SCRIVENER'S SCREED (Opinion): As You Idol-Worship, Your Civil Liberties Are Being Stolen. Now It's Time to Fight for Democracy

Thanks again for anoth great article!!

I wouldn't dismiss other sites addressing this problem quite so flippantly, Mr. Livingston.  (I'm referring to your assertion that yours is the only valid "news" forum on the Internet addressing organized stalking and electronic harassment, and that "even the 'alternative media' has its head up... well, you know where.") 

You should consider monitoring some of the public forums addressing these topics, one of which you cited in one of your earliest blogs. 

On one, an investigative reporter from England (who'd played a significant role with MP Norman Baker in probing the David Kelly assassination) is currently monitoring certain forum exchanges, for purposes of trying to comprehend just exactly what organized stalking and electronic harassment entails. 

In the past, Sharon Weinberger, then freelancing for the Washington Post addressed these topics in a lengthy Sunday-edition article back in early 2007. 

So, investigative reporters are not unaware of what is going on.  Investigative reporters are not above trivializing these topics, of course, for purposes of keeping their jobs.  The harsh reality is that investigative reporting is a dying art, with few skilled, dedicated and PRINCIPLED practitioners.

The mainstream media are controlled by a handful of megalithic multinational corporations.  You should know that.  You worked for one of them. 

Megalithic multinational corporations controlling the media are not interested in an "informed public."  They want an "entertained" public, and the chilling implications of global electronic harassment and organized stalking campaigns do not qualify as mind-numbing entertainment.

That having been said, you should consider at least monitoring the exchanges taking place in these associated forums.  Who knows?  You may find some useful contacts.  It beats whistling in the wind in isolation.

Good luck!

Julianne: 

Thanks so much for your thoughtful and detailed comments.  I don't dismiss those other sites, many of which I have read in depth.  But at the risk of sounding like a "homer," you don't see many articles about gang-stalking, community-stalking, or, to be more precise, the potential for state-assisted domestic terrorism on the big, mainstream sites, because the editors of such sites may simply reject the premise with the dismissive "This can't happen in America."  I probably would have said same thing if I hadn't been targeted myself.

Nowpublic.com is a pretty mainstream site; I had never heard of it until I saw an item on "Drudge".  But because it is in Canada, I believe it may be less vulnerable to official intimidation (although, perhaps, not to hacking and replies to posted articles by disinformation specialists out to cast doubt upon the credibility or character traits of the authors).

Many of those other sites to which you refer are polluted with disinformation posted by such persons.  Even the site I referenced is replete with postings about "cures" for electronic harassment such as lining the walls with Mylar film.  I believe the intent of such addenda is to discredit the entire premise, to imply that anyone claiming to be a victim is off the wall, or delusional.  To use a favorite word, it's just so transparent that it's a huge waste of time and resources.

Also, I do not buy into the line that mainstream journalism is bereft of real reporting and is simply a repository of "mind numbing entertainment."  MSM has done many, many original and important investigative stories.  I will allow that there's less going on now than in the past, perhaps due to the financial and political ramifications of defending against reporting that shakes up the established order.  As an MSM journalist,  I did many substantive and original stories that had an impact and even helped right some wrongs.  So many, in fact, that my background as an investigative reporter may explain why I have been subject to gang-stalking and more.  In MSM, they'll let you do some powerful stories; then, over time, it  (you fill in the blank) catches up to you.  And over time, MSM editors become sensitized (to employ a phrase with which you probably are familiar ) and they steer clear of stories likely to draw official reprobation or extreme controversy.

So on the charges of flippancy and bias against the very media outlets which allowed me the privilege of earning my chops as a journalist, I plead "not guilty."

Thanks.  And have a nice day.  Smartly done.

Thanks for your response, Vic. 

You've made some valid points; namely, that websites and forums focusing on the topics of organized stalking and electronic harassment are riddled with apparently self-discrediting input.  That is to be expected.  In some cases, mental illness brought on by vicious long-term harassment contributes to the problem.  In MANY other cases, persons employing obvious COINTELPRO tactics add input that clearly is calculated to diminish the importance of the topics being discussed. 

These same idiots routinely focus on ANY site, including those with professional credentials, which produces information featuring many of the the technologies employed in electronic harassment operations.  A good example of that are the sites maintained by New Scientist and Wired.  The comments sections on those sites are riddled with absolute garbage inserted by people who hope to diminish the importance of what has been published on those sites.

The garbage notwithstanding, these types of sites do lead to valuable connections which, in your own investigative endeavors, could help immeasurably.

You might want to read Sharon Weinberger's article, "Mind Games," published by the Washington Post on January 14, 2007, if you haven't already.  Sharon devoted several months to interviewing and observing targets of these operations before writing this article. 

If, while reading, you note a tendency on her part at trivializing these matters in sardonic fashion, keep in mind the fact that she has extensive DoD links, as editor of a DoD-related magazine who also furnishes blog commentary focusing on DoD developments in Wired's "Danger Room."  She has other vested interests, in other words, which have a way of limiting legal and humanitarian considerations.  Nevertheless, you should read this article, if only for further insights.

And, yes, I noticed your comment that you would probably not have given these operations a second thought had you, yourself, not become a target.  The same would have applied to Sharon Weinberger, had she taken an interest in this topic while also suffering horrendous forms of harassment.  Her article clearly would have taken a completely different slant (but then would not have been published).

I'm curious as to where you've observed fine investigative reporting by MSM journalists in recent years.  By some accounts, MSM investigative journalism was in its heyday back in the '70s, having evolved over the decades since World War II.  And from what I've noted, you were doing most of your investigative reporting during those heydays, with the result that one of your articles was used in an academic report, which is now cited on the Internet.

Things have changed since the '70s.  Corporate ownership has changed.  MSM is now controlled, as mentioned, by a mere handful of megalithic multinational corporations.

The masses aren't interested in true investigative reporting, unless it has an entertainment value to it.  TV and video games now keep the masses numb and happy.  Reading and writing are becoming dying skills.  The point being, if you intend to get this story out to the masses, you will have to penetrate that entertainment "wall."

By the way, these operations are for life, so, just be patient, stand your ground, and don't give up.  Don't ever give up.  Chinks in the armor are being found.

All the best.

Ever read Ouspensky's "In Search of the Miraculous"? He talks about most living in a state of sleep, and when some wake up, one of the biggest tasks is to keep reminding others to stay awake. As it is too easy to give up and go back to sleep. kinda simplified, but think you might get the idea, Vic.

You mean like, upon the realization of what's really true and what's artifice, it is one's task to help others see what you now have the wisdom to see?  Is that it?  Or do I have to read the book? 

Hm-m.  A rather harsh response, I dare say.

Over time, you learn to distinguish between COINTELPRO-style garbage input and observations which are based upon legitimate research and experiences. 

As a moderator on the very forum which you cited in your earliest blog, I dedicate my efforts to keeping the discussions objective and substantiable, while at the same time removing those persons who sign on specifically for disruptive purposes.  So, I do know how to make those distinctions.  I've had many, many years of experience with these operations, as a target.

Incidentally, I note that you're not wholly adverse to gleaning information from assorted Internet sites.  Your reference to the use of satellite-to-earth targeting of individuals is one example of Internet-circulated information.  Satellite-to-earth targeting of individuals is in fact a myth, which appears to have been triggered by an English-speaking writer for Pravda. 

Technologically, focused satellite targeting of this nature is an impossibility, given the impact of the earth's layered atmosphere upon the frequencies involved.  The frequencies used against human are in fact rather easily disrupted, so, they simply cannot be sustained in the atmosphere when generated by satellites.

I note, also, that you carefully commented that (unspecified) reports "suggest" that satellite targeting "might" be a possibility, which is good.  Nevertheless, it is obvious that you gleaned this information from the Internet.

As to the claim that the US government is behind all of this, my advice to anyone making such claims (and many on the Internet do) is that they be substantiated.  So far, no one has been able to do so. 

Research suggests that certain multinational corporations are fully capable of running these operations, with or without government complicitness. 

You will find, for starters, that DoD and CIA have outsourced highly sensitive, classified intelligence and security operations to multinational corporations such as Raytheon, a developer of electronic weapons, coincidentally. 

Those same multinational corporations -- which can buy any government with pocket change -- are fully capable both of organizing and directing private armies of organized stalkers and of launching electronic weapons testing on targets singled out for harassment.  Being multinational, these corporations are indifferent to such niceties as the US constitution.  They are loyal only to the bottom line and to their stockholders.

But, no matter.  You prefer to remain in isolation.  I was trying to encourage a broadening of contacts, even if it meant only that you should monitor these forums and other sites for a certain period.  Since you're not interested, I'll move on.

Thank you for your time, Vic.

"The U.S. federal government has quietly assembled a quasi- national police force of citizen volunteers and moonlighting municipal and utility workers. ...

"Should the federal Department of Homeland Security and the private armies and black ops squads assembled under its consolidated authority report directly to the President and not through the Justice Department, like the FBI (about the only powerful non-military agency not under the DHS aegis)? Is this healthy for democracy? 

"Does DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff realize that volunteer groups funded by his department are accused by victims of organized community "gang stalking" of  committing vigilante acts, and making personal use of DHS-funded vehicles?

"Is DHS investigating how its nationwide network of volunteer "Citizen Corps" are deployed, and whether they have morphed into an American version of the Gestapo or the Stasi?" 

I conclude from the above that you are stating that the US Government is behind these operations.  And now you suggest that you've been misinterpreted.

By the way, have you stated the foregoing as fact or opinion?

Google my name, sweetheart, if you want to know more about me.  Easy enough.  You have my email address, which contains my full name.

You ask what my motive is.  Make that "was."  My intent was to encourage you to get out of your isolated circumstances and to offer you my full support.  In paranoid fashion, you reacted to the gesture as if I were out to "get" you.  If that's how you treat fellow targets, then you must have been a doozy when you were in your former position with Cable One.

Good luck in your future endeavors.  You obviously don't need anyone's support or assistance and are quite content to try to reinvent the wheel.  These operations have been ongoing for many decades, for the record.

A brief follow-up, since I didn't respond to your comments regarding satellites. 

Ground-based microwave emitters are fully capable of inducing thermal heating.  You can purchase your own microwave emitter from certain commercial enterprises advertising their wares on the Internet.

Space-based satellites equipped with emitters employ high-power microwaves and high-power lasers which have the capacity to disintegrate any human organism in their path. 

You will find on researching this subject that space agencies testing these frequencies are having a problem keeping these frequencies sufficiently focused -- even given their highly-intensified amplitudes -- so as to accomplish the basic task of destroying other satellites. 

Space-based satellites are otherwise passive collectors of information, not devices for trying to regulate the metabolisms of individual, selectively-targeted humans on earth.

Julianne

J:

I've never heard of "Cable One."  I hope that incorrect reference is not a reflection on the quality of your research.

Thank you for the addendum on high-powered satellites.  I still am not convinced.  If a focused energy beam can deliver multiple broadband channels of HDTV to a small satellite dish, is it not inconceivable that such satellites could create a force field around an individual sufficient enough to cause biological effects?  Nothing you have related refutes that possibility.  Note I said "possibility," not fact.

Once again, smartly done.  You have sent me a post which again inserts "paranoia" into the debate.  You are much more skilled than many others, as evidenced by the response you have provoked.  Were I your superior, I would be pleased.

But you're still transparent, and I am sure others will conclude the same.  You may run a web site, but one can have many masters.  I am impressed, though; your performance has renewed my respect for those who go to all the trouble and bother of responding here.

Now let me go google your name so I know the full (cover) story!  And you can call me "paranoid" all you want; it's expected and name-calling can't change the facts on the ground.  Have a nice day.  No need to reply.

Oh, but I must reply, because once again you have twisted what I said to suit your own purposes.  You obviously enjoy mind games. 

And I DO note that you did not counter my observation regarding your claims that the US government is behind these operations.

I said that IN PARANOID FASHION, you construed my efforts as being an attempt to "get you."  I didn't call you paranoid.  I certainly would not purport to have to qualifications to render such diagnoses. 

Stop the game playing.  It's getting you nowhere.  And it's impacting on your credibility.

As to your comments regarding HDTV, you need to do your research before asserting opinions as to what can and cannot be accomplished by electronic frequencies.  Our environment is imbued with frequencies of ALL types, yet we do not as a general rule experience their impact, either collectively or individually.  It is when those frequencies are weaponized (focused, with controlled high amplitudes) that specific, individualized bioeffects are produced. 

HDTV frequencies are not weaponized.  They are unfocused, fan out, and are dependent upon select transceivers for capture and decipherment. 

Julianne

HD was a bad example.  Let's just say focused beams of high-powered radiated energy.

You still haven't proven your point, because there is no way you cannot say that today's fleet of military satellites is incapable of achieving biological effects on humans on the ground.  Some of your own cited research confirms the possibility.

Once again you inject disinformation in an effort to harm my credibility.  I did not respond to your false charges because I already had.  I did not say the US government was behind "all this."  I did raise concerns that programs funded by various levels of government could be committing harassment and more, and that their could be some direction from above, and that Chertoff should investigate how his volunteer corps are being used in localities across the nation.  I never stated as fact that the US government is responsible; I am concerned that programs can be misused.  Need I cite a few in the past that had to be reined in?  You mentioned one of them earlier.  Remember Watergate?  Liddy?  The "plumbers"? 

But as one schooled in disinformation, you keep repeating the assertion, hoping it sticks.  These are familiar tactics, and it's not working. 

Another hallmark is accusing the victim of the "crimes" of perpetrator.  You are the mind games expert.  I'm just trying to match you, so that readers who have come this far can see through the fog. And no, I don't enjoy this; I'd rather be doing other things.  In fact, I'm done with this.

Nice talking to you again.  I do not have your email address, and if you posted your last name, it's on a field that's not visible to me.  So as a final act of whatever it is you're doing, please feel free to post your link here for the curious.  Free advertising.  Have a nice day, J.

You require that our email addresses be furnished in order to post on this blog site, yet you do not have access to those email addresses?  Right.  Uh-huh.  Sure.

And I accused you of being a "perpetrator?"  You are really off the wall.

Readers who have even bothered to read these postings don't need you telling them how to interpret these exchanges.  The exchanges speak for themselves.

Good luck in resolving your circumstances.

Julianne

Well, we finally agree on something.  These exchanges do speak for themselves.

You really need to do something about your anger issues.

Have a nice day.

Anger issues?  How interesting.  I offer my support and assistance, and you respond by accusing me of being out to "get" you.  You falsely assert that I've accused you of being a "perp."  You try to falsely reinterpret what you have clearly stated in writing, just to protect your sensitive ego.  And then you falsely claim that you don't have access to my email address?  Why in the world should that anger me?  "Pity" is more the word.   You've got problems.

Have fun reinventing the wheel, sweetie.  You don't need anyone's support or assistance.

Julianne 

I never made such accusations.

I did not falsely reinterpret anything.

I really don't have your email address (that stays with site administrators in Canada).

And I most certainly am not your "sweetie."

Thank you for your offer of "support."

But with friends like you, who needs enemies?

Now please go outside and try to enjoy the rest of your day.

Amazing.  All the reader has to do is read your earlier postings to see that you simply don't know how to tell the truth.  A really credible person you are, obviously.

I think I'll go outside now and enjoy the rest of my day.  Have fun reinventing the wheel, sweetie.

Julianne

I've read with interest the conversation between Julianne and Scrivener, largely about the credibility of posts and articles.

Here's how I recommend journalists (and targets of organized stalking and electronic harassment for that matter) deal with the credibility issue:

1. Always label statements with the appropriate degree of credibility, for example demonstrated fact, or opinion.

Everything that has not been demonstrated and published by a mainstream organization under their name and logo is opinion. This sounds like a harsh 
criterion, however, when a crime is denied by every level of government as being 'real,' then this harsh criterion must be used in speaking and writing.

2. There is the matter of first person objective descriptions of what has happened to them, and/or what they directly witnessed. First person testimonials are given great weight in court, however, testimony requires a favourable court verdict before it can be treated as fact, for practical purposes. So, first person testimonials aren't fact, but they deserve the same respect as witnesses in court, as long as they don't stray away from what was 
objectively experienced or witnessed. Here, a speaker/writer can simply label personal testimonial as information that has been "reported."

3. For technology claims, and for the practical realities of speaking or writing about electronic harassment, which has considerable backup showing it has been possible for decades, the criterion for stating a claim as fact should 
be that a demonstration, published by a mainstream organization under their name logo (well qualified individuals aren't sufficient in this crime arena) 
showing EXACTLY one or more of the claimed attack types reported was actually carried out. The key concepts are "demonstration" , "mainstream organization" , 
and "exact replication of a reported attack type."

4. For organized stalking, we do not yet have rock solid proof of the exact type of activity we are reporting. We DO, however, have some mainstream statistics that certainly show that stalking by groups happens and is being handled by some justice systems. Brief mention of those statistics are posted here:

on the multistalkervictims dot org site, sub-page stats dot htm

We also have quotes from two interesting books by an American private investigator, who claims to have infiltrated some of the stalking groups in the 
U.S. and Canada:

on the multistalkervictims dot org site, sub-page lawson dot htm

Interestingly, David Lawson, the detective, found some linkage to corporate use of stalking groups, and some indication that these stalking groups hire themselves out for other "work."

5. There are currently five through-wall- capable electronic technologies which have been demonstrated and patented, and can replicate enough of the attack 
types reported by electronic harassment targets that they alone could covertly totally ruin someone's life with a good chance a stalking group could accomplish this without being caught:

on the raven1 dot net site, sub-page proventechs dot htm

I'm not aware of an actual demonstration of attacks of the exact type reported being handled from a satellite. "Exact type" includes people in close proximity to targets feeling no attack whatsoever, and that would have to be demonstrated, using existing radio frequency technology, before I would put such a claim into anything I were to write. As a retired engineer and ham radio operator for 54 years, I have serious doubts that this could be accomplished using RF signals.

So in summary, clearly label information as either fact, backed up by a mainstream-acknowledged demonstration, or someone's opinion. Label first 
person testimony as such, giving it the same respect as witness testimony in court.

An article acknowledging the information at the above links is going to show readers evidence that will convince open minded readers that the crime of organized stalking and electronic harassment deserves serious investigation by those paid and sworn to protect the public. Some folks are contrarians, others may actually be COINTELPRO-style cover up agents.

I don't recommend worrying too much about the naysayers - the truth has a magic all its own and will be heard.

Amen to that.

I have also noticed, somewhat to my own dismay, the 'minor-skirmish' which has flared up. See how the ancient method of 'divide-and-conquer' works 'in the trenches' ? We have all been conditioned to behave towards one another in this way. It's more or less unconcious.

Please take a chance, and look into the following link, at least as a starting point -

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/I-messages/

IMHO, unless we figure out how to all get on the same team, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of making any difference whatsoever ...

Here's to Victory !

I keep seeing this woman say that these assaults are "for life".

I also keep seeing things like the "Here's to victory" of the poster above.

There is not a "victory" necessary, these are crimes committed by psychopaths through their armies of fools.

This is America last time I looked and I will never give up.

There has to be a majority of people who will seek the truth and justice as intended by our well thought out constitution.