Archive for category: Surveillance

The definition of "Gaslighting" (a term gleaned from the movie of the same name) mentions the "Human Manipulation" of a "Targeted Individual" or group through the covert staging of bizarre events which are designed to create an atmosphere of disorientation and destabilisation so as to create doubts about the "Targeted Individual's" sanity. Denials, contradictions, lies and covert harassment are all elements of Gaslighting which are used to get the target to doubt their own state of mind. However, in reality, many covert crimes of this sort (and Gaslighting IS a crime) are committed not so much to drive the target insane or to have them doubt themselves but to have others think them mad when the targeted person complains of things that cannot be proven. With 98% of all crimes that carry a jail term being unresolved, covert, white collar crime is it really any surprise to find that gaslighting and other hidden offences are rampant in today's society. This is especially so given the advances in technology now available. Most notable amongst these are the classified devices accessible through corrupt factions in the spy agencies; agencies that are able to hide behind National Security laws.

Firstly, a good example of basic gaslighting is politics itself. Like school yard bullies or sports sledgers without respect for fair play or their opponent, many politicians subject each other to repeated indignities and criminal conspiracies in the hope of unsettling or cheating opponents and thereby creating incoherent, paranoid or hysterical sounding complaints. This can also be done by one spouse on another, in the work place and, indeed, in any situation where those above the law can arrange stalking or "coincidences" that cannot be proven to be deliberately orchestrated. Well, there are no coincidences in politics for starters. And the truth is that it is perfectly natural and sane for victims of crime to cry out for help in one fashion or another. Unfortunately, covert crimes are deniable, invisible and psychological / emotional in nature moreso than physical crimes (which leave evidence). And without evidence such activity could conceivably go on indefinitely.

As a result of the inability of law enforcers to deal with offences they aren't even aware of, these covert methods are favoured amongst the criminal elite. Psychiatrists, who are not well versed in crime or politics and certainly not in the covert methods of the spy operatives, can be used to discredit the victims; thereby hurting them twice over; harassed AND disbelieved / discredited as well.

This then silences the opponent, critic, whistleblower, activist, writer or whoever that threatens or offends the powerful criminal. Still, despite National Security laws leading to the censoring of all relevant texts, to exclude information on classified devices which are abused (ie studies in psychiatry, law enforcement, physics etc) some psych' professionals are onto these practices anyway and some even focus on gaslighting in their works...EG. "Some Clinical Consequences of Gaslighting", Victor Calef and Edward Weinshel, 1980 and "Dark Souls, Mind Games and Gaslighting", Sarah Strudwick, 2010.

The full truth is that, with the advent of more and more classified devices that are able to be used for "Human Manipulation", government agencies like the CIA and NSA can oppress "Targeted Individuals" more easily than ever before...and in bigger numbers. Anecdotal evidence is everywhere that this is rife but National Security laws, like the Inventions Secrecy Act, keep thousands of these gaslighting and harassment technologies a secret from the general public. So, not only can the agencies and their connections in the media and organised crime harass targets on a stalking level but the CIA and NSA in particular also remotely experiment on "Targeted Individuals" , effectively refining ways to effect "Human Manipulation". This is possible from a distance, with no need to even trespass, as most of the relevant devices are now satellite based. These technologies have, however, been referred to a number of times in significant forums. For example...

• 1977 - Sen. John Glenn introduced the "Human Research Subjects Protection Act".
• 1999 - The European Parliament passed "A Resolution on the Environment, Security and Foreign Policy".
• 2001 - Dennis Kucinich introduced "The Space Preservation Act".
• 2002 - UNIDIR released it's "Media guide to Disarmament".

All of these referred to "Weapons for Human Manipulation". The two US acts were thrown out and the EP and UN calls for a ban were ignored by both the US government and the CIA - controlled MSM. No surprises there for those in the know....("The CIA controls everyone of significance in the major media". Michael Colby, Ex CIA Director). The mass media are, therefore, also more than involved in providing surveillance based "coincidences" to gaslight and otherwise harass "Targeted Individuals".

Examples of classified "Weapons for Human Manipulation" include: -

• Thought Policing weapons, like remote brain wave scanners and brain wave software.
• "Voice of God" weapons (a CIA term) which enable voice to brain transmissions.
• Directed Energy Weapons which allow burns, controlled movement, illness and worse.
• Big Brother mass surveillance devices and more specific 24/7 audio/visual monitoring.

Because the public, including police, doctors and psych experts, knows little to nothing of these technologies or their abuse targets can be institutionalised as well as brutalised if they seek help. And this is the purpose; to create symptoms that mirror mental illness. Many in elite circles such as the entertainment industry, politics and big business know all about this as do many honest journalists, spy whistleblowers, senior police and so on that I've met. Fear, complicity and blackmail keep most others silent.

So, what these methods deliver is a means by which minorities in positions of trust or authority can oppress those seeking to represent majorities. The minorities can be anything from the wealthy to those supporting particular minority views on things like abortion, immigration, gay marriage, pedophilia, war, privacy and such. By bullying and silencing those expressing majority views they go beyond seeking a hearing or tolerance to the point of enforcing their views until they become, in a conversational vacuum, majority views or, at least, the only views openly expressed (the silent majority have never been more silenced). Political correctness, abused defamation laws and National Security restrict much of the discussion (the truth being hate speech only to those with something to hide). However, the loudest voices are silenced only by application of the covert technologies mentioned. The result is that the minority rules. Hardly democratic or indicative of true freedom of speech, thought, action or beliefs.

Examples are seen in the liberal MSM every day. Clearly, like bank robbers recruiting only criminals, the public commentary is controlled by like - minded people and directed by corrupt executives who may be working directly or indirectly with the CIA or organised crime. This is how the information flow is controlled and social engineering is effected. Anyone presenting certain traditional views is basically told to shut up. This is particularly disturbing when you think that those who fought and died, to preserve our freedoms, mostly held traditional, majority views as well. And there's no saying those views could have been changed as many from their era, still alive today, remain at loggerheads with "modern" values and thinking. What would the war dead think of Project Paperclip and the move of Nazi scientists after WWII to NASA and other agencies with the express purpose of developing "Weapons for Human Manipulation" which undermine everything they fought for. Today you only have to say that your religious beliefs (not even your legal or human rights views) are not in tune with gay lifestyles or abortion or any of a number of other things and you can be publicly pilloried, dismissed, cast out. No sign of the rights we're supposed to have. And, again, what of the dead soldiers that shared those traditional views. I suppose their names should be stripped from the war memorials, honour roles and graves for daring to disagree, eh. And those of their vintage that remain alive are to be silenced too, I suppose...by removing all they've worked for. Why, if they believe they are right, is it necessary for those with a "modern take" to criticise those from another era and to discredit themselves as well by also criminally attacking those of more recent generations who also disagree. Without differing opinions and debate what do we have. Certainly not democracy or any of the freedoms it's supposed to deliver. It seems like the Nazis may have won the war after all. Maybe without the hidden technologies their scientists developed in US agencies there would be less of this and more discussion whereas now liberal thinking dominates and God help any that speak against it.
Minorities have been subjected to prejudice and that was / is wrong. However, for them to seek to take over the debate (and society itself) with a view to enforcing not only tolerance but total agreement with their views "or else" is perhaps even worse. The Nazis wanted to rid society of certain minorities (Jews, gays, Poles etc). The neo Nazis want to rid society of those challenging their values / ideologies and their lucrative, elite crime networks (outspoken religious figures, whistleblowers, critical writers, activists etc). Covert though most of the stated methods may be (aimed at neutralising and managing those speaking for the silent majority) a certain public bullying by the positioned media (who are allowed to display little difference in their views) is also in play here with respect to those involved in public life. It would be nice to think that a constant reminder of the sacrifices made by others to secure our continued freedoms would suffice in promoting tolerance all round but it doesn't appear to be enough in many instances. In a free and open society maybe a reflection on a traditional yet more than relevant saying may help....

"I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it". Voltaire.