It would be interesting to know how many “gagging orders” are being applied all over the Western world.
The first answer is in the methods they use, lies, ignoring law, bullying and manipulation.
The second answer is in whom they despise, vilify and exploit.
Small business people
and anyone who stands against their exploitation –
Those who uphold Rule of Law
Christians or moral people of any/no faith
People who complain
Supporters of democracy
Supporters of Free Speech
There appears to be an ideological war being waged against free Western democracies and the principles on which Western culture is based. All those mentioned in the title are parties to the assault. All their victims/prime targets are listed in the text.
All those listed in the title share the same objective. To turn society into two classes of people – predator and prey, exploiter and exploited, master and slave.
All targeted groups need to unite around the core principles of Rule of Law, the same law applied equally (blindly = without favour) and nobody “above the law”.
Democracy which involves not simply putting an X on a ballot paper, but those elected offering policies which the people want, and compelled to carry them out.
Social Justice – we all pay a huge proportion of our life long incomes in taxes, and those taxes should be retained within the country to maintain infra-structure and provide insurance support for the citizens, such as welfare and pensions; and our elected representatives are elected to represent ALL of us, not privileged interests who grease their palms, whether directly or indirectly. We also need transparency. No change should be foisted on the populace without public debate, examination and permission, or with the origin/originator of the change being concealed.
Blacklisting is rearing its ugly head again in the UK. The Scottish Affairs Committee published its interim report in April on the, supposedly historical, practice of blacklisting in the construction industry. Blacklisting in this context involved placing construction workers on a list because they were part of a union, undertook union activities or raised health and safety concerns. This list was then circulated to potential employers, so they knew which workers to avoid employing. In a number of cases, the information provided was wholly false. What makes blacklisting significant is not only that it has taken such a long time for victims to access any kind of justice, but that so many questions remain unanswered and that, despite legislative and policy efforts to prevent it, the practice still seems to be a feature of life in the construction industry. For example, allegations have surfaced in Scotland that 28 workers were…
View original post 1,124 more words
characteristics of fascism, clandestine operations, COINTELPRO, corrupt police, covert war on citizens, fascism, framing (evidence), gang stalking, George Orwell, Gestapo, hysteria, McCarthyism, organised stalking, paranoia, pre-emptive strikes, secrecy, vigilante stalking
A smear campaign against someone who is not a criminal and hasn’t done/isn’t doing anything wrong needs backing up in then producing “evidence” to back up the smears. Most sensible people when looking for a place to live would reject a place which appeared to be inhabited by prostitutes and other dodgy criminal types. So the Target is caught out by moving criminals into their address AFTER they have moved in. Then the smearers can claim, truthfully, that the Target is living at an address with known criminals. Job done! The same kind of mind set who in the absence of crime helpfully plant the evidence after first making the accusation.
Cointelpro and the modern equivalent hysteria mongers wildly throw around accusations of ” communism” or “terrorist” to justify THEIR dodgy/criminal activities. Both terms being stretched in definition to the extent of absurdity. Don’t know any communists? They can arrange for you to meet one. The meaning of the word “terrorist” has been gradually stretched from people who are, well, terrorists, to people who commit criminal acts equivalent to terrorists, to dissidents with no intention of committing any criminal act, but the authorities claim despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that BECAUSE they are dissidents they MIGHT commit a criminal act. The definition appears to have been stretched even further not only to include legitimate dissenters which potentially includes anyone capable of independent thought or even just thought, and naturally, with their all inclusive policy to throw the net as wide as possible, anyone who just happens to have any association, however remote, to that person. The result is the term “domestic terrorist” can be applied to anyone at all. This is the mind-set of fascists who define their potential enemies in the widest possible way to justify pre-emptive attacks. And the fascist mind-set doesn’t care one iota how many innocent people get hurt in their frenzied pre-emptive strikes against someone who MIGHT be opposed to them.
Time to read up on the Gestapo, I think.
You are not interested in war, but war is interested in you.
A major annoyance for Targeted Individuals are most are as far from the profile of a troublemaker as it is possible to be. The way it is supposed to be, the way it would be in a civilised rule of law country, is that if you do not go out of your way to seek out trouble, you will be left to live in peace. However, that is an assumption that only applies to a civilised, rule of law country. People who live in 3rd world fascist dictatorships, or rigid peasant societies make no such assumption. They make the alternative assumption – that if you are not a troublemaker trouble will gravitate to your door, following the line of least resistance.
Being peaceful advertises you as a soft target. Predators seek out easy prey who are not likely to retaliate.
So, we find, apart from whistleblowers, the majority of Targets are women and an assortment of people from peripheral social groups, all of a noticeably peaceful nature. Perfect bait. The signs are clear. Our society has changed.
Fascists and criminals have a distinctive MO. They choose their victims with care, they do not advertise their intentions, they make unprovoked attacks on their unsuspecting targets, and walk off with everything they can get their hands on. What they can’t take, they destroy. And they arrange to leave their victims in a condition that those victims can make no effective counter-attack. The technique is called – attack and absorb.
You might be a peaceful, honest, law-abiding woman, whose only interest in life is to earn a decent living, but to a criminal your monetary value is what can be earned from you with sexual exploitation, reproductive exploitation and slavery – after you have been stripped of all your legitimate assets. This is the more likely fate of the recruits than the targets, as in the main the targets are low status people who are more valuable as bait than as recruits. The chances are elderly recruits, who look like illogical people to recruit, may have their lifetime savings to be separated from.
My theory is that the gangstalkers are using a method of attack and absorb on people, targets and recruits alike, who have no suspicion that they are on the receiving end of a criminal enterprise. The purpose, like cult absorption is to enslave and work their “assets” for the greatest monetary return, having stripped them of any value that they possess. These are self-funding operations – people in one end, their wealth pouring out the other.
Gang stalking is the biggest con trick that the world has ever seen.
This is what happened to me and why I have arrived at these conclusions.
My husband and I lived and worked in London for about 20 years. About 6 years ago my husband was diagnosed with cancer. He was treated successfully but at the same time the cost of living shot up and our household income was taking a hit. This focus on our financial situation made me realise that our situation could be complicated if one or other of us died, as we had not written Wills. So, to protect each other financially we wrote parallel Wills leaving everything to each other. On the advice of our solicitor we nominated a relative of my husband if we should die simultaneously. At that time I did not know I was a Target of gangstalking nor what that meant.
Within weeks of writing our Wills, this relative contacted my husband claiming she was splitting from her husband and was short of money. My husband shrugged this request off, but we both thought it odd, as being out of character. Obviously we had nominated this relative as being the person we both trusted the most.
A couple of years later the rent on our bedsit converted to one-bedroom flat by putting a wall down the middle, had reached the level where it wiped out completely either my husbands entire monthy income or mine. Obviously such a high rent defeated the purpose of going to work, so we left London, and moved to the north of England, .
Although this was 2 years after that relative had claimed she was leaving her husband, he was still there – but it looked as if he had only just moved out. Sadly, within a year, my husbands cancer returned, and he was advised it was terminal, and there was little the doctors could do.
The relative told us she was unemployed, then she had a job, then she was self-employed, and finally she had a job. She claimed she was destitute but I have never seen a destitute person throw money around like she did. On the basis of her claims to be destitute my husband changed the Will to give half his inheritance to her. He later told me she had “borrowed” several thousands of pounds from him, and told me strictly to never lend her any money. My mother had just died, and my husband told me his relative had asked him how much I had inherited
In his last months the behaviour of the district nurses – diving through the door without knocking, arriving in pairs, made me wonder if the relative had lied to the medical staff insinuating that I was abusing my husband. When it came to the point where he felt he should be in a nursing home, he told his relative, and she rushed his admittance, within 24 hours. It was very sudden and I did not wish to stay in the flat alone. I was told her husband would be round to see me that evening, but I did not stay around. I left and stayed in a hotel.
Away from the situation I started to wonder about some of the things that had happened. The lies that were told about me, when the person lying knew for a fact they were not true. That he was rushed into a nursing home, as if it was an emergency admittance. This went with the lies. That I would be in the flat on my own, and her husband was going to call round. It seemed odd timing. This was the third attempt that relative had tried to get me on my own, and I had avoided that on all three occasions, as I simply did not trust her, and I could not see a reason.
I was trying to work out what the game plan was.
And this was what I conjectured. The relative had done the ground work in spreading the lie that I was abusing my husband. The medical staff were complicit because in the last couple of months of his life they were refraining from giving correct diagnosis for his circumstances, which meant he wasn’t getting proper treatment. This would provide “evidence” to support the lie. But why was the relative making repeated attempts to get me on my own? What was going to happen? I have no idea. That is one gap I cannot satisfactorily fill, but I think I have worked out the rest of the script. The relative had set the scene – that I was an abuser. The medical staff were primed to go along with this story. (They were going to get me on my own – and?), and what would logically follow. That I would go to the nursing home to visit my husband, where I would be watched like a hawk. (That I would attack my husband? – this made credible by the lies previously told?). I would be jumped on and – probably not charged with assault – but put in a mental institution, where I could be drugged and very likely be made to say anything they wanted me to say – or do. Then they could keep me there and strip me of my entire assets. And everything would appear normal to the outside world.
The blank I cannot fill in was how they were going to arrange to have me attack my husband – something I would never do.
My husband died in the nursing home before I had a chance to visit. I had arranged to move out to a multiple occupancy address – from which it is apparent, most of the long term tenants had been removed before I moved in, and replaced with others, athough the house appears half empty.
I only found out about gang stalking after the weird behaviour from the relative, and so discovered that what I had experienced, and the manipulations around my husbands death, were standard for the kind of con tricks that gangstalkers play.
I do not have all the answers. I find disturbing that gangstalkers might have the ability to make anyone behave in any way they want, whether that person wishes to cooperate or not. And even against that person’s most deeply held values.
What I have no doubt about, was that the gangstalkers, from the moment my husband and I changed our Will in favour of the relative, planned to access all the resources that my husband and I jointly owned.
After the debacle with my husbands relative I changed my Will to pass on my mothers inheritance, and my own savings to my own relatives, naming two close relatives as joint executors. I now believe they have been attacked, as they are both acting out of character.
Writing a Will is supposed to solve problems. In my case there would have been fewer problems if we had not bothered.