Its a term I've seen in recent months through a particular social site which I hadn't previously seen used, and generally one in which I would have thought in the context of isolated, or what I mean to say here is that often times someone identified in this manner would generally be in a small minority relative to a larger population set, and generally as far as I could tell this maybe as likely true, although any clear criminology analytic information on this maybe harder to come by?!
First I'd mention that socially orchestrated phenomenon such as rallying, organizing for social events, such as protesting to be heard, for instance, at or near governmental buildings, commercial, and otherwise, are quite known, or that any known group (publicized by media) would act to stage a socially directed protest at the funerals of deceased soldiers (see Westboro Baptist Church), and that this form of 'protest' itself actually in many ways seems to be modeled on a form of psychological warfare tactic. The problem often that I've seen related, in so far as the descriptions of events concerning those self identified potentially as targeted individuals is that the type of social behaviors often experienced, seem out of sync with the common place experience of any other individual that would neither describe themselves as invariably targeted, while one couldn't claim that social targeting by criminally organized groups of individuals have not possible (e.g., no further then looking to the history of civil rights struggle). A modern context of this struggle, however, might not be delineated by the more conspicuous attributes of any individual representing such group (e.g., wearing certain types of clothing, or having some conspicuous manner of appearance), that instead they could look more like any individual from any given background, and that the tactics used in staging any organized behavior were more likely guerrilla style tactics (e.g., a group of protesters that show up out of the blue at a governmental building only to have that much more time in gaining an illegal entrance). Then coupling this with the other problematic half, if such events were likely taking place domestically, "who would exactly believe that it were possible?" And how many should be included in on the conspiracy? And what motive?
I'd first potentially start with motive on the claim that much violence orchestrated is owing to much other then political motivation, or this could be the most likely suspect cause as for any. For instance, I'd read yesterday, that hate crimes were dramatically on the incline in the past few months in the UK, attributed to activities of known extreme right groups (or those likely with certain political motivations). While there could be differences between activities arising domestically here versus there, it seems to me more suspect that some political motivation should exist somewhere for some reason. Part of this question, however, remains unclear to me, with respect to the some of the readings on this subject matter that I have done. Firstly that a given victim, offered that mostly that he weren't on the outs in society (e.g., real estate agent) and that generally he hadn't discussed much politics period, although he mentioned he had spoke of a slightly disparaging remark at one particular social event to a coworker about a former president, but generally as he recalled the remark weren't a significant one, more like a joke, or very light in passing. He himself, felt as thought, his case were almost as if having been randomly picked out of a phone book, or something to this effect, or in other words, if it were like a very sick social experiment, part of a control group.
Then relatively speaking other accounts, should seem a bit different, while having by definition patterned similarities with respect to the nature of how victimization were taking place. Gang stalking, illegal surveillance/eavesdropping, forced entry, as some examples. Then others describe symptoms as exceeding such as suffering bodily pains, sensations, mental/neurological impairment issues (basically things that could run the nebulous gambit of fibromyalgia (pain suffering disorders), clinical depression, schizophrenia, and the list goes on. Likely I'd simply make the distinction between one social set of suffers, and honestly I could say that potentially fit into both such classes, but for the sake of ease in discussion. I'd mention the first class as non harassed "electronically" as has been stated versus another class that has claimed otherwise. Personally, since I hadn't the clear evidence of what clearly should be the cause and/or that my feeling were an arousal of suspicion that any of the 'electronic' tools supposedly mentioned should meet necessary benchmarks for viability of producing any number of symptoms that victims have described. This is to say mere making the brain as if it were possible with today's radio transmissions technologies, as receptive and producing high level neurological phenomenon as has been suggested seems amiss to me, or that there at least should be something more of sophistication here then has been suggested otherwise of these given potential technologies. As to the first class of suffers, those that have felt themselves victims of non bodily invasive forms of electronic harassment (e.g., surveillance/eavesdropping) the good news is that such claim is certainly a more viably defended one. Off the shelf technology readily exists is cheap enough, and detection equipment may be thought less commonplace used in any given home (as a counter measure). This is to say, socially we may be more likely to put up cameras, then to think ourselves the victims culturally of surveillance/eavesdropping or at least knowing what to do in these circumstances to protect ourselves. Digital storage is only cheaper, and that camera technologies could be fashioned in the way of design that were found in top notched spy surveillance equipment of the past decades means that the probabilities of increased use by non governmental s alike could be a reality (i.e., to say people have more then mean then ever to spy on each other and have little if anything to do with government). The second part of this argument has a segway likewise. Given that we can spy on each other more readily has darker implications here, and this is, that we can logistically mobilize more readily and easily in terms of behavioral pattern identifications. If we've secretly attached a GPS transmitter to a given victims car, or that we've somehow made use in accessing their coordinate position through a given smartphone, one might now where to do the stalking or make predictive guessing as to where someone might be headed, whom they might be meeting with. Whereas before, the educated guessing might require a bit more dirty work, such as having someone privately on the ground monitoring someone's whereabouts, and figuring where they might be headed, requiring both stationary and moving forms of surveillance (e.g., following with car or being stationed in a nearby house/apartment for surveillance) costs time and money. On the other hand where private surveillance means, neither having to live in proximity to an individual, means less cost, and adds to the predictive staging element of social theater when and where it may occur. This means if a group can know where you might be and when you might be, the weekend warriors (yes, some of these individuals should likely one should guess have some sort of place in life, or a disparaging ratio of 120:1 is very large orchestration for an assembled task of accomplish exactly what...hard to imagine except in the most rare circumstance that any large group of individuals would be paid for exactly the lifestyle to harass just one individual...so you might suspect that they were making rounds in social theater) that they generally might be or easier to co opt for a given social commune at a given time using the sorts of technologies that have allowed them to make predictive guessing as to your whereabouts more likely known.
Of course, the elements which have conspired against any victim self admittedly, the most populated of social theater that I had witnessed were likely handfuls of individuals (when walking in a more predictive manner everyday or thereabouts in a given locality when I had done that). When I removed some sort of social predicative element out of this equation and resumed walking in that same given locality, I noticed little or none activity, and I generally remained unresponsive to social behaviors of this type. Secondly if it weren't electronic surveillance in the house, keeping private information private means neither yielding it readily on social networking sites where guess work could be provided (as stated in a posting before), a recent social theater drop tried to suggest something but likely were yielded from information revealed through social networking sites (someone somewhere that I knew likely said something...or it didn't have to come through surveillance or "mind reading" to make such an inference). Thirdly, and while I wouldn't suffer saying this as I never attend larger scale social events, like sporting, musical, and so forth, it maybe the impetus of any groups such as these to form a collective in a way at events such as these primarily because of having for that reason alone logistical mobilization, manpower, show of strength, and so forth, to tout in engaging in psych ops style tactics. Keep in mind while 120 persons sounds like a lot, there are 300 million in this country alone, and that the vast majority in many areas are not engaged in this sort of behavior, but collectively it takes a very small fraction of well organized groups of individuals to do the sorts of behaviors which create the illusion of numbers, creates the illusion of commanding something larger scale then it potentially may be in reality. A few guards to control a prison, a camp, and/so forth. The biggest problems that remain, however, are where do any of such persons belong: what sort of walk in life, and how potentially any should have a given power that effects the outcome of legal recourse, one should imagine.
The bad news in the way, is that when political operandi appears to be in sway (e.g., lame duck president that is taking heat for past policy making) and opportunism is sensed by it, it seems more plausible to me that the risk assessments and motivations move accordingly for all the political stunts and charades that are presently happening...did I say that the UK were seeing an increase in hate crimes (and that is overseas)?! Supposedly the pretense is the implicit green light that may be yielded. If a death of a legally immigrated Ecuadoran in a small New York town, created some manner of mobilization as a backlash to any given hate crime, it seems that it takes hopefully people standing up and saying something about it...which incidentally is what apparently did happen in the New York case (see the PBS documentary Not in our Town).
In the future, if concern and awareness of surveillance and eavesdropping is on the incline, it may be acknowledged more mainstream, the possibility that people self described as "targeted individuals" receive the recognition deserved legally for what they are as victims. Part of the problem is in my opinion a crime of an organized social nature, it is also likely a complex sociological problem as well. I'd mention there have been large cities having past scandals, by the way, with crooked cops involved with organized crime outfits, and someday if proven, hopefully any law enforcement involved are removed. I was thinking of the film American Gangster where the role of a given detective played by Russell Crowe appears to be hopelessly doomed with respect to any headway given in gaining ground on detective work on a mob boss case. Here the big issues being corruption and influence so saturated in a given local police force that the detective's work appears next to impossible, but somehow in the plot he manages to keep going. It seems that while the stories derivative were given to real events and people, likely a lot of fiction to be served, not that real life examples don't already exist today or having existed in the past, or in other words, there is likely truth at times, when potential corruption is so high that juries may be hooded, or that courts are operated with higher levels of secrecy and shielding anonymity to combat social retributions and fear that could be pervasive when organized crime systems have become widely pervasive and strongly influential to inhibiting legal justice systems. Eventually things change in legal systems, despite money, power, and social influences. Something to hope for at least. Leaving off on a bit of the informal ramble on this one, and returning to the subject matter, while in many ways the type of social crime suggested as with Gang stalking may in essence not be entirely new, the morphology of the social crime characteristics themselves may be entirely different relative to the types of crimes having been found in the past. Of course, when new types of social crimes arise, it may take time for legal systems to acknowledge and catch up likewise in providing new laws in dealing with such offenses and also providing proper training to law enforcement officials in handling cases such as these. If laws don't, on the other hand, exist in properly addressing it potentially means in appropriate potential handling of those victimized (in so far as legal recourse) as well as poorer handling in so far as prosecution of criminal cases. A recent small segment documentary in a small town in Illinois, I remember, covered the issue of poor police handling over the course of decades of crime in general, where, for instance, any number of rape cases where left as cold ones. Much of this likely due to budgetary problems, not enough law enforcement officials trained, or improperly trained in general handling and followup. Something to keep in mind here likewise.
Who and what may be behind targeting people here in America? Unfortunately I return to what could only seem more unsettling as speculation. For the examples that I've mentioned of hate crimes above, one's sense of who and exactly groups of people are defined in this context, parallels more likely how a former vice president Dick Cheney viewed in his own words a known terrorist group, namely, using the words, 'Assymetrical' threat. Groups of individuals such as these might not be directed in clear organizational patterns, or that is the sense that one might have if following reports of incident, however, more episodic and prominent that these appear given to general popular media. But as I've posted briefly in mentioning, for instance prominent religious right in the context of recent influences in the passing of legislation in Africa pertaining to anti homosexual laws (to the extent of making a given crime punishable by life in prison....more shocking to see these same 'Christian' advocating for the death penalty for homosexuals over there), we'd know that tangibly social movements are there. While it may be difficult to link for all we know more isolated groups of individuals, to much else, the pattern and behavioral rise, I argue may not be happenstance, as had been suggested in the PBS documentary, Not In Our Town, its not exactly isolated, but at times fed in times through messaging, however, subtle or otherwise. If perception on the matter of politics were threshold in such a way, the messages, however, subtle seem to suggest that a social traffic control type system is perceived, that is a perception that may not exactly be true, when conservatives or liberals alike are elected, that alliances potentially is perceived in the subtle ways that widespread belief or anger on an issue, makes right behaviors that would be overlooked even if they were once perceived as criminal, or bringing to the surface, the perception by individual(s) alike that their anger is a shared one, that they are unified by it, and that it is the same one...or in other words a message: might makes right. The problem with sameness, I imagine is completely overlooked, an unsettled teenager's mind at such a time, might scarcely consider in the same ways the implications of actions relative to an aged population of people, or at least that they may be more likely unhinged owing to problems of maturity. The problem is that these sorts of behaviors may not only be relegated to teenager's but adults alike.
There is also another implication to this when the social phenomenon has arisen, where groups of people have been allowed to engage in the sorts of behavior en masse that hadn't existed where laws neither provide self protected social existences, and it is exactly that, it takes law enforcement, legislation, recognition of, and so much more at times to deal with problems. If the problems of Rwanda were highlighted, not by the at times false perceptions generated in Western media (generally a false racist one relating to something like incidental tribalism gotten way violently out of hand), it were that a lot of ignoring were done by bureaucrats, politicians, and their a given local media, alongside with organization having taken place by military (and subsidiary paramilitary groups). Much were ignored, overlooked, while machetes were being handed out to a certain populace of peoples. If the same could be true in this country here, its that we hold ourselves to a level of ignorance with respect to a given social problem, feed the hate channels of media with more subtle messaging as a tool for resonating violence and likewise directing it logistically, and then lastly ensuring that people are armed and logistically put in the right places at the right times for coordinated mobilization...ostensibly leading the army that 'doesn't really exist'. Sure it bought Rwanda generals and leaders then a temporary excuse but, yes, it hadn't meant that the trail went cold on the investigation and followup having confirmed high level war crimes having occurred and international prosecution for those alike. The biggest issues here in the U.S., its not a case of Free Speech alone in protecting social behaviors that attempt to the 'fan the flames' through social resonance of a given populace, and that constitutional laws were merely drawn for the purpose of shielding abominable behavior, but then I'd remind its more then just the 'water tap' faucet of media outlets bearing responsibilities here. The face of those doing the targeting are not at times easy to see or discern, in theory at least I imagine in so far as a Western society that has enough complexity behind, so that horrific civil liberties depriving laws are passed in societies that transition in night and day type vacillations?! At least, one hadn't imagined that ghettos would suddenly appear over night where they once hadn't existed, and the radio dj on local radio effectively talking about the populace of 'bugs' in a given neighborhood (not really speaking as entomologist here, or really about insects) could be in time yanked off the air here in the U.S. These groups of people may suffer from the inherent problems of a complex societal fabric which is sustainability, where they might most typically use backdrop of economic downturns, rise in joblessness to suit their agenda, as had been the perception in times past, it were no coincidence that East Germany still to this day describes potential social differences between the perception of the Berlin Wall and the old social systems surrounding it. Where economic malaise and long term problems in a given population had given way to knew less chartered territories of freedoms, hate groups suddenly pop up, and the self evident view that western decline and disenfranchisement were one and the same for an often perceived neglect. The faces of the gang stalking perpetrators, whenever and where ever they exist here in America, are a dilute one, they potentially look like you and I in everyday street clothes, except that they seem to be acting at times by choreography and social script, I've seen enough to where I've felt there were an inset logic behind social behaviors: like get rid of that person out of this job, we aren't drawing the sort of reaction that we want and need, time to move on to other places. They might not have the appearances of attending the same church, or really saying the same things, and not even blandly uniform in the same social ways, for instance, liking anything of set literature, arts, culture, or anything of this type...they could claim to like 'new grass' (humored by this one)...sadly a whole South by Southwest Austin, TX phenomenon(?), but scarcely know a thing about Old bluegrass? They might have known enough about experimental music and things like circuit bending, or at least feigning interests there, or in other words, such a person could appear to share similar backgrounds to anyone, if they had enough social inferences to put themselves into a given position. Another incident one could recall, of the supposed once 'black hat' guest speaker, whom informally shown up for a computing meet up social whom might have appeared in some ways like another wall flower, a sort thin person that'd look like any other geek...he'd merely drop that he had worked with security relating to Linux computing systems...and (lo and behold!) you were probably one of the few that actually bothered much with Linux in that room (everyone there were using MAC s...more humor). Of course it didn't help that I have self publications on this blog series for a rather juvenile looking secret Annie decoder ring python encryption/decryption hashing technique, or that somewhere down the line in a previous relationship, I likely had all sorts of silly little profile hits (e.g., Jewelry design...at least with the ex...you know bomb making equipment...moving to a new area of the country without really having so many social contacts like others that you knew while neither having an inkling in so far as to what those others might be doing really...and that by the way were entirely coincidental as I am sure the NSA would directly know themselves...) but it seems that what Snowden coined as the loss in freedom for creativity. That a whole multitude of things could be suspicious enough. The face of those perpetrators could be the pot smoker that you know (and sadly I laugh because it sounds like the sort of dialogue you'd hear from a former vice president). They might have the training of rent a cops, people drafted with little training, little back ground in handling social situations in certain ways, and generally neither consequent for this reason given to the same answer of accountability that would be typified in law enforcement and other legal channels, and sadly enough you might as easily encounter these types nearest to shopping malls, or public spaces of this type, having had likely its own set of privately contracted security. Your sense might be that they have little clear role in security, however, or that just as likely one were encountering groups that were engaged in some form of unaccounted for 'power trip', and merely serving hostility for that intimidating sake alone, they could hardly be characterized as a law enforcement group or securities related group here, not even operatives engaged in theater to flush out and prevent something actionable that were sensed in the clearest intel sense of the word, showing more in the operations sense of the word juvenile behaviors which feigned cloak and dagger like roles, of unaccounted for and an untrained peoples. And then you might have faced an old Cold War CIA financial manipulations tactics that were served more to the purpose of vendetta (for squelching speech), then in having worked for actionable intelligence gathering tools. Which left me wondering at least in this attempted portrait, exactly who and what these people might look like...and the daunting prospect were that it could be decades only before we know a definitive history of what groups of people might have been involved in the targeting of innocent Americans.
First I'd mention that socially orchestrated phenomenon such as rallying, organizing for social events, such as protesting to be heard, for instance, at or near governmental buildings, commercial, and otherwise, are quite known, or that any known group (publicized by media) would act to stage a socially directed protest at the funerals of deceased soldiers (see Westboro Baptist Church), and that this form of 'protest' itself actually in many ways seems to be modeled on a form of psychological warfare tactic. The problem often that I've seen related, in so far as the descriptions of events concerning those self identified potentially as targeted individuals is that the type of social behaviors often experienced, seem out of sync with the common place experience of any other individual that would neither describe themselves as invariably targeted, while one couldn't claim that social targeting by criminally organized groups of individuals have not possible (e.g., no further then looking to the history of civil rights struggle). A modern context of this struggle, however, might not be delineated by the more conspicuous attributes of any individual representing such group (e.g., wearing certain types of clothing, or having some conspicuous manner of appearance), that instead they could look more like any individual from any given background, and that the tactics used in staging any organized behavior were more likely guerrilla style tactics (e.g., a group of protesters that show up out of the blue at a governmental building only to have that much more time in gaining an illegal entrance). Then coupling this with the other problematic half, if such events were likely taking place domestically, "who would exactly believe that it were possible?" And how many should be included in on the conspiracy? And what motive?
I'd first potentially start with motive on the claim that much violence orchestrated is owing to much other then political motivation, or this could be the most likely suspect cause as for any. For instance, I'd read yesterday, that hate crimes were dramatically on the incline in the past few months in the UK, attributed to activities of known extreme right groups (or those likely with certain political motivations). While there could be differences between activities arising domestically here versus there, it seems to me more suspect that some political motivation should exist somewhere for some reason. Part of this question, however, remains unclear to me, with respect to the some of the readings on this subject matter that I have done. Firstly that a given victim, offered that mostly that he weren't on the outs in society (e.g., real estate agent) and that generally he hadn't discussed much politics period, although he mentioned he had spoke of a slightly disparaging remark at one particular social event to a coworker about a former president, but generally as he recalled the remark weren't a significant one, more like a joke, or very light in passing. He himself, felt as thought, his case were almost as if having been randomly picked out of a phone book, or something to this effect, or in other words, if it were like a very sick social experiment, part of a control group.
Then relatively speaking other accounts, should seem a bit different, while having by definition patterned similarities with respect to the nature of how victimization were taking place. Gang stalking, illegal surveillance/eavesdropping, forced entry, as some examples. Then others describe symptoms as exceeding such as suffering bodily pains, sensations, mental/neurological impairment issues (basically things that could run the nebulous gambit of fibromyalgia (pain suffering disorders), clinical depression, schizophrenia, and the list goes on. Likely I'd simply make the distinction between one social set of suffers, and honestly I could say that potentially fit into both such classes, but for the sake of ease in discussion. I'd mention the first class as non harassed "electronically" as has been stated versus another class that has claimed otherwise. Personally, since I hadn't the clear evidence of what clearly should be the cause and/or that my feeling were an arousal of suspicion that any of the 'electronic' tools supposedly mentioned should meet necessary benchmarks for viability of producing any number of symptoms that victims have described. This is to say mere making the brain as if it were possible with today's radio transmissions technologies, as receptive and producing high level neurological phenomenon as has been suggested seems amiss to me, or that there at least should be something more of sophistication here then has been suggested otherwise of these given potential technologies. As to the first class of suffers, those that have felt themselves victims of non bodily invasive forms of electronic harassment (e.g., surveillance/eavesdropping) the good news is that such claim is certainly a more viably defended one. Off the shelf technology readily exists is cheap enough, and detection equipment may be thought less commonplace used in any given home (as a counter measure). This is to say, socially we may be more likely to put up cameras, then to think ourselves the victims culturally of surveillance/eavesdropping or at least knowing what to do in these circumstances to protect ourselves. Digital storage is only cheaper, and that camera technologies could be fashioned in the way of design that were found in top notched spy surveillance equipment of the past decades means that the probabilities of increased use by non governmental s alike could be a reality (i.e., to say people have more then mean then ever to spy on each other and have little if anything to do with government). The second part of this argument has a segway likewise. Given that we can spy on each other more readily has darker implications here, and this is, that we can logistically mobilize more readily and easily in terms of behavioral pattern identifications. If we've secretly attached a GPS transmitter to a given victims car, or that we've somehow made use in accessing their coordinate position through a given smartphone, one might now where to do the stalking or make predictive guessing as to where someone might be headed, whom they might be meeting with. Whereas before, the educated guessing might require a bit more dirty work, such as having someone privately on the ground monitoring someone's whereabouts, and figuring where they might be headed, requiring both stationary and moving forms of surveillance (e.g., following with car or being stationed in a nearby house/apartment for surveillance) costs time and money. On the other hand where private surveillance means, neither having to live in proximity to an individual, means less cost, and adds to the predictive staging element of social theater when and where it may occur. This means if a group can know where you might be and when you might be, the weekend warriors (yes, some of these individuals should likely one should guess have some sort of place in life, or a disparaging ratio of 120:1 is very large orchestration for an assembled task of accomplish exactly what...hard to imagine except in the most rare circumstance that any large group of individuals would be paid for exactly the lifestyle to harass just one individual...so you might suspect that they were making rounds in social theater) that they generally might be or easier to co opt for a given social commune at a given time using the sorts of technologies that have allowed them to make predictive guessing as to your whereabouts more likely known.
Of course, the elements which have conspired against any victim self admittedly, the most populated of social theater that I had witnessed were likely handfuls of individuals (when walking in a more predictive manner everyday or thereabouts in a given locality when I had done that). When I removed some sort of social predicative element out of this equation and resumed walking in that same given locality, I noticed little or none activity, and I generally remained unresponsive to social behaviors of this type. Secondly if it weren't electronic surveillance in the house, keeping private information private means neither yielding it readily on social networking sites where guess work could be provided (as stated in a posting before), a recent social theater drop tried to suggest something but likely were yielded from information revealed through social networking sites (someone somewhere that I knew likely said something...or it didn't have to come through surveillance or "mind reading" to make such an inference). Thirdly, and while I wouldn't suffer saying this as I never attend larger scale social events, like sporting, musical, and so forth, it maybe the impetus of any groups such as these to form a collective in a way at events such as these primarily because of having for that reason alone logistical mobilization, manpower, show of strength, and so forth, to tout in engaging in psych ops style tactics. Keep in mind while 120 persons sounds like a lot, there are 300 million in this country alone, and that the vast majority in many areas are not engaged in this sort of behavior, but collectively it takes a very small fraction of well organized groups of individuals to do the sorts of behaviors which create the illusion of numbers, creates the illusion of commanding something larger scale then it potentially may be in reality. A few guards to control a prison, a camp, and/so forth. The biggest problems that remain, however, are where do any of such persons belong: what sort of walk in life, and how potentially any should have a given power that effects the outcome of legal recourse, one should imagine.
The bad news in the way, is that when political operandi appears to be in sway (e.g., lame duck president that is taking heat for past policy making) and opportunism is sensed by it, it seems more plausible to me that the risk assessments and motivations move accordingly for all the political stunts and charades that are presently happening...did I say that the UK were seeing an increase in hate crimes (and that is overseas)?! Supposedly the pretense is the implicit green light that may be yielded. If a death of a legally immigrated Ecuadoran in a small New York town, created some manner of mobilization as a backlash to any given hate crime, it seems that it takes hopefully people standing up and saying something about it...which incidentally is what apparently did happen in the New York case (see the PBS documentary Not in our Town).
In the future, if concern and awareness of surveillance and eavesdropping is on the incline, it may be acknowledged more mainstream, the possibility that people self described as "targeted individuals" receive the recognition deserved legally for what they are as victims. Part of the problem is in my opinion a crime of an organized social nature, it is also likely a complex sociological problem as well. I'd mention there have been large cities having past scandals, by the way, with crooked cops involved with organized crime outfits, and someday if proven, hopefully any law enforcement involved are removed. I was thinking of the film American Gangster where the role of a given detective played by Russell Crowe appears to be hopelessly doomed with respect to any headway given in gaining ground on detective work on a mob boss case. Here the big issues being corruption and influence so saturated in a given local police force that the detective's work appears next to impossible, but somehow in the plot he manages to keep going. It seems that while the stories derivative were given to real events and people, likely a lot of fiction to be served, not that real life examples don't already exist today or having existed in the past, or in other words, there is likely truth at times, when potential corruption is so high that juries may be hooded, or that courts are operated with higher levels of secrecy and shielding anonymity to combat social retributions and fear that could be pervasive when organized crime systems have become widely pervasive and strongly influential to inhibiting legal justice systems. Eventually things change in legal systems, despite money, power, and social influences. Something to hope for at least. Leaving off on a bit of the informal ramble on this one, and returning to the subject matter, while in many ways the type of social crime suggested as with Gang stalking may in essence not be entirely new, the morphology of the social crime characteristics themselves may be entirely different relative to the types of crimes having been found in the past. Of course, when new types of social crimes arise, it may take time for legal systems to acknowledge and catch up likewise in providing new laws in dealing with such offenses and also providing proper training to law enforcement officials in handling cases such as these. If laws don't, on the other hand, exist in properly addressing it potentially means in appropriate potential handling of those victimized (in so far as legal recourse) as well as poorer handling in so far as prosecution of criminal cases. A recent small segment documentary in a small town in Illinois, I remember, covered the issue of poor police handling over the course of decades of crime in general, where, for instance, any number of rape cases where left as cold ones. Much of this likely due to budgetary problems, not enough law enforcement officials trained, or improperly trained in general handling and followup. Something to keep in mind here likewise.
Who and what may be behind targeting people here in America? Unfortunately I return to what could only seem more unsettling as speculation. For the examples that I've mentioned of hate crimes above, one's sense of who and exactly groups of people are defined in this context, parallels more likely how a former vice president Dick Cheney viewed in his own words a known terrorist group, namely, using the words, 'Assymetrical' threat. Groups of individuals such as these might not be directed in clear organizational patterns, or that is the sense that one might have if following reports of incident, however, more episodic and prominent that these appear given to general popular media. But as I've posted briefly in mentioning, for instance prominent religious right in the context of recent influences in the passing of legislation in Africa pertaining to anti homosexual laws (to the extent of making a given crime punishable by life in prison....more shocking to see these same 'Christian' advocating for the death penalty for homosexuals over there), we'd know that tangibly social movements are there. While it may be difficult to link for all we know more isolated groups of individuals, to much else, the pattern and behavioral rise, I argue may not be happenstance, as had been suggested in the PBS documentary, Not In Our Town, its not exactly isolated, but at times fed in times through messaging, however, subtle or otherwise. If perception on the matter of politics were threshold in such a way, the messages, however, subtle seem to suggest that a social traffic control type system is perceived, that is a perception that may not exactly be true, when conservatives or liberals alike are elected, that alliances potentially is perceived in the subtle ways that widespread belief or anger on an issue, makes right behaviors that would be overlooked even if they were once perceived as criminal, or bringing to the surface, the perception by individual(s) alike that their anger is a shared one, that they are unified by it, and that it is the same one...or in other words a message: might makes right. The problem with sameness, I imagine is completely overlooked, an unsettled teenager's mind at such a time, might scarcely consider in the same ways the implications of actions relative to an aged population of people, or at least that they may be more likely unhinged owing to problems of maturity. The problem is that these sorts of behaviors may not only be relegated to teenager's but adults alike.
There is also another implication to this when the social phenomenon has arisen, where groups of people have been allowed to engage in the sorts of behavior en masse that hadn't existed where laws neither provide self protected social existences, and it is exactly that, it takes law enforcement, legislation, recognition of, and so much more at times to deal with problems. If the problems of Rwanda were highlighted, not by the at times false perceptions generated in Western media (generally a false racist one relating to something like incidental tribalism gotten way violently out of hand), it were that a lot of ignoring were done by bureaucrats, politicians, and their a given local media, alongside with organization having taken place by military (and subsidiary paramilitary groups). Much were ignored, overlooked, while machetes were being handed out to a certain populace of peoples. If the same could be true in this country here, its that we hold ourselves to a level of ignorance with respect to a given social problem, feed the hate channels of media with more subtle messaging as a tool for resonating violence and likewise directing it logistically, and then lastly ensuring that people are armed and logistically put in the right places at the right times for coordinated mobilization...ostensibly leading the army that 'doesn't really exist'. Sure it bought Rwanda generals and leaders then a temporary excuse but, yes, it hadn't meant that the trail went cold on the investigation and followup having confirmed high level war crimes having occurred and international prosecution for those alike. The biggest issues here in the U.S., its not a case of Free Speech alone in protecting social behaviors that attempt to the 'fan the flames' through social resonance of a given populace, and that constitutional laws were merely drawn for the purpose of shielding abominable behavior, but then I'd remind its more then just the 'water tap' faucet of media outlets bearing responsibilities here. The face of those doing the targeting are not at times easy to see or discern, in theory at least I imagine in so far as a Western society that has enough complexity behind, so that horrific civil liberties depriving laws are passed in societies that transition in night and day type vacillations?! At least, one hadn't imagined that ghettos would suddenly appear over night where they once hadn't existed, and the radio dj on local radio effectively talking about the populace of 'bugs' in a given neighborhood (not really speaking as entomologist here, or really about insects) could be in time yanked off the air here in the U.S. These groups of people may suffer from the inherent problems of a complex societal fabric which is sustainability, where they might most typically use backdrop of economic downturns, rise in joblessness to suit their agenda, as had been the perception in times past, it were no coincidence that East Germany still to this day describes potential social differences between the perception of the Berlin Wall and the old social systems surrounding it. Where economic malaise and long term problems in a given population had given way to knew less chartered territories of freedoms, hate groups suddenly pop up, and the self evident view that western decline and disenfranchisement were one and the same for an often perceived neglect. The faces of the gang stalking perpetrators, whenever and where ever they exist here in America, are a dilute one, they potentially look like you and I in everyday street clothes, except that they seem to be acting at times by choreography and social script, I've seen enough to where I've felt there were an inset logic behind social behaviors: like get rid of that person out of this job, we aren't drawing the sort of reaction that we want and need, time to move on to other places. They might not have the appearances of attending the same church, or really saying the same things, and not even blandly uniform in the same social ways, for instance, liking anything of set literature, arts, culture, or anything of this type...they could claim to like 'new grass' (humored by this one)...sadly a whole South by Southwest Austin, TX phenomenon(?), but scarcely know a thing about Old bluegrass? They might have known enough about experimental music and things like circuit bending, or at least feigning interests there, or in other words, such a person could appear to share similar backgrounds to anyone, if they had enough social inferences to put themselves into a given position. Another incident one could recall, of the supposed once 'black hat' guest speaker, whom informally shown up for a computing meet up social whom might have appeared in some ways like another wall flower, a sort thin person that'd look like any other geek...he'd merely drop that he had worked with security relating to Linux computing systems...and (lo and behold!) you were probably one of the few that actually bothered much with Linux in that room (everyone there were using MAC s...more humor). Of course it didn't help that I have self publications on this blog series for a rather juvenile looking secret Annie decoder ring python encryption/decryption hashing technique, or that somewhere down the line in a previous relationship, I likely had all sorts of silly little profile hits (e.g., Jewelry design...at least with the ex...you know bomb making equipment...moving to a new area of the country without really having so many social contacts like others that you knew while neither having an inkling in so far as to what those others might be doing really...and that by the way were entirely coincidental as I am sure the NSA would directly know themselves...) but it seems that what Snowden coined as the loss in freedom for creativity. That a whole multitude of things could be suspicious enough. The face of those perpetrators could be the pot smoker that you know (and sadly I laugh because it sounds like the sort of dialogue you'd hear from a former vice president). They might have the training of rent a cops, people drafted with little training, little back ground in handling social situations in certain ways, and generally neither consequent for this reason given to the same answer of accountability that would be typified in law enforcement and other legal channels, and sadly enough you might as easily encounter these types nearest to shopping malls, or public spaces of this type, having had likely its own set of privately contracted security. Your sense might be that they have little clear role in security, however, or that just as likely one were encountering groups that were engaged in some form of unaccounted for 'power trip', and merely serving hostility for that intimidating sake alone, they could hardly be characterized as a law enforcement group or securities related group here, not even operatives engaged in theater to flush out and prevent something actionable that were sensed in the clearest intel sense of the word, showing more in the operations sense of the word juvenile behaviors which feigned cloak and dagger like roles, of unaccounted for and an untrained peoples. And then you might have faced an old Cold War CIA financial manipulations tactics that were served more to the purpose of vendetta (for squelching speech), then in having worked for actionable intelligence gathering tools. Which left me wondering at least in this attempted portrait, exactly who and what these people might look like...and the daunting prospect were that it could be decades only before we know a definitive history of what groups of people might have been involved in the targeting of innocent Americans.
No comments:
Post a Comment