WordPress informed me that on 23rd July I had reached my blog’s 2 year anniversary.
I’m quite pleased about that. Two years and both myself and the blog are still here.
Two and a half years ago my husband passed away with terminal cancer. There were peculiarities regarding his medical treatment in his last months which caused me concern. But bizarre behaviour from a relative sent me searching to Wikipedia reference desk for an explanation. They told me her behaviour was “gaslighting” a term unknown to me, and another unknown term “mobbing” which they suggested I check out. In the process I discovered the term “gang stalking” which gave an explanation for the stalking I had been subject to while a Philosophy student at the New University of Ulster (Coleraine campus) in the seventies, my inability to find work afterwards, police interference when I did find work, strange comments and behaviour from people over the years implying that I had been in prison, or my qualifications were fraudulent, which oddly, no prospective employer ever asked to see. The ongoing harassment from neighbours my late husband and I experienced in the twenty years we lived in London, with good neighbours being driven out by noise and anti-social behaviour to be replaced by extreme noise pests, and people who vandalised the property forcing tenants to leave when they were flooded out by overflowing baths, and arson events. Denial of correct diagnosis resulting in witholding proper medical treatment – I was a textbook gang stalking target.
The site targeted-individuals created by British Gulf War veterans who found when they tried to get proper medical treatment for Gulf War syndrome, the authorities denied that any such thing existed, justifying witholding treatment and pensions, was followed by a dirty tricks campaign directed against the veterans and their families – as if the establishment were waging covert war against them. Despite the fact these men were experienced soldiers and not easily shocked, they were shocked by the methods used and the site targeted-individuals was the result.
The other site I found useful is the Canadian exposegangstalking, which is undergoing a name change to exposeblacklisting.
So I started my own blog – this one, originally called “Gang stalked and slandered” to tell what had happened to me at university and subsequently. I soon realised apart from adding my own story there was little I could add to the few excellent gang stalking sites struggling to be heard among an amazing sea of nonsense. But my perspective was slightly different from the sites which describe gang stalking methods accurately and the subjective sites where distressed and bewildered victims describe what is happening to them and pleading what can they do to end their persecution. I noticed that a great many people associated with me had suffered significant financial losses – they had been swindled out of their life’s savings, their homes and businesses. I also noticed businesses that I had been a customer of – retail, cafes, hotels and accommodation had immediately altered their method of doing business. From being fairly priced, honest businesses, they went overnight to high prices, removing economical lines, upgrading and extending, increasing hours and cutting staff, often replaced by more exploitable migrants. In short, minimising service, overworking staff and maximising profit. Change of ownership and businesses closing down overnight was also common. It seemed my role in all this, which has every appearance of a major criminal racket, was to act as unconsenting and at the time, unknowing bait or decoy. Everyone associated with me told the slander that I was a heinous criminal was giving their cooperation to people whose real agenda was to enslave them and steal their assets. My view is a minority view among Targeted Individuals, but there are others who have also suggested gang stalking is an organised crime criminal racket noticing how gang stalkers take over properties and others who have also suggested that gang stalking targets are not the primary targets, but only the bait to recruit the real targets – for reasons unknown.
As I started to blog I soon realised two things. Firstly as a writer I am strictly amateur. Most blogs I read were written by people with real professionalism – better writers, more accurate researchers, better qualified academically, sometimes trained and experienced journalists. I thought, why should anyone read your blog when there are better bloggers?
The other thing I realised was – you are preaching to the converted. The only people who are going to read a gang stalking site are other targets. Gang stalking does not make any sense to someone not on the receiving end, as the gang stalking methods are gaslighting techniques, are concealed and secretive as most crimes are, and appears to be sheltering under colour of law.
But my view that gang stalkers are not solely concerned with Targeted Individuals, but only using them as tools in a much larger scam which potentialy targets anyone with any kind of exploitable asset caused me to broaden my perspective. I realised that the manipulative and exploitative techniques used against myself and people associated with me were being applied to society in general. Gang stalking method – interfering with mail deliveries. Letters, especially official letters would get “lost in the post” or arrive late, causing financial losses or difficulties, which took more time and resources to sort out, generally with an unhelpful bureaucracy which implied I was responsible. This has become a common complaint with unemployment and sickness benefit claimants, who end up losing benefits as a result and are harassed and abused for something outside their control. Gang stalking method – losing or stealing essential documents. I tried to make an appointment with my doctor in London. The secretary told me I was not registered with them. I had been with that doctor for 10 years. The doctor appeared, very flustered and explained that my records had mysteriously been sent to the other side of London. Welfare claimants are complaining that offices where they make a claim are “losing” their medical records. We are very dependent on our documents. They prove who we are and they prove our legal entitlements. Identity Theft is at record levels, but the authorities are uninterested.
In short I realised that the injustice of gang stalking was only part of a much bigger picture, and everyone who is being discriminated against, vilified, denied their entitlement by society’s institutions the same formula is being applied – the gang stalking formula. Before robbing the victim slander them and make out they are a criminal or not who they say they are. Encourage those in their vicinity to join in the abuse – as in mobbing. Cheat the target out of their just entitlements by any method that can be got away with and justified – however flimsy or insulting the excuse. Charge for services not received, especially utilities. Delay, withold or give incorrect medical treatment, making the condition worse. Use that as an opportunity to accuse the carer of abuse. Have lawyers give incorrect advice. Get people to change Will’s to cheat family out of their inheritance. Break up marriages and use children to harass people. You could write an encyclopedia on the methods used – and they are everywhere. And the targets are everyone. Not only the people at the bottom of the social heap, working class and ethnic groups, used as bait, the scapegoats, but people in the class above who have managed a small amount of success in their lives, perhaps by owning their own home, or a successful business or by being a landlord.
So I changed the name of my site from “Gang stalked and slandered” to “Citizens, not serfs”. My interest is anyone who is being unjustly victimised, very often by the instruments of the state.
The danger of preaching to the converted is the failure to realise the common ground, the methods being used against us, how we are misdirected to struggle against false enemies invented for us, and the fact that the same methods of oppression are being used against us all, by the same class of elite criminals who view everything of value in society as their property and everyone not of their class, a slave.
The last thing that those in charge want is a meritocracy with everyone in the world able to fulfil their full potential.
Structural handicaps are there for a reason. Discrimination against women, often applied ” barefoot and pregnant” takes half the race out of the competition for life’s goodies, while ensuring a large supply of free/low cost goodies for everyone else – dumping the unpaid drudgery on them, and endless supply of dirt cheap labour, and prostitution. No, the exploitation of women is not stupid, it is a bonanza for the exploiters. Thus the rage against feminists and anyone else attempting to free the golden goose.
The classics of course are slavery and racism. Label a group of people slaves, and then having categorised them as garbage, give yourself the right to treat them as garbage, because THEY, not you, have no value. But then insist these WORTHLESS people work for you. Whatzat? The people labelled are garbage, NOT the people who attached the label? And worthless people are expected to work their b…s off? I thought they were worthless. Surely you don’t get anything useful, like work, out of worthless people. Another con trick, which somehow those with higher social clout get away with. Why is that? Why do we believe lies and blatant rubbish when it comes from the mouths of the higher ups?
Combining slavery with race is a clever move. Otherwise the slavers must make a big investment in differentiating the people oppressed who otherwise are identical to their oppressors. Can a Western eye tell the difference between an Untouchable and a Brahmin? White bonded labour to the United States looked the same as every other migrant. Try and blend in if you are African.
And just to make sure there was no blending, laws were invented to outlaw inter-race marriages.
Laws to maintain, enforce or create, social demarcations of privilege, are no accident and historically cover a huge area of legislation. Bias in the laws is easily discernible. They follow a consistent pattern of protecting the rights and privileges of the haves, while obstructing the have-nots at every turn.
If a person on the bottom rung of society wants to raise herself, everyone in society will want to raise themselves to maintain the differentials. Easier just to crush that person out of existence. A woman? Good, all women are prostitutable. Let her channel male frustrations and make lotsa money for other men, higher ups somewhere siphoning off their tithe.
A frustrated worker realising he will never get promoted no matter how good he is, however hard he works, decides to evade the structure by starting his own business – create a sea of legislation so that business start-ups are only possible for the already privileged.
An entire social class manages to raise itself on the basis of its education, work and initiative – trash them all back into the gutter by flooding the market with cheap labour, allow crime to run rampant, remove social protections, stigmatise that group by association with the imported criminals and bingo! Satisfactory status quo restored. Oh, and steal their worked for wealth. Now they are labelled as criminals, you can pretend that it was the proceeds of crime.
Above all intelligence and creativity have to be crushed. Dumb down the culture. This hampers intelligent people because the dummies don’t understand what they are talking about, when they explain what is happening. Creative people work out ways to get round the handicaps so legislation is in a constant game of catch-up to prevent people un-handicapping themselves. Ancient laws both Hebrew and Arab criminalised women passing as men, as a way of throwing off the female handicap. The cultural practice of a man holding another man’s balls when concluding a contract ensured women could not step outside the role men imposed on them. Individuals who realised they could avoid the high cost of housing and high rents which meant they could never afford to buy, who bought a garage to live in, suddenly found there was legislation which did not allow them to live in a garage, and they were visited by the police, a luxury that victims of burglary can’t expect. The general experience of the lower classes. You can rely on the police to be there to interfere and obstruct harmless activities, but if laws are being broken against you, if you are being attacked, they are strangely absent and indifferent.
Every time a subordinate finds a way to counter a handicap, a law is implemented to block their avenue of escape. Like Gulliver in Lilliput, an ordinary person can hardly use any initiative without being immobilised by thousands of tiny, unbreakable cords.
Is this how slavery is advanced? In multiple tiny steps?
What those in charge fear most are the people in society, not of their elite, who are intelligent, talented, enterprising, hard-working, socially co-operative, creative and lateral thinkers. The feudal overlords have nightmares about the intelligent peasant, the archetypal problem-solver, who might one day solve the problem of why their life is so difficult.
My parents were working class. My father, born in rural Northern Ireland in 1905, finished school aged 14, then worked at a number of jobs acquiring skills as he went, until he finally went to night classes and passed his radio exams and became a Radio Officer in the Merchant Navy. By which stage he could do plumbing, brick laying, tiling, plastering, wiring, and some mechanics. Basically he was a mechanical and electrical genius. If it was a machine or used electricity he could fix it.
My mother’s background was mixed. Her father was a brick-layer, and had also been a policeman. But her mother came from an upper middle class family, where the daughters had been disinherited, and therefore de-statused by their brothers, a not uncommon occurrence in the 19th century. She was one of the most intelligent people I have ever met, coldly analytic, never overlooking a detail. She became a Head Librarian.
I was raised in the countryside. We had few relatives, as my mother’s family lived in Australia and my father, marrying late, many of his relatives had already died. So I was raised in near social isolation, and grew up with no awareness of social class. Nor was I taught to have any. My parents view was life, and your status, was what you made it. Get educated, work hard, and employers recognising your merit would promote you. A naive view that I entirely believed. But a view I soon found was not shared by the peasant (anthropological term) culture, that I lived in. Not having any recognition of social class distinctions I accepted people as I found them. I liked people who were intelligent and creative, who were interested in doing things and thinking things. And this was the basis on which I accorded other people respect. But peasant society’s do not work like that. People are accorded respect according to their birth, the status of their parents. You are supposed to grovel to the higher-ups and you can treat as you like anyone you perceive as being lower-status to yourself. If you are perceived as lower rank, but have higher ability, you will be shunned and treated as an “upstart”, someone with views ” above their station”. So, I didn’t get on with Irish culture, to say the least. I had arrived at the conclusion that the entire human race were witless ass-holes by the age of 30, when I moved to England for work, and discovered everyone was not the same.
I had rejected the peasant model of rigid social class stratification, but I still held the view that social status was something that you worked for and could achieve. I still lacked any sense of class identity both in myself and others. You know the expression “colour blind”. Well, I was class blind. I still accepted people as I found them, without prejudice but having a preference for associating with intelligent, creative and active people. I had had an excellent Northern Irish education – alongwith the Scots, the Nth Irish working class placed a high value on education, and I supposed now I was living somewhere where I could find work, it would be onwards and upwards from hereon in.
Perhaps it does work that way for men. But I soon found out working in offices that just because I had no awareness, nor interest in anyone else’s supposed social class, only being concerned with getting the job done in as harmonious way as possible, for other people social class was a major preoccupation. A bit like race, but without the colour. And apparently, both my parents being honest working people all their lives, well-read and well- educated, meant that I was somehow inferior to the daughters of the shop assistant’s, whose qualifications were inferior to mine, that I was working with. It soon became clear that my role in the office setting, on the lowest grade, was to be the office donkey. That neither my qualifications nor hard-work were ever going to gain me a promotion over the middle-class wives. When I found other well-qualified, experienced working class women, running offices virtually on their own, on the point of retirement, and still on the lowest clerical grade, I realised I was wasting my time. I moved out of office work to become a postman, with a large increase in pay, a pension, good holidays, a fair work distribution, and after dealing with neurotic, obsessed, narrow-minded bitchy women, dealing with sexism from the men was child’s play.
But I digress. I was starting to learn about social class. That no-one is going to support meritocracy, except for themselves. That everyone’s fall-back position when faced with anyone with higher ability but lower status, is to pull rank. And the barriers go up alongwith all the ammunition, that we, the middle class are the sole owners of law-abiding ness, morality, sanity, decency, and a work ethic, and if you are lower class and present with qualifications and good work you must be a fraud, as you belong to the work-shy, skiving, criminal classes, who need to be kept out of middle-class venues for middle class protection.
As an aside I have to add that it is more than a tad irritating being treated as a criminal by the society you live in when you are not one. As I am not a criminal I would never lift my hand against these people, but after a lifetime of gratuitous abuse if, or when, they all go down in flames, I will not feel one iota of concern. Humanity has lost my good will.
I was slow to learn, but classism was not a one-off invention for my benefit. I have been surrounded by honest, hard-working, law-abiding, enterprising, working class people my entire life. They are the antithesis of the criminal classes. Everything they have, they worked hard for. And those that succeeded mainly did so by avoiding social structures controlled by the middle classes. They either were promoted on the basis of merit in working-class settings, either factory work or became self-employed and ran their own businesses. And I am talking about success by any standards. People reaching top management positions, people building up businesses worth millions.
So much is self-evident. What is not obvious is what I discovered last year after being subjected to bizarre behaviour from a relative. Totally baffled, I enquired on Wiki what the behaviour meant and they told me it was “gaslighting” a term I had never heard of. When I researched “gaslighting” I found ” gang stalking” which described the kind of events that had been happening to me since attending Ulster University ( Coleraine campus) in the 1970s, and ever since.
And a startling pattern became clear. Working class and ethnic people associated with me – people who had made good, mainly by building up businesses so they had substantial assets, had been stripped of their resources – conned or swindled out of their savings, houses or businesses.
The only conclusion I can arrive at is meritocracy is a sham to disguise the fact that our class system is in fact a rigid caste system, where those in charge fully embrace the peasant culture ideology that people must be confined to the social class they were born to and any who dare to lift themselves from the gutter are fair game to have the proceeds of their work stripped from them and pushed back into the gutter where they belong. That the ruling class view everyone not ruling class as slaves, who are expected to work for nothing, accept any and every abuse, and all that belongs to us, belongs to them, that they can help themselves to at their leisure.
agent provocateur, Channelling crime, classism, crime, Crime as a political weapon, framing, gang stalking, life sabotage, prejudice, racism, Scapegoat class, sexism, stigmatisation, women in prison, working class
As a child I read two books about the same time and with a curiously similar theme. One was Jean Genet’s “Our Lady of the Flowers” and the other was Violette Leduc’s “La batarde”. Both were autobiographical and described their lives with great gusto. And both appeared to me to be making the same excuse, namely ” society made me a criminal”. The authors shared great writing talent. These books are enjoyable reads. But even as a child I was not impressed by their arguments. I can remember thinking – who are you trying to kid? You are telling me you are so spineless, so passive, so weak that as a result of circumstances you just fell into criminality as a result of other forces? I mean, criminals may be lazy, but are they passive?
Growing up rural working class I was taught to respect everybody. And also, nobody. This was the Scots/Irish tradition of ” not being a respecter of persons”. Unlike the Irish peasant culture surrounding me where the social norm is to grovel to the higher-ups and happily trample anyone viewed as socially inferior, my family carried the Scots and rural culture of you respect a man or woman on the basis of their merit. Social status is disregarded. But at the same time you are under a requirement of respecting everyone. Only one exception was allowed. Criminals. Criminals deserved no respect on the basis of their immorality, parasitism and being predators on our class.
So, from an early age I entirely rejected the premise “society made me a criminal” and there has only ever been one class of human beings I despise totally, and that is criminals.
However, there were aspects of my early life experiences which tallied with Jean Genet’s and Violette Leduc’s descriptions of their childhood. My parents were poor. My father worked from the age of 14 to past 70. He didn’t smoke, drink, nor gamble. He married late and only had two children. He never got into debt. He was a highly skilled man. But most of his early working life when he was a sparks in the Merchant Navy all his spare income had gone to support his mother and youngest sister. As a result when I was growing up, we were poor, and the community that surrounded us viewed us with suspicion and I experienced being treated like a criminal because of being poor along with social rejection throughout my early life. But I didn’t see anything in that to be an excuse for criminality. I discerned that people were obnoxious, didn’t live to the same standards of my parents which I also subscribed to, and I didn’t need them. I expected to be self-sufficient, like my parents.
However, now in my sixties and looking back over my life I have to admit that Genet and Leduc had an argument – but not in the way they presented it.
If you are a law respecting person, you not only do not commit crimes, but you also make a point of avoiding crime venues. Especially as a working class women which as a category society can’t be bothered protecting. You avoid venues where you might become a target of crime. You don’t dress nor act in a provocative manner. You avoid going to places where men go to pick up women, because you know men with criminal intentions will be there. You guard your reputation because a bad reputation is a bad-man magnet. All this was second nature to me. Logically, following this choice of behaviour I should have been as safe as it is possible for a woman of my social class to be, from crime and criminal elements. I avoided bad company.
If only it had been that simple.
When I went to Ulster University (Coleraine campus) in 1976, to study the non-controversial, rather conservative subject of Philosophy, with a focus on religion and ethics, I became the target of gang stalkers. An English policeman went out of his way to make my acquaintance. He asked me inappropriate questions about my sex life and gave me a large pile of porn magazines which had been confiscated from students. Strange men started hanging around my remotish cottage, frightening the single lady on one side to sell up and go back to England, and frightening the old man on the other side who had lived there all his life without any trouble. I was rejected for further study before taking my final exams even though I was getting high grades. Due to poverty I met few students or staff at University, but somehow the ones I did meet were communists or republican sympathisers. (My politics are middle of the spectrum and strongly opposed to both extremes of communism or fascism. I was a volunteer for the non-sectarian Northern Ireland Alliance Party at a later date). And the whole gang stalking package from then on. Which included putting opportunities to commit crimes in my way. And also, when I moved into accommodation with perfectly normal neighbours, in a short time those neighbours would move out to be replaced with anti-social and criminal tenants – exactly the bad company that I tried to avoid. You can avoid going to venues where bad people hang out, but if you are living at a multiple-occupancy address, how can you prevent criminals from moving in? This happened repeatedly.
One theory of gang stalking, which has traction, is that it is caused by corrupt police and security service personnel. The people who are supposed to be catching criminals and protecting the law-abiding. They are not supposed to be inciting crime, and setting up situations where crime is likely to happen, nor acting in a way which increases the risks from crime for ordinary citizens.
It looks like an alliance of criminals at the top of society combining with criminals at the bottom of society, to use crime to attack lower status people.
So, Genet and Leduc had a point. There are very strong and heavily financed powers in society who have the active objective of promoting crime, both in terms of crimes being carried out and also crimes directed at people. It appears to be for the socio-political purpose to on one hand, persecute lower class groupings in society, such as working class and people of colour by making them targets of criminals – channeling crime in their direction. And also to justify this process by trying to get them involved in crime directly. The objective being to stigmatise lower class law-abiding groups as criminal class. A handy, ever-ready scapegoat class. A large percentage of women (mainly lower class) in prison, I am told, are furious because they maintain they are there because they have been set-up by men, who actually committed crimes but got off scott-free.
On the back of my experience it could well be true.
Cults, fair game, framing (crime, gang stalking, gang stalking cults, gaslighting, harassment, homophobia, noise harassment, organised crime, Perps crazy talk, racism, sexism, stalking, state sponsored persecution, vigilante stalking
I had EXTREME noise harassment for 11 years. The wax ear plugs from Boots are the best. Noise excluding headphones are relatively cheap. Earplugs, noise excluding headphones and music of your choice can blot out most anything. I had the problem with noise when I lived in a city. When I moved to a country town where the social norms were people making loud noise are very socially visible the problem virtually stopped.
A lot of the gang stalkers following you have been duped – they are naive – they do not understand what they are involved in. Their controllers want to keep it that way. When I am out I wear t-shirts with the following written on them. – targeted-individuals (Army Veterans); targets are bait; bait; gang stalking; vigilantes; cults; Fair Game – and so forth. Words which draw attention to what they are doing. I get few followers these days.
I have been persecuted for more than 30 years but I only found out the why and how last year. When I realised I was probably being set up for Identity Theft which would strip me of my savings and inheritance from my late parents and criminalise me in one go, I realised I had nothing to lose by making my situation as public as possible. After all – they attacked me for NO reason.
ATTACK DON’T DEFEND
Good Scientology advice from the inventors of Fair Game – the twin of gang stalking. As a gaslighting victim describing what is happening to you just provides seeming evidence that you are a fruitcake. Do not say when I left my flat someone came in and vandalised the window latch and the door to the wardrobe. Say instead an MO of gang stalkers is that they vandalise your landlord’s property so that it looks as if you have done it (makes out you are the kind of person who wrecks rental property), so that you lose your bond. Concentrate on what gang stalkers DO. They want attention on you after they have framed the situation. Turn the attention back on them.
PERPS ON GANG STALKING SITES
Perps who go onto gang stalking sites to hi-jack the conversation with crazy talk and inflammatory remarks. Treat it as an opportunity. Politely handle their remark and use it as an opportunity to make further relevant comments. The more you talk about what they don’t want you to talk about the less inclined they are to give you the opportunity. If you get stuck a mention of Scientology often ends the conversation. They also don’t like references to cults or vigilantes.
Children bullied at school. Often the more intelligent/academically inclined of lower social class.
People bullied at work. Often the better, harder workers who get on well with people. Also lower class, otherwise they would have entered the workforce on a higher level.
Majority of gang stalking targets. Seventy percent women, particularly those who went to University and were career motivated. Also lower social class.
Another major gang stalking target. Ethnics and coloureds, also people with intelligence, good moral character and anxious to advance their careers.
and another gang stalking target. The upright men and whistleblowers. The strong, moral, men who support the (supposed) values of Western democracy, who have achieved against the odds, coming from lower class backgrounds and staunchly opposed to corruption and injustice.
What do all these groups have in common? Mainly lower class, with the ability and will to succeed. Intelligent, moral and play by the rules.
Their enemies evidently view their qualities as a threat and attack them by smearing their justly earned reputations, ignore or attempt to invalidate their qualifications and work, poison their social relationships, intrude deeply into their family lives to cause as much disruption as possible, subject them to yob behaviour in return for their courtesy, and subject them to criminal defamation of the vilest kind.
Thus we can conjecture on the face of our enemy. It is not very American/British, is it?
“Stolen Honour and a Man’s Life Destroyed” Mark Wilmot
con artists, Cults, disabled discrimination, ethnic, fascism, feminism, gang stalking, gays, homophobia, lesbianism, police corruption, political police, prejudice, racism, self-funded operations, sexism, social engineering, targeted individuals are bait, targets are bait, Unending bogus investigations, vigilante, vigilante stalking, women
Seventy percent women, gay men, ethnic and peripheral groups – the main targets of gang stalking. So sexism, racism, homophobia and discrimination against disabled, despite the fanfare about equal rights, hasn’t gone away then, just re-packaged and gone underground.
The obvious common theme is that these are the same people who have always been socially persecuted.
Just ordinary people if others would let them be. Trying to lead normal lives, working for a living, playing by the rules, trying to get on. Society has always lied about and stigmatised these groups and reacted with hostility to the possibility that such people should succeed in life by virtue of their own capability, values and hard work. The social opportunities which opened up post war made it look as if the old prejudices were being set aside and now anyone could achieve success if they went about it the right way. But the last thing those who had a degree of social privilege wanted was to see their advantage swamped by competition from those they regarded as “inferiors”. The old handicapping structures had been removed. It became urgent that they be replaced.
But why so many women, especially when the gang stalking formula involves accusations of the most despicable crimes? Most criminals, especially serious criminals are men. The simplest answer is that of all the oppressed categories, women are numerically the largest group. And also, because they are women, people are not afraid of them. And, if you take the view, as I do, that the real targets are the recruits, women are perfect bait. As the Recruiters generate fear in their potential recruits, that the target is a dangerous criminal, that fear is off set by the fact that the target is a woman, and people feel they can handle it. Perhaps they also recognise, on an instinctive level, that that woman is no danger. Women aren’t scary. And people feel patronisingly superior to women especially ethnic and working class women, whom they are happy to “put back in their place” after they have been (falsely) identified as a threat. A large butch hetero male, combined with the lie that he was a major criminal/terrorist might scare the potential recruits off. Women are a nice safe non-scary bait for the duped recruits. What they discover in time, was that it was not the woman they should have been afraid of, but the Recruiter.