Police warnings to stalkers are putting victims at risk
What do John Stalker, Kevin Taylor and Denis Lehane have in common?
They were all innocent men. They were self-made men who came from lowly origins in society, working class and lower middle class. A policeman, a businessman and a journalist, they were men of highest professionalism, integrity and eminent in their fields.
But that did not protect them from gratuitous attack from the state – from authorities that they all held in appropriate respect.
Each of them were subjected to professional sabotage, financial and legal attacks, (resulting in professional and financial ruin), slander, smear campaigns impugning their characters, variously including sexual misconducts which were completely concocted, inappropriate social behaviour implying mental imbalance, drug abuse and criminal activities which they were not involved in. Laws were broken, ignored and manipulated in order to get at them. And one, the Irish journalist Lehain, was confined to a lunatic asylum after a show trial worthy of the Soviet Union, on trumped up charges, from which he was lucky to be released after sustaining permanent physical disability due to a spine injury resulting from a beating.
If people like these can’t trust the authorities, who can.
As a general rule, working class people are object/task oriented and middle class people are people- oriented. One source of class friction is the middle class tendency to like to have servants versus the working class aversion to being servants. Working class people are happy to be workers – a relationship to a job well done, which produces job satisfaction and self respect, as distinct to being a lackey, which does not involve obtaining any skills and destroys self respect.
The coal face of class friction is at its peak at the distinction between working class and lower middle class. Upper working class people are the skilled artisans. The nature of their work employs intelligence, creativity, accuracy, skill, focus and creates a highly self-sufficient mentality with a tendency to be intolerant of human interference – when you have got a job to do, people are pests. You just want to be left alone to get on with it.
Lower middle class people have the middle class focus of being people oriented rather than object oriented, but often their status relies totally on birth. They may be quite low in intelligence and have little ability nor the inclination to obtain hard skills. They are conscious of their low status within the middle class grouping, and also conscious they lack the intelligence to improve their standing. And they are very conscious of the social class below them – the working class, many of whom have higher technical ability, intelligence and drive. The last thing a lower middle class person of low ability with only his/her social class to claim “superiority” wants to see is a meritocratic society where people can advance themselves socially on the basis of merit. They know in such a system they would lose.
This is an essential class conflict. The upward aspiring, capable working class versus the mediocre lower middle class who stand to lose if working class people have the chance to succeed. Because the lower middle class cannot compete on fair terms, they resort to unfair methods, cheating and sabotage. The mind set that emerges is working class people are fair game if the dirty tricks used have the result of keeping working class people “in their place”. Both sexes are active in the process. A lower middle class woman, with little ability and unpleasant personality does not want to face competition for “her” men and the jobs she wants, with an intelligent working class woman, with a good personality, who has career ambitions. A popular method for taking the working class woman out of the competition is to slander her reputation. Respectability is prized by working class people. They know it is the foundation of social inclusion, and unlike higher social class groupings, they have to work for it, it is not granted for nothing. Unfortunately, a good reputation, hard worked for, is easily destroyed by lies from a higher social class person, and readily believed by those higher social classes. Why not? It is a cheap and easy way to eliminate competition. In the case of men whom society has granted a stronger immunity against personal attacks, sabotaging the mans work is the preferred method or rigging circumstances to make it appear he is a thief.
The different psychology of the working class and middle class leads to different choices in job occupations. Working class men often choose to become soldiers. This has the bonus of teaching useful skills, and caters to the tendency to deal with the problem by identifying who is the cause, then shooting them, as opposed to talking to them, which is the middle class way. (Joke). The lower middle class alternative is to join the police.
It is immediately obvious that police recruited largely from the ranks of the lower middle class, are likely to take a dim view that protecting working class people is part of their job, and with the – it’s OK to sabotage any working class person – especially one who shows they have the ability to succeed – of the lower middle class mind-set – the police more than any other occupation (apart from the security services) are optimally placed to abuse their special privileges to oppress working class people.
Which leads to the traditional enmity between the working class and the police.
There is also a political angle to the class divide. Working class people, experiencing direct social oppression (similar in a lot of ways to racism) tend to communism. Lower middle class people, obsessed with protecting their social position and “keeping the lower orders in their place ie, beneath them, tend to fascism.
Of course, in an intelligent, rational, civilised society, this squalid class struggle would never be allowed to happen. Many people of all classes of society are perfectly happy with the idea and the reality, of a fair society where anyone can improve their social position on the basis of merit. The only people against it are those who because of their intrinsic inferiority, often combined with an unjustified sense of superiority, recognise if open competition was permitted, they would lose.
Which leads us to the crucial class grouping with relevance to this particular conflict. The ruling class. In the absence of a meritocracy, the ruling class are not the best in society who have worked their way up to the highest echelon from every rank of society, to the top. The ruling class are almost entirely composed of people born to that status. They are conscious that there are very many people in the lower ranks of society who are more intelligent, more creative, more ambitious and hard working and skilled. This social class, also cannot take the competition. In common with the other social class in society, the lower middle class, because they know they cannot retain their position with fair competition, they deal with the situation by not allowing it. Some battles are won by not fighting them. Don’t allow competition to happen, and you cannot lose. At the same time you can exploit the unique privileges of your position to sabotage any underlings who are capable and socially ambitious – and you can take out a major bloc of competition in society by supporting the police in their sabotage of the working class.
Where the police assist in suppressing the working class, the security services are the tool the upper classes use to suppress everybody. To prevent competition from high talent, which inevitably occurs in a sophisticated society, competition is eliminated by recruiting, so far as it’s possible, the top people in every category. They can then be used to make sure that in no area of expertise there is anybody superior to the tools which the upper classes can use. The upper classes can then ensure it is their agenda alone, which is implemented in every walk of life. To ensure that no effective talent remains independent, various ruses can be used to magnify recruitment. The threat of terrorism justifies expansion. If terrorism didn’t exist, the ruling class would have to invent it. Perhaps they have. Londonistan is the creation of the British establishment. The Islamic culture hosts young males who are hyper-sensitive to insult and are volatile. Guatanamo is a running sore and ongoing recruiting sergeant. Turmoil in Middle-Eastern countries – war – induces migration into Europe. The security services claim they need more resources to watch the terrorists – a situation that our political class are largely responsible for manufacturing – but what they actually want all those resources for and indefinite expansion, is to watch and control their own populace.
Another set of ready made allies are criminals. You do not need to oppress people directly, just ensure that there are a large group of criminals allowed to run loose in society, subject to slap on the wrist penalties so long as they confine their attention to low status people. You can help the process along with social policies of deliberately housing criminals in working class areas.
The lower middle class tendency towards fascism likely arises out of the social circumstances, an attempt to protect class interests against a perceived threat.
Ruling class fascism is possibly historical. The feudal overlords in Europe prior to the decimation of the population by the Black Death, were characterised by the “we’re the Masters, you’re the slaves” mentality. When they discovered their land was worthless without people to work it, they had no choice but to part with some of their wealth, which they had previously completely cornered, to give labourers decent wages, and skilled people higher pay. The birth of the middle class who seized the opportunity to obtain education, develop skills, build and conserve more wealth, and politically obstruct the unaccountable despotism of the aristocrats. The general populace moved on to democracy, but the mind-set of the rulers never changed.
They could no longer lord it over their social subordinates. They replaced overt with covert methods and planned for the day they could seize back what they viewed was rightfully theirs. All the wealth and every talent in society in service of themselves.
abuse of authority, abuse of law, bureaucratic harassment, control freaks, crime, criminal negligence, freedom, Jane Clift, law and order, micro-management, patriotism, police, police priorities, unaccountability, vigilanteism
We are all against crime. It is the Government’s job to stop crime. We are all for that, aren’t we. So we can all feel very reassured that the criminals who dropped a piece of pie crust ( immediately eaten by the birds), the child who chalked a hopscotch pattern on the pavement, a boy who threw a chip at another boy, where immediately attended to by the police with appropriate legal proceedings. (Did you ever drop a scrap of food in a public place? Play hopscotch? When a child, throw food at another child? If the answer is yes, and if you say no, I don’t believe you, then you, by the standards of the law today are a criminal. Expect a call from the police any day now. A crime is a crime after all).
Alongwith this admirable and courageous application of the police to criminal behaviour we have the alternative situation of two community police standing by while a child drowned in a shallow pond. They were expressly ordered by their superiors NOT to go into the water, as they were not trained for that procedure. Or the case of the woman who fell down a concealed mineshaft and the firemen again were expressly ordered NOT to use the equipment which they had with them to rescue her as that equipment was designated for use for firemen only. In both cases they were told after the event that they had done the right thing. Both people died when there were people on hand to help them but no crime took place.
But stepping aside from these extreme examples from our Alice in Wonderland world – have you ever done any of the following? Made a phone call from work; used office stationery for personal use; went home with an office pen or paper clip; used recycled paper from work for personal use or took it home; used someone else’s milk at work; used the internet at work for personal purposes; left a shop without paying for an item; not been strictly honest on your CV; shouted at anyone at any time for any reason; had a drink while underage; smoked a bit of dope OR been in the presence of someone smoking dope; engaged in sex with another person when you were below the age of consent; had a tv without a licence; fed the ducks/pigeons. If so, you are a criminal.
What is wrong with this picture?
We are now in a situation where if you have a genuine problem in which the police should take an interest, such as if you are burgled, mugged, or having street yobs permanently parked outside your house night after night making noise, dropping litter, vandalising your property, intimidating you and your family – sorry, the police are too busy, they do not have the resources. (One relishes the story of the householder who when he called the police to tell them his garden shed was being broken into and was told, sorry we don’t have the resources, called back 5 minutes later and said, don’t bother coming out, I have a gun, I’ll sort it out myself. And within minutes panda cars were screeching to his door and a helicopter was circling overhead. The police apprehended the burglar and then asked the householder about the gun. Sorry, he said, I don’t have one). (Not recommended for American readers).
And as often as not when they do come after a lot of nagging, it will only be when you have tried to defend yourself, and they arrest you. On the one hand our authorities ignore crime, and on the other evidently feel free to crimninalise anyone they please for the most trivial of reasons. People increasingly feel even if they have a real problem, don’t call the police as you run the risk of getting arrested yourself.
Now this is all hunky dory and business as usual for a third world dictatorship, but it is not supposed to be happening here.
Furthermore police like powers have been extended to large categories of people who are even less accountable than the police and that is saying something. Social workers, and any number of bureaucrats. As the experiece of Jane Clift shows, you can find yourself blacklisted and subjected to extra-judicial vigilanteism from the community if a bureaucrat didn’t like the way you talked to them on the phone (or was it because she dared to talk to them at all?)
The messge is clear. Whoever is setting priorities, and bearing in mind that nothing in politics happens by accident, law and order and protecting the public are not the priorities of those setting the agenda. But micro–management and total control over every citizens life, down to the smallest action is.
Freedom has been quietly suffocated. We are all criminals now.
anarchy, anti-scocial behaviour, con artists, conspiracy, corruption, crime, criminal defamation, Cults, fascism, frame up, gagging, gang stalking, harassment, infiltration, lies, noise, organised stalking, persecution, persuasive coercion, police, propaganda, racketeering, Rule of Law, scapegoating, slander, subversion, targets are bait, vigilantes, vigilantism
For a long time it has been felt that the police provide a poor service to ordinary people. How many times has it happened that anti-social youths have plagued an area but despite many calls for help the police failed to put in an appearance? But at the slightest whiff of “vigilanteism” they are out like a shot.
Strange then the huge inertia over vigilante organised stalking.
What does this tell us about the nature of our authorities?
That Rule of Law is now in abeyance? Can anyone now start up their own private army? That spying on people and grossly invading their privacy is a game that anyone can play? Is criminal defamation of character allowed so long as you guarantee silence of the person lied to using the methods cults have always used to silence and control their dupes? That it is now socially acceptable to organise a cult for the sole purpose of committing crime and providing you do so on a grand enough scale, the authorities will turn a blind eye, and the people who complain about the activities of these cults are turned away with the fob off answer – go away you are imagining it?
Somehow I doubt it. The anti-vigilante squad would be out with a vengeance.
So it appears authority no longer upholds Rule of Law. Someone has released anarchy onto our streets, anarchy with a decidedly fascist flavour, and it is the authorities who are “imagining ” that it is not happening. Which leads to the $64 dollar question.
WHO IS REALLY IN CHARGE?