Peacepink

Worldwide Campaign to stop the Abuse and Torture of Mind Control/DEWs

I organize a survey on poll.gangstalkingwiki.com

The goal is to find out what you believe, not what you can prove.

It takes about 40 minutes to complete.

Recently Dr. Lorraine Sheridan published a study which is very negative for targeted individuals. Her study is based on things that targets wrote in 2004-2005 in a free text box in a survey on www.stalkingsurvey.com. She says that gang stalking is delusional in basis, that our claims should not be investigated and that we should be sent to psychiatry. But she doesn't say what targets believe. She just didn't investigate. My survey tries to find out.

Views: 1147

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The first statement almost seems to imply that the 'gang-stalking phenomenon' could never acquire independent existence until one of the same state agencies responsible for conducting and camouflaging these attacks themselves agree to officially define it with the exact terminology which their disinformation front groups strive to repress.  But in reality, it is "empirically tested" on members every single day.

"Again we see there is “this has not been empirically tested and there is no guidance for those who encounter such cases, such as law

enforcement agencies and mental health professionals”

Here is a complete inversion of what has actually been quoted. The significance of this maneuver can hardly be over-stated:

"also this

There is also no reason to

assume that victims of delusional stalking do not suffer the same psychological
sequelae as victims in cases where the stalking is real.

 "Again its the psychological impact on the victim that's important to note ….not weather its real or not …"

The quotation distinguishes between psychological cases of delusional stalking and "victims in cases where the stalking is real." - in other words, confirms that real cases exists.  This would be of central primacy in determining the pathology implicit in the medical term 'sequalae".  Notice, however, that the next comment interprets this to mean the exact opposite:  "not whether it's real or not" is now a non-issue, secondary to the psychological effect of the 'perceived' attack (which, in either case by this reasoning, need not even exist!)

Is "From my position" supposed to sound more objective than the "it's all in your head" dilemma outlined above for "confused TI's"?

"or from my position I believe only sometimes its real ..to destabilize the victim plus other factors that combine to overwhelm the victim"

I could not help noticing that Ms. Mckinney's disclosure about this destabilizing program is already to be found on page one of this same discussion. The concept of 'destabilizing' is itself being misused to create another false dichotomy: gang-stalking, as her article clearly states, is already intended to destabilize.

 (Eg: "clearly you will have a different mind set and reaction when you know they are trying to destabilize you to one that you believe people are stalking you.... thou you may experience very similar things  ...there is a clear difference in purpose and intent.") How would one contrast the "purpose and intent" of gang-stalkers one claims do not exist? 

Overt Harassment

      Overt Harassment—which obviously is meant to be observed—may be intended to “precondition” individuals for eventual long-term electronic harassment. Persons terrified by unexplained overt harassment are not likely to cope with the sudden onset of electronic harassment in any more reasoned fashion. This phased pattern of harassment is apparent in all of the cases now being investigated. The fact that the overt harassment continues in these cases even after the electronic targeting commences suggests that the objective is to maintain long-term extremes of stress.

      Many of the overt harassment tactics discussed below are surfacing in cases which (so far) have not involved discernible forms of electronic harassment.


deca said:

"Now I was going to say that what “gangstalking” belief does it gets you to externalise everything ...but “gangstalking” is done really for the psychological effect it has on the victim ...so the victim its pointing to all these external threats....but not seeing or trying to protect themselves from the psychological damage it has on them ...but after doing some research Found out that Externalization can be part of ones natural psychological defence mechanism"

 

terrysmith123

"Your argument is that victims are so stressed and paranoid that their perception becomes completely flawed and they cannot recognise what is being done to them. But that argument is bogus. It's like saying that waterboarding victims are so stressed they cannot recognise they are being waterboarded. And what caused the stress in the first place? The fact that they were Gangstalked perhaps?"


http://forum.davidicke.com/archive/index.php/t-286198-p-2.html

(above)

"So I am think are certain defence mechanisms rolled up along other things that TI`s attribute and throw into a big box labelled “gangstalking” as well? Is this why they are so strongly emotionally attached to it almost cling to it ,very defensive of it and feel vulnerable with out it ?"

Gang-stalking is an established reality beyond the insider disclosure posted on page one. It is surprising to see anyone attempt to deny this reality (or semantically redefine it out of existence) on a website which ostensibly exists to support TI's. What causes one reader to misinterpret facts with such debilitating effect?  Does people exposing gang-stalking make this person feel "defensive and vulnerable"?

"what I am trying to point out ...if "gangstalking" does not happen as "gangstalking" claims or suggests  then your defensive measures are not going to be effective ...in fact they might make your situation worse"

This entire statement is based on a very iffy 'if' - that the zersetzung gang-stalking leaked by a number of significantly placed U.S. authorities is not exactly what they say it is intended to be. 'If' you are not being water-boarded, then taking precautions like trying not to breathe water would not make sense. But when you are being water-boarded - or gang-stalked - then such advice goes somewhat beyond being merely unhelpful.

"Again these symptoms are just going to blur/feed your sense of being “gangstalked”

this is why you need to break this destructive ever increasing looping cycle"

One might suppose that most members of this site will recognize classic gas-lighting when they see it.

Here is a question: 

Would all this denial still appear to be a suspiciously blatant attempt to discredit TI's reports and debunk their shared reality even 'if' it weren't surrounded by quotations describing the gang-stalking reality as logistically comparable or even functionally 'equivalent' to schizophrenic delusions?

Once again, circular reasoning plays a large role in the equation, which becomes evident the moment we ask ourselves how this basic premise (that 'real' gang-stalking doesn't exist) is supposed to be being 'reinforced' by defining the TI experience as delusional (or close enough that the distinction between the categories becomes - as it is here - deliberately "blurred").

This becomes an increasingly 'loopy' cycle. This might be where that misapplication of "projecting psychological defense mechanisms" may actually become relevant after all.

Nevar Starling so you are promoting this thing that TI`s call "gangstalking" on peacepink "Worldwide Campaign to stop the Abuse and Torture of Mind Control/DEWs" by attacking anybody that does not believe it or see`s that your belief is flawed and offers are better alternatives ? 

look until YOU realize that YOU are promoting/protecting a "belief system" rather than researching,investigating exposing &  educating others about crimes being committed  against TI`s  and ways to cope,deal prevent this ...then we are never going to agree on this ..

people that are promoting/protecting the belief in being a victim of "gangstakling" have almost turned it into cult rather than into a activism/support groups

http://people.howstuffworks.com/cult3.htm

Cult members come from all walks of life, all age groups and all personality types. However, one common thread among most cult recruits is heightened stress: Research indicates that a majority of people who end up joining a cult were recruited during a particularly stressful period. This could be the stress associated with adolescence, leaving home for the first time, a bad breakup, losing a job or the death of a loved one. People undergoing significant stress can be more susceptible when a person or group claims to have the answer to all of their problems.

see

Research indicates that a majority of people who end up joining a cult were recruited during a particularly stressful period.

also TI`s do want answers to their problems

People undergoing significant stress can be more susceptible when a person or group claims to have the answer to all of their problems.

and what happens understandable stress out victims coming to places like peacepink  then are told to "check out" some "gangstalking" website ...as it has the answers etc...

http://people.howstuffworks.com/cult4.htm

Isolation - Cults cut off members from the outside world (and even each other) to produce intense introspection, confusion, loss of perspective and a distorted sense of reality. The members of the cult become the person's only social contact and feedback mechanism.

"gangstalking" renforces the idea that family members ,loved ones , local community are full of perps etc  ....and tell victims not to trust other groups and individuals

Cults typically instill the belief that "outsiders" (non-cult members) are dangerous and wrong.

Is this guy really serious?

deca said:

"Nevar Starling so you are promoting this thing that TI`s call "gangstalking" on peacepink "Worldwide Campaign to stop the Abuse and Torture of Mind Control/DEWs" by attacking anybody that does not believe it or see`s that your belief is flawed and offers are better alternatives ?"

"Attacking anybody"?  I pointed out some contradictions in ONE person's comments.  That person may address them or not as he pleases - addressing me is altogether irrelevant.  My "belief is flawed?"  Is Julianne McKinneys', then?  (Does he address points, or just skirt them like this?)  

It really ought to be painfully elf-evident that it is gang-stalkers themselves who are deploying these "mind control/DEWs".  This deca character is quite obviously attempting to re-create that 'gang-stalking versus technology' false dichotomy which he has only just finished (incorrectly) trying to explain to us one page ago!

"look until YOU realize that YOU are promoting/protecting a "belief system" rather than researching,investigating exposing &  educating others about crimes being committed  against TI`s  and ways to cope,deal prevent this ...then we are never going to agree on this .."

Let's agree to disagree until all the facts are in - a little basic research should accelerate the process. Perhaps someone ought to direct this person to the wealth of evidence which has been amassed on this subject before he offends the rest of the membership by calling their attacks a "belief system". However, it is already obvious that Julianne McKinney doesn't carry a lot of weight around here.

"people that are promoting/protecting the belief in being a victim of "gangstakling" have almost turned it into cult rather than into a activism/support groups"

What on Earth is he talking about?  Is there some sub-context we should already know about? Or does he seriously intend to compare being victimized by a state targeting program to some confused teenager "joining a cult"?

" "gangstalking" renforces the idea that family members ,loved ones , local community are full of perps etc  ....and tell victims not to trust other groups and individuals"

These are the stated messages and reported effects received from v2k - not the result of 'bad research'.  What this person is doing is claiming that what members report about their own experience is the result of error - that 'other' websites provide a false sense of reality, whereas he alone knows 'howstuffworks'.   The entire premise is based on the false analogy of describing a listed target of state harassment as a victim of normal stress-inducing circumstances.  One has to wonder at what could be prompting this unfounded denial of the reality confronting most if not all TI's.

"People undergoing significant stress can be more susceptible when a person or group claims to have the answer to all of their problems." 

Translate this as:  '"Targeted individuals are actively recruited on Cointelpro disinformation sites which attempt to bafflegab them with 'howstuffworks' when it is applied totally out of context."

"Cults typically instill the belief that "outsiders" (non-cult members) are dangerous and wrong." "

This sentence also accidentally attains relevance: This very notion of cult-like behaviour in the herding of TI's beliefs and coping measures has been discussed and applied in context to FFCHS, and the manner in which information is 'contained' on their website and chat lines:

exposinginfragard.blogspot.com/.../derrick-robinson-suicide-cult-leader....
Dec 9, 2014 - He had allegedly (according to FFCHS) been involved with that organization for about a year. ... Posted by Anthony Forwood at 4:02 PM.

Exposing the Truth: An Interesting Conversation With Robert ...

exposinginfragard.blogspot.com/.../an-interesting-conversation-with-rob...
Aug 12, 2014 - Anthony Forwood .... need psychological help, just like your merry band of FFCHS members. ..... It's a standard tactic that's used in all cults.

WHERE THE FUCK IS LABRAT?

oh here we go again another member spamming links to Anthony forwoods loner blog posts ...that is well known for being a troll and has been banned from peacepink for spreading slander ....

I just can`t take anybody serious when they believe and promote his crappy blogs...and I never heard of Anthony forwood before coming on peacepink ...strange

May I respectfully recommend the following baby steps:

1. Give some consideration to addressing Julianne McKinney's point ("Overt" harassment - remember?), initially raised on page one - and subsequently repeated on pp. 2 and 3.

2. Look up the definition of "spamming". (You might ask someone to explain why AF's articles on the cult-like operations of FFCHS are directly relevant to your groping misuse of the word "cult" above, while you're at it.)

3. If you are going to throw around accusations like "troll", you might hope to attain some provisional plausibility by actually identifying some (one, even) of these "slanders" you refer to - otherwise you are behaving exactly like one yourself, couching your uninformed opinion in vague and consequently entirely meaningless generalizations.

4. Until you address the points raised above, what you can or cannot take seriously must be regarded as an amusing form of light entertainment. The fact that you are attempting to deny the reality of gang-stalking is suspicious enough.  Let's start with baby step number one:  do you even know who Julianne McKinney is, or are you just making stuff up as you go along?

5. "Loner blog posts"?!  I wonder if you realize just how ridiculous you are making yourself appear by saying this on Cliff's blog - have you not read his article exposing FFCHS as a "disinfo front group"?

http://fightgangstalking.com/ffchs-a-disinformation-group/

deca said:

"oh here we go again another member spamming links to Anthony forwoods loner blog posts ...that is well known for being a troll and has been banned from peacepink for spreading slander ....

"I just can`t take anybody serious when they believe and promote his crappy blogs...and I never heard of Anthony forwood before coming on peacepink ...strange"

(This person's unawareness of valid information which does not conform to his narrow confirmation bias should not seem so "strange" at all to anyone familiar with the concept of denial.)

1. Give some consideration to addressing Julianne McKinney's point ("Overt" harassment - remember?), initially raised on page one - and subsequently repeated on pp. 2 and 3.

what point are you making ? I don`t understand the question .....

simple TI`s are harassed and intimidated in a destabilizing campaign against them ...

clearly you are confused on my position  here ....I personal don`t like how people mainly victims have took a big chunk out of what TI`s experience mainly effects,symptoms, psychological impact & consequences  as you walk around trying to live your life when being targeted "framed it" and labeled it as "gang-stalking" then they go further to actually  claim these effects,symptoms consequences are the actual cause and the main thing TI`s should focus on ..now when you frame something then you generally perceive it and make beliefs and assumptions about whats is framed  and you respond to it in a certain way   which in my view actually enhances the effects,symptoms , psychological impact & consequences ...

now when you start the "frame" things differently as effects,symptoms , psychological impact & consequences (harassment, anti social behavior, discrimination ,stigma etc)   ...you have a totally different perspective on these things and different ways to responding to them when you experience them 

(Apparently someone needs his hand held while he's walked through those baby steps...)

deca said:

1. Give some consideration to addressing Julianne McKinney's point ("Overt" harassment - remember?), initially raised on page one - and subsequently repeated on pp. 2 and 3.

"what point are you making ? I don`t understand the question .....

simple TI`s are harassed and intimidated in a destabilizing campaign against them ..."

We've already covered the point that "Overt Harassment" (the heading of the gang-stalking section of Ms. McKinney's article) is described therein as a form of attack designed to destabilize the target.  The incontrovertible reality of that fact makes this person's 'stalking vs. destabilizing' nothing more than a contrived false dichotomy. This point has already been made just above, necessitating this revised 'baby steps' approach).

(Here again, in case somehow it magically did not appear on his page:)

I could not help noticing that Ms. Mckinney's disclosure about this destabilizing program is already to be found on page one of this same discussion. The concept of 'destabilizing' is itself being misused to create another false dichotomy: gang-stalking, as her article clearly states, is already intended to destabilize.

 (Eg: "clearly you will have a different mind set and reaction when you know they are trying to destabilize you to one that you believe people are stalking you.... thou you may experience very similar things  ...there is a clear difference in purpose and intent.") How would one contrast the "purpose and intent" of gang-stalkers one claims do not exist? 

Overt Harassment

      Overt Harassment—which obviously is meant to be observed—may be intended to “precondition” individuals for eventual long-term electronic harassment. Persons terrified by unexplained overt harassment are not likely to cope with the sudden onset of electronic harassment in any more reasoned fashion. This phased pattern of harassment is apparent in all of the cases now being investigated.

(For convenience of reference I'll add that all these quotations are presently at the top of this same page.)

Once again:  does deca know who Julianne McKinney is, and can he explain why he feels that his personal denial about gang-stalking (seriously - does anyone else on this site put that term in quotation marks?) should take precedence over the leaked documents from military intelligence?  Can he address her point about "Overt Harassment"?  (If it helps any, 'overt' means open and visible "gang-stalking".)

"clearly you are confused on my position  here"

Don't flatter yourself - you have contradicted yourself, and I have pointed out the contradiction.   There is unlikely to be much confusion at all, since all this is pretty self-evident. Is anyone else 'confused' about this?

"....I personal don`t like how people mainly victims have took a big chunk out of what TI`s experience mainly effects,symptoms, psychological impact & consequences  as you walk around trying to live your life when being targeted "framed it" and labeled it as "gang-stalking" then they go further to actually  claim these effects,symptoms consequences are the actual cause and the main thing TI`s should focus on"

Try getting over it - they are correct, as McKinney and others have demonstrated.  You can "label" and "re-frame" your denial about this reality all you like, but you have yet to distinguish your position from the gang-stalking denial expressly spelled out in Cliff's highly revealing article detailing FFCHS's similarly "iffy" ploys to cover up and deny these orchestrated attacks.

Who do you think you are, telling us we're all wrong?  We have official sources disclosing this program.  All you have - in your own words - is a "personal dislike" of the fact that many members are not falling for FFCHS's end-round. You haven't even addressed her evidence!

"..now when you frame something then you generally perceive it and make beliefs and assumptions about whats is framed  and you respond to it in a certain way   which in my view actually enhances the effects,symptoms , psychological impact & consequences ..."

This may be true if you are speaking about not particularly intelligent people discussing these ridiculous denials you keep spouting.  People might actually start believing you (even though you do not provide any evidence - unlike McKinney - for your emotional reaction), and get 'framed' by the state.


I highly recommend reader's peruse Cliff's very informative article about a Cointelpro disinformation organization which just happens to suffer an identical 'dislike' of the exposure of gang-stalking - they even change the 'word' so it doesn't get around!).

http://fightgangstalking.com/ffchs-a-disinformation-group/

__________________________________________________________

(from 'Here are a dozen reasons why it’s obvious that FFCHS is a disinformation front group organized by gang stalking perpetrators, rather than a legitimate victims support group:'), not far down the page on CH's site cited just above. Thanks for the excellent article, Cliff - the 'OSI' revelation gives some insight into how these operatives think they're being so clever i their failed efforts to insult our intelligence - once the code has been broken, all these lame arguments from the Cointelpro disinformation apparatus (eg. all this extensive gang-stalking denial we see here from the guy hiding his face) easily fall into place.

2. "There is no reference to the term “gang stalking” in the group’s name, web domain name, billboard, or home page, or “about us” page of their website.  “Gang stalking” is the most commonly used term for the crime of organized stalking, so if nothing else, you’d think they would want to generate as much web traffic as possible to their site by including the phrase prominently. The obvious explanation is that they don’t want that phrase to become more common, because it could increase awareness of the crime among the general public."

If I thought for an instant that this deca character were sincere about addressing any of the "baby steps" itemized above, I would have suggested he quit stalling on this point so that we may proceed to more serious issues on the list, such as his unsupported slander against AF (that AF has "slandered" anyone by making unsubstantiated accusations of this very nature). 

But if deca were sincere, he would have demonstrated this by at least admitting the relevance of Ms. McKinney's article, which has already been posted, mentioned again, then re-posted in part in this same discussion. There has been no attempt to criticize JMK's evidence, reasoning, "lone blogger" site, etc...he simply ignores the evidence and says he doesn't "understand the question". 'Really?'

anyway I been throw this over and over again with labrat I not going to get suckered in this again...

we have a name for this now thanks to the Visualizing the Tactical Ground Battlefield in the Year 2050:  http://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/report-predicts-drones-and...

Micro-targeting & Cognitive Modeling of the Opponent

instead of being able to identify and engage a particular building or moving vehicle while minimizing collateral damage, the concept of micro-targeting involves the identification and surgical engagement of specific individuals employing either kinetic or non-kinetic means.

In terms of both individuals and populations, it will be possible to sense their moods and whether or not they are vulnerable to deception or primed to act in a certain manner (resist or be passive).
In addition to the enablers of micro-targeting previously discussed that make this capability likely, by 2050, sensors of various kinds will be ubiquitous and include sensors on and inside humans that can provide the information to support individual, dynamic cognitive modeling (physical state has an impact on cognitive abilities and processing). In addition to having the information available to vastly improve individual cognitive modeling, such models offer the opportunity to disrupt adversary organizations and operations in a cost-effective manner when

and that is basically very similar to what we are claiming on peacepink in the "Worldwide Campaign to stop the Abuse and Torture of Mind Control/DEWs"

You have heard of Julianne McKinney, or you haven't?  Are you afraid of the question?   Do you have one good reason why we should take your "personal dislike" of the program she has disclosed seriously at all?

deca said:

"anyway I been throw this over and over again with labrat I not going to get suckered in this again..."

Big Lebowski has posted an article listing common shill tactics - "Distract" and "Change the Subject" are probably familiar to many here at this stage:


"Distract:  Introduce a new topic altogether, and encourage commentators or observers to focus on this information instead. This can be accurate, partially inaccurate, or wholly inaccurate information, but which is non-threatening to your cause and which is likely to gain more attention through sensation, controversy or curiosity. Mixing a little bit of fact with a lot of fiction is often the most effective method, as this lures people in yet leaves them without any solid intelligence to use. This means spending more time on a non-issue, which is good for avoiding real issues, and may even illicit some long term believers."

(This sentence in particular bears consideration as we examine the Science-Fantasy below:)

"Mixing a little bit of fact with a lot of fiction is often the most effective method, as this lures people in yet leaves them without any solid intelligence to use."

"Change the Subject: Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here such as 'distract'; find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of swaying attention to a new, more manageable line of discussion, where you can take hold of the narrative."

http://peacepink.ning.com/forum/topics/shills-and-how-to-recognise-...

Let's see how this works in practice.  How many times now have I already asked deca to respond to Julianne McKinney's point about gang-stalkers being used to soften targets up to make the technological attacks more effective?  He claims he doesn't "understand the question" - can someone help him out a little here?

1. Give some consideration to addressing Julianne McKinney's point ("Overt" harassment - remember?), initially raised on page one - and subsequently repeated on pp. 2 and 3.

"what point are you making ? I don`t understand the question ....."

JMK has confirmed the existence of the gang-stalkers he has been clumsily attempting to deny.  Perhaps he simply does not want to understand the question.  Let's see what he comes up with here:

"we have a name for this now thanks to the Visualizing the Tactical Ground Battlefield in the Year 2050":  http://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/report-predicts-drones-and...

Micro-targeting & Cognitive Modeling of the Opponent

instead of being able to identify and engage a particular building or moving vehicle while minimizing collateral damage, the concept of micro-targeting involves the identification and surgical engagement of specific individuals employing either kinetic or non-kinetic means.

In terms of both individuals and populations, it will be possible to sense their moods and whether or not they are vulnerable to deception or primed to act in a certain manner (resist or be passive).
In addition to the enablers of micro-targeting previously discussed that make this capability likely, by 2050, sensors of various kinds will be ubiquitous and include sensors on and inside humans that can provide the information to support individual, dynamic cognitive modeling (physical state has an impact on cognitive abilities and processing). In addition to having the information available to vastly improve individual cognitive modeling, such models offer the opportunity to disrupt adversary organizations and operations in a cost-effective manner when

and that is basically very similar to what we are claiming on peacepink in the "Worldwide Campaign to stop the Abuse and Torture of Mind Control/DEWs"

Goodness Gracious!  As for the rest of this make-believe fairy-tale poppycock, the article doesn't even claim these capabilities actually exist - so this character is saying that some techno-fantasy which may become possible by the year 2050 "is basically very similar to what we are claiming on peacepink in the "Worldwide Campaign to stop the Abuse and Torture of Mind Control/DEWs"?

Who is this "we"?  Is there anybody from Peacepink who will condone this delusional mission statement for the site?  Or is he just trying to make this look like a website for people with over-active imaginations?  "Are all of We" claiming this? 

("Maybe "We" need to take our heads outside for a poo!)

"...it will be possible..."   "...that make this capacity likely.."   "...will be ubiquitous..."   "...that can provide information..."   "such models offer the opportunity to disrupt adversary organizations..."

From the point of view of the state powers ordering and outfitting these attacks, Peacepink is one such "adversary organization" - but it is not being disrupted by implausibly silly theoretical model, because it is sheer nonsense.  It is not even an effective change of topic.

Julianne McKinney's point about gang-stalkers being used to soften targets up to make the technological attacks more effective?  He claims he doesn't "understand the question" - can someone help him out a little here?

Years ago I came across the interview she did and possible read some of her stuff but not in resent years so when labrat (who is banned ) and now yourself throw her name around I am like wtf are you on about ? Its 2015 ? she wrote her stuff way back in 1992.

now the “Julianne McKinney's point about gang-stalkers being used to soften targets up to make the technological attacks more effective?”'

I don't agree with this first of all the tech can rough you up/soften you very easily by it self..its torture...but what they need to do is cover up they are using the tech,create a cover story and discredit the victims ...and they need to get the victim to act out in public , behave in ways that close friends and family think the victim is acting out of character and having some type psychotic episode, break down ,being paranoid and having delusional beliefs and need help.

Also they want to isolate you from any support and make you have learned helpless , lack of trust in others ….also to focus on wants happening around you instead of wants being done to you ..also they have to drive the victim into a situation were the victim will be carted of and diagnosed with a mental disorder once that's achieved they can just zap you all day and nobody even close family members will take you serious and just blame your so called “mental disorder” ..also there are other reasons ...the mental health become your primary health provider not your GP and can sort of control and dictate what kind of medical help you can have , prevent you from access to your mental health records , medical scans ….also you will lose a lot of rights as they can just say your not mental sound therefore not mental responsible and they will use this against you when you try to go to court or have dealings with authorities , police , social services etc

but saying that there is a lot I do agree with her on ...again you are never going to agree on every thing that a another TI claims anyway ...but I do think her information is worth while checking out

in the above video they mention TI`s being broadcasted via CCTV to others for some type of sick amusement/entertainment around 30mins ...I believe that is more about inducing strong emotions in the TI of shame,guilt and humiliation ..I don`t think it does happen , but they want the TI to believe it is .....as it would actually be proof/evidence  of your targeting  ..hence why I believe its a mind game to induce shame,guilt and humiliation rather than actually being done

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Latest Activity

Gretta Fahey posted a blog post

Copy of Email which I sent to the Irish Government regarding undetectable signals being transmitted into human minds.

Transmitting Undetectable Signals Into Our Minds.2 messagesgretta fahey <mahonia9308@gmail.com>Wed, May 12, 2021 at 6:11 PMTo: info@fiannafail.ie, Social Democrats <info@socialdemocrats.ie>, finegael@finegael.ie, info@defence.ie, info@justice.ie, info@finance.ie, reception@longfordleader.ieTo Whom it Concerns,I strongly believe that most Irish people who use smart phones, watch high definition television and live in built up areas where the smart grid is strongest are being…See More
6 hours ago
Jeremy C A Paul left a comment for Maree-Lauren
"Hi... details for Professor Nils Melzer and he's only receiving Email submissions PS:   I suggest that you "copy and paste" the E-mail subject line as his office is probably using a filter E:-   …"
11 hours ago
Jeremy C A Paul left a comment for Stan J. Caterbone
"Hi Stan E:  jcapaul69@gmail.com Facebook   Jeremy Paul (with B&W photo.. for video/ voice chat via Messenger Yes.... there needs to be more public forum on this matter so as to bring that much pressure on the Govts to force…"
11 hours ago
Profile IconJeremy C A Paul gave a gift to Stan J. Caterbone
12 hours ago
Stan J. Caterbone commented on Soleilmavis's blog post The Latest Call for Inputs from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture
"Soleilmavis you are luck you are not in the United States, I would ask you to ......... THANK YOU!"
12 hours ago
Jenkins posted discussions
15 hours ago
Profile IconJenkins, TI KAREN and Antonio Samarancho joined Peacepink
15 hours ago
Soleilmavis liked Jeremy C A Paul's blog post United Nations:- Calls for input to a Report: “Accountability for Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
16 hours ago

Badge

Loading…

© 2021   Created by Soleilmavis.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service