I. Who are the perpetrators of GangStalking? (August 1, 2020)
https://www.goyimtv.com/v/1374849353/Who-are-the-perpetrators-of-GangStalking-
Published on Aug 1, 2020
www.gofundme.com/targeted-individual-needs-tiny-home
“Gang Stalking” is, very likely, a disinformation term created by U.S. intelligence agencies. It refers to the intense, long-term, unconstitutional surveillance and harassment of a person who has been designated as a target by someone associated with America’s security industry.
Such operations have nothing to do with criminal gangs. Official domestic counterintelligence operations of this type are – apparently – perpetrated by federal agents and intelligence/security contractors, sometimes with the support of state and local law enforcement personnel. Unofficial operations of this type are, apparently, perpetrated by private investigators and vigilantes – including former agents and cops, some of whom are members of the quasi-governmental Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Units (LEIU), sometimes on behalf of corporate clients and others with connections to the public and private elements of America’s security industry.
The goal of such operations – in the parlance of counterintelligence agents – is “disruption” of the life of an individual deemed to be an enemy (or potential enemy) of clients or members of the security state. Arguably, the most accurate term for this form of harassment would be “counterintelligence stalking.” Agents of communist East Germany’s Stasi (state police) referred to the process as Zersetzung (German for “decomposition” or “corrosion” – a reference to the severe psychological, social, and financial effects upon the victim). American and British victims have described the process as “no-touch torture” – a phrase which also captures the nature of the crime: cowardly, unethical (and often illegal), but difficult to prove legally because it generates minimal forensic evidence.
Tactics include – but are not limited to – slander, blacklisting, “mobbing” (intense, organized harassment in the workplace), “black bag jobs” (residential break-ins), abusive phone calls, computer hacking, framing, threats, blackmail, vandalism, “street theater” (staged physical and verbal interactions with minions of the people who orchestrate the stalking), harassment by noises, and other forms of bullying.
Both the facts and the geographical distribution of relevant published news reports – as well as other evidence cited on this website – suggest that such stalking is sanctioned (and in some cases, orchestrated) by federal agencies; however, news reports, credible anecdotal information, and my own experiences, indicate that such stalking is also sometimes used unofficially for personal and corporate vendettas by current and former corrupt employees of law enforcement and intelligence agencies, private investigators, and their clients.
Since counterintelligence stalking goes far beyond surveillance – into the realm of psychological terrorism, it is essentially a form of extrajudicial punishment. As such, the harassment is illegal – even when done by the government. It clearly violates, for example, the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unwarranted searches, and the Sixth Amendment – which guarantees the right to a trial. Such operations also violate similar fundamental rights defined by state constitutions. Stalking is also specifically prohibited by the criminal codes of every state in America.
Crimes against Americans at the hands of corrupt government agents and private security thugs have a long history in the U.S. The FBI’s COINTELPRO (“Counterintelligence Program”) scandal in the 1970s was the most notorious high-profile example, but similar abuses of power by “Red Squads” (state and local Law Enforcement Intelligence Units) and private detectives date back to the 19th century.
If you like my videos and want to support a victim of non consensual human experimentation / organized stalking check out my online shop.
www.etsy.com/shop/cloudbusterz
Comments
WickedRyan79 457 days ago
How many people are important enough for gangstakers to go through all this trouble and get paid for it? It doesn’t make sense. You’re just paranoid.
CandyWeiseWoman
CandyWeiseWoman 683 days ago
speaking of “nut jobs” this dude has an unsightly tat showing on his neck and right hand… really? so HE is someone who is really employable? could it be that HE is going to be a PERP? LOL!!! I dunno man… everyone is getting super paranoid, crazed, and self-mutiliating. Seems like EVIL to me.
II. Who Are The Perpetrators Behind Gangstalking ??????????????????
13 Comments
Jon holms
1 year ago (edited)
I’ve heard Mr. Lawson’s commentary/description of. The irony, I’ve been closely associated with Buffalo since 2001 where I attended college at the time. That location has been beyond horrible pertaining to the foolish citizens that would and still relentlessly harass me at that local. That is, the police and 1st responders, common fools from diverse classes and cultures, hospitals and other social group/institutions. That region along with most other locals have this same disease.
Roy Rodriguez
1 year ago
WE ALREADY FIGURED IT OUT!! MERRY XMAS
Roy Rodriguez
1 year ago
MERRY XMAS!!!!
III. gangstalking explained using the fbi, cia and jttf websites- masonry and the Rockefeller gmos
2 Comments
Eric Karlstrom
Add a comment…
mec loc
mec loc
7 years ago
Political Action Group (PAG) is responsible for covert activities related to political influence, psychological operations and economic warfare. The rapid development of technology has added cyberwarfare to their mission. Tactical units within SAD are also capable of carrying out covert political action while deployed in hostile and austere environments. A large covert operation usually has components that involve many, or all, of these categories, as well as paramilitary operations. Political and Influence covert operations are used to support U.S. foreign policy. Often overt support for one element of an insurgency would be counter-productive due to the impression it would have on the local population. In such cases, covert assistance allows the U.S. to assist without damaging these elements in the process. Many of the other activities (such as propaganda, economic and cyber) support the overall political effort. There have been issues in the past with attempts to influence the US media such as in Operation Mockingbird. However, these activities are now subject to the same oversight as all covert action operations.[6]
questions?
Operation Mockingbird was a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, and was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA. The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA’s views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA.In addition to earlier exposés of CIA activities in foreign affairs, in 1966, Ramparts magazine published an article revealing that the National Student Association was funded by the CIA. The United States Congress investigated the allegations and published a report in 1976. Other accounts were also published. The media operation was first called Mockingbird in Deborah Davis’s 1979 book, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and her Washington Post Empire.[citation needed]
Show less
Reply ·
mec loc 5 minutes ago
According to the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures, the CIA’s fiscal 2013 budget is $14.7 billion, 28% of the total and almost 50% more than the budget of the National Security Agency. CIA’s HUMINT budget is $2.3 billion, the SIGINT budget is $1.7 billion, and spending for security and logistics of CIA missions is $2.5 billion.
Human Intelligence (frequently abbreviated HUMINT) is intelligence gathered by means of interpersonal contact, as opposed to the more technical intelligence gathering disciplines such as signals intelligence (SIGINT), imagery intelligence (IMINT) and measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT).
NATO defines HUMINT as “a category of intelligence derived from information collected and provided by human sources.”[1] Typical HUMINT activities consist of interrogations and conversations with persons having access to information.
They are our nation’s front line on terrorism: small cells of highly trained, locally based, passionately committed investigators, analysts, linguists, SWAT experts, and other specialists from dozens of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
When it comes to investigating terrorism, they do it all: chase down leads, gather evidence, make arrests, provide security for special events, conduct training, collect and share intelligence, and respond to threats and incidents at a moment’s notice.
They are the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces, or JTTFs.
The task forces are based in 104 cities nationwide, including at least one in each of our 56 field offices. A total of 71 of these JTTFs have been created since 9/11; the first was established in New York City in 1980.
An FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force member in New York gathers bits of evidence. AP Photo.
An FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force member in New York gathers bits of evidence. AP Photo.
Today, the JTTFs include approximately 4,000 members nationwide—more than four times the pre-9/11 total—hailing from over 500 state and local agencies and 55 federal agencies (the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. military, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Transportation Security Administration, to name a few).
The benefits of JTTFs? They provide one-stop shopping for information regarding terrorist activities. They enable a shared intelligence base across many agencies. They create familiarity among investigators and managers before a crisis. And perhaps most importantly, they pool talents, skills, and knowledge from across the law enforcement and intelligence communities into a single team that responds together.
Their contributions? More than we could possibly capture here, but JTTFs have been instrumental in breaking up cells like the “Portland Seven,” the “Lackawanna Six,” and the Northern Virginia jihad. They’ve foiled attacks on the Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey, on the JFK International Airport in New York, and on various military and civilian targets in Los Angeles. They’ve traced sources of terrorist funding, responded to anthrax threats, halted the use of fake IDs, and quickly arrested suspicious characters with all kinds of deadly weapons and explosives. Chances are, if you hear about a counterterrorism investigation, JTTFs are playing an active and often decisive role.
The IC provides significant operational support to deployed military forces engaged in counterterrorism and other missions. Immediately following the 11 September terrorist attacks against the United States, the Intelligence Community surged to support US and allied military operations against Usama Bin Ladin’s al-Qa’ida terrorist group in Afghanistan and the Afghan Taliban regime that provided the al-Qa’ida sanctuary.
DIA convened the Military Intelligence Board (MIB), with participants from all nine Unified Commands, JCS/J2, the Service intelligence chiefs, CIA, National Security Agency, National Imagery and Mapping Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, US Coast Guard, OSD, and FBI, to organize support for US Central Command in preparation for Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. All support issues were addressed rapidly by the MIB.
DIA’s Joint Intelligence Task Force—Combating Terrorism provided extensive targeting intelligence support in preparation for Operation ENDURING FREEDOM.
DIA deployed a valuable counterterrorism web-centric collaborative tool. It has since been available worldwide around the clock to those with appropriate access and has been used by both warfighters and targeteers.
DIA printed more than 75,000 copies of country handbooks on Afghanistan for forces preparing to deploy for Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and disseminated geospatial operational support packages for tactical operations in Afghanistan. These packages help military planners track and monitor potential escape routes of al-Qa’ida leaders. Numerous products were disseminated to other government agencies and partners in preparation for the war on terrorism.
A NIMA Support Team provided on-the-scene support to the National Military Joint Intelligence Center (NMJIC), Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the immediate aftermath of the 11 September attack on the Pentagon.
The US Strategic Command’s Joint Intelligence Center (STRATJIC) set up an around-the-clock intelligence task force last August and executed DoD’s first application of the groundbreaking Crisis Intelligence Federation Concept of Operations. Because of procedures developed by the STRATJIC, the task force was able to transition immediately from its original purpose of supporting a military operation in Korea to preparing to support Operation ENDURING FREEDOM in Afghanistan.
CIA analysts provided senior policymakers with analysis on Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia. CIA helped senior policymakers gauge and maintain Allied political and military support for the war in Afghanistan.
The task forces coordinate their efforts largely through the interagency National Joint Terrorism Task Force, working out of FBI Headquarters, which makes sure that information and intelligence flows freely among the local JTTFs and beyond.
And here’s the final—and most important—thing you should know about these JTTFs: They are working 24/7/365 to protect you, your families, and your communities from terrorist attack.
There is controversy over GMOs, especially with regard to their use in producing food. The dispute involves buyers, biotechnology companies, governmental regulators, non-governmental organizations, and scientists. The key areas of controversy related to GMO food are whether GM food should be labeled, the role of government regulators, the effect of GM crops on health and the environment, the effect on pesticide resistance, the impact of GM crops for farmers, and the role of GM crops in feeding the world population.
There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food.[111][112][113][114] No reports of ill effects have been proven in the human population from ingesting GM food.[111][115][116][117] Although labeling of GMO products in the marketplace is required in many countries, it is not required in the United States and no distinction between marketed GMO and non-GMO foods is recognized by the US FDA. In a May 2014 article in The Economist it was argued that, while GM foods could potentially help feed 842 million malnourished people globally, laws such as those being considered by Vermont’s governor, Peter Shumlin, to require labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients, could have the unintended consequence of interrupting the benign process of spreading GM technologies to impoverished countries that suffer with food security problems.[111]
Opponents of genetically modified food such as the advocacy groups Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists,[118][119][120][121][122] and Greenpeace claim risks have not been adequately identified and managed, and they have questioned the objectivity of regulatory authorities. Some health groups say there are unanswered questions regarding the potential long-term impact on human health from food derived from GMOs, and propose mandatory labeling[123][124] or a moratorium on such products.[125][126][127] Concerns include contamination of the non-genetically modified food supply,[128] effects of GMOs on the environment and nature,[125][127] the rigor of the regulatory process,[126][129] and consolidation of control of the food supply in companies that make and sell GMOs.[125]
Before the FDA decided to allow GMOs into food without labeling, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored.
1. GMOs are unhealthy.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses.
Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just 9 years; food allergies skyrocketed, and disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others are on the rise. Although there is not sufficient research to confirm that GMOs are a contributing factor, doctors groups such as the AAEM tell us not to wait before we start protecting ourselves, and especially our children who are most at risk.
The American Public Health Association and American Nurses Association are among many medical groups that condemn the use of GM bovine growth hormone, because the milk from treated cows has more of the hormone IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)―which is linked to cancer.
2. GMOs contaminate―forever.
GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel. It is impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential impact is huge, threatening the health of future generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.
3. GMOs increase herbicide use.
Most GM crops are engineered to be “herbicide tolerant”―they deadly weed killer. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide.
Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in “superweeds,” resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.
4. Genetic engineering creates dangerous side effects.
By mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects. Moreover, irrespective of the type of genes that are inserted, the very process of creating a GM plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies.
5. Government oversight is dangerously lax.
Most of the health and environmental risks of GMOs are ignored by governments’ superficial regulations and safety assessments. The reason for this tragedy is largely political. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, doesn’t require a single safety study, does not mandate labeling of GMOs, and allows companies to put their GM foods onto the market without even notifying the agency. Their justification was the claim that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different. But this was a lie. Secret agency memos made public by a lawsuit show that the overwhelming consensus even among the FDA’s own scientists was that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. They urged long-term safety studies. But the White House had instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology, and the agency official in charge of policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, later their vice president. He’s now the US Food Safety Czar.
6. The biotech industry uses “tobacco science” to claim product safety.
Biotech companies like Monsanto told us that Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT were safe. They are now using the same type of superficial, rigged research to try and convince us that GMOs are safe. Independent scientists, however, have caught the spin-masters red-handed, demonstrating without doubt how industry-funded research is designed to avoid finding problems, and how adverse findings are distorted or denied.
7. Independent research and reporting is attacked and suppressed.
Scientists who discover problems with GMOs have been attacked, gagged, fired, threatened, and denied funding. The journal Nature acknowledged that a “large block of scientists . . . denigrate research by other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is not helpful in advancing knowledge.” Attempts by media to expose problems are also often censored.
8. GMOs harm the environment.
GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds.
9. GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.
Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report Failure to Yield―the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.
The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report, authored by more than 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, stated that GM crop yields were “highly variable” and in some cases, “yields declined.” The report noted, “Assessment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable.” They determined that the current GMOs have nothing to offer the goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
On the contrary, GMOs divert money and resources that would otherwise be spent on more safe, reliable, and appropriate technologies.
10. By avoiding GMOs, you contribute to the coming tipping point of consumer rejection, forcing them out of our food supply.
Because GMOs give no consumer benefits, if even a small percentage of us start rejecting brands that contain them, GM ingredients will become a marketing liability. Food companies will kick them out. In Europe, for example, the tipping point was achieved in 1999, just after a high profile GMO safety scandal hit the papers and alerted citizens to the potential dangers. In the US, a consumer rebellion against GM bovine growth hormone has also reached a tipping point, kicked the cow drug out of dairy products by Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon, Yoplait, and most of America’s dairies.
The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to achieve a tipping point against GMOs in the US. The number of non-GMO shoppers needed is probably just 5% of the population. The key is to educate consumers about the documented health dangers and provide a Non-GMO Shopping Guide to make avoiding GMOs much easier. responsible technology . org institute for responsible technology
mec loc
7 years ago
King James Bible
genesis 3:5
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.