. Moreover, they manipulate the targets’ senses of taste and smell to choose unhealthy foods over healthy ones. All of this is done neurologically.

Cause burn marks and sores on a target’s face and arms, the most visible parts of his/her body.This is done physically by whatever the device might be that the handlers employ aided by particular software. This type of electronic harassment suggests some type of laser. I know of several cases in which the faces and arms of very attractive women became scarred and damaged through that process.

Reshape a target’s nose by making it longer and wider. Yes, that is what I said. By applying continual pressure on the bridge of the nose with facets of their device, the handlers can cause a victim’s nose to become both longer and wider. The principle is much the same as that of braces on teeth: the continual pressure on the teeth, actually move the teeth. Likewise, continual pressure on the cartilage of the nose, moves the cartilage forward and outward.

Cause a target, usually a male, hair loss. The handlers can kill the hair roots on the scalp using their device, causing the loss of hair and preventing its re-growth.

Cause a target unsightly psoriasis, usually on very conspicuous places on the body, especially the face and arms. This is different from the burn marks and sores previously mentioned, for psoriasis covers a much larger area and gives an appearance of leprosy or some other equally ugly skin disease.

Cause the target to look worn and haggard. This is done through both physical and neurological suggestions that deprive the target of sleep. Dark circles underneath the eyes, wrinkles and frown lines, and pursed lips are all signs of sleep deprivation and make the target unappealing.

Cause the target’s body to exude offensive odors. One target from the United Kingdom wrote that he was ashamed to go around people, for he smelled very bad. Although a part of that was due to neurological suggestions to his mind, there does indeed appear to be evidence that supports the idea that handlers have the capability of causing those odors.

Cause a target to lose much of his/her eyesight and thus force him/her to wear glasses. The handlers can damage targets’ eyes through aiming pin pricks (again perhaps fine lasers) into particular sections of the targets’ eyes. With pinpoint precision, the handlers can cause a target nearsightedness or farsightedness or an astigmatism in only a matter of days or weeks.

Cause targets to walk in a strange manner by striking pain in targets’ spinal columns. The pain causes targets to stoop as they walk or to assume very bad posture in sitting.

Cause targets to neglect their personal hygiene. The handlers use neurological suggestions to the targets’ subconscious to make them avoid bathing. Sometimes the handlers do this by making targets actually fear water.

Cause targets to appear odd by appearing in ball caps lined with foil and several layers of clothes,even in warm weather, to attempt to shield themselves from the electronic effects.

1) Surveillance. In this sequence, the handlers not only watch and listen to the target’s conversations with others and monitor his movements but they also, through their method of “hooking” the target’s brain, silently “mine” the target’s thoughts and memories. The object is to reconstruct the target’s entire life, identify all relatives, friends, and acquaintances of the target, and learn any smut and dishonesty connected to the target to later make him feel guilt. In addition to “mining” the targets’ thoughts and watching their activities, the perpetrators interview people who know the targets, their family members, and their friends. Those people often unwittingly divulge information about the targets through “friendly” conversations with the perpetrators’ agents. Sometimes, the agents pose as law enforcement officers and private detectives to intimidate people into telling all they know about targets. Actual law enforcement officers also doubtlessly cooperate in some cases. Only with this knowledge can mind control be used effectively.

(2) Voices projected into the targets’ minds. The target will not be aware of this; yet, handlers are conditioning him or setting him up psychologically for the last and final step of mind control. During this time, the handlers may begin their electronic torture.

Mind control is achieved through a combination of psychological trickery and electronic effects. The electronic effects are largely utilized to re-enforce the psychological aspects of mind control. Although the electronic effects are painful and sometimes even debilitating, they are usually bearable. As long as people have control of their minds, they can normally handle pain. On the other hand, mind control seeks to dominate both the mind and the body of targets, to gain absolute control over those persons and manipulate their every thought and action.

Make no mistake about it; handlers are highly trained in both psychology and computer/electronics.They may not be very savvy about the field of psychology; yet, they’ve been taught how to apply it. They are probably far more adept at applying and understanding the electronics than the psychology. However, whoever wrote the ultra-secret training manual, probably a team of psychiatrists and intelligence interrogators, were masters in psychological application.
Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect."

User avatar
carpe verum
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:45 pm

Re: Targeted Individuals

Post by carpe verum » Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:19 pm

3.4 continued:
(3) Humiliation. Humiliation of targets cause a feeling of helplessness in targets. It often occurs in the realm of sex. Male targets experience involuntary erections and female targets, artificially-induced orgasms. Again, this is accomplished through a combination of psychology and electronic manipulation. Here is an example: I began experiencing a partial erection throughout the day and night, and I knew that that was not natural. Then, one day while washing my hair I brushed the small hairs at the entrance of the ear canal, and each time I did I heard, “You’re horny.

”ESMC is not peculiar to the United States. People in countries all over the world are reporting electronic and neurological assaults. Many Western targets live in Canada and the United Kingdom. In Asia thousands of Chinese, Indian, and Australian targets are beginning to surface. Most African countries appear to be momentarily free of ESMC.

Strangely and perhaps suspiciously, the following Americans appear exempt from electronic harassment and mind control.
  • Congresspersons and high ranking U. S. Government officials, including ambassadors. Lower ranking employees and ex- employees of government, however, are often targeted, especially “whistle blowers” and those discontented with the status quo.
  • Governors and other high ranking state-level officials.
  • Clergy. However, members of Protestant Fundamentalist, Roman Catholic, Jewish, and other churches often become targets. Some of those victims complain that their churches may be involved in their harassment.
  • Law enforcement officers. Although I have heard obliquely of police officers being electronically assaulted, I have never actually corresponded with or read a complaint by a law enforcement target. The exclusion also applies to prison authorities, U. S. marshals, Border Patrol, DEA, the entire U. S. intelligence community, including the Secret Service, sheriffs, and sheriff’s deputies.
  • CEOs and very successful businesspersons.
  • High ranking military officials. On the other hand, enlisted personnel are often targets.
  • The medical community. I have recently learned that there are two doctors who claim to be targeted. I have spoken with one of them. If they are genuine, they are indeed exceptions.
  • The wealthy. I have never known of a millionaire having been victimized by ESMC. Most of the targets are middle-class workers, small business owners, retirees, and sometimes financially- and socially-marginal persons.
  • Judges and lawyers. The perpetrators know that judges and lawyers possess credibility and also know the laws and would thus be able to leverage law enforcement into action.
  • Persons with expertise in radio and electronics, who could perhaps eventually figure out what device is being used and how
There are two logical and plausible reasons why most of those particular people are not targeted:

(1) Those non-targets are a part of the conspiracy, either directly or indirectly, and thus protected.

(2) The perpetrators know that those targeted groups would possess the intellectual credibility and the power to command investigations of their attacks.

The strategy will include the following actions.
(1) Attack the target’s reputation and credibility. The investigation into the victim’s background by private investigators and persons posing as law enforcement officials first arouses suspicions those friends and neighbors who are interviewed.
(2)Isolate the victim by casting suspicions, spreading rumors, interfering with his postal and email communications, causing problems between the target and his friends and family members, and making him look crazy
The Handlers’ Accomplices

Accomplices often aid the handlers’ electronic and mind control assault by physically stalking the targets. Targets who receive the electronic and mind control effects also often complain of organized stalking in their neighborhoods and other places. The accomplices are normally people of all walks of life who have been enlisted by the handlers to participate in the ESMC by harassing the targets. They are often volunteers who get an adrenaline rush and a perverse sense of pleasure and power in being able to bother others. Some accomplices who live near the targets and render their full time services to harass them are paid salaries or receive other benefits from their help.

Electronic and mind control assailants also often depend on local accomplices to help with their aims. I classify the accomplices as active and passive. The first group (the actives) participates in street theatrics, gaslighting, and gang stalking; the second group (the passives) knows what is going on but keeps quiet. Unknown persons have entered my house in my absence on several occasions and taken items and rearranged other items. In October of 2008 while I was away on a several-day trip, someone entered my house and took from the center of my bed a round magnet with which I always sleep that measures two inches in diameter by a half inch in thickness. That magnet never leaves my bed and my house. When I change sheets, it goes right back into the bed.I later found the magnet in January, 2009 in the back of a little-used closet. Sometimes the intruders will enter again in the target’s absence to replace the object in its original location to make him think that he is losing his mind, one of their main objectives. Targets call that tactic “gaslighting.”

Accomplices of the ESMC perpetrators perform the actual foot work. Many of the accomplices work in legitimate businesses such as delivery organizations. In my case, UPS has failed to deliver at least five items that I ordered or that someone was sending to me. Two of the items were returned to the senders without my being notified. Never once did a UPS driver leave a notice on my door or in my mailbox that he had attempted to deliver packages. Accomplices also work among law enforcement, in the postal system, telecommunications companies, especially local internet providers, and other legitimate businesses.

Items taken will often consist of anything that they believe might be helpful in their mind control efforts. For example, on one occasion, intruders stole from my desk a roster of an English-as-a-Second-Language class that I had taught.

Although the accomplices are not permanent employees and often are not even paid (except perhaps in “favors” in fixing traffic tickets, etc.), they play an important support role in electronic and mind control assault. Without the goon squads who openly harass targets, burglarize their houses,sabotage their electricity, water, and appliances, surreptitiously enter their domiciles for “gaslighting,” strew rumors, collect extraneous information about the targets’ lives, and interfere with the targets’ communications, the handlers would probably not be able to operate effectively.

Until World War II, psychiatry as a medical science was scarcely known by the general American population. However, in the 1950’s people started turning to psychiatrists for their perceived problems. Law enforcement began using psychiatrists to evaluate persons who either committed crimes or were thought to be capable of committing crimes. Anti-depressants for depression and other mental conditions became commonplace. Since then, psychiatric medicine has become a huge business

Strangely, the popularity of psychiatry evolved collaterally in the last half of the twentieth century with the Government’s obsession with neurological warfare. Those responsible for the development and employment of electronic stalking and mind control have not only fostered the increasing reliance on psychiatry but have also made psychiatry a main facet of their total neurological torture scheme.Targets know that handlers manipulate them to react in what is considered abnormal manners.When they do so, targets are often forced to undergo “psychiatric evaluations.” The psychiatrists who perform those evaluations almost always diagnose targets as delusional, schizophrenic, or paranoid and “treat” those victims with mind altering drugs. Once evaluated, targets lose their credibility, and their complaints of electronic stalking and mind control activities are considered delusional ideas.

Psychiatrists could be very valuable allies to targets in identifying other victims of electronic stalking and mind control and working with targets to find who is harassing them and how; instead,psychiatrists represent the enemy by cooperating with those who sponsor the ESMC. Whether intentional or otherwise, they act as accomplices of the power brokers behind the ESMC.

Evidence that psychiatrists know about ESMC and cooperate with the perpetrators in covering it up exists in abundance. Indeed, psychiatrists almost have to support the power brokers behind ESMC to maintain their professional credibility. Think about it. If psychiatrists admit that symptoms of schizophrenia and paranoia can be induced from outside the human mind and body by remote, it blows the whole rationale behind psychiatry as a science and repudiates the tenets on which their profession rests, for induced signs of schizophrenia and paranoia cannot be treated with traditional psychological therapy and medicines.

Psychiatry as a legitimate branch of medicine is falling under much scrutiny. Doctors and even psychiatrists are becoming increasingly critical of psychiatric practices. If regular medicine is not an exact science; psychiatry is far less exact. Its science is not based on many centuries of dissecting the human body to determine the cause of disease but on less than two centuries of observations and largely inconclusive experiments. Notwithstanding, psychiatric “diseases,” or labels, have grown from fewer than a dozen in the 1950’s to over three hundred today. The count goes on. While conducting online research on psychiatry as a discipline of medicine, I pulled up the review of a book named Pseudoscience in Biological Psychiatry written by Douglas A. Smith. The book is co-authored by Colin A. Ross, a psychiatrist, Alvin Pam, a psychologist, and others. Although I did not read the book, I found Smith’s lengthy review very informative.

The authors of the book disagree with the mainstream traditional psychiatrists who claim that psychological symptoms stem from biological abnormalities, which suggests that genetics play a major role in those conditions. Smith quotes Dr. Ross as saying, “at the present time, there is no proof that biology causes schizophrenia, bipolar mood disorder, or any other functional mental disorder." Dr. Pam, a psychologist, writes that “virtually all so-called psychiatric disorders are caused by life experience rather than the theoretical biological abnormalities that biologically oriented psychiatrists say are the causes.”

Psychiatrists particularly favor the label schizophrenia when diagnosing targets of electronic stalking and mind control. In the cited book, Harry Wiener, M.D., states that "The belief that schizophrenia is a specific organic disease or a group of organic brain diseases has never been confirmed.” Dr. Thomas Szasz, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the State University of New,York, Syracuse and author of Exposing Psychiatry as a Pseudo-Science, states flatly, “No behavior or misbehavior is a disease or can be a disease.” He makes the point in relation to psychitaric treatment of children that “Labeling a child as mentally ill is stigmatization, not diagnosis. Giving a child a psychiatric drug is poisoning, not treatment.”Dr. Ross observes that, "The dream of biological psychiatrists is that an 'objective' laboratory test for one of the major mental illnesses will be discovered.” His statement is an open admission that many tests are continually being conducted to test and “prove” the psychiatric labels. Many of those tests are probably financed by pharmaceutical companies or probably by contractors in private research institutes working directly for the DOD.

Psychiatrists . . . “have, for hundreds of year[sic], used diagnostic terms, so-called diagnostic terms,to stigmatize and control people.” Psychiatrists deal with controlling behavior. Today they “treat”patients with anti-depressants to control their thoughts and their actions. Control over people is exactly what the Government wishes to accomplish through its development of neurological weaponry.

Ellen M. Borges, Ph.D., a sociologist and faculty member at Goddard College in Plainfield,Vermont, talks about control in a chapter in Pseudoscience. She states that "Biological psychiatry redefines social deviance as a medical problem. By doing so, it transforms social norms, which are subjective and political, into medical norms, presumed to be objective and scientific. Medicalization of social deviance allows us a pretense of humanitarianism" for coercive measures against people whose behavior "deviates from expectations based on the dominant social class's ideology and viewpoint." She says further, "Psychiatry redefines a great deal of normal human behavior as medically deviant by pathologizing people who are socially marginal in any way.

”Psychiatrists have never explored why ESMC victims feel that they are targeted by remote electronic and mind control activities. They not only fail to delve into the basis of patients’ complaints but they also refuse to order x-rays, MRIs, and CT Scans to see whether there might bean implanted object in the patients. If they order a scan at all, it will be confined to only the brain. No target would likely have a device implanted directly within the brain itself. Without orders for photographic searches of their body, targets are left to guess and theorize what causes their ESMC. The KMHAC (find name) spelled out some shortcomings in the field of psychiatry, including the collusion between psychiatrists and the drug industry, in an article seen on the internet. Three of those criticisms bear mentioning. I either quote, partially quote, or paraphrase them below.

“Psychoactive drugs have become legal and commonplace, with physicians acting out a role little different from that of drug pushers, pandering to those who seek short-cuts to an escape from painful thoughts.” . . .

“The widespread availability of such drugs which are often dangerous and poorly tested is a public scandal.”

"Psychiatric confinement and court-ordered "medicating" of persons to prevent supposed future actions is “a massive infriinfringement of Constitutionally enshrined human rights. The law has the premise you do not do the time before you've done the crime. Psychiatry stands this principle on its head.”

“Blaming the so-called mentally ill for everything wrong in society comes naturally from the corporate-owned media, who have ties to the profiteering pharmaceutical industry. Every unpleasant quirk of the human psyche is explained away as ‘mental illness’ or a ‘chemical imbalance’ . . . by research [conducted] on barely or non-consenting human guinea pigs.”.


Social control obviously defines the purpose for the treatment of targets. Psychiatrists fill targets full of pills and subject them to various largely unapproved treatments, including modern versions of the old shock treatment. I have yet to find a target forced to accept “treatment” who ceased believing that he was a target due to the psychiatrist’s therapy and medicines and thus “cured” of his supposed delusions.

Psychiatrist Peter Breggin says about the drugs being used by psychiatrists:

"Despite the current enthusiasm for Prozac, the FDA studies underscored the drug's lack of effectiveness, and recent analyses of literature indicate that antidepressants in general are no better than a placebo." Karl Loren, in his paper on psychiatry, says that “Psychiatry and psychiatric drugs do more harm than any other [medical] ‘practice’ on the face of this planet.” Psychiatrist Susan S. Kemker, NorthCentral Bronx Hospital, New York City, sums up the skepticism concerning psychiatry when she says "our understanding of our own field remains naïve."

I rest my case. Psychiatry as a branch of medicine is, at best, of doubtful usefulness to mankind. It most certainly singles out targets of ESMC for stigmatization. Its main purpose is social control. It is little wonder that the power brokers and their hireling handlers force targets to undergo psychiatric “evaluations” and treatment. Psychiatrists serve as main accomplices of the powerbrokers who employ electronic stalking and mind control by remote.

Regardless of who a target might be, how he is selected, and why he is selected, he becomes a plaything for his handlers. To relentlessly torture targets, whom they may not even know, with electronic and mind control devices by remote and watch them suffer, commit suicide, and die from those effects requires unbridled hatred on the part of the psychopathic people who ply that torture. Targets have been condemned in absentia by some person or group, provided no trial, and are summarily executed slowly by remote.

-- Law enforcement has been almost completely uncooperative.

The cowardly perpetrators of ESMC are textbook cases of domestic terrorists. In addition to committing terrorism, the stalkers are guilty of

(1) stalking,

(2) harassing with malicious intent,

(3)coercion (in attempting to make the victim do things that he/she does not want to do with their mind control methods),

(4) psychological and virtual rape,

(5) breaking and entering (which they often do to intimidate the victims by unlocking locked doors, turning back clocks, moving items in rooms,hiding other items, etc.),

(6) burglary and theft (which they commit when they enter a victim’s home and take items to confuse and disorient the victim),

(7) recording a victim’s conversations without his/her consent,

(8) peeping tom-ism (through their ability to view the victim),

(9) assault and battery(by using electric shock, etc. against the victims),

(10) slander (by circulating false rumors and stories that lack proof about the victim),

(11) libel (when those rumors and stories are put into print in the from of emails, etc),

(12) computer hacking and phone tapping,

(13) conspiracy,

(14) in some cases, blackmail and extortion,

(15) first degree murder (when a victim suffers a fatal car crash because of sleep deprivation), and

(16) attempted murder (when their plans do not succeed).

Their list of crimes will put them away for the remainder of their evil lives.The refusal of the FBI to listen seriously to complainants and to investigate their claims indicts that agency. An electronic stalking victim whom I later met in person had also recurred to the FBI to complain. The victim told me that the agent to whom she made her complaint said with a grin: “Makes you feel like you’ve got nowhere to turn, huh?” She stated that “He was quite aware of what I was experiencing.” That victim, a grand and a very soft spoken, almost timid person, had worked for a single telecommunications company for thirty-five years before she retired.

The FBI continually monitors and even infiltrates known organizations that engage in domestic terrorism. It is ridiculous to consider that the FBI does not know about high-tech electronic harassment, the instruments used, and how the instruments work. Moreover, the FBI, Secret Service, NSA, and other agencies share the responsibility for the overall protection of the President, Vice President, cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, and Congresspersons. It is absurd to think that those intelligence agencies do not know about electronic stalking and mind control, how to prevent it, and, if discovered, how to neutralize it.The subject of electronic stalking and mind control remains taboo. The controlled media will not touch that topic, which hints at a conspiracy between the media and the government. Only on the internet, where data is still largely uncontrolled by the power brokers, can one find information on ESMC

Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect."

User avatar
carpe verum
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 7:45 pm

Re: Targeted Individuals

Post by carpe verum » Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:34 pm

Continued
(C2) Case Summary: Rozi, September 25, 2004, www.multistalkervictims.org/rozi.htm

In 1997 I met a man I will call "Chico" or "Mike" at an alcohol/drug treatment center in Tampa,Florida. This man, about 40, at the time, seemed to be a very intelligent, well dressed, clean cut,former drug addict. At the time, as unsuspecting and gullible and naive as I was, I believed him to be an honest, nice person seeking rehabilitation, as was I. I was currently married for a lengthy period of time to a wonderful man whom I adored and loved deeply , but with whom I was experiencing marital problems at the time because of my disease of alcoholism. We had a somewhat "happy" marriage, other than the alcohol problem I was experiencing. We had only one daughter, who we idolized and adored, who was 16 at the time, and a junior in high school. We were dedicated and good parents, we believed. Our daughter was a very pretty, intelligent, talented, sweet, popular, wonderful person.Our life surrounded around our marriage, family and daughter.

As I left the treatment center, "Chico" said to me "Your husband is a very lucky man." I was taken by this comment. A relationship with "Chico" ensued, attending AA meetings, lunches, dinners outings to the beach, etc. I had just retired from teaching for 25 years, and with my daughter now completely involved in high school, singing and dancing, and my husband totally engrossed in a high powered, successful, stressful job. I now had time for this companionship and relished it. Little to my knowledge did I know the atrocious, vicious crime that was awaiting me and my family in the future. One evening on a Saturday night in 1997, a man named "Tom" was at "Chico's" trailer for the weekend. This man informed me of a murder they intended to commit the coming Friday at noon.Thinking this man was a pathological liar and boasting I disregarded this comment.They even showed me what they were going to wear during this murder. A black ski mask and sunglasses (Tom) and blue denim overalls and the mask of a black man ("Chico"). Tom stated,"Open the newspaper Saturday, and you will read about it." I did, and to my awe, an article was there. I was in shock and disbelief. A 26 year old, small business owner, sandwich shop, was killed during a robbery attempt, during which he offered no resistance, and $42 dollars was gotten. After a few weeks, I reported my knowledge to the Tampa Police Department. I was dis-believed and disregarded. This is when the terrible crime of multi-stalking began. I have now been a victim of this terrible crime for 7 years. I have had all symptoms and tactics applied to me. For the first few years I had no idea what was happening, just that my life was "falling" apart.I sold my home in Tampa, and moved to country in Tarpon Springs, Fl., a remote, large house, very isolated, on a preserve. My daughter had by then left for college, thank goodness. I was alone in this house in the country, and was able to be subjected to much fear, many sabotages, robberies and all the trappings and tactics of organized stalking. My family did not believe that anything was happening to me. These were just "normal breaks of life. "It was not until I experienced 2 teenagers in my isolated, treed backyard, wearing camouflage clothes, helmets, white gloves and carrying rifles that I truly feared for my life. After this incident and the killing of my dog and lovebird, I sold my dream house, and moved to a heavily secured apartment, condominium in St. Petersburg, Florida. I had installed a huge security system, cut down the trees, installed fences and electronic gates at my home, and this did not deter the perpetrators. I experienced many break-ins and thefts and acts of sabotage and intimidation out there, and was truly in fear for my life.I am now again experiencing these tactics, now, in addition to technological harrassment. The harassment has escalated rapidly. Now affecting my and my husband's health and security. I receive death threats, threats to my daughter and dog, sleep deprivation, mobbing, stranger accosting. It is never ending. I do believe that these 2 men are at the heart of this situation, accompanied by many assistants(gang members). I am truly frazzled, but try to remain strong daily.They have followed me to New York City, Negril, Jamaica, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Virginia and many others places in the world. These sightings I can prove.

The threats upon my daughter's life, who has now graduated from college and moved away to another state--are the most troublesome. It has been through these activists on these sites that I have been made aware of what is being done to me, and about this phenomenon. I am very grateful for their courage, knowledge and assistance. I thank you and God (as my faith has not been daunted, yet) for your help. I know there is an ultimate purpose to this, but what it is, I currently do not know. I pray that I live to find out. [IMPORTANT NOTE: Reader, most organized stalking victims have NEVER had any type of contact with criminals, nor have they themselves committed any criminal offences.]
(C3) Jesus Mendoza Maldonado 2202 E. 28th. St.Mission, Texas 78574.Ph.: (956)519-7140
Email: jessemm7@yahoo.com

To whom it may concern:

My three children and I are the subject of torture by satellite tracking and Organized Stalking as retaliation for denouncing fraud of federal funds, racial discrimination and judicial corruption. This Complaint points out to specific and concrete evidence on the federal record showing the legitimacy of my claims. Please See Exhibit '1' (attached) which describes some of the physical harm caused on myself and on my children by overexposure to the radiation used by satellite tracking. Exhibit '2'and '3' describe some of the physical harm caused on myself by overexposure to radiation. Exhibit '2' is a Decision of the Social Security Administration finding my electromagnetic sensitivity a severe impairment. Exhibit '3' is a Physician Statement of Disability by the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services which describes some of harm caused by the overexposure to radiation.

I was maliciously overexposed to radiation for the first time in 1997, as retaliation for denouncing a fraudulent scheme against the second largest law school in the country, the Thomas M. Cooley Law School located in Lansing, Michigan. At that time I was going on my second year of law school. I found myself on the emergency room with a swollen heart and breathing difficulties a few days after I submitted to the dean of the law school evidence that the law school engaged in racial discrimination, fraud of federal funds, and the giving away of law degrees to those affiliated to government agencies. At that time, I had been elected president of the Hispanic Law Society and had been on the Dean's list.

The Electronic Aggression and the Organized Stalking forced me to leave my studies one month away from finishing the last semester in the State of Michigan, and I returned to my hometown, Mission, Texas. I left the law school in good moral and academic standing. In my efforts to stop the electronic aggression, I sought help from the federal courts. Although the litigation did not stop the electronic aggression, the following line of cases established on the record the legitimacy of my claims.

A motion for summary judgment established as a matter of law the injuries caused on myself by the electronic aggression, my mental stability, and the fact that the law school incited against me a retaliatory federal electronic surveillance and Organized Stalking for denouncing the fraudulent scheme, including a fraud of student money committed by the president of the law school and former Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court, Thomas E. Brennan, and by the then judge of the Michigan Court of appeals, Roman S. Briggs. Jesus Mendoza Maldonado v. The Thomas M.Cooley Law School, et al, W. Dist. MI., Case No. 5: 01cv93.On 2003, I filed a law suit against the US Attorney General John Ashcroft to stop the electronic aggression after I saw two of my children with convulsions and seizures while detection equipment was showing high intensities of radiation inside our home. US District Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa assigned US Magistrate Dorina Ramos to hear the case. Judge Ramos recused herself in light of evidence that Judge Ramos ignored conclusive evidence of a fraud of student money committed by Judge Brennan and Judge Gribbs, and ignored evidence of the harm caused by the electronic aggression before sending the case against the Thomas M. Cooley Law School from McAllen,Texas to Grand Rapids, Michigan. US District Judge Ricardo Hinojosa reassigned the case to Judge Ramos.

On a hearing before US Magistrate Dorina Ramos, my wife testified to the pain and suffering caused on myself and on my children when detection equipment shows high intensities of directed radiation inside our home, and how the readings on the meters go down as soon as I try to videotape the aggression. On a Report and Recommendation to dismiss the case, Judge Ramos altered the testimony of my wife to imply that I am delusional. The Report states that my wife testified that my problems subside as soon as I operate a video camera. Judge Hinojosa declined to consider the judicial misconduct of Judge Ramos and dismissed the case.

During the litigation of this case, the US Attorney General did not oppose evidence of alteration of testimony by Judge Ramos; acknowledged my mental stability; and claimed that the use of ionizing radiation (x- and gamma rays) for surveillance of residences is legal. During the litigation of this case, the US Attorney General did not oppose an affidavit of a former government agent who was sent to the emergency room with internal bleeding every time he offered to testify in court to my mental stability and to the legitimacy of my claims of electronic aggression. During the litigation of this case, the US Attorney General did not oppose evidence showing that three federal agents (Mark Miller, Michael Rodriguez, and Jeffrey Schrimer, who identified themselves to the principal of the school as FBI agents) engaged in harassment at my work place, a day I attempted to file a criminal complaint against officers of the Thomas M. Cooley Law School. During the litigation of this case, the US Attorney General did not oppose video tape evidence of the pain and suffering caused on myself and on my children while detection equipment indicated an electronic aggression,and evidence that federal agencies are using harmful satellite radiation technologies which are otherwise reserved for national security and the military to direct radiation into residences. Although the Court of Appeals recognized my electrical sensitivity, the harm caused by the electronic aggression, the court did not address the magistrate's alteration of testimony to dismiss the case, finding that I had failed to establish a connection between the electronic aggression and the US Attorney General.

The US Supreme Court declined to get involved in the case. (Maldonadov Ashcroft, Case No. M 03-038; US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Case No. 04-40095; Jesus Mendoza Maldonado v Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. S. Ct., Case No. 04-9908). I submitted to the City of Mission Police Department videotapes showing high intensities of radiation on detection equipment and the pain and suffering inflicted on my children. The Chief of police, Lio Longoria claimed that he was to investigate the case himself. After examination of the videotapes, Joe Gonzales an investigator for the police department concluded that our home had been the subject of an electronic aggression. Another investigator, Ezequiel Navarro, claimed that he local office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had directed him no to intervene on the case, because of an ongoing investigation of my activities by the Central Intelligence Agency. Based on these facts, and on the facts established by the litigation against the US Attorney General, I filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C. The lawsuit sought an Order to compel the Defendants to cease and desist from using radiation surveillance during any investigation of my activities, and to show cause for the investigation. Without a hearing, and without allowing the Defendants to respond, US District Judge Richard W. Roberts, dismissed the Complaint as delusional or fantastic.

On November 21, 2006, Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Randolph and Tatel, Circuit Judges denied the Petition for Rehearing. The same day, Ginsburg Chief Judge, and Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Brown, and Kavanaugh, denied the Petition for Rehearing in Banc. Judge Kavanaugh, a former White House aide (and possibly a former officer of the Thomas M.Cooley Law School), failed to recuse himself from the case. Judge Kavanaugh is disqualified to hear cases of domestic surveillance because while working as White House aid, Judge Kavanaugh was involved in crafting strategies to conceal from Congress the harmful use of radiation domestic surveillance programs. Judge Kavanaugh has been the subject of a Congressional inquiry to determine if he deceived a Congressional Committee during confirmation hearings. On June 21, of 2007, the US Supreme Court declined to get involved in the case.

Jesus Mendoza Maldonado v Keith Alexander, in his official capacity as director of the National Security Agency, Michael Hayden, in his official capacity as Director of the Central intelligence Agency, and George W. Bush in his official capacity as President of the United states of America,US Court Supreme Court, Case No. 06-9569.

Organized Stalking is a copy of the method used by dictatorships to retaliate against those who denounce injustice. Organized stalking includes pervasive street following and high speed road harassment, and disruption of daily routines aimed to overload the senses of the target and to cause harm in a way that appears natural, accidental, self inflicted, or the result of a mental problem. Hate groups and groups disguised as neighborhood watch members organize the stalking groups. They fuel support and participation from others by circulating false rumors that the target is mentally insane, child molester, drug dealer, a prostitute, homosexual, spy, terrorist, etc. People from all walks of life, from the homeless to professional people, compose these groups. See http://www.multistalkervictims.org/terstalk.htm

There is evidence that funding for these activities may come from hate groups, and from federal funded faith funds for congregations. Members of these groups are found on the courts, on the universities, hospitals, the clergy and even on law enforcement agencies. The road harassment has resulted in deadly consequences. Children have been picked dead from the pavement in this area. Evidence that the shootings on campuses and congregations across the country are a reaction to Organized Stalking include the swift intervention of federal agencies to remove evidence showing that the culprits were reacting to pervasive harassment.

There have been several attempts to run over my children and myself. Some of the identified organizers of Organized Stalking include Michael James Lindquist, a self proclaimed apostle of anon-Christian federal funded congregation; Diane K. Smedley, a high school teacher; Ruth Watkins, the wife of a high school teacher; and Christopher T. Lohden, a pilot of a local bank. Without a hearing and despite of defendants' admissions and incriminating evidence, US District Judge Lynn N. Hughes, dismissed the case.

The Defendants did not oppose the appeal. A panel composed of Chief Judge Jones, and King and Dennis found the appeal frivolous and issued a warning of sanctions. Chief Judge Jones was disqualified to hear this case since she had ignored conclusive evidence of fraud on the court by Judge Ramos and Judge Hinojosa to benefit those engaged in fraud of federal funds and retaliation. US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Complaints of Judicial Misconduct Nos. 04-05–372-0089 and 90. Maldonado v Lindquist, et al, US District Court Southern District of Texas,Houston Division, Case N0. H-05-97.(US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Case No. 05-20257).

This case exposes the fact that there are no safeguards in place to impede that the same mentality that tortured and murdered women and children in concentration camps, use silent and invisible technologies to harm people in homes, vehicles, schools, courts, hospitals, and even congregations.

Victims from around the country can testify to the pain and suffering caused by electronic aggressions and Organized Stalking. Seehttp://www.freedomfchs.com/repjimguestltr.pdf This type of terrorism could be considered the most serious threat to the American family. Everyday we live this torture. Please pray for us. We need your help.

For all of the above reasons, I request an investigation of this Complaint and that after an investigation has taken place, to proceed accordingly against those responsible for the criminal acts detailed in this Complaint. If more information or documentation is needed, I will be happy to oblige.To the best of my knowledge and belief, -Jesus Mendoza Maldonado2202 E. 28th St. Mission, Texas, 78574Tel. 956 519 7140.http://jesusmendozza.blogspot.com/
(C4) Terrorist [Organized] Stalking in America
by David Lawson reviewer Eleanor White

This page updated December 17, 2007

** See also my review of David Lawson's 2007 book on the same subject, containing quite a bit of the same material plus new, Cause Stalking Concepts Table (Relevant Points)(Scroll down for book's table of contents) Note: This "Concepts Table" is to speed up access to those points of special relevance to multiple stalking victims. This table doesn't appear in the book itself.

[TABLE OF CONTENTS not included]

Eleanor White talking:

This book places the blame for much group stalking in the United States on what the author calls "extremist groups". We who are in the current day organized stalking target community see evidence that local "extremist groups" comprise a wide range of normal citizens, who appear to be normal, everyday people who probably do not have criminal records. All trades are represented. Anyone from street people to small children to housewives to tradesmen to technical and professional people form these stalking groups, who believe, based on lies, that they are performing valuable community service by harassing their targets.

"Watcher" perpetrators on station Click hereto see the 5-minute video from which the "watcher" image above was taken.

What we see appear to be "citizens on patrol" groups gone wild, targeting people who have no criminal records, based on vicious lies we targets never get the chance to correct.This author describes local extremist groups who go to considerable lengths to actually masquerade as public officials. We organized stalking targets also report bizarre and sometimes unethical and illegal behavior on the part of genuine public officials too, so this book should be viewed as excellent but not necessarily all available information on the topic of organized stalking.

Let me say here that this author, basing his opinion on a misleading document by the Southern Poverty Law Center, alleges "Patriots" are one of the extremist groups which participate in stalking and harassment. The actual criminal groups frequently DO appeal to potential helpers' "patriotism" to obtain help in carrying out their harassment. But the SPLC report MISTAKENLY IMPLIES that EVERYONE who adopts the "Patriot" label is involved in these odious crimes.

I listen daily to broadcasts by the group calling themselves the U.S. Patriot Movement, and which you, visitor can access via the WEB, shortwave, and some AM-FM stations from these sites:

http://www.gcnlive.com (Mainly Mon-Fri,8am 5pm)
http://www.republicbroadcasting.org

The Patriot broadcasters who broadcast on those stations aggressively work to expose and stop all well covered up crimes. It is clear the Southern Policy Law Center people who refer to Patriot Movement shortwave broadcasters as terrorist stalkers has NEVER actually listened to these broadcasts!

Before we get started, author David Lawson did interview perpetrators, ("perps"), targetted people ("targets"), and the POLICE. Here is what the author heard from the police he interviewed: "I also spoke with police officers from across the country. They confirmed the existence of stalking groups across the country. In general, they said that 'cause stalking' is primarily acivil problem where the plaintiff has to prove financial loss. They also said that there are free speech and grass roots issues involved. In fact, the police themselves are targets of these groups. In small towns, the number of members in these groups can easily exceed the number of police officers. In general, the police will NOT talk about stalking groups. One officer did say there is a storm brewing as groups become larger and more numerous."

Author Lawson explains here how he got involved and began to interact with the 'causes talking' perpetrators:

"One day, several years ago, I was sitting in my house, and checking out the activity on my location, the make and model of the car and the license plate number. A few days later, I heard the same woman on the same frequency say that she needed a bit of help at a certain location and a few days after that I again heard her broadcasting the position and details about another vehicle she was following. I listened to other people talking on that frequency and they didn't give any indication that they were with any government agency but they were talking about ARRESTING PEOPLE.

"On another occasion, on the same business band frequency, I heard someone complain that an African American man was crossing the street. "All we could get him for is jaywalking" responded the leader.

"People in the group would discuss where they would go for supper, after their shift was over, so I [the author] went too. I listened to a group of people openly discussing various activities as if they were the police.

"Real police officers were also sitting in the restaurant, listening to them. I later learned that their presence was not a coincidence.

"One man who had supper with the group drove a van marked with the call letters of a local AM radio station. I started listening to it. Most of the guests were people who said they had new revelations about Waco or Ruby Ridge, or had some inside story about government corruption. I also heard advertisements for the meetings of a local political group and I attended some.

"At the first meeting I attended, one young man flashed a phony police badge at me. No one paid any attention. Some of those in attendance were the people I had seen in the local restaurant. This was my introduction to the creepy world of extremists.

"David Lawson goes on to explain that he has observed extremist groups for several years while living in New York State, Florida, and Canada.

He monitored their public communications, attended meetings, rode with them. The author defines the basic reason for being for these citizen stalking groups as CAUSE STALKING. Cause stalking means the group is assembled, under a leader with a "shadowy past", for some specific cause. But what actually happens is that these groups seem to be:

"... groups of individuals who appear to be borderline retarded, mentally ill, or deluded into thinking that they are secret agents."And ...

"Cause stalking has been used by extremist groups since the early 1990s. The basic system is alleged to have been developed by the Ku Klux Klan and refined through years of use.Easy to recruit, right? More than that,

"Group members are taught that THE TARGET IS THE REASON FOR THEIR PROBLEMS. He is the reason why their lives are a failure." More details about the typical cause stalking recruit

"Recruits tend to be blue collar workers who are at the bottom end of the job scale. They are janitors in apartments, hotels, etc., who have keys to get in any locked doors. They are security guards, who can let fellow members into places where they would not normally be allowed to go. They are city workers, who can, in many cities, follow a target around all day in their vehicles or have a noisy project underway near his [target's] residence. They are taxi drivers, who are always on the road. They are cable, telephone and electric company employees who can interfere with a target's service and spend time on patrol with the group,while they are on the job.

Those are the author's words. Here are a few quotes from the perpetrators themselves:

"We are like the police except we are ABOVE the police."

"We are a citizen's group that helps the police. We are trying to alert people in the area about this person [the target] before he gets to do what he did in the last place he lived."

[Eleanor White talking: All the cause stalking targets I know did not commit ANY offenses.The stalkers are filled with LIES by their leaders.]

"When I get the call, I go to whatever the address is. It doesn't matter what they [targets] do,they can never get away from us."

"Who are we? We drive the ambulances that take you to the emergency room. When your house is burning, we put out the fire. We are security guards. We protect you at night. YOU ONLY HAVE ELECTRICITY, PHONE AND CABLE SERVICE BECAUSE OF US. We are janitors. We have the keys. We fix your cars. YOU DON'T WANT TO MESS WITH US."

The author concludes, as explained at a number of places in the book, that the "cause" the typical group is "working toward" is mainly an excuse to get the groups together. The main motivation of members who stay with these groups is the sense of power and belonging the group members derive. Having a "cause" enhances the feelings of power and righteousness, but group members, according to the author, are most concerned with how their fellow group stalkers feel about their "work" and accept them.

These groups come into being and are run by leaders. Here is what the author says aboutthem:

"Most of these leaders HAVE BACKGROUNDS WHICH ARE NOT KNOWN TO THEIR SUPPORTERS. They are from 'somewhere else' and there isn't much information available about them from independent sources. This provides a basis for the 'larger than life' stature they assume in these groups. Many claim to have connections to the C.I.A. or other intelligence agencies which do not reveal the identities of their employees or ex-employees.

"How about financing these groups? Although the author states that the pay is low, there are still very large expenses to harass people as thoroughly as targets report. Here is an example of what I mean by "large expenses":

"Groups are WELL FINANCED. They can afford to RENT PROPERTY WHEREVER THE TARGET LIVES. If he drives across the country, he will be followed by supporters of similar groups in that area. If he travels by plane, group members will meet him wherever he lands. They may even accompany him on a plane if they know his travel plan, and there is a good chance that they do."

Here is what the author learned about their financing:

"The operations of many extremist groups are actually financed by CORPORATIONS which use them to stalk their enemies or potential enemies. The groups are used as the PRIVATE ARMIES of those corporations. Some countries kill dissidents and in others they are jailed.

In the United States, someone who is threatening to corporations or industries, like a whistle blower or activist, is likely to become the target of an extremist group."

The author makes several statements that these criminal stalking groups not only harass targets specified by their leaders, but also are FOR HIRE - a kind of "revenge service" for those wealthy enough to hire them.

Next, let's look at some of the typical OPERATIONS these groups carry out:
  • "The primary characteristic of cause stalking is that it is done by LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE. A target will always be followed, but he is unlikely to see the same stalkers very often." ..."Many of these groups include hundreds of people."
  • "Some authors refer to cause stalking as terrorist stalking. Groups do not just stalk individuals. They employ organized programs of harassment which include BREAK-INS, PROPERTY DAMAGE, ASSAULT AND OCCASIONALLY, EVEN DEATH. The CHILDREN of a target are a favorite."
  • "Firemen across the country, and even some police departments have a long history of supporting extremist groups. Fire trucks can sometimes be seen riding in extremist convoys, with their flashing lights turned on and their sirens screaming. They will also race to greet a convoy which is entering their town. The participation of firemen, city workers and utility company workers helps give group members an illusion of legitimacy and power."
  • "City employees can be used to harass a target in many ways including tearing up the road in front of a target's home. Employees of pest control businesses who have access to the keys for apartments and those who work for alarm and locksmith companies are also of interest.
  • "Groups also attack targets of convenience. These people are selected because they are convenient targets, and not for any other reason. These include loners who tend to be more vulnerable to their harassment tactics than those with family and friends around them. Targets of convenience are used for practice."
  • "Groups have contacts in the media which they use to disseminate information about their targets. IT IS NOT UNUSUAL TO SEE THE VEHICLES OF LOCAL TELEVISION STATIONS RIDING IN EXTREMIST CONVOYS."
  • "In order to establish bases of operation, they will ENLIST THE ASSISTANCE OF NEIGHBORS. In many areas, they can do this by intimidation. Those who do not co-operate can be targeted, which includes harassment of their families and damage to their homes and vehicles.

    "If they are dealing with individuals who do not know them, they can also appeal to their sense of patriotism and they can offer drugs, friendship, home repair, free taxi rides and what ever else they have to. In some cases they may even be able to get a key to the residence from a 'patriotic' landlord.
  • "Surveillance is conducted 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. When a target leaves his residence they will alert the group, either by cell phone or by business band radio. Other members, who are patrolling the perimeter to watch for police and other vehicles driving in the area, will race to the location to begin pursuit. In small towns,where business band radio is widely used, these activities are a local sport among a small group. Anyone with a scanner can join in. Some targets have reported hearing an announcement on their scanners AS SOON AS THEY TURN THEIR LIGHTS ON IN THE MORNING."
  • "In a typical apartment setting, they will attempt to lease, sublet, or otherwise have access to apartments above, below, and on both sides of the target. They will also"guard" the vehicles of a target in the parking lot. If they have occupied apartments surrounding a target, typically normal noises like toilets flushing, doors closing, people talking, etc. will not be heard. The only noises that will be heard are in response to something the target does. If he flushes a toilet, he may hear a car horn honk, the sound of a power tool or hammering, for example. There will also be a large number of people coming and going, and accompanying rowdiness and noise."
  • "A common ruse used by these groups is that they are a 'citizens group' which assists the police and they are 'just keeping track of' a certain individual, for whatever reason. The illusion is reinforced by the case files they carry which are complete with photos of the target and look like those used by police."
  • "Typically, harassment tactics are not used unless a target is alone. If he is with others, group members will still surround him, but they will not reveal their presence. Many targets never experience the kind of harassment described here,because they are not alone very often.
  • Others do not recognize that they are being harassed by an organized group. They just think that there are a lot of rude people in the world. Targets who do not experience physical harassment are still targets for other types of attacks.
  • "Physical harassment is used when a target has no witnesses. An objective is to isolate the target from his family and friends. He can tell them about all the strange things happening around him, but they will not understand and perhaps will think he is crazy. Sometimes other members of the family will receive the same treatment."
  • "When a target is driving, standard practice is to surround his vehicle and attempt to control his speed. He will not be followed in close proximity by the same vehicles for a long distance. They do frequent trade-offs. Vehicles line up behind the target for a short distance and then move out of place so the next vehicle can take over. Frequently, vehicles in the convoy will have their high beam headlights on during the day, so a target frequently have a vehicle behind him which has its headlights on."In many parts of the country it is common to see groups of six to 30 or more vehicles driving around in convoys with their high beams on during the day. This is one of the ways a convoy can be identified."
  • "A target will be followed on foot wherever he goes. Anyone can go to the same public places he goes, and they will attempt to get into any other restricted places he goes, including hospitals, places of employment, etc. It has been said that it is possible to go nearly anywhere if you have a clipboard in your hand and it is almost true. They also like to wear name badges on a lanyard, and some carry phony police badges."
  • "Common harassment tactics used by those on foot include PEN CLICKING, in which they repeatedly click a ball point pen, key rattling, and rattling change in their pockets while standing behind the target. Many tactics are tried and the result is observed. Those which evoke a response from the target are repeated. When a target sits anywhere in public, group members will attempt to sit behind him in order to create noise, by whatever means, including tapping their feet on the target's chair.The objective is to harass the target constantly."
  • "Groups attempt to interfere with any business and personal relationships which the target has. Typically, this interference involves character assassination from some anonymous individual and is not usually taken seriously by those who know the target. It can be effective with people who don't know the target."
  • "At work, the target will also experience character assassination. If he works in any position where he has to deal with the public, there will be a steady stream of customers who complain about him. If he is a real estate agent, he will have a steady stream of prospects who OCCUPY HIS TIME but never make an offer."

    Let me, Eleanor White, give you an example of how brutal and serious this"character assassination" can be.

    One of our members, who prefers to remain anonymous, moved in with her husband and children to a house which, unknown to them, had been a methamphetamine lab. The chemicals used to brew meth apparently cause distinctive symptoms in the mouth. This family's dentist felt he was "helping law enforcement" by reporting them to local law enforcement as meth users. This was absolutely untrue, but the family didn't even know the report had been made and had no way to correct it. (In fact, in some places, dentists are REQUIRED to report suspected cases of meth use.)

    Law enforcement in that area was apparently tied in to the stalking groups, and the family was harassed for many years. The husband died, apparently from exposure to these chemicals.

    The lady, now a grand, steadfastly did detective work and eventually found out about her family's reputation, with some help from a policeman who was a personal friend,from a different jurisdiction. This policeman admitted off the record that "meth mouth" can result in people being submitted to citizen harassment groups for harassment. Character assassination is complete and has life-destroying consequences!
  • "A common tactic use by groups is noise campaigns. Group members will drive by the target's residence or work place, honking their horns, squealing tires, and making whatever other noise they can."

    "They will also make noise from whatever NEARBY PROPERTIES they have access to. Typically, they will make noise WHEN THE TARGET GOES OUTSIDE. [Eleanor

    White talking: OR, when the target opens a window, and I mean timed to the millisecond! Open, close, perfect sync!] Group members will also frequently knock on his door for whatever peculiar reasons they can dream up."
  • "In an apartment setting, targets can expect to hear tapping on the walls in the middle of the night, taps running, hammering etc. from the upper and/or lower apartments, and possibly the apartments on both sides. They will continue to 'work' on these activities for as long as they can get away with them."
  • "Other vehicle related tactics include blockade, so the target vehicle cannot leave a parking lot, for example, or he is surrounded by slow moving vehicles. "Standard practice is to watch the target's vehicles and this subjects them to damage including slashed tires, scratched paint, stolen license plates, etc. Typically they would not cut the brake lines on vehicles or commit other similar acts of sabotage, but they WOULD drain the oil or antifreeze over a period of TIME. [Eleanor White: AMEN!]"
  • "... It is not uncommon, in an apartment setting, for a target to hear someone moving from room to room as he does, from the upper or lower apartment. [Eleanor White talking: This requires commercial through wall radar or more advanced technology in many cases.]
  • Often they occupy a nearby apartment, part time, when the owner is not there and he receives some benefit. A target may notice someone leaving a nearby apartment when he leaves his, and arrive when he arrives. [Eleanor White talking: All the time,in my experience.] In addition, he will often be accompanied in elevators by a steady stream of different individuals who go to the apartments being used by the group.
Now that is a HUGE "laundry list" of operations carried out against the targets of these criminal cause stalking groups. But reader, this particular book is ALL MEAT, and there is MUCH, MUCH more within its covers. If the general public is made aware of this book, these brutal crimes, which have resulted in suicides, just might have a chance of being exposed and stopped.

Currently, the typical justice system response is to label the victim as mentally ill and wash their hands of the problem. This is itself a criminal act, and a violation of all the job descriptions and oaths these public officials have accepted and made. They are NOT doing their jobs!

What about the future, then? Let me close this review with a chilling quote from the book reporting what the author learned from some of the leaders:

"The leaders ... are starting to balk at exposing their members to arrest for activities which amount to little gain for the movement. THEY SAY THAT ANYONE WHO IS A TARGET SHOULD BE KILLED, and not just harassed for years." YOU, Joe and Jane Citizen, have the power to stop this by doing nothing more than asking your public officials how they plan to deal with this growing crime. Will you help us?

Eleanor White talking:

"The above book, "Harvest of Rage", is an attempt to paint ALL members of the U.S. Patriot Movement as extremists, criminals, religious fanatics, and mentally ill. At the time of writing this review, I have listened to their shortwave, web, and AM/FM *broadcasts* for two years. If Mr. Dyer has ever listened to those broadcasts, then I have to conclude he is deliberately trying to discredit this movement for motives unknown. My guess is Mr. Dyer has not listened to their broadcasts.

I have heard an endless stream of documented information, often from wire services before getting edited by retail media outlets, and government publications, which shows conclusively that the U.S. Patriot Movement broadcasters are on the right track and speak out often against anti government violence. The goal of the U.S. Patriot broadcasters is non-violent change, returning the United States to original Constitutional principles, brought about by PUBLIC EDUCATION. Anyone who takes the time to LISTEN to their broadcasts will find the same. It is easy to listen to them by way of the network links at the top of this document.

I'm afraid the author of Terrorist Stalking in America, David Lawson, has not taken the time to listen to these broadcasts either, and so does not have a fully informed opinion about the Patriots.
Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest