What is “high policing” and “low policing” in the gang stalking dialectic? Don’t ask Al-Ghazali.

As we see over and over, those who are gang stalked by institutions, corporations, and law enforcement elements struggle to find language to describe the levels of illegality and nefarious state activity directed at them. While the counter-intelligence function of “slicing the victims throat with Occam’s Razor” provides a glimpse inside the minds of those who derive income from gang stalking, it doesn’t do a whole lot for the targets of this practice; or by way of explaining to a lawyer, a psychologist, or other professional who is likely as stymied as you are explaining the “full spectrum” assaults on your electronics, or the actual and very bizarre offline stalkings that seek to control, contain, entrap and ensnare you, or someone you know.

Much as we see with the current “whisper networks” that are little more than slanderous and cowardly, and that those of us who once worked for womens equality, equal vrights, etc, woke up to the politics of deference, and toxic progressivism instead(true to pseudo-feminist form, as we see with the Women’s War in Rwanda, or toxic zionism in Israel, and the British-Israeli monarchist Palestinian Exodus of 1948) kangaroo courts of public opinion, led by feminist jurisprudence and financed by DVIC dollars, it is all narrative, with no counter narrative, and no due process, which is what actual democracies, as opposed to socialized/communitarian democracies originate from, and thrive on.

Related Links: How British is High Heels Policing, aka High Level Policing, aka “official corruption for the benefit of the state?”

Jean Paul Brodheur, inventor of the term

Policing Uncertainty: Countering Terror Through Community Intelligence and Democratic Policing

The Palgrave Handbook of Global Counterterrorism Policy

http://www.police-foundation.org.uk/uploads/catalogerfiles/policing-terrorism-a-review-of-the-evidence/terrorism_review.pdf

Confronting the Enemy Within, from the RAND corporation (which has been cited frequently in gang stalking cases ging back into  1950’s  and even in the case of Nobel Peace Prize mathemetician John Forbes Nash, of a Beautiful Mind fame

And, in a court room, a legal setting, or an institution, it helps to have the right language. Gang stalking, then, has its proper origins in the term “high policing v. low policing,” and the core problem of such a feat of proving that gang stalking is real and not delusional in basis, and that this contradiction between law/and criminals in law enforcement and te deep state is true defies any one individual human’s ability, because as we see in the mathematical dilemma of Al Ghazali, an 11th century mathematician, the “gang stalking victims dilemma,” of reason that cannot exist outside of reason, and the trouble with the double bind problem of Gregory Bateson’s dolphins:

Al Ghazali went a bit crazy after ” described the necessity of proving the validity of reason—independently from reason. He attempted this and failed. The doubt that he introduced to his foundation of knowledge could not be reconciled using philosophy. Taking this very seriously, he resigned from his post at the university, and suffered serious psychosomatic illness.”

So, let’s look at where the normalization of hidden brutality and violence waged against our societies by those who are thought to “protect and serve” us with respect for due process of law morphed into the lawlessness .of the total surveillance state as our nations our over run with NGOs that function as actual gang stalking spy rings;  and especially directed at resistance and dissenters within our societies; the place where illegality began in modern  policing as a tool of politics based in gender, and Buberist/Hegelian/Suasserian/Barthes styled “othering” in order to center my thesis in the correct historical period: 1983, the origins of high heels policing, and the feminist sex and porn wars of the pre-VAWA era.

The proper language derives from Jean-Paul Brodeur, a Canadian sociologist who wrote the text that gave us these phrases. And, it originates in a country that is under British dominion, and that is socialized/socialist; and contrary to American liberty and Constitutional basis, is dependent upon British thinking, and subservient monarchy.

High Policing and Low Policing: Remarks about the Policing of Political Activities

Jean-Paul Brodeur
Social Problems
Vol. 30, No. 5, Thematic Issue on Justice (Jun., 1983), pp. 507-520

In case after case of OGS, there is one constant: policing and hidden policing

This fact is such a prominent feature in every dialogue about OGS(and all that you read about here on ROGS) that one can say with nearly perfect empirical certainty that anyone who complains of it has experienced it, and that the origins are from within official institutions that are breaking the letter and the spirit of the law. One needn’t bother themselves with the Al Ghazali problem-because reasonable doubt combined with mathematical certainty says that all OGS is what modern policing is “on steroids”as we see in the stalking of Larry Guzzino and every other case covered in the MSM.

Related: How community policing, aka high policing, aka community policing + counter intelligence stalking, aka high heels policing slandered and defamed a crippled immigrant as a pedophile for seven years before he was murdered, and the police looked on: the pedofication of Bijan Ebrahimi

Regardless of ones opinion about TI’s, one thing is certain: OGS demonstrates the exact criminality that has long been a feature of dictatorships, genocidal regime’s and totalitarian governments, because there is no respect for law from WITHIN the law enforcement personnel that participate in OGS. It’s THE recipe for top-down corruption., and demonstrates the slivenly localism of .policing in general.

While many street level common criminals are targeted by beat cops and othres in “low level policing,” sadly, it is these exact cops that bear the brunt of the corruption that there supervisors are responsible for, as one retired SWAT commander noted police chiefs, commanders, and so on are not even real cops, they are politicians.

The simple facts are that while many in “low level” policing are corrupt to the core, the vast majority are not. Statistics bear this out in study after study, despite the egregious examples of police brutality such as the case of Michael Slager, because back-shooting cowardice has put on lipstick, and become respectable to some.

But without a doubt, it can be said with mathematical certainty that anyone who participates in “high level policing” by gang stalking people is likely an actual criminal, or complicit in crimes, because “high level policing is oriented towards controlling the public and maintaining the status quo, rather than serving them.”

Worse, high policing is what OGS is at every level, as higher ranking and corrupt officers work with the intelligence community, and the deep state within the inherently corrupt countering terrorism hysteria for funding, and perception management of our societies. In other worse, high level policing is the starting point of all endemic and systemic corruption-the place where the back door deals take place, and gang stalking begins.

And that’s not ROGS saying that-it is nearly everyone who has ever spoken about it outside of the DVIC/MIC/PIC navel gaze. And, it is what has legitimized the abuses we see in every day life today in our societies.

Whether it’s induced silence around the ongoing mind control facility in Guantanamo Bay Cuba, or complaints about the gross injustice of shooting men in the back in the case of Michael Slager who murdered Walter Scott; or injecting a young boys penis in order to produce state sponsored child pornography, high policing IS what corruption IS. And, not coincidentally, it is also what the DVIC is by design-and it primarily polices males in a true evolutionary sense: it is what police states are, rule by brutality and force, in secret.

Since part of the threat narrative of counterintelligence stalking is that you will be pre-emptively data based, and labelled, filed, followed and harassed if you make these connections, it is what healthy societies must do in order to maintain any semblance of law. Yet we see that it is continuing as a growing problem, and that, unchecked by any legal body, or court case of record.

So: what IS high policing, and why is it anathema to actual democracy?

From Wikipedia entry “high policing“:

Aims

The term “high policing” refers to the fact that such policing benefits the “higher” interests of the government rather than individual citizens or the mass population. It also refers to the fact that high-policing organizations are endowed with authority and legal powers superior to that of other types of police organizations.

There is no conventional designation for this category of policing in liberal democracies, however, and it should not be conflated with secret police, although secret police organizations do use high policing methods. Calling it “secret” or “political” policing is too vague since all police work is somewhat both secret (police generally do not reveal their methods until a case is completed) and political (police enforce laws determined by the political system in power).

The primary tool of high policing is intelligence, which is derived from both human (“Humint“) and technological sources. The former includes the use of secret informants to gather information on the activities of citizens, while the latter includes electronic surveillance and eavesdropping, such as closed-circuit camera monitoring, telephone tapping, and Internet tapping.

Agencies

High policing in western democratic countries is performed by both national police forces and specialized intelligence agencies, such as the FBI and the Secret Service in the United StatesMI5 in the United Kingdom, the Special Detective Unit and Directorate of Intelligence in Ireland, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service.

These organizations usually confront domestic or internal threats to national security, whereas the military or military intelligence agencies generally handle foreign or external threats. However, this distinction can become blurred, especially in cases involving terrorism.

Human rights concerns[edit]

High policing has an extremely high potential for abuse. There is a tendency, even in democratic countries, for high policing organizations to abuse their powers or even to operate outside the law because many organizations involved in high policing are granted extensive legal powers, including immunity from prosecution for acts that are criminal under normal circumstances. In some countries, for example, high-policing organizations regularly engage in actions of dubious legality, such as arbitrarily arresting and detaining people without charge, without legal representation, and without means of communication; some high-policing forces also engage in torture. In the worst cases, high policing becomes a substitute for the whole criminal justice systemsuspects are arrestedtriedconvicted, and sentenced entirely by a national security agency, usually very expeditiously and in complete secrecy, as is the case in police states.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s