NP Rank:
Gang Stalking and the Need for True Masculinity
The recent news story regarding the arrest of Black Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. in his own home by a White police officer added to an internal discussion I’ve been having regarding the distinction between true masculinity and false. I am not taking sides in this issue. Rather, this regrettable incident teaches me why I must cultivate true masculinity. How we react under pressure or humiliating circumstances reveals the sort of masculinity we possess. False masculinity is like fool’s gold. Literal fool’s gold (or pyrite) is far more common than real gold and can fool the inexperienced eye. It has none of the value or qualities of real gold. And so it is with false masculinity. It can appear to be genuine, and is far more common than true masculinity. However, when put to the test, false masculinity disappoints, offering no real value to its owner.
As a target of directed energy weapons torture and “gang stalking,” I am constantly and willfully provoked. The objective of this organized and sustained psychological attack is to lure me into self-destructive behavior. Therefore, losing control or engaging in abusive behavior is not an option. Any concept of masculinity that promotes that option must be soundly rejected as false. Knowing the difference between true masculinity and false is critical to my survival and success.
How common it is today to see individuals imbued with authority mistreating those they consider inferior! Many have the notion that a real man must be “tough,” answering any perceived insult or slight with swift retribution. Such individuals are inflexible, and will often reject any truth or evidence that proves their cherished stereotypes or perceptions to be false. They believe that a “show of force” is the only solution to every problem they face. They consider admitting a mistake a sign of weakness. They put the preservation of their own ego or self-importance ahead of the needs of others. How much misery the world has suffered at the hands of the powerful acting out of false masculinity!
Contrast that with the marvelous example of true masculinity demonstrated by Jesus Christ as a man on earth. He was the Son of God, and as such was truly superior to the people he came to earth to help. Yet, he never looked down on common men. Rather, he treated sinful, imperfect humans of all sorts with dignity. Unlike Jesus, the Jewish religious leaders of his day despised common folk, using the Hebrew term “Amhaarets” (people of the dirt, accursed) to describe them. They had even less respect for women, considering them to be untrustworthy and devious.
What a refreshing and courageous contrast Jesus provided to the common notions of masculinity in that day! In addition, Jesus exercised exemplary self-control under provocation or humiliating circumstances. Although he held great authority and power, he never abused it in an effort to retaliate against his enemies. His enemies could never provoke him into losing self-control. What extraordinary masculinity!
Here are two events that demonstrate the true masculinity of Jesus. The first reveals his behavior toward those normally considered inferior by the powerful men of that day. The second shows his exemplary self-restraint under humiliating circumstances.
One day Jesus was walking with his disciples to attend an important engagement, followed by a large crowd. Among that crowd is a poor woman, making her way towards Jesus as inconspicuously as possible. That woman has suffered from a humiliating medical condition for 12 long years: a flow of blood. Such a running discharge of blood was not only embarrassing, it also rendered her unclean under the Mosaic law. Anyone touching her, or her garments, was required by law to wash and be unclean until the evening. She had no business, some would argue, even being near that crowd in her condition. Yet, she was determined to touch the garment of Jesus. Out of faith, she was convinced that by doing so she would be healed of her distressing condition. Working her way through the crowd, she quietly approaches and touches the hem of Jesus garment from behind. Immediately, she senses that the flow of blood has dried up. She is healed!
“Who was it that touched me?” Jesus asked. How shocked the woman must have been to hear that question! How could he know that she touched him with such a large crowd hemming him in? Jesus disciple Peter, being close by, wondered why Jesus asked that question: “The crowds . . . are closely pressing you, and do you say, “Who touched me?” Looking around for the woman, Jesus explains: “Someone touched me, for I perceived that power went out of me.” Healing others draws on Jesus vitality so he knew that a brief touch had resulted in someone being cured.
The woman, with great fear and trembling, comes and falls down before Jesus. With the entire crowd looking on, she tells Jesus the whole truth about her illness and how she had just been cured. Imagine the shame she felt in revealing her affliction in public! Did Jesus respond to her with the same low regard for the poor and women as the religious leaders of his day? Did he become annoyed, perhaps even angry at the inconvenience she caused him? Did he think: “I’m an important man, how dare she touch me in her condition!” Was he inflexible, rebuking her for this violation of the law, thereby adding to her humiliation? Not at all! In his response, Jesus demonstrates true masculinity.
Moved by her confession, and taking into consideration the extreme distress that caused her to break the law, Jesus comforts her: “Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace, and be in good health from your grievous sickness.” Jesus displayed, not annoyance, or an inflexible application of law. Rather, his compassion and understanding was an expression of true masculinity. It is also noteworthy that he accorded this woman an audience and dignity rare in the culture of that day.
Can we see the difference between true masculinity and false in this account? Do we have the tendency to be merciless and condescending toward those considered inferior to us? Do we denigrate others to make ourselves appear to be more important or powerful? Do we put ego and personal pride above the needs of others, including the lowly? Jesus Christ’s personality was refreshingly free of these abusive traits. In that, he serves as the finest example of true masculinity that has walked the earth. —Matthew 9:18-22, Mark 5:21-34, Luke 8:40-48
Here is the second account: Jesus Christ knows that his cruel and unjust death was only hours away. However, he was focused on equipping his disciples to cope with the trials that lay ahead for them. To that end, he focused his energies on teaching them. One such lesson was taught by example when Jesus, although being their Teacher and Master, girded a towel and proceeded to wash the feet of each of his disciples. (John 13:3-5) This menial task was usually reserved for the lowliest servant in Jewish households of the day. However, by performing this humble act, Jesus wanted to stress by example that his disciples must willingly serve others, not “lord it over” people as was common among political leaders. In this Jesus demonstrated a facet of true masculinity: humbly putting the interests of others ahead of his own.
The Bible account indicates that Jesus washed the feet of all twelve of his disciples in attendance, including Judas Iscariot, his betrayer. Amazingly, Jesus was well aware that Judas was secretly plotting his murder! —John 13:2 Yet, he calmly washed his feet along with the others. We know that Jesus was a man of deep feelings. Can you imagine how being so close to the man who would betray him to murderers affected his emotions? How would you feel in this situation? Yet, Jesus calmly performed this humble act, without revealing what he knew to the other disciples, or allowing his emotions to get the better of him.
It is this singular act, washing the feet of a wicked betrayer that reveals to me the sterling quality of masculinity found in Jesus. Why did he do it? Jesus, by example, remained obedient to two commands that must be complied with by every Christian man today: “Love your enemies,” (Luke 6:27) and, leave vengeance in the hands of God. (Romans 12:19) With extraordinary humility and restraint, Jesus remained obedient, not allowing his emotions to rule his actions; evidence of genuine masculinity. —Philippians 2:3,4 Also, by calmly submitting to the injustice and abuse he would suffer, he was able to provide outstanding benefits for all true Christians down to this day.
This account is one I often bring to mind. How impressive! Jesus could calmly interact with the man who plotted his murder, even extending kindness while exercising exemplary restraint. How can I imitate this facet of true masculinity? Well, I am often in the company of individuals seeking to provoke, harass, mock and mislead me. “Gang stalking” is form of constant psychological aggression. In my case, the greatest good can only be accomplished by calmly treating all with dignity and restraint, even those who mean me harm. If I gave in to anger and retaliated, I would not be working in my best long-term self interests. Nor would I as a Christian, be obedient to God. Cultivating true masculinity like Jesus, is a powerful aid in this regard, don’t you agree?
I write this, not to counsel others, but to remind myself of the need to continue cultivating true masculinity. The so-called ‘toughness’, stubbornness, arrogance and cruelty seen in so many today does not solve problems. It engenders a prideful disregard for the plight of others, especially those we may view as inferior. As a long-term victim of directed energy weapons torture, and ‘gang-stalking,’ I see it every day. This false masculinity drives much of the abuse I ( and perhaps many others) undergo. Sadly, many women mimic this undesirable trait as well. Like fools’ gold, many are duped by counterfeit masculinity and strip themselves of self-worth by adopting it.
In deciding how to handle provocative and humiliating encounters, I have had to take a close look at the concept of true masculinity vs false. True masculinity is best seen when interacting with those we may consider inferior or subject to us in some way. How we treat such ones reveal what we are at heart. True masculinity never tramples the rights of others. The truly masculine can endure humiliation and provocation with patience and restraint. Indeed, the qualities inherent in true masculinity are worthy of imitation by both men and women.
To the extent that I cultivate true masculinity, I can successfully cope with the daily indignities that I face. It is a source of strength, and helps me to avoid the emotional responses that can lead to disaster. Above all, I glorify my Heavenly Father, the finest example and source of true masculinity.

Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (2)
- Sign In or Join to post comments
T in San Bruno (not verified)at 09:46 on July 28th, 2009
Gang Stalking = Small percentage of Corrupted assigned community policing officers / community leaders + manipulated citizens of community policing members.
From the ‘Lectric Law Library’s stacks
Community Policing:
by Jeffrey Patterson
[Sgt. Patterson serves with the Clearwater, Fl, Police Dept.]
Potential Corruption
Two of the key elements of community policing–decentralization and
permanent assignments–conflict with the professional model’s
prescription for controlling corruption and limiting political
influence. Centralized authority was one of the first reforms called for
by the IACP a century ago, and the idea of mandatory rotation of
assignments followed not long thereafter. An unintended consequence of
community policing may be the development of the same close personal and
political ties between individual officers and citizens along their
beats that historically served as the breeding ground for petty
corruption and undermined management’s control of the rank and file.
John L. Worrall, Otwin Marenin
Abstract:
The adoption of community oriented policing (COP) is likely to have an impact on patterns of civil liability claims filed against police departments and officers. We hypothesize that COP practices may lead to an increase in civil liability claims by expanding the scope of police responsibilities and roles and by altering patterns of police citizen interactions which, in turn, could affect the clarity and uses of three legal standards which support civil liability claims: negligence in state tort claims, “color of law” under Section 1983, and the “legal duty” standard. We call for further research and suggest some managerial strategies to avoid the eventualities presented.
Spring 1993
Copwatch Report questions pepper spray’s use on peaceful protestors in campus demonstrations and exposes “Community Oriented Policing (COP) as a public relations scam that fails to confront the real roots of crime.
WOLA’s main idea is the training of modern professional para-military police and other law enforcement and criminal justice officials, with what appears to be oligarchical oversight. They foresee police academy training and indoctrination, human rights [meaning forcing us to be their slaves], due process, leadership development, more effective patrol structures directed at the communities [like curfews?], internal and external controls, and community-oriented policing. [Don’t forget folks, these people want to be the only game in town. If they get their way, we’ll all be forced to play cops and robbers whether we want to or not. They have a lot of private jails to fill and they’re planning more.] Specialized police units with specific policing techniques and equipment [probably taught by the likes of BlackWater!] Develop detective units and a comprehensive “snitching” system to help police gather evidence to increase conviction rates.
***********************************************************
Private services provided by assigned community policing unit.
2 Police Officers Accused of Taking Bribes From Brothel
Richard Lee for The New York Times
Late Wednesday, agents raided the three-story brothel at 57-24 164th Street.
Inside a stucco house, across from a cemetery, more than a dozen young women, who officials believe paid thousands of dollars to come to the United States from Korea and China, toiled behind windows obscured by pink or maroon satin fabric.
The two police officers are accused of taking little in the way of bribes. One accepted several hundred dollars, the other the discounted services of the house on two occasions, according to court papers. And they did more than just look away: Prosecutors charge that they helped shut down the brothel’s competitors, essentially using the information they gleaned in an illicit relationship with one criminal enterprise to burnish their reputations as police officers by shutting down others.
But unknown to them, another officer was in their midst — an undercover vice detective who received more than $120,000 from the brothel operators during the 10-month investigation, the authorities said. It was during that sting operation that the authorities learned that the two officers, assigned to the 109th Precinct, were on the take.
Today, the F.B.I., the police, the United States Attorney in Brooklyn and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents announced the arrests of the two officers, Dennis Kim, 29, and Jerry Svoronos, 30; the woman and man accused of running the brothel, Gina Kim, and Geeho Chae, both 37; and 16 young women believed to have worked as prostitutes.
Late Wednesday, agents raided the three-story brothel at 57-24 164th Street, and the home shared by Ms. Kim, who was not related to the arrested police officer, and Mr. Chae at 149-24 Roosevelt Avenue, the officials said. At the home and in the couple’s car, the authorities recovered roughly $800,000 that they believe were the fruits of the brothel’s operation.
The arrests and the raid in a quiet residential section of Flushing opened a window on what some called a thriving community of brothels in the largely Chinese and Korean community of Flushing. One man who said he was a client of the shuttered establishment said that the existence of brothels was well known in the area and that each had its own traditions, regulations and pricing systems, like charging Korean customers more than Chinese customers.
The trade is decidedly lucrative, according to an affidavit in support of the arrest warrants sworn out by F.B.I. Special Agent Won Yoon. In a secretly recorded conversation, Ms. Kim told the undercover detective that on the day the brothel opened, May 18, 2005, she had 20 customers who each paid $200 — earning $4,000 that single day. The brothel first started up at 43-53 162nd Street, and later moved to 164th Street, the affidavit said.
The undercover detective met with the brothel operators 17 times in Queens, at diners, a Starbucks, a Dunkin Donuts and in parking lots, and they paid him twice monthly payments of $6,000, plus additional money for raiding their competitors, according to the affidavit.
But the bribes, it seems, were just a cost of doing business in the sex-trafficking trade; Agent Yoon estimated that the brothel earned more than $1.1 million over the 41 weeks it was in operation.
Sign in to RecommendMore Articles in New York Region >
Problems.
1. Community leaders / assigned community policing unit has too much power over local groups.. guaranteed corruption for personal gains.
Solution
1. overhaul the oversight system/agency ..
2. harsher punishment on corrupted cop/community leader.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
Frank Raffaele (not verified)at 15:30 on October 20th, 2009
How easy it would have been for Jesus to wither the hand of the soldier that struck a blow to his head. If he had we would not have the Savior that he became. I think he became the Savior as a consequence of the fact that he did not resort to violence or any other form of retaliation against his adversaries. He provided an example, a pattern if you will, of how to behave in a world that is dominated by hate and fear. The fact that he called the outcast woman "daughter" exhibits who His real children are. Important topic. Thank you. Frank Raffaele