Via the New York Times
FOR years they lived in solitary terror of the light beams that caused searing headaches, the technology that took control of their minds and bodies. They feared the stalkers, people whose voices shouted from the walls or screamed in their heads, “We found you” and “We want you dead.”
When people who believe such things reported them to the police, doctors or family, they said they were often told they were crazy. Sometimes they were medicated or locked in hospital wards, or fired from jobs and isolated from the outside world.
But when they found one another on the Internet, everything changed. So many others were having the same experiences.
Type “mind control” or “gang stalking” into Google, and Web sites appear that describe cases of persecution, both psychological and physical, related with the same minute details — red and white cars following victims, vandalism of their homes, snickering by those around them.
Identified by some psychologists and psychiatrists as part of an “extreme community” on the Internet that appears to encourage delusional thinking, a growing number of such Web sites are filled with stories from people who say they are victims of mind control and stalking by gangs of government agents. The sites are drawing the concern of mental health professionals and the interest of researchers in psychology and psychiatry.
Although many Internet groups that offer peer support are considered helpful to the mentally ill, some experts say Web sites that amplify reports of mind control and group stalking represent a dark side of social networking. They may reinforce the troubled thinking of the mentally ill and impede treatment.
Dr. Ralph Hoffman, a psychiatry professor at Yale who studies delusions, said a growing number of his research subjects have told him of visiting mind-control sites, and finding in them confirmation of their own experiences.
“The views of these belief systems are like a shark that has to be constantly fed,” Dr. Hoffman said. “If you don’t feed the delusion, sooner or later it will die out or diminish on its own accord. The key thing is that it needs to be repetitively reinforced.”
That is what the Web sites do, he said. Similar concerns have arisen about a proliferation of sites that describe how to commit suicide, or others that promote anorexia and bulimia, providing detailed instructions on restricting food and photographs of skeletal women meant to be “thinspiration.”
For people who regularly visit and write on message boards on the mind-control sites, the idea that others would describe the sites as promoting delusional and psychotic thinking is simply evidence of a cover-up of the truth.
“It was a big relief to find the community,” said Derrick Robinson, 55, a janitor in Cincinnati and president of Freedom from Covert Harassment and Surveillance, a group that claims several hundred regular users of its Web site. “I felt that maybe there were others, but I wasn’t real sure until I did find this community,” Mr. Robinson said.
There is no concise survey of mind-control sites or others describing gang stalking — whose users believe that groups of people are following and controlling them, as part of a test of neurological or other kinds of weapons likely conducted by the government — on the Net. But they are easy to find. Some have hundreds of postings, along with links to dozers of similar sties. One, Gangstalkingworld.com, welcomes visitors with this description: “Gang Stalking is a systemic form of control, which seeks to destroy every aspect of a Targeted Individual’s life. The target is followed around and placed under surveillance by Civilian Spies/Snitches 24/7.”
The site lists more than 71,000 visitors, and it has links to several other sites, including Harrassment101.com, which has 965 posts.
One poster to Gang Stalking World wrote in August: “It’s insane that I daily have to come home and try to figure out if my Web sites will still be up or shut down. This week they have really been playing with me, and so it was my time to play back.” The post directs readers to other gang-stalking sites should their favorite sites be shut down.
Mr. Robinson said in an interview that that he has been tortured and abused by gang stalkers and by “neurological weaponry” since leaving the Navy in 1982. “To read the stories and the similarity of the harassment techniques that were going on, to hear about the vandalism, appliance tampering and all the other things were designed to drive a person crazy, who do you go to with this?” he said. “People will say you are delusional.”
For Mr. Robinson and several other Web site users interviewed for this article — all of whom insisted they were not delusional, including one man who said he had been hospitalized in psychiatric wards — the sites provide the powerful, unfamiliar experience of being understood by others.
“By and large, most people are sane and coherent and can relate exactly what’s happening to them,” Mr. Robinson said. “They can say the things that would otherwise get them labeled as delusional.”
The article referenced Vaughan Bell, but he confirmed for me that he has never studied Gang Stalking Websites. Will the New York Times Make this correction? It’s doubtful.
————-
After giving the New York Times article a little bit more time to settle there are three points that I wanted to review further.
The first was how the article came to use the term extreme communities. I did read over the Vaughan Bell article where a reference is made to such communities.
According to what Dr Bell wrote in the article it was views considered extreme or unacceptable by the mainstream. Using this definition I wondered if things such as the 9/11 truth movement would be an extreme community? Their views are not considered mainstream. I also wondered who else might fall into this list based on Dr Bell’s definition?
Websites that cover conspiracy topics might well meet his definition of extreme communities. Many of the subject matters covered on websites such as AboveTopSecret dot com would fall into this category. They would be a website of mini patches of extreme communities.
Another factor that I thought should be calculated in when defining a community as an extreme community is the obvious, is the community helpful vs harmful? What kind of purpose do they serve? If I go to a website that has what by some is considered an extreme view that encourages me to kill myself, then that should be considered different than going to a website that expounds none traditional views, but steers the website viewer away from inflicting harm to themselves?
There are lot’s of websites that conform to traditional or more traditional mainstream views that in my opinion are probably fairly harmful to some aspects of society, but we turn a blind eye, because it does pass mainstream muster.
The definition as is, in my opinion is fairly broad, and the references to the term were limited except for references to Dr Bell’s work and the New York Times article.
The other point that I am wondering about is who or what now defines what is mainstream or normal? In today’s society we have so many different variables to consider. At one time spending all your time online might have been considered the actions of lonely desperate people. Now with websites such as Facebook, and much of web 2.0 culture, being online is considered normal, and spending many hours online as long as it’s spent socialising is considered a fairly normal and healthy activity.
According to a report from Mediamark Research in a 30 day period 2.5 million adults participated in online dating. I am sure they find this to be completely normal and mainstream, but I am sure there are patches of society that do not agree with this.
World of WarCraft reached 11 Million monthly Subscribers. Many of them sane individuals who go online to take part in these roleplaying games. For that community, I am sure they consider themselves normal and mainstream, just by their sheer numbers. I am sure there are still many in society who would not however consider going online to roleplay normal, mainstream or even healthy.
Thus what would be considered as abnormal or extreme view offline is often a normal and accepted view online, in many different circles. Eg. 9/11 conspiracy offline, might still be considered anti-government or none traditional, but online they are a fairly regular part of web culture and discussions. When defining mainstream and referencing the Internet, we might have to start finding different ways to do so.
Eg. I just read an article today, that talks about a real life couple getting divorced because he is cheating online with a virtual girlfriend. Traditional definitions are having to be adapted and redefined to accommodate an online culture.
A second woman in Japan was arrested because she killed her online husband. She killed his virtual self. That’s right, she did not kill him, or have any intention of killing the real him, but when his online virtual self divorced her, she got even and killed him. She was arrested for hacking into the computer and other things, and now if she is formally charged, she could face up to 5 years in jail.
It is becoming more and more clear that it is the offline world that is having to adapt to the new online realities and not often the other way around. Therefore what we considered traditional and mainstream yesterday for an offline reality, in many ways is being redefined, and it does not seem as if some offline structures are keeping up to date with this reality.
The third point of concern with the New York Times article is that people were being considered paranoid with simple offline assessments. Are these offline assessments adequate for some of the challenges that people are facing in the modern day world to define Targeted Individuals as paranoid?
Recent research has unearth a great deal of information to show that when people are being termed as paranoid, it might not be the case.
Research is showing that there are in fact networks of individuals being hired by the state in various countries to track and spy on average citizens. The spying includes email and phone taps. Being followed around in public by hired Covert Human Intelligence Sources. Having these same Informants move into the houses around the target when possible. Following them around in vehicle and foot patrols, plus many other forms of intrusive surveillance.
Individuals and Families under these types of surveillance are often not aware, and if they do become aware and go to seek help, they are often written off by the establishment as paranoid, psychotic, or crazy. The modern day reality is that without proper investigations, Freedom Of Information Act requests, and other proper forms of inquiry a true assessment might be impossible to determine. The secondary problem is that many of these investigations are ending up in secret databases, which the public has no access to. F.O.I.A. requests are no longer a sure fire way to determine if an individual is under surveillance.
I think it’s fair and safe to say that before a community is considered extreme many factors should be considered, and the definition itself should factor into consideration what’s considered normal online as well as offline. Assessing if a community or individual is paranoid or psychotic in today’s modern surveillance society should be done with care and caution. It’s been shown time and time again that anti-terror laws are being abused, National Security Letters are being handed out left right and center, with over 30,000 being issued per year, and many groups and individuals are being spied upon and placed on watch lists, unfairly.
In a society as the one described above, it is not only normal to have concerns about surveillance, but when there is a suspicion of such, the job of therapists in the future might not be first subscribing the patient to medication, it might be first asking if they have placed a F.O.I.A. request.
Society might even have to make it a mandatory law for psychiatrist to be notified if a person is under surveillance so that they are not falsely labelled, committed or medicated. This does not happen, the culture and society have changed within the last decade, but the methods used for determining paranoia, psychosis, and mental illness, in regards to the belief that one is under surveillance are still fairly antiquated in many cases, and might not pass muster for the realities of a modern day surveillance society.