The single most prominent feature of the research that exists in regards to organized gang stalking is that those who claim to be researching it seldom if ever actually speak to those who claim they are targeted. Let that sink in a bit….
Then, have a look at a study that concludes that targeted individuals are dangerous co-opters and interlopers on the supremacy of the psychological narrative of the DSM-V:
Diagnosis of Delusions on the Internet:
While this disconnect between psychologists and those they seek to diagnose anonymously is a feature in every study on the subject thus far, it is also clear that there is evidence of a vast, well funded network of intelligence agents and agencies that on one hand, literally target individuals (most notoriously the UK’s “dirty tricks” division, JTRIG), with influence operations, and then, seeks to discredit targeted individuals, it is crucial to psychologists and criminal defense lawyers, as well as social workers and others in the healing professions to understand that no all victims claim that they are harassed with electronic weapons, and that not all those who report electronic harassment, noise campaigns, or other modern media deployments aimed at destroying them or their privacy are delusional.
But in the extant research on this topic, we see that few-if any- of those who have weighed in to this dialectic are willing, or able to separate the many cases of law enforcement, or DHS, or FBI harassment from the intelligence cults, or religious harassment that some targeted individuals endure.
In that light, I suggest that it is mportant when encountering these individual victims that any psychologist, or criminal defense lawyer who represents targeted individuals examine the basis of the claims, and look carefully for signs of actual harassment early in the encounter. Also, be aware that the discrediting narrative is very well financed (the DHS and intelligence agency budget was 71 billion in 2016), and that many NSA whistle blowers, actual victims of abuse by police and fire departments, and others report similar symptoms, and similar experiences as targeted individuals.
Here below is one of the few studies online that attempts to understand the ‘phenomenon’ from a perspective of the DSM-V criterion, where we bump into a similar situation as was apparent at the height of the Nixon years, where the horrific illegality and lawlessness of the CIA’s mind control cover-ups, worked hand in hand with FBI COINTELPRO and a know-nothing MSM to obfuscate actual insight into the scope of these problems-annd the easiest solution was to blame the victims, or in the case of Bell, Ready, and Munoz Solomando, paint them as deviant co-opters of technology:
It is particularly noteworthy that a potentially disabled and disenfranchised group have co-opted available technology
-Bell V, Maiden C, Munoz-Solomando A, Reddy V. (2006)
This is literally the Martha Mitchell effect in action, and in practice as psychologists seek now, as they did then, to discredit actual victims, and squash them into a pill box. While there is little to no doubt that psychopaths, psychotics and delusionals and others are involved in the community (notoriously, the leaders of the so-called TI support group FFCHS has been implicated in 3 mass shooter events), there is also a much larger portion of this community that is “under the influence” of something, and that something has a name: influence operations working with Crisis PR agents and psychology to lend authority to an otherwise debunked narrative.
‘Mind control’ experiences on the internet: Implications for the psychiatric diagnosis of delusions
AbstractDiagnosis of Delusions on the Internet:Bell V, Maiden C, Munoz-Solomando A, Reddy V. (2006) ‘Mind control’ experiences on theinternet: implications for the psychiatric diagnosis of delusions.Psychopathology, 39(2), 87-91.Background:The DSM criteria for a delusion indicate that it should not include any beliefs held bya person’s ‘culture or subculture’. The internet has many examples of people reporting ‘mind control experiences’ (MCEs) on self-published web pages, many of which suggest a community based around such beliefs and experiences. It was hypothesised that some of these reports are likely to reflect delusional beliefs and the hyperlinks between web reports were likely to show evidence of social structure, demonstrating the ‘culture or subculture’ exemption to be increasingly redundant in light of new technology.Sampling and Methods:Texts from web sites reporting MCEs (n = 10), experience of cancer (n =10), depression (n = 10) and being stalked (n = 10) were identified, and were blind-rated by three independent psychiatrists for the presence of delusions. Hyperlinks from web sites reporting MCEs were used to create a network structure; this was compared with a size-matched, randomly generated network and known social networks from the literature using social network analysis.Conclusions:The sampled web-published accounts of MCEs are highly likely to be influenced bydelusional beliefs. Social network analysis suggests there is significant evidence of an online community based around these beliefs. The fact that individuals can form a community based on the content of a potentially delusional belief present a paradox for the DSM diagnostic criteria for a delusion, and suggests the need to revise and revisit the original operational definition in the light of these new technological developments.It is particularly noteworthy that a potentially disabled and disenfranchised group have co-opted available technology to create a complex, dynamic and information-rich community that serves to support and inform similarly-affected people within the confines of a world view driven by potentially psychotic symptoms. This is a striking example of a support network completely removed from the traditional medico-legal support networks of the state and even the grassroots support networks run by mental health services user groups. In particular it demonstrates that the internet may enable complex support mechanisms without reference to a view of reality held by the authorities or even the mainstream of opinion. Whether this sort of support network works well for all, if any individuals, remains to be seen.In conclusion, the presence of a complex and evolving online community based around the content of potentially psychotic experience challenges mainstream psychiatric understanding and diagnostic criteria for how a delusion is defined. This paper also presents the first application of internet-based social network analysis to clinical research, which the authors hope will be a useful tool in furthering medical research.