Representative Jim Guest champions the cause of victims of organized stalking and electronic harassm

While I have no opinion on gang stalking as I have never witnessed it in real life (just movies), I do have an opinion on the comments that masons are or were involved in illegal activites. There have been links to articles involving criminal activites of people who happen to be associated with masonry, but there has never (let me say this again for the really slow people, NEVER) been any evidence to say that masonry teaches, or advoactes this kind of behavior. So we go back to the old theory that is one police officer hit his wife then all cops are wife beaters, and if one building inspector in the UK seems a bit off kilter, then all building inspectors in the UK must all be crazy. Now doesn't that sound a bit stupid? There are a few people here on ATS who are against masonry but admit that no mason will ever change their mind about masonry not being an evil institution, and no mason will ever change his mind about knowing that masonry is a fraternity of like minded people trying to make their world a little better by actually doing something instead of talking about stuff, we should agree to disagree.

I would like to let people know that there is no evil agenda, and the things we masons say is really the truth, but what is the point? It is just easier to go on living and being amused at the blatent ignorance of some who chose not to find out the real story, but to parrot the lies of other boneheads. So I will just smile and read.

Originally posted by masonwatcher
Further it amazes me to think that Rep. Guest has a large enough constituency claiming to be gangstalked that he attempts assuage by championing their concerns.

Considering less than 10,000 people voted for him in the most recent elections, I wouldn't be impressed by a handful of vocal and delusional people getting his ear. Actually, from the looks of things, he didn't even introduce the bill to make "coerced subcutaneous implantation of an identification device" a civil penalty. He merely co-signed it. (And it didn't pass...)
www.house.mo.gov...

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by masonwatcher
Further it amazes me to think that Rep. Guest has a large enough constituency claiming to be gangstalked that he attempts assuage by championing their concerns.

Considering less than 10,000 people voted for him in the most recent elections, I wouldn't be impressed by a handful of vocal and delusional people getting his ear. Actually, from the looks of things, he didn't even introduce the bill to make "coerced subcutaneous implantation of an identification device" a civil penalty. He merely co-signed it. (And it didn't pass...)
www.house.mo.gov...

Oh! He just co-signed it? So do you reckon I could get him to co-sign a bill to award me a million dollars?

Get real man, you saw the video at the top of the post. Jim Guest was talking about the crime.

reply to post by network dude


You might like to know that I have other interests other than organised stalking. For example you equated building inspector with British building surveying. While a building inspector is a highly skilled technician in the US; in the UK al building surveyor is a chartered professional that is both technically qualified and is a project manager. Basically, the building surveyor runs contruction projects and holds the purse strings hence the high numbers of Freemasons found grazing in this field.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by masonwatcher]

Originally posted by masonwatcher
While a building inspector is a highly skilled technician in the US...

I must disagree. The cretin who inspected my home missed quite a few issues that have resulted in me spending much capital to rectify. Perhaps I should have hired one from the United Kingdom instead...

On topic, can you please tell us the reason why you feel you are being gangstalked? What type of importance or significance has been attached to your person to warrant this alleged behavior?

The gang stalking reports I have heard firsthand are paranoia ridden rants blaming someone else for keeping them down. There are some videos on YouTube if you search for "gangstalking". You can judge for yourself after watching the videos. It must be a pained existance feeling you are always being watched yet it also sounds familiar as big brothers interest in our personal activities has increased through the years.

Just because mot of the elements of "gangstalking" seem unlikely (such as frequently malfunctioning appliances or frequent car repairs as "unnatural events"), does not mean that organized harassment of individuals does not exist in any way, shape or form.

I think people need to be very careful about dismissing ALL reports of organized harassment based on the fact that MANY reports of organized harassment are implausible or obviously based on delusional thinking.

About 20 years ago, I worked in the district office of a U.S. Congressmen. Most of the things I did were basic constituent outreach like helping to answer citizens' questions about how the government worked, researching federal regulations, or helping people to overturn unfavorable disability rulings on behalf of constituents.

One evening, I was in the office alone at about 8 or so in the evening. I got a call from a very rational and reasonable-sounding individual who said he needed to describe a problem. He stated that he was a retired CIA officer living in a small town and that he was having some difficulties with the local government.

At first, his story sounded plausible. He stated that he had retired after 20 years in the agency, or actually that he had been forced out for being a whistleblower. He retired to the small town to get as far away from DC as possible. However, he believed that there were people who were trying to disrupt his efforts to write a book about his experiences. He had gone to the local police and the State Police, and they were unresponsive, so he felt that his last resort was to call the Congressman's office.

So far, it seemed quite plausible, and he seemed quite articulate and intelligent.

The story began to fall apart when he described a town meeting he attended. He stated that he was sitting in the meeting when suddenly the lights went off and people started attacking him and beating him. Just as suddenly, he said, the lights came back on and everyone in the whole room acted as if nothing at all had happened.

Soon after that, he stated, the State Police would drive by his house and fire shots at it. Given the questionable mental stability of some of the state troopers I had met, this part didn't actually seem totally impossible.

We talked for about 45 minutes, and I took all his information down.

The thing was, if he hadn't included the part about the supposed lights-off beating at the town meeting, his story would not have seemed unreasonable. It was well-articulated, sequential, etc.

The next day, I told one of the old political hands about the conversation, and at first he was concerned. I remember he said, "Well, a lot of intelligence officers do come to this state to retire, and there are a lot of dirty tricks out there."

We analyzed the conversation and eventually decided that it was not real and that the person was delusional. But our decision was based solely on the part about the beating at the town meeting.

If the caller had not included that detail, we would have begun some sort of investigation.

So the line between plausible and implausible can often be quite thin.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


People do retire from the CIA, police often misbehave and it has been known for a mob to attack a single person. Of course , with regards to your comment, you have every right to make judgements upon individuals that asks you for help.

What puzzles me is why you find it necessary to tell a story about an individual you have concluded to be delusional from the comfort of your desk in the context of my postings. Can you please give an example of when I have made an improbable comment unless of course you consider someone being victimised by a group is an improbability in itself.

Fascinating that you imply that someone can be intelligent, coherent yet actually be completely delusional. If this was to be some kind of an officially accepted definition of madness, I think we are all done for and inherently without any kind of human rights.


[edit on 18-11-2008 by masonwatcher]

More than anything else, I was responding to the people that said that gangstalking is impossible and does not happen. I am sure it does happen.

I think people need to look at each case individually, and not assume that everyone is a crackpot. I am sure there are political dissidents or "troublemakers" that are systematically stalked and harassed.

My point is that there is a very fine line between plausible reports and implausible reports, and people should NOT dismiss this right away. You need to focus on the details.

When this guy called us, up, he was very rational and calm, and the only think that made no sense was the episode where the lights suddenly went off, everyone beat him, and then the lights went back on again with everyone pretending that nothing happened.

And from what I have seen, it is possible to be completely delusional and totally calm, reasonable and intelligent at the same time.

The story I told is relevant because it relates to the actions of another Congressman's office when people contacted us.

I was just looking for proof that the New York Times had a fashion section and came across this thread. Ok that's enough of me being disingenious.

Did anyone see the response that one of the websites in question posted about this article?

www.gangstalkingworld.com...

After giving the New York Times article a little bit more time to settle there are three points that I wanted to review further.

The first was how the article came to use the term extreme communities. I did read over the Vaughan Bell article where a reference is made to such communities.

arginine.spc.org...

According to what Dr Bell wrote in the article it was views considered extreme or unacceptable by the mainstream. Using this definition I wondered if things such as the 9/11 truth movement would be an extreme community? Their views are not considered mainstream. I also wondered who else might fall into this list based on Dr Bell's definition?


Websites that cover conspiracy topics might well meet his definition of extreme communities. Many of the subject matters covered on websites such as www.AboveTopSecret.com... would fall into this category. They would be a website of mini patches of extreme communities.

Another factor that I thought should be calculated in when defining a community as an extreme community is the obvious, is the community helpful vs harmful? What kind of purpose do they serve? If I go to a website that has what by some is considered an extreme view that encourages me to kill myself, then that should be considered different than going to a website that expounds none traditional views, but steers the website viewer away from inflicting harm to themselves?

There are lot's of websites that conform to traditional or more traditional mainstream views that in my opinion are probably fairly harmful to some aspects of society, but we turn a blind eye, because it does pass mainstream muster.

The definition as is, in my opinion is fairly broad, and the references to the term were limited except for references to Dr Bell's work and the New York Times article.


The other point that I am wondering about is who or what now defines what is mainstream or normal? In today's society we have so many different variables to consider. At one time spending all your time online might have been considered the actions of lonely desperate people. Now with websites such as Facebook, and much of web 2.0 culture, being online is considered normal, and spending many hours online as long as it's spent socialising is considered a fairly normal and healthy activity.


According to a report from Mediamark Research in a 30 day period 2.5 million adults participated in online dating. I am sure they find this to be completely normal and mainstream, but I am sure there are patches of society that do not agree with this.
www.mediamark.com...


World of WarCraft reached 11 Million monthly Subscribers. Many of them sane individuals who go online to take part in these roleplaying games. For that community, I am sure they consider themselves normal and mainstream, just by their sheer numbers. I am sure there are still many in society who would not however consider going online to roleplay normal, mainstream or even healthy.

www.1up.com...


Thus what would be considered as abnormal or extreme view offline is often a normal and accepted view online, in many different circles. Eg. 9/11 conspiracy offline, might still be considered anti-government or none traditional, but online they are a fairly regular part of web culture and discussions. When defining mainstream and referencing the Internet, we might have to start finding different ways to do so.

Eg. I just read an article today, that talks about a real life couple getting divorced because he is cheating online with a virtual girlfriend. Traditional definitions are having to be adapted and redefined to accommodate an online culture.

ca.news.yahoo.com...

A second woman in Japan was arrested because she killed her online husband. She killed his virtual self. That's right, she did not kill him, or have any intention of killing the real him, but when his online virtual self divorced her, she got even and killed him. She was arrested for hacking into the computer and other things, and now if she is formally charged, she could face up to 5 years in jail.

ca.news.yahoo.com...


It is becoming more and more clear that it is the offline world that is having to adapt to the new online realities and not often the other way around. Therefore what we considered traditional and mainstream yesterday for an offline reality, in many ways is being redefined, and it does not seem as if some offline structures are keeping up to date with this reality.


The third point of concern with the New York Times article is that people were being considered paranoid with simple offline assessments. Are these offline assessments adequate for some of the challenges that people are facing in the modern day world to define Targeted Individuals as paranoid?

Recent research has unearth a great deal of information to show that when people are being termed as paranoid, it might not be the case.

Research is showing that there are in fact networks of individuals being hired by the state in various countries to track and spy on average citizens. The spying includes email and phone taps. Being followed around in public by hired Covert Human Intelligence Sources. Having these same Informants move into the houses around the target when possible. Following them around in vehicle and foot patrols, plus many other forms of intrusive surveillance.

img.dailymail.co.uk...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.sundayherald.com...

www.aclu.org...

www.youtube.com...

Individuals and Families under these types of surveillance are often not aware, and if they do become aware and go to seek help, they are often written off by the establishment as paranoid, psychotic, or crazy. The modern day reality is that without proper investigations, Freedom Of Information Act requests, and other proper forms of inquiry a true assessment might be impossible to determine. The secondary problem is that many of these investigations are ending up in secret databases, which the public has no access to. F.O.I.A. requests are no longer a sure fire way to determine if an individual is under surveillance.

www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.corbettreport.com...


I think it's fair and safe to say that before a community is considered extreme many factors should be considered, and the definition itself should factor into consideration what's considered normal online as well as offline. Assessing if a community or individual is paranoid or psychotic in today's modern surveillance society should be done with care and caution. It's been shown time and time again that anti-terror laws are being abused, National Security Letters are being handed out left right and center, with over 30,000 being issued per year, and many groups and individuals are being spied upon and placed on watch lists, unfairly.

www.washingtonpost.com...

In a society as the one described above, it is not only normal to have concerns about surveillance, but when there is a suspicion of such, the job of therapists in the future might not be first subscribing the patient to medication, it might be first asking if they have placed a F.O.I.A. request.

Society might even have to make it a mandatory law for psychiatrist to be notified if a person is under surveillance so that they are not falsely labelled, committed or medicated. This does not happen, the culture and society have changed within the last decade, but the methods used for determining paranoia, psychosis, and mental illness, in regards to the belief that one is under surveillance are still fairly antiquated in many cases, and might not pass muster for the realities of a modern day surveillance society.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
reply to post by LowLevelMason

 

Excellent find, LLM. I was unaware such an article had been written, so recently, and so high profile!

I hope that more research is done along these lines, and hope that people suffering from delusions of gang stalking get the help that they need. Bringing such illness to the public eye is paramount in raising awareness, and with awareness comes funding towards treatment.

You do realise that just 10 to 15 years ago they were diagnosing people who claimed to be targets of workplace mobbing as mentally ill? You do realise that they were also medicated and locked away or killed themselves? You do realise it's now been proven that workplace mobbing exists and that it's a sort of conspiracy in some ways, including high level employers and human resources? Just wondering if you knew that. I bet you would have wanted targets of this practice to get the help they needed as well.

reply to post by LowLevelMason


I think you really have to get things into perspective here. The harassment is done with small groups of people and seems to be coordinated. This also faolllows a pattern of workplace mobbing which forced me to leave a career and take up another. This situation is frightening to a person who experiences this form of intimidation initially. However, after 21 years of this treatment, I have seen all the permutations that these people employ in a despicable and deliberate manner.

Of course the point is that the targetted individuals find it difficult to prove their allegations. However, I ws given an advanced warning when my grage was broken into in 1987 and 2 Apprentice Freemasons catechism carda were left bearing the number Lodge No. 1222. I had never even heard of Freemasons before this incident. All I can do is hypothesise that there are individuals paid to experiment on others by gangstalking actions and the results are then analysed by people higher up in the food chain. The people who do the stalking are definitely bottom feeders.

I have never been referred to psychologists and I would contend that my mental health is normal. I back up everything that MW makes in his OP. At least give him an opportunity to give you proof.

reply to post by LowLevelMason


Oh and in regard to Scientology, you should read a bit more widely mate. John Sweeney from the Panorama programme was followed, spied upon, abused and villified in Internet articles by Scientologists:

While making our BBC Panorama film "Scientology and Me" I have been shouted at, spied on, had my hotel invaded at midnight, denounced as a "bigot" by star Scientologists and been chased round the streets of Los Angeles by sinister strangers.

Link

[edit on 21/11/2008 by Heronumber0]

One more bit of interesting information. Dr Bell who was mentioned in the article has never researched Gang Stalking. His research was strictly on the Mind Control websites.

It sounds like the person who wrote the article just didn't realise that he had not studied Gang Stalking Websites.

You can read more over at the Gang Stalking World site. I am guessing this correction will not get printed in the New York Times.

Targeted Indevigual over decade, london having problems linking with forums ,due to covert harassment.

Having majored many various classified fields of expertise in the area of Acoustic Intelligence for the Pentagon's Weapons dept. I can understand the concepts and applications of psychotronics, harmonics, waveforms, oscillations, and the like being applied to common citizenry and being simutaneously dismissed as psychosis by varios organized medicine fields, and also, documented and submitted to various researchers and intellegencias for dissemination among the various technologies departments concerned for evaluation of a particular weapons' or reconnaisance technologies' performance and efficiency. ATS subscribers and the like would make for reasonable threat flags for targeting assessment and aquisition. Gang stalkers might be reasonably viewed as field observers, taking deadly or disruptive actions in the subjects life only to the degree that subject is deemed a candidate for such actions. Ie: depending on the threat that subject poses to the individual/ entity concerned or perhaps to minimize the exposure the subject exhibits to the public at large. Pharmaceatical Companies, Oil and Energy Companies, and the like would benefit from mass distress or control, not just covert agencies, which are generally funded by and very much support these major industries. Remember, it's a military- beaurocratic- industrial- complex. They are interchangably wed at the hip and make billions. Billionaires finance and employ these technologies all the time. They are forever making aquisitions of anything which will further their profits and your ill health is a vast commodity to them. Consider the effects of Ionizing radiation, electrical radiation, electro magnetic fields, and the like, can kill you if they wish. And, more profitably, the debilitating affects benefit every one in both synthetic and natural drug, surgical, and medical fields, as well as psychiatric, physiological, holistic, and on, and on. Plus you might smoke more, drive further, take a plane out of the are, someone profits. And the media industries, such as the one we are using right now, are bought, paid, monitored, and controlled, directly and through manipulation, by the various structures and substructures of these various systems. Fact: Between Japan and the former (if you believe the fall was anything but a show) USSR, off the coast of the Kiril Islands @ 60 63* lattitude, beneth the Ocean along the floor is a transponder array bellongig to the Soviets, aimed at America, which emmanates frequencies @45-60 Hz designed to aggitate, irritate, and all around aggrivate US citizens. It is run 24/7. It has a reciprical array in the Atlantic also aimed at us. And effectively blankets the Continental US. It is called the SOSUS network. Officially, it does not exist. Our government knows it is there. What it is for, what it does, and that it works, yet, they do nothing. We can use frequencies in ranges and at rates that would blow your mind. Officially, We Don't Have Those Capabilities. Yet a "fish fry" is where oscillated frequencies are used to greate a vacuum in water and microwave fish large and small. GreenPeace sued the USN and Officially those activities ceased. Just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you. Not that many cases aren't unruly gang, mob, society, type actions and or real delusions. But the technology is real the experiments are real. Remember no contractor gets funding without field testing. Not even Society members. That's how the wealth builds. The difference is who is allowed to contract and who is not. The symptons are delusions, adverse health, psychosis, and even death. The Question is: What is the cause? Not: What are the obvious symptoms.

I have had this gang-stalking thing happen to me. I present my case in a very logical, informed, manner. I vow that all information presented here is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I met a freemason.
The freemason demonstrated psycho-somatic illness, including cysts at age 20, genital callousing from extreme promiscuity, and was also very abusive, verbally, and threatening violence on multiple ocassions.
The freemason psycho installed a rootkit on my computer compromising the machine.
This sort of abusive surveillence is documented on the National Center for Victims of Crime, in the stalking resource center. In the upper right hand corner, there is a link called, "The use of technology to stalk."
I used a port tracker and tracked information on my computer being sent to [email protected].
I was gang-stalked. The freemason psycho stalkers said, "we always win."
Before i told the freemason psycho stalker to get lost, the freemason psycho stalker threatened me with, "you dont know how many bridges you've burned."
I was cyber-stalked. Over the internet, I was told genocide should be brought back for me, and the freemason psycho's said, "I like to play with puppets.", and the freemason psycho's said, "I like to experiment with men." The overt harassment on the internet included every imaginable put-down, the basics, nerd, homo, retard, idiot, pansy, loser, etc. etc., this of course was all abnormal from usual.
My work was graffitid.
The freemason psycho applied at my workplace, twice.
The freemason psycho emailed me with fake reasons for contact.
My phone was called repeatedly by "wrong numbers", these "wrong number" callers would always call back 4-5 times after I said, hey there, you have the wrong number.
A year later, i received an online threat, "I should hit you, call me." I said you call me, and low and behold, I received a phone call from the freemason psycho stalker the next day in real life, it was close to a year after the initial stalking.
A man came into my workplace to harrass me. I have his name, his name was grafittid on the entrance to my workplace along with the initial freemason psycho's name.
I caught the freemason psycho trespassing on my home property.
I was in my office when one of them came in, saw me, and quickly turned around and left, but he came back later, sat outside my office, talking about me on his cell phone.
Lastly, a contact named, fenix1975 contacted me, and since i had done my duty, and reported this to the local, state, federal, and internet crime complaint, I asked him if he was FBI, he said no one so unimportant, and he called me a patsy, so using that information, about the only agency that is more important than FBI and uses patsy as rhetoric is the CIA. Shortly there after i was attacked in my vehicle by a helicopter using a directed energy weapon. Strangely enough, the CIA had moved to my city back in 2005. Dont worry, its gets even stranger. Online, a guy contacts me and says he had to pay 1.5 million and give up my case file. The next thing i know a bunch of foreigners started stalking me and I was offered a job at Rolg Bolg or something like that, a German aristocratic mansion, 15 bucks an hour, I could bring a friend, and work in the garden, as long as I performed homosexual acts....

Weird stuff huh, all true too, so i guess the moral of the story is...

Never show kindness or trust a freemason.

My spiritual advisor told me, I just have to forgive these people.

I have no reason to lie, and I have so much proof as far as IM chats, employment applications, grafitti documentation, there is no manner in which anyone could disprove my story.

Who is paying these people to "gang-stalk"? What is there motive? Is it simply for sadistic pleasure or is there information or money involved? Why don't the gangstalkees stalk the gangstalkers? are there weapons involved to prevent this? These are serious questions I would like feedback on.

reply to post by masonwatcher



just keep your head