Tuesday, 8 November 2016

Simple truths that prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that targets are not delusional

Simple truths that prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that targets are not delusional
Myron May: He reported a stalking incident almost identical to a personal experience I shared in my book a decade ago

Myron May, the man alleged to have shot and wounded three students during an attack on the Strozier Library on the Tallahassee campus of Florida State University, USA, on the 20th of November 2014, once wrote of a personal experience that was eerily similar to an experience I went through myself almost 10 years before this.

While at a gas station, Myron noticed that a total stranger was simulating every action he made, imitation so thorough it unnerved him. This fact can be deduced from the manner Myron described the incident.

“It was really creepy,” he said. “Everything I did, he did.”

It is fortunate that I mentioned my experience in one of the many anecdotes in my book "Coherent Madness: Effective Defence Against Covert Warfare" hosted on this blog, fortunate because I can as a result not be accused of opportunism. Nobody can say I am making this up to suit the tale I want to tell.

The passage that describes my experience, found in Chapter 4 of the book mentioned before, titled "Why People Become Targets of Covert Warfare", under the heading "Mentacide: Deliberate Destruction of the Mind", is pasted below:

"... I was busy doing this exercise one day in the summer, with curtains drawn, when I heard coughing and splattering outside my window. I looked out from the first floor, onto the backyard below and saw this man whose reaction made me realize at once the splattering had been aimed at attracting my attention. There he stood, simulating the motions I had just been going through, right down to the last point, though he could hardly keep his balance as well as I could.

The similarity of the experience (and the fact it occurred to two people living thousands of miles apart who both affirmed at the time that they were targets of covert warfare) is evidence of an MO (modus operandi) that a real, life invading force in society has taken to to unnerve those it targets. It is part of this group's psychological operation method.

You would think the fact this can be proven by merely taking account of the many instances when the same experience is reported by targets who are geographically separated makes it impossible for those with a need to pin the delusional/psychotic or "unhinged mind" label on Myron or myself to do so without either proving Myron's account was sourced from my book, or providing a simple scientific explanation that shows clearly what this "novel" mental condition is that causes two people separated not just by distance (4300 miles or 7000 kilometres from London, UK to Florida, USA in the case of Myron and me), but time as well (10 years in the case of Myron and me) to make an identical experience.

But in this world we live in, this does not deter those with a need to convince the world those who call themselves targets of covert warfare are just mentally unhinged and/or paranoid and imagining things.

Compare what happened to Myron and myself to two people living in different parts of the world who have "actual" mental issues. They are seeing things that are not there, and hearing voices. Then it so happens that they hear the same thing, or get visions that are very similar. This in itself should dispel any doubt people have that their experiences have an external source as the cause.

Such is the need of the powers-that-be to keep this program going and its victims isolated and vulnerable that the mainstream media they control will do anything to convince the general public that those who bring forth reports they are being attacked covertly have mental issues.

And when some of these people go out and do something unspeakable, the media rushes in and is at pains to use any means available to make the incident stand as proof of the mental state of those waving the targeted individual banner. They engage so vigorously in this activity one cannot help wondering whether some of these violent events are in fact engineered (by media handlers) with this purpose in mind.

Though it is a plus for targets to document as much of that which can prove to the sleeping masses, beyond a shadow of doubt, that they are in fact being truthful, not delusional (which is what I hope this anecdote will do in the case of a sad event that has been widely circulated by the leading media itself), it is hard to win when up against a powerful opponent that doesn't know reason or options.

Let us keep in mind here that Myron May is not the only targeted individual who went postal, whose rampage was used by the mainstream media in its perpetual efforts to destroy the credibility of the group of people who are targets of covert warfare, and, as the ultimate objective, have society consider them dangers to it, then section each and every one of them as soon as they are identified as such.

There are other cases where it is known that the individual at the center was under the covert warfare influence (and they were aware of it). They start with the naturalised American of Vietnamese origin Jiverly Antares Wong, involved in the 2009 Binghamton shootings. Jiverly is known to have expressed resentment of the fact he had been turned into a needy man at that point in his life because of covert attacks.

Aaron Alexis, the September 2013 Navy Yard shooter, was actively networking with other targets of covert warfare online before his rampage.

He etched the words "My ELF Weapon" on the gun he used in the Navy Yard shootings, a fact that some have argued provided more proof he was in fact targeted with mind control weapons ... apart from the many other things he said.

Just recently, in July of this year in fact, a former US marine, Gavin Eugene Long, shot 6 policemen on his birthday (birthday present?), killing 3. Gavin also knew that he was a target of covert warfare and was actively networking with other targeted individuals online.

The news of the shootings in which these four people were involved hit the headlines and commentary sections of mainstream media outlets. Reporters met their own selves around corners fetching bits and pieces from the lives of these men that they felt could be used to heighten the walls around the group to which they belonged. The info they gleaned would then get pasted into contexts in a manner that distorted the truth.

Fallacious reasoning upon another was produced regarding the state of these men's mental health, then printed and reprinted as the media made efforts to have the lie believed by constant repetition because, in truth, there is very little evidence in the personal lives of all 4 of these men that suggests they were having problems thinking properly or normally, or that they had thought disorder (psychosis).

What defines an individual as a mental case is not how strange what they do or say is, but whether their mental apparatus is malfunctioning.

In the absence of references that can help ascertain the mental state of an individual, the alternative that can be relied on for the purpose of knowing whether someone still retains the capacity to process reality correctly is speech consistency.

If an individual is able to express themselves clearly and be understood, or they are able to explain what they are doing and why in the clearest of terms, then the reason they are saying or doing what is not normally said or done lies elsewhere, not in a malfunctioning mental apparatus.

Remember here that there are people in jail deemed unfit for mental institutions despite the fact they have commited crimes most normal human beings would not even imagine ... without this suggesting that they are mad. There is a reason actions of an extreme nature are sometimes classed as premeditated, why this does not reflect on the state of the mental apparatus of the actor, but on the state of their heart.

Let me give an example of what I mean by way of an anecdote. A true story from the Netherlands has two police officers on patrol. While traversing wooded terrain, they drive past a kangaroo. The Netherlands is not this creature's natural habitat, so, then, this is a strange sighting.

Both men see the kangaroo but fail to share this because they doubt their perceptions, and are fearful the other will think they have lost their minds, which could have bad consequences for their lives.

Only later, not very long afterwards, does the realisation dawn to each one that the other has in fact also seen the creature. Only then do the two get the needed courage to verify the perception with the other.

Now, here's the question: if one of the men had immediately expressed surprise at what he had seen and not kept it to himself, would the other have considered him insane if his attention had been averted and he had not seen the kangaroo?

Unfortunately, the answer to this depends on how informed the other cop is. An uninformed individual would not bother to check the signs of mental health before giving his verdict. This "checking" actually happens automatically, and can be considered a mental activity of the pre-conscious mind.

Let us get informed, so that we get it right even when we may not know some facts. Seeing a kangaroo on the North Pole and saying it out loud should in fact not be construed as a sign someone has lost it if there is no indication in their "logical faculty activity" till that point and after that there is a fault with the potential to lead to an error such as seeing things that are not really there. If one plus one is making two in their head, and it is clear to see, then their perceptions are discerning and normal.

The strange reality they are relaying does not reflect on something awry between their ears, but in their visual field ... it is external to their person. There most probably is a kangaroo running around the North Pole, and they happened to see it.

That this is not how the layman thinks when confronted with matters of this kind cannot be disputed. This truth is clear from the behaviour of the two Dutch policemen in the story. It is normal in society for people to get sure someone is mad even when they have no factual basis to make this conclusion save that which they hear in the person's vocal emanations.

We can expect this behaviour from the layman, but we need to understand that it is a reflection of poor standards when someone who is supposed to know better, such as a reporter for a major news outlet, whose responsibilities require that they have an education that elevates their consciousness to the point such matters are abundantly clear, is displaying the ignorance.

Below I will paste some remarks made by people reporting on the 4 men mentioned before, writing for some of the west's leading news outlets, that are demonstrations of ignorance, if not intellectual fraud, something you would expect from a prostitute for the system;

Writing for The Guardian UK on Monday the 18th of July 2016, Jon Swaine states about Gavin Long:

"His history of rambling postings indicated that the attack was motivated at least in part by killings by police of black Americans in recent years and the resulting unrest".

Swaine is diverting the issue, choosing his words very carefully. He wants to appear like the expert giving his opinion on what actually caused Gavin to act the way he did, which is the police brutality issue. He also strongly hints at a mental condition he has diagnosed, hence the placing of the word "rambling", and if you have not done some footwork of your own on Gavin, these words will sound truthful. But as soon as you have seen the videos, Swaine, who gives the impression he has done some fundamental studies in psychology, will seem like a man who doesn't quite understand what it is to ramble. But then he knows what the most reliable indicator of mental health is ... and he is using it against Gavin.

The fact of the matter is this, that Gavin does not ramble in any of the videos he makes or texts he writes. He shows moods, and some manners of speech that can be considered idiosyncratic or ethnic. They are, however, hardly hallmarks of a mental apparatus that is failing to think connectedly.

Some of Gavin's videos are still on YouTube, and I challenge you to view them with an eye on incoherent, mad-man speak, ranting, etc. You will not find any of this.

What you will find will make you wonder at Swaine's motivation for using language such as "a frequently incoherent rant" about a short video a relaxed looking Gavin made in a Baton Rouge hotel room that was quite the opposite of this.

Among the four, Myron May is perhaps the best example of an individual with an above average capacity for coherent expression while writing somewhat convoluted passages. He uses English that is grammatically better than most people. This may be because of all that legal jargon he immersed his head in.

Myron makes no single post to his facebook wall that is incoherent, nor does he make a video post to YouTube in which his talk is not easy to follow and understand, yet an article published on Thursday, January 29, 2015 in the New York Times, by Sasha Goldstein, selected the wording in the following passage to describe him.

"May, who believed the government was reading his mind, sent parcels to acquaintances containing rambling journals about his paranoia."

Again, as was the case with the previous writer, Sasha Goldstein selects the words and passages carefully, so that they give a desired impression.

She deliberately creates a context that makes the act of suspecting the government of using advanced technologies to invade lives a sure sign someone is having mental issues, not an issue of suspicion, preconception, cynicism, maybe even scepticism, or any of the many mindsets research, experience, hearsay or mere rationalisation can put one into, leading to such a belief. She achieves this by simply placing lies about her subject in between the lines, false statements that refer to well known indicators of mental health issues (rambling journals about his paranoia).

As is the case with Gavin Long, all it takes is one look at the material in question and the lies with a revealing focus on mental health are exposed. I say "revealing" because these lies suggest strongly that writers such as Swaine and Goldstein are aware of more than can be suspected. They must know that those they write about are telling the truth and, crucially, that they are having their minds affected. They understand perfectly the role they are playing in this operation, which is helping make the prison that holds such people inescapable.

Mike McPhate is perhaps the best example of a writer doing this. Writing for the New York Times, his article "United States of Paranoia: They See Gangs of Stalkers" published in the health section of this news outlet, on the 10th of June 2016, assumes mental health issues from the get-go, in the heading, complete with an opening that is basic sophistry, with some borrowing of the demagogue's methods.

In starting off writing "Nobody believed him", McPhate is hoping his readers will make the mistake of taking it for granted that being in a minority of one equals mad. His next sentence delves even deeper and callously into the art of the demagogue when he makes the appeal "His family told him to get help".

"Well, obviously, if nobody believed him and his family told him to get help, then he must have mental issues", McPhate's logic reads.

The rest of his article is the same, full of assumptions reached by fallacious reasoning, appeals to prejudice and a play on ignorance. He quotes many uncited sources, and those he does cite, for instance a Dr. Lorraine Sheridan, co-author of what he says is perhaps the only study of gang-stalking, has this to say:

"the community poses a danger that sets it apart from other groups promoting troubling ideas, such as anorexia or suicide."

Now, clearly, this woman authored a book on a phenomenon she does not fully understand. Being a target of covert warfare is not the mere promotion of an idea in the same manner anorexia or suicide is promoted.

It is true of targets of covert warfare, and of many other groups created by people with similar fates through time, that those who are having similar experiences can be attracted to the idea of being with others whose misery is akin to theirs.

This, however, and logically at that, is not the major objective where groupings of targets of covert warfare are concerned.

Sheridan also indulges in the tendency of Mcphate to use misnomers to describe targets of covert warfare. She calls them (us) psychotic, yet, as she must be aware given her research, this group is doing far much more than those who are truly psychotic can manage, those who couldn't possibly organise as well because, as per definition, they have a "thought disorder" that progressively makes them lose contact with reality.


What planet does she come from? It must be clear to her that targets of covert warfare are competent people, some managing to do much more than normal people can. They are writing coherent books, organising rallies, maintaining mega websites, and so on. Can her imagined group of psychotics, paranoids, and schizoids, manage the activity? Will their encumbering mental conditions allow them such expansive organizational initiative and creativity?

Mcphate, and the professionals he cites, have the intelligence to see targets of covert warfare in their true light. They know that the urge to reach out, to network with others is because they are trying to understand what is happening to them, who is doing it to them and why. They are trying to find ways to stop their abuse, sharing resources, sharing experiences, attempting to raise awareness, and so on.

These cannot be the actions that people who are paranoid, schizophrenic and psychotic as well can manage. In truth, there is nothing wrong with the actions of targets of covert warfare in that they are making a very natural reaction. This is what anybody who is normal would do when placed in the shoes targets describe.

And this need to ignore truths that cast a shadow of doubt on what the writer has been instructed to make his readers believe targets are can clearly be sensed in this, and all the other articles that have dared make a foray into the discredit-targets-of-covert-warfare territory.

A good example here is McPhate's ignoring of the implication of words he puts in his own article that are spoken by a target of covert warfare. An example here are statements made by author, anesthesiologist, Dr. Hall who says:

"The similarities of the cases speak to a wide-ranging campaign ... If the psychiatrists want to say that this is schizophrenia or delusional disorder, that’s fine. But every one of these victims have the same story”.

Ignoring these words equates to making the assumption they carry no weight, and yet they are an accurate description of a phenomenon that has yet to be acknowledged as a new mental disorder, highlighted by the fact those affected experience the same or similar things, irrespective of where in the world they are.

The simple reason those who run things are trying so hard to sweep the obvious under the carpet can only be the fact they know the condition is not natural, but the result of the widespread use of new, highly invasive technologies by a single source for the purpose of control.

No comments: