Organised Gang Stalking and Mind Control
What it is, what it isn't, and the real reason it's so dangerous
If you believe you're the subject of a carefully coordinated campaign of bullying that takes the form of stalking, involving large numbers of people you interact with, including complete strangers, neighbours, public service employees, workmates and so on, whose actions take the form of making subtle gestures that you find offensive, uttering keywords or phrases to covertly just letting you know they’re stalking you, e.g. by watching you from a distance or covertly following you around, with the effect of manipulating you, subduing you, making you think you're insane and causing extreme distress, this page is for you and trusted members of your family and friends. Similarly, if you’re worried about the subject after finding information about it elsewhere, this may help.
If you are being bullied at work or online or mobbed or stalked, and you’re starting to wonder if you’re a victim of “gang stalking”, keep reading. If you get to a point where you’re able to firmly conclude that gang stalking doesn’t describe your experience, take a moment to breathe a sigh of relief.
There are now hundreds websites that say gang stalking is a real issue, and they all describe a process that sounds just like the experience of living out a paranoid delusion: Hundreds of perpetrators working for a secret organisation, using "psychotronic" mind control weapons to implant nasty thoughts in your head, working 24/7 to terrorise you. The same websites connect readers to other secret government plots, like spraying harmful chemicals from high flying aircraft (no, those vapour trails are not condensing water!) and having the capability to cause earthquakes anywhere in the world using a machine they've built in Alaska.
Others say it's conspiracy theory which, unlike most other conspiracy theories, appeals directly to already delusional people by giving them information to rationalise and believe their delusions, and so is the very opposite of what they need. The phenomenon is relatively new and so there has only been one academic study into it (details in the article text). Researchers asked self defined victims of stalking to complete a survey. Of those who said there had been one or two stalkers, 3.9% were judged to have been delusional. Of those who said they had been stalked by a group, 100% were judged to have been delusional. Stalking actions complained of among respondents in the latter group included the highly improbable and the impossible, such as external control of the minds of friends and families, witchcraft focused through gold objects; stalkers replacing the docile family dog with an identical clone with a foul temper.
So what has it got to do with bullyonline.org?
On this page:
- Reported Experiences
- How Victims know it is organised
- Hallmarks of gang stalking
- Gang Stalking is not bullying and vice versa
- How Gang Stalking is rationalised
- How to escape from gang stalking
- How gang stalking information websites abuse their readers
- Targeted Individuals' vulnerability to direct abuse
- Advice for Friends and family
Occasionally, bullyonline.org gets requests for help from individuals whose bullying experience sounds out of the ordinary. One of the common factors of their experiences is the involvement of several, superficially unconnected people in the bullying. Some might be in the victim’s immediate circles, such as family or social circles or colleagues, but sometimes they include people that the victim regards as near-strangers (such as bus drivers or shopkeepers), or complete strangers. There are common threads running through the ways that these people torment the individual: They seem to know just what will irritate the victim, they openly do these such things in public, using techniques that cannot be detected by anyone else. Some individuals complain of acts that are so subtle that unaffected sympathisers have difficulty understanding the issue. Some do things that are just plainly unfair.
The individual instinctively begins to suspect that all these others must be working together, and moreover they must be organised. That would explain how they always seem to know where the individual is, and what actions will contribute to the individual’s distress, and how to disguise this act within some superficially innocent action. Some manage to slip irritating keywords and phrases into everyday sentences. Some whisper irritating things when the individual is nearby. Some just don’t talk to the individual when they should, or deny the individual what they are due. Some follow the individual in her or his car. Some arrange for odd things to happen, like for an emergency vehicle to go down the street every time the individual goes out.
Here are some anonymised summaries of actual experiences occurring before the term “gang stalking” became popular:
- In one case, the victim told me that all her colleagues in an open plan office made concealed offensive gestures toward her, more or less all the time, and kept covertly whispering the name of her boyfriend;
- Once, a colleague hid behind a door and shouted obscenities at her, but when she moved the door to confront him, he had vanished into thin air;
- She moved to a new job with new employer hundreds of miles away and almost straight away, all the new colleagues began making concealed offensive gestures and whispering her boyfriend’s name, just as before. She worked out that one of the old colleagues had contacted the new employer and told them what she found most offensive, and told them to keep doing it;
- She moved to another new job in another location and, after a short while, the new colleagues started behaving exactly as the former colleagues. She made the same deduction about the old employer telling the new employer what to do.
As someone who was not involved in the above process, you can safely consider whether there were any more plausible alternative explanations for this lady’s belief in what everyone was doing, in three remotely separate workplaces. What is a “concealed offensive gesture”? How could she hear a colleague talking, but not see him? Even if the old colleagues were behaving as alleged, why would the new ones take any instructions from them, let alone follow them? On two occasions?
- D was made to feel unpopular by his neighbours so he moved to a new town to make a fresh start. Not long after moving in, he noticed people sneering at him in the street, and shopkeepers soon talking to him unkindly in an offhand manner. He was receiving social security benefits, and one day, a girl brought a mail order delivery to his house and was looking very pleased with herself. She announced that she’d just got this delivery job and was glad to be off benefits. D immediately concluded that the girl (a) knew he was on benefits and (b) had gone out of her way to make him feel bad about it with her remark. D concluded that someone in the benefits agency must have leaked personal information about him and that this had been passed on to the delivery company. D had already worked out that he was not welcome in this small town when, one day, he had a fall in the street. A small group gathered around to help. While D was still sorting himself out, he noticed a man (a complete stranger) standing nearby, talking on his mobile phone. D heard the man say, “We’ve got to get him out of that house”. D immediately concluded that the man was talking about D, consistent with his belief that he was unpopular and the town was against him. He was amazed at this man’s audacity and cruelty, to say such an awful thing within D’s earshot, particularly when D had just had an accident. D deduced that this man, the shopkeepers, the social security office staff and unknown others about the town were all colluding to try and make him leave. D would not see his doctor about the accident because he felt sure that his previous doctor, who never believed anything D said, would by now have passed on his disdainful opinion of D to the new doctor, who would therefore start out with a heavily negative prejudiced view of D.
How did the delivery girl’s comment indicate that the social security office had leaked the fact that he was on benefits? Was it possible that she was sharing her joy at having actually got a new job? D never checked up to see if he was right. There was a fair possibility that the stranger on the mobile phone was talking about someone else. After all, that’s what strangers do on mobile phones: They are all talking about things connected with their lives, not ours. D never checked to see who the man was talking about. D felt unpopular in the old town, and then he felt unpopular in the new town. Is it possible that D just felt unpopular, and interpreted anything that anyone said into a criticism of himself?
The next account is an excerpt from an extensive website whose author considers himself to be the victim of decades of orchestrated harassment. It relies on the presumption that national TV presenters and the organisation that gets their pictures into our homes were in fact all dedicated to watching him, through his TV, and they would shuffle about and say things that let him know they were watching him.
- F noticed one day that the TV newsreader appeared to be reacting to F’s movements, in his home, “parroting” him and making facial gestures in response to his own movements. From this, F worked out that he was being observed live through his TV, by the TV presenters, who were working for the British Secret Services. He deduced that he had been watched this way for years. He did everything he could to make it stop, including complaining to the TV companies and much more, but all his efforts came to nothing. His full, fascinating story is at: http://www.MI5.com
- The same website contains an example of a stranger using trigger words as a means to “harass” (using the author’s definition of “harass”):
“Strangers in the street have recognized me on sight many times, and shown awareness of the current thread of abuse. To give you one example, in 1992 I was seriously ill, and a manager at work somewhat humorously said that "it wasn't fair" that people were bullying me. A few days later, I attended for the first time a clinic in London as an outpatient, and on my way out was accosted by someone who asked if "they had paid my fare", with emphasis on the word "fare". He repeated the word several times in this different context; that they should have paid my "fare", each time emphasizing the word…Usually harassment in public lacks the level of finesse of "paying your fare". Most people's imagination does not go beyond moronic parroting of the current term of denigration. That is not surprising given the average level of the abusers; if they do not have the intelligence to distinguish wrong from right then neither will they have the capacity for anything other than mindless repetition of a monosyllabic term calculated to fit into their minds.” (source http://www.mi5.com/webfaq/webfaq.htm)
From F’s account, the probability that the boss’s comment had any causal connection with the stranger’s comment is zero. The suggestion, without any evidence, that they were connected, is implausible. Would it defy the laws of science for one to have prompted the other? No, but to reasonably believe that one event prompted the other, one would need to know the connection between the cause and effect.
F wants the reader to accept his implied assumption that the two events were connected. He says he heard the word “fair” one day, and interpreted the utterance of the word “fare” a couple of days later as a refined form of harassment, which he describes as “a mindless repetition of a monosyllabic term calculated to fit into (the other’s) mind”. On the second occasion, it looks like someone was offering to reimburse F’s travelling expenses. The only fact explicitly supported by the evidence of F’s personal testimony is that he heard two people say a similar thing on different days, and therefore he was the sole connection. His suggestion that use of the single word “fare” in that benign context is a form of harassment is completely groundless and bizarre.
These examples, all others I have read on the Internet and yet others communicated directly to me (but not detailed here) loosely describe a process by which a person moves from not being able to explain their experience, to forming the conclusion that they’re the subject of organised psychological abuse:
- They may have previously experienced actual abuse or bullying. The psychological effects of conventional abuse can, in a small number of cases, lead people to become excessively suspicious of others’ behaviour or motives, even if the behaviour is objectively harmless or unrelated to the affected person. Equally, they might not have been subjected to any previous abuse, but just find themselves harbouring suspicions of others’ intent.
- suspicion develops such that the victim finds themselves becoming instantly or cumulatively irritated or annoyed or worried about multiple others’ words and actions, where maybe 90% are superficially innocuous or carry no evidence of wrongful intent, and can be rationally explained away as everyday occurrences. Some acts complained of are not actually visible to or detectable by the victim, but they deduce or infer that they must have happened;
- Some of it is so acutely irritating that victim begins to think that the “perpetrators” must know precisely what “presses their buttons”.
- Where the “perpetrators” are part of a workplace or family group, they talk to each other anyway, and therefore it’s plausible to believe that they could share information with each other about what annoys the victim. On this basis, the victim deduces that they have shared information about their vulnerabilities with each other, and they make an effort to irritate the victim when the opportunity arises.
- As well as the irritation of the individual actions, the growing belief that a group is behaving in a co-ordinated way is very worrying. (Replace the word “irritation” with something more appropriate if the victim believes they are being forced out of their job, home, town or social circle, or being line up for something even more harmful.)
- Even more worrying is when the victim notices strangers doing the same things. It becomes apparent that the network extends beyond family or workplace or social circles. Initially it seems impossible that complete strangers would even know how to do this, let alone do it, but they are doing it. What’s really distressing is that the extent of the group is now unknown.
- Some victims move to different jobs or towns or change their habits to escape it, but find that people in the new location irritate them in precisely the same way, doing the same sorts of things, sometimes exactly the same things. They conclude that people in the new location must have been made aware of their vulnerabilities, and the only logical explanation must be that there definitely is a coordinated network of people whose purpose is to distress the victim. The victim’s continuing revelation is that the network is able to expand and move as necessary, to keep up the abuse.
- The victim becomes beset with innumerable doubts, suspicions and constant worries, wondering what else these people must know, what they might be planning next, and so on. They become helpless. Hypervigilance sets in.
- They cannot stop trying to work out why anyone would treat them this way, why so many are able to do it so effectively, and why the people they should reasonably turn to for help (e.g. police, doctor, family, friends) are completely ineffective, sometimes shutting off communications with them, sometimes reacting angrily, often not (or never) believing them, telling them that they are imagining it all, and more often than not, in on the act.
- Without help and support, and with the ever-present question of why it is happening, the victim comes up with hypotheses that might rationally explain the experience and, reinforced by experience, the hypotheses become theories which become certainties.
What the victim can never work out is who’s behind it or why it is happening. Who would be able to involve and co-ordinate so many participants, and to keep the activity so well covered up? It’s never possible to tell for sure, but some things just bear the hallmarks of government and the secret services, and it feels safe to assume they are probably behind it.
Gang Stalking Information Websites
Open ended speculation in isolation was the norm until people started looking to the Internet for solutions to their problems. Today one can find hundreds of websites describing this phenomenon from the viewpoint of self-defined victims. They variously refer to it as "Organised Gang Stalking", "Organised stalking" and "Gang Stalking". (This article will stick to the term “Gang Stalking”; and refer to these “Gang Stalking Information” websites as “GSI websites”).
People whose experiences are broadly aligned with those set out above can readily identify with similar descriptions of others’ experiences on GSI websites. They all assert that “gang stalking” is a real issue that’s really happening, according to patterns that have already been documented and explained. The websites give out information that helps victims rationalise their belief that the process is organised. GSI websites refer to victims as “Targeted Individuals”. They describe the phenomenon in detail from the perspective of the “targeted individual”, telling readers what the perpetrators of gang stalking do, why they do it, how they do it, who is behind it and why and so on.
Some GSI websites link back to bullyonline.org's page on Complex PTSD, which tables differences between hypervigilance and paranoia. That page was originally published in the hope of helping people affected by bullying to understand that their experience is real and they are not paranoid, that their constant alertness is the result of hypervigilance, a condition where the sufferer is sensitised to stimuli analogous to those that caused the trauma, and to describe post-traumatic stress disorder, a normal psychological reaction to an extreme abnormal situation, to targets of workplace bullying.
I am familiar with workplace bullying from a personal perspective and from subsequent years spent advising and representing targets of workplace bullying in the UK employment tribunals, giving advice to employers and gradually updating the content of bullyonline.org. This background has given me considerable insight into motives, actions, material effects and psychological effects of bullying on adults, and I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone affected by any form of abuse, whether real or perceived. I was approached by people whose experiences were consistent with ones already described. Having now studied GSI websites I am able to draft these common characteristics of “gang stalking” from the standpoint of an informed, unaffected, objective and sympathetic observer.
- GSI websites say that gang stalking is secretly orchestrated by unknown persons in positions of power, which might be in the family, at work, in the media, local or national government, or even clandestine organisations that influence or are influenced by government;
- GSI website authors believe it is intended to harm, annoy, frighten, control, manipulate, disable, drive insane and in some cases kill innocent civilians for no obvious reason other than for the sake of causing harm, as well to control and subdue people who think they might be regarded as outspoken, activists, whistle blowers and so on. The identity of the principal organiser is never known for sure;
- GSI websites describe the process as “no-touch torture”, where the detriment suffered by victims is entirely psychological. It takes the form of ordinary looking actions done in public spaces, but which have been deliberately formulated and delivered so as to worry, irritate or distress the victim. The actions are thus covert in the sense that only the victim knows what has happened. Some acts complained of are less ordinary looking and are not publicly visible, such as house break-ins, spying and prying on the victim’s affairs, parties conferring between organisations to ensure that the victim is treated unfairly wherever they go, and so on.
- There is never any objective evidence of any act of gang stalking. If the act complained of is ordinary looking, there is always an ordinary sounding explanation for it. Where the act has affected something that only the victim would know about, such as moving objects around in their house, it is impossible for the victim to prove that the act has occurred.
- The lack of evidence, lack of knowledge of the perpetrators or instigators, and the seemingly unlimited scope of the perpetrator network mean that the victim cannot obtain redress or respite through judicial channels or changes of scene.
- Each GSI website and each victim presents at least one element that an objective, unaffected sympathiser finds implausible, improbable or impossible. Victims and GSI website authors necessarily regard the implausible, improbable or impossible elements as not only possible, but definitely happening.
The explosion in GSI websites suggests that victims who might previously have suffered on their own can now find comfort and mutual affirmation in networking with others who hold similar beliefs. Individuals and GSI websites’ content tend to suggest that victims resist or reject people who challenge their beliefs, considering them to be at best naive or, as is more often the case, participants in the organised campaign against them.
Severe psychological effects of “gang stalking”
Victims often describe their experience as being far more serious than the bullying depicted on other pages of bullyonline.org. This correlates with findings of an academic study which found that people who said they had been stalked by organised groups scored more highly on depressive symptoms, post-traumatic symptomatology and adverse impact on social and occupational functioning, than people who said they been stalked by a single individual.
That exploratory study was conducted by Lorraine P. Sheridan (School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin University, Perth, Australia) and David V. James (National Stalking Clinic, London, UK) and published in The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology in 2015. It was based on responses to an anonymous questionnaire, completed online by self-defined victims of stalking. One thousand and forty respondents met research definitions for stalking, of which 128 (12.3%) reported gang stalking. This is believed to have been the only scientific study to date, comparing the effects and nature of gang stalking with those of other forms of stalking.
Those not familiar with the terminology that has sprung up around “gang-stalking” might think the experience is called "bullying" or “mobbing” or “stalking”. Whatever people call it, the characteristics of “gang stalking” are fundamentally different from those of bullying and well known forms of abuse.
It is extremely important that someone who believes they are subject to any form of abuse is able to confidently discount “gang stalking” as a possibility:
- To the uninitiated victim of gang stalking, “bullying” seems like an appropriate word to describe their experience. Descriptions of “mobbing” may also seem to fit.
- Conversely, someone who is being bullied with underhand or devious tactics, whose colleagues are disinterested in the target’s problems might not know who to suspect, and hypothesis that these apathetic bystanders are in on the bullying. In that case, on a superficial viewing, information about “gang stalking” might seem to fit.
Be in no doubt: Descriptions of “gang stalking” have no relevance to bullying, mobbing, harassment, stalking, gas lighting or any other form of psychological or physical abuse. Descriptions of bullying, mobbing, harassment and so on have no relevance at all to “gang stalking”.
It is always possible that a person who believes they are being gang stalked has been or is now being subject to one of the other forms of abuse. If so, any objectively detectable act of abuse is nothing to do with the gang stalking. It is essential that the target gets informed professional help to separate out the gang stalking problem from the bullying problem, because the respective solutions are radically different. This possibility is covered toward the end of this article. Other pages on bullyonline.org describe what bullying is and present strategies for dealing with it.
The importance of correctly identifying a person’s experience cannot be overstated: Strategies for dealing with bullying, mobbing, harassment or other abuse will not help a victim of gang stalking. Conversely, information presented on GSI websites is of absolutely no help to a target of bullying or, it has to be said, to a victim of gang stalking.
Gang stalking or bullying? How to tell
Some reasons “gang stalking” may feel like “bullying” include:
- A target of workplace or school bullying might not at first be aware if a bully is acting alone or if someone is pulling their strings;
- Workplace/school/domestic bullying can infuriate, frighten, confuse and stress targets, and they might find themselves no being believed when they report it;
- Being bullied at work / school / home can lead the target to research the subject and become somewhat obsessed with it.
From here on, the gang stalking phenomenon is different from other forms of abuse:
- In all forms of abuse, as a bare minimum, there is an action that constitutes abuse, a person who carries out the action, and another person who suffers as a result of the action.
- In gang stalking, there is only the complainant.
- Stalking is usually done by a single individual acting alone, or sometimes “by proxy” where an assistant acts on behalf of the stalker;
- Gang stalking is said to involve a requisite number of participants which could be hundreds;
- Bullying and mobbing are contained within a workplace, school or club;
- The experience of Gang stalking is not subject to geographical, social or situational limitations.
- Bullying and mobbing are usually overt in nature, involving dominance through intimidation, humiliation, denigration and exclusion (Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf and Cooper 2010), and leaving a trace.
- “Gas lighting” is a form of mental abuse in which an abuser twists or spins or falsifies or selectively omits information, all to favour the abuser, with the intent of making victims doubt their own memory, perception, and sanity
- In gang stalking, inference is the only means for the victim to receive information. In some cases victims simply have unpleasant thoughts which, according to many GSI websites, are implanted using “psychotronic” mind-control machines.
- Cyber bullying is where people, sometimes alone, sometimes in groups, and sometimes alone but using multiple accounts to appear as a group, disinhibited by their anonymity and/or remoteness from their target, openly and directly humiliate, threaten and taunt others using messaging, email, forums and social media.
- Gang Stalking does not require any open or direct abusive actions toward the complainant. The onus is on the complainant to interpret superficially inoffensive acts and comments as offensive to them;
- Bullies in school and workplaces sometimes operate alone, but usually they are able to get away with bullying over a period of time by teaming up with another bully, or by keeping some supporters in tow, by relying on a handful of apologists and cronies and the apathy and ignorance of everyone else. Domestic abusers might rely on a friend to give them alibis or spread a rumour, other family members to do their bidding. These gangs are tiny. Like everyone else on the planet, bullies can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. However, they can’t and don’t organise and co-ordinate the individual actions of possibly hundreds of participants spread across multiple disciplines and organisations.
- Gang stalking is said to be an organised activity that relies on the cooperation and co-ordination of potentially hundreds of people in many walks of life to stalk one individual.
- While the bullying target’s account of bullying within an organisation might contain elements that others may find unexpected, unusual or unthinkable (e.g. child sexual abuse by clergy, theft of funds by a trustee, bullying by the CEO of a charity etc.), and while the bully’s apologists will readily deny or dismiss such allegations as incredible, the target’s complaint will likely contain little or nothing that an objective, unaffected sympathiser would consider implausible, improbable or impossible in absolute terms, in terms of the information that was available to the target.
- Acts of bullying at school or in work, mobbing, cyber bullying, domestic abuse and stalking by an individual or small group are tangible, recordable and demonstrable, even if they are underhand, devious, emotionally complex or covert, and even if no evidence is actually gathered. The important point is that they take a form that is possible to record: They involve a perpetrator, an action and a consequential effect on the target. These acts are easily understood by others and, in context, would likely cause offence to any reasonable person who was subjected to the same.
- Acts of gang stalking complained or warned of on GSI websites can variously be innocuous, superficially completely independent of the target’s activities, have no material effect on the target, or be plainly bizarre. The offensiveness of the least bizarre of these acts cannot be understood by others and, even in context, the acts typically might not even be noticed by, let alone cause offence to, any reasonable person who was subjected to the same.
- Examples of gang stalking complaints volunteered by respondents to the Sheridan & James 2015 study, included: “…everyone in the street being ‘plants’ acting out roles toward the target … horns on the street hooting to bring attention to particular sentences on the radio … use of ‘voice to skull’ messages, witchcraft focused though gold objects… organised electronic mind interference…”.
- Aside from the general psychological effects, the damage done by acts of bullying can ultimately be seen and measured, whether in the form of threats, bruises, spoiled or stolen property or work, inappropriate disciplinary actions and more, as detailed elsewhere’ on this site;
- While the general psychological effects of gang stalking are not unlike those arising from bullying, the damage done by reported acts of gang stalking cannot be seen or measured, except in terms of the way the target feels about them.
- Bullying targets are often able and keen to elucidate what has been done to them in minute detail.
- GSI websites present information from the victim’s perspective, describing it in general terms, giving accounts of the sorts of acts they find offensive. No GSI website plausibly describes an objective method by which a victim can determine whether an apparently innocuous action of a stranger is (a) targeted at them or (b) capable of causing offence.
- Bullying targets sometimes try to make excuses for the bullying, feeling partly responsible, even if inappropriately so;
- Gang Stalking complainants do not appear to regard themselves as in any way responsible.
- Bullying targets, particularly of underhand or devious forms of bullying, tend to stop to wonder if they might be wrong about what’s happening to them, in case there might be an alternative explanation for events, leading them to be concerned that they might be paranoid;
- The one-sided view presented by GSI websites tends to suggest that proponents of gang stalking theory will not consider the possibility that there are other, reasonable explanations for events, and therefore that they might be wrong. There is an awareness of a risk of being labelled as suffering from paranoid delusions, which is promoted as being one of the things that “gang stalkers” do to discredit / silence / suppress “Targeted Individuals”.
As I have already said, descriptions of this phenomenon always contain at least one element that is implausible, improbable or impossible. Many victims accept this and realise it sounds crazy, but they find ways to rationalise their belief. For example, the idea of an organised gang whose aim is to harass the victim seems to explain how so many people can be acting the same way. It makes sense so long as you don’t spend too much time thinking about how and why the gang is organised and funded. What the GSI websites do is to supply a range of information which victims use to rationalise several aspects of their experiences.
The gang and the absence of evidence
To explain the “gang” aspect, GSI websites and blogs contain references to “psyop” and “cointelpro”. "Psyop" is a contraction of "Psychological Operations", which are military actions designed to influence the perceptions and attitudes of individuals, groups, and foreign governments, sometimes called "the battle for hearts and minds". "Cointelpro" is a contraction of "The Counterintelligence Program", which was a campaign of domestic counterintelligence conducted by the FBI between 1956 and 1971 whose ultimate goal was to disrupt, discredit, and destroy Civil Rights groups, radical organizations and white supremacists.
GSI websites assert that these activities have been modified and are now targeted against innocent citizens, whistle-blowers and activists. The actual existence of these covert military/FBI projects is not disputed, although the GSI website’s assertions that they are ongoing and directed at domestic citizens are unsupported by any evidence and do not stand up to logical analysis. However, these assertions appear on so many GSI websites that victims seem to accept them as fact, and so rationalise and mature the belief that they are suffering at the hands of an organised gang.
Psyops and Cointelpro seem to be enough for many to rationalise the absence of evidence of acts of harassment. GSI websites assert that this is what these programs were designed to do – to cause maximum distress with no evidence.
Funding the gang
These programs are said to be orchestrated by government departments, which readers are meant to assume means there are unlimited funds available, and that cost is not an issue.
Some GSI websites refer to the plight of well-known dissident figures such as Edward Snowden as evidence of gang stalking. Snowden released thousands of classified documents to journalists and faces charges of violating the Espionage Act and theft of government property. He’s sought political asylum in Russia. The authorities’ interest in Mr Snowden is real, public knowledge and it’s obvious that he knows what the US government wants of him and why. He is therefore not a subject of “gang stalking” as described on GSI websites.
Another dissident-type figure hailed by GSI websites as a “Targeted Individual” is US Citizen Scott Crow. He was under surveillance by the FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force for nine years, and GSI websites cite this as evidence that he was “gang stalked”. His own blog confirms this is definitely not the case.
GSI websites promote beliefs in the existence of secret machines that control and read minds. This gives victims a means to rationalise the spontaneous appearance of strange, intrusive unpleasant thoughts they might be experiencing.
Other inescapable dangers
If you’re feeling generally scared but you’re not sure why, then here’s something to be scared of, which you can’t do anything about: Other machines and technologies discussed on GSI websites are machines that can create earthquakes anywhere on earth, aircraft vapour trails that are actually “chemicals” whose harmful effects vary, depending on which website you read. The common theme is that we are all extremely vulnerable to evil, secret, unstoppable projects of one or another ruling elite, (which are said on some GSI websites to be lizards).
If GSI websites have convinced you that you're a Targeted Individual, then it's worth your while analysing your predicament it in more detail. If you want to find a way out of your predicament, this might be the only way to do it.
To begin with, I have been kindly assisted by the author of a blog "Live Let Live" , who has given permission to reproduce her fact sheet entitled "What is organized stalking?". It's in keeping with other GSI websites:
"Organized stalking refers to a coordinated effort to stalk, harass, and surveil an individual. Hundreds of individuals, composed of people the targeted individual (TI) comes into contact with, whether routinely (friends and family) or occasionally (places the target frequents or visits), participate in organized stalking. Authority figures may also rely on parolees or snitches. The TI is under surveillance so that participants know where to find him or her at all times. Once encountered, participants may: Mirror or parrot the TI, Attempt to annoy the TI, Follow the TI, Say something that would make the TI believe the person had been listening to their private conversations (directed conversation), Perform street theater/skits, Make loud noises, Use trigger words (anchoring), Make abusive phone calls, Tail or cut off their vehicle on the road, Vandalize the home."
Difficulties of organising stalking
The "hundreds of individuals (who) participate in organised stalking" can be presumed to mean just about everyone that the targeted individual will or might interact with. Although “government” and the FBI are implicated, Live Let Live does not directly speculate as to who organises the stalking, why they do so, or how they motivate the participants, or what the participants are doing when the target isn't around, but it is easy to imagine that such an operation would be extremely complex.
I imagine that for it to work, participants and coordinators would have to correctly anticipate where their targeted individual will be at any given moment, and be there when the target arrives, ready to make a perfectly timed inappropriate gesture or action, mimic the target for a moment, or utter one or two special words that will be noticed by and distress the target, but which will be superficially innocent and thus invisible to everyone else. In some cases, the organiser would have to arrange for an emergency service vehicle to drive down the same street as the Targeted Individual.
This sounds much more complicated and resource-intensive than conventional community policing or pretty much any other professional endeavour I can think of, to the extent that it’s difficult to understand how it could ever be operationally viable. Even with a NASA-mission-control-type office, with all the resources necessary to make it happen, it remains impossible to understand how this operation can be so slick, when the same “government” is unable to do so almost anything it 100% effectively: catching all the criminals, balancing the economy, caring for the environment, having stable foreign policies…
The simple fact is that whatever anyone might have you believe, and whatever you might have worked out for yourself, It is simply not humanly possible to carry out the operation to “stalk” one person in the manner depicted, let alone the thousands who claim to be Targeted Individuals, where each one would require a command and control centre with hundreds of participants.
If you don’t agree, then work out for yourself how difficult it would be to arrange.
Even if it was possible – which it is not - then the operation has no commercial viability at all, given the number of participants, the complexity of their roles, the fact that it’s a 24/7/365 operation, and people want paying for their work. The cost per week to stalk one targeted individual in this way is going to be tens of thousands of dollars, and these campaigns are said to go on for years in some cases. What is more, apart from the Targeted Individuals’ distress, the campaigns are a totally ineffective way of shutting them down. A more direct approach would take much less time, but it never happens in “gang stalking”. It is difficult to imagine who would pay for such a campaign or why they would be prepared to pay so much, especially where the target is just an average Joe or Joanne who poses no threat to anyone.
If you don’t agree, try working out the cost, initially just for one person, and then multiply it by thousands to cover the cost of doing it to everyone who believes it’s happening to them. How much does it cost, who pays, and how do they benefit from their investment? In case you can't work out the answer, it isn't technically possible anyway but if it was, it would cost millions, no one would be prepared to pay for it because they do not gain any benefit.
The uselessness of "Unwitting Participants"
Operational or commercial viability is not an issue for FightGangStalking.com, which claims: "Accomplices – such as neighbors, co-workers, and even friends or relatives of the victim in some cases – are recruited to participate (often unwittingly) by counterintelligence personnel using various means, such as by telling them that the target is a potential threat or that the target is the subject of an “investigation.”". The website does not identify the "counterintelligence personnel" said to recruit the accomplices, although it implies that they are associated with government, the FBI etc.
Even if it were possible to motivate the accomplices to participate unwittingly and thus without payment, It is impossible to believe that these participants, if they are unwitting, are able to conduct themselves according to a common procedure, to a uniform quality standard, without detection and without any experience or training and without actually knowing what they are doing, or that they are doing it.
That is even more bizarre than the idea of paying people to do it.
Innocuous or offensive? How to tell
After considering the number and scope and skills of the participants, Live Let Live and others go on to describe what the participants do to the targeted individual. These web sources and others are consistent in saying that the stalking most often involves "no-touch torture": "Perpetrators use common annoyances such as constant noise by neighbors or rude comments and abusive behavior by strangers, but on a frequent ongoing long-term basis." (- source: FightGangStalking.com) Less subtle conduct is said to include following the targeted individual's car, making abusive phone calls and vandalism.
Anyone who goes into town will interact with other people, many of whom will be complete strangers. You'll see and hear these strangers going about their lives. I have a job that puts me in contact with the same people week after week. I know some of them very well, and others hardly at all. Within any given month, I witness or experience everything on the Live Let Live list, thankfully with the exception of having my home vandalised. I hear others using the same words and phrases I use at home, I sometimes do the “stranger dance” (where you try to let someone past, just as they do the same thing, and you each step to the left and then right a couple of times before one of you stops). I hear odd, loud noises. I walk through and stand near groups of scary looking teenagers, all uttering obscenities to each other and spitting on the floor. I see people looking at me from a distance for no reason that’s obvious to me. People in cars follow me in my car. One guy follows me for the first mile of my journey to work every couple of days, although sometimes he’s in front of me but following the same route. My home phone gets about 3 calls per day from unknown sources, telling me there’s something wrong with my computer and that I am owed thousands of pounds, and callers get abusive when I don’t cooperate. All these things are forms of “no touch torture” according to Live Let Live and other gang stalking resources.
One enduring example of a form of "no-touch torture" specifically identified on various gang stalking websites, which I have experienced, is the intrusive noise made by my next-door neighbours for the first 18 months they spent in their house, mainly in the form of hammering and scraping and tapping for what sometimes seemed like an eternity. Had I been wary of a covert, coordinated campaign to recruit people to deliberately annoy me with incessant and tedious noise in my home, I would have unhesitatingly suspected my neighbours as participants. However, if I wanted to report their actions as evidence of a campaign to torture me, my first problem would have been their alibi: While they had been making all those hammering and tapping and scraping noises, they had also been renewing and radically changing the inside of their house for the better.
Without exception there is a plausible explanation for every one of these things in my regular life that is not centred on or even connected to me or my existence. In most cases the reasons for these things happening are so obvious that no explanation is needed.
If you think you're being targeted, the next time something happens which is harmless to everyone else, but which causes you offence or irritation or fear, remember:
- There is no organised gang.
- This was a random event that had nothing to do with me.
- If I feel offended as a result, there might be something wrong with the way I am interpreting events.
- There is no shame in admitting I have a problem.
- I am a wonderful human being who deserves to return to being my old self again.
- I need to take a leap of faith and tell my GP about it.
- My GP is not in the gang because there is no gang.
What the individual suffering such an experience is unable to appreciate is that “Gang stalking” has become a cult phenomenon that attracts sons and daughters and brothers and sisters who are suffering from a genuine and treatable mental health problem; it affirms their delusions and radicalises them to the outskirts of normal society. While people who are genuinely suffering paranoid delusions probably want more than anything for the experience to end, the prevalence and content of GSI websites prolongs and embeds their suffering. These sources catch people at their lowest ebb, and then hold them there, deterring them from seeking proper help, and so they are capable of causing serious, lasting psychological harm. Before such websites were widely available, people suffering paranoid delusions could safely do so in relative isolation until they obtained help. The proliferation of these websites is turning individuals’ delusions into a mass delusion that is sucking more people in. I believe it is extremely sick and dangerous.
Malware for the mind
Some email attachments and some hacked websites, if opened without anti-virus protection, put malware on your computer and cause all manner of problems for the computer, which can include sending out similar malware infected emails to your contacts. In just the same way, GSI websites are malware for the mind.
It is essential, therefore, that anyone who sincerely believes that they might be or are a target of “gang stalking” works hard to accept that if it sounds crazy, if it feels crazy, it is crazy. The reality is arguably much sicker than the fantasies they claim are real. Instead of reading yet another gang stalking website, try reading about possible alternative explanations for all those awful feelings.
Quite apart from the GSI websites abuse of people with mental health problems by affirming sufferers’ delusions, I remain fully aware that some “everyday activities” are in fact capable of causing harm or offence, and that some people we meet are in fact bullies, who act without any consideration at all for others.
It is also possible or even likely that a person who thinks they are being “gang stalked” may stand out as having unusual attitudes toward the people around them, perhaps treating everyone with suspicion, or keeping out of the way of others. This could give rise to a drop off in work performance, or frustrations in others which in turn could lead to an employer starting performance management or disciplinary procedures. Being “different” could also be regarded as a vulnerability that a bully might exploit. The old anecdote “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you” has some potential truth in it. Generally speaking, a strongly held belief that one is a target of gang stalking is likely to lead to a decline in friendships and work opportunities, during which the conduct of others toward the subject may actually become increasingly impatient or angry or capable of damaging aspects of the person’s social and occupational frameworks. People struggling with mental health problems, whether in or not in work, are vulnerable to exploitation, teasing, unfair treatment and bullying. It is therefore conceivable that a person who regards themselves as a Targeted Individual could also be, at the same time, subjected to actual bullying or abuse by colleagues or others. Such a course of events would be a rational cause for distress, and may reinforce the individual’s belief that they are the subject of an organised campaign against them. No doubt some of the “abusive remarks” listed in some GSI website descriptions could be real, but possibly in response to unusual or frightening behaviour by the person with the problem.
A major difficulty facing a person in this position is being able to differentiate between imagined offences and actual offences. The problem is that they blur into one. A complaint about an imagined offence will be used by a bully to discredit the complainant, and so the actual offence goes unresolved. For this reason, it is important to get professional help from, a doctor, therapist, counsellor, or at least a trusted friend, to address the belief in gang stalking, and then identify any incidents of actual abuse.
Anyone with a friend or associate who believes they are being gang stalked would do well to look out for them and to be available, and to share the information on this page with them in the kindest way they can, as tactfully as possible. Acknowledge the distress, listen to the explanation, check a few background facts, but do not affirm anything that sounds delusional.
If you are not sure whether some reported event actually happened, do not be too quick to write it off as imagined. Check the facts. Ask yourself if it is possible or plausible, and if it is, then would it cause offence in the context that it happened. If the answer is still yet, then it could be a genuine offence, even if you cannot prove that it actually happened. A real action, capable of causing offence might not be part of the “gang-stalking”. If a person appears to be imagining something that repeats, there will be ways for them to check if it’s actually happening. Suggest ways that the affected individual can check for themselves. Verifying something one’s self is far more convincing than letting someone else do it. Even so, the mind is capable of thinking up more ways to explain the situation so it fits with this damaged world view, so patience is the key.
Don’t write off a person because they seem to have gone crazy. Mental illness is an illness, just like a physical illness. Even with personality changes, that same person is still in there, secretly but desperately wanting to be back to normal. Be kind. Help them out if you can. Visit this web page from Mind UK, which has information about the condition, advice for sufferers and advice for family and friends, as well as a long list of useful sources of help. The same information is available on a web page.
Gang stalking is a recently coined name for the experience of someone suffering from paranoid delusions. Hundreds of websites assert that the delusional experience is a real experience, in spite of the fact that on any rational analysis, events within the delusion are implausible, improbable and impossible. People suffering from the delusions identify with the websites’ content and are more likely to become more entrenched in their illness as a result. It's hard to tell if these websites are the innocent creations of deluded people, or if they are deliberate hoaxes, but they are abusing people with mental illness. People who should be treated by medical professionals are falling for the notion of gang stalking, thinking it is a cure, when all it can possibly do is lock them into the delusion.