The Sickness Racism Breeds

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I do, all the time. But 'gang-stalking' is a concerted effort on the part of a community at large to ruin every part of a person's life, social, professional, and economic.

To claim to be gang-stalked, you're saying that 'everyone' is out to get you.

You feel everything is part of a vast conspiracy aimed directly at you.

That's more commonly known as paranoia.

I noticed you didn't answer my question about what your law enforcemetn role is, nonetheless your definition of "gang stalking" is not the accepted definition. By no means does it "everyone" needs to be involved, it's merely a crimina/civil conspiracy to cause harm. As the statutes indicate only two or more individuals need be involved.

The reason that I asked if you work with domestic violence victims is because if you do, you would know that stalking is very often a component of domestic violence and all it takes according to the statutes in my jurisdiction is for one other individual to do anything on behalf of the abuser involved keeping tabs on the victims movements/location, tracking, following or maintaining surveillance for it to be considered "stalking-by-proxy" or "third-party-stalking. Only licensed investigators are allowed to conduct surveillance, anyone else is in violation of our stalking laws, however that doesn't mean that licensed investigators cannot be stalkers as well. There's a pretty famous case here where the investigator was never referred to as a stalker but without her license (which she lost) that's exactly what anyone would have been charged with.

Aside from the civil/criminal conspiracy, gang stalking can also be thought of as a malicious/criminal flash mob. This much has been documented and the FBI has evidence of "gang stalking" in America which was revealed through a discovery request in connection with a FOIA lawsuit.

Attempting to paint the victim(s) in the false light of paranoia is a known tactic deployed to defeat or hinder their ability to obtain assistance.

 

[yiostheoy]

Somebody sent this to me today. Physically a beautiful Black girl who honestly believes she is white and hates Black people. This is a true sickness that comes straight from racism.

Same thing as Michael Jackson and his skin bleaching.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I am. I've heard people make the claim that they are 'gang stalked' or 'mob stalked'. But, they never can answer the simple question. "In order for a person to be targeted by a community, wouldn't the entire community have to be in on the targeting?"

Mostly, the idea that you're the object of a vast public conspiracy is classic symptom of narcissism.

Are you a detective or patrol officer?

Gang Stalking by Another Name

A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. One person may be charged with and convicted of both conspiracy and the underlying crime based on the same circumstances.

A civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective.[1] A conspiracy may also refer to a group of people who make an agreement to form a partnership in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member and engage in planning or agreeing to commit some act. It is not necessary that the conspirators be involved in all stages of planning or be aware of all details. Any voluntary agreement and some overt act by one conspirator in furtherance of the plan are the main elements necessary to prove a conspiracy. A conspiracy may exist whether legal means are used to accomplish illegal results, or illegal means used to accomplish something legal.[2] "Even when no crime is involved, a civil action for conspiracy may be brought by the persons who were damaged."[1]
​

You ever work with domestic violence victims?

I do, all the time. But 'gang-stalking' is a concerted effort on the part of a community at large to ruin every part of a person's life, social, professional, and economic.

To claim to be gang-stalked, you're saying that 'everyone' is out to get you.

You feel everything is part of a vast conspiracy aimed directly at you.

That's more commonly known as paranoia.

I don't think that's exactly the case. And it has been done.

I don't know enough about fncceo to say that his response is typical, but this is a very typical response from cops unless you're someone who has a family member or friend in law enforcement who can either pull some strings. The point is if no one believes the victim then they're not going to do anything to attempt to assist the victim which then assists the perpetrator.

 

[IM2]

You have insulted my intelligence a number of times and called me every name in the book - stupid fucker, dumb bastard, moron, bitch, punk, foo', etc. - and you think you should get back respect and love. Not how it works.

Whites like you are funny. I don't give a fuck about your respect. If I did, I would not have said those things.

You do this all the time.

"Because most whites have not been trained to think with complexity about racism, and because it benefits white dominance not to do so, we have a very limited understanding of it (Kumashiro, 2009; LaDuke, 2009). We are th e least likely to see, comprehend, or be invested in validating people of color’s assertions of racism and being honest about their consequences (King, 1991).

Then you do this.

At the same time, because of white social, economic, and political power within a white dominant culture, whites are the group in the position to legitimize people of color’s assertions of racism.Being in this position engenders a form of racial arrogance, and in this racial arrogance, whites have little compunction about debating the knowledge of people who have thought deeply about race through research, study, peer-reviewed scholarship, deep and on-going critical self-reflection, interracial relationships, and lived experience (Chinnery, 2008).

Every time.

I know what racism is.

I don't make up racism. I have worked with, lived with, partied with and have maintained life long friendships with whites who are not racists. Not one of them say what you do. And we have had and continue to have the same types of conversations I have with you.

The comment how whites were weak because laws they made i discussed with white friends in the 1990's. A white republican lawyer said that to me in a discussion. He was one of our states best lawyers and his wife was a high ranking state elected republican official. In recent years when talking to them I've not heard them ever crying about white guilt or how whites are being taught to hate each other. So you are out of tune there buddy You have been brainwashed by white victimization and alt right crap.

 

[Asclepias]

Somebody sent this to me today. Physically a beautiful Black girl who honestly believes she is white and hates Black people. This is a true sickness that comes straight from racism.

Same thing as Michael Jackson and his skin bleaching.

Nope. MJ was definitely pro Black.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Oh for fuck's sake. Did you forget already that You're the one who said I didn't know what racism is?

Don't play stupid.

Don't play senile. Here is what you said to me in post #55: "We know what racism is. You don't."

Not only do you forget comments I tell you and remember comments I never told you, you can't even remember what you said.

Blacks have committed murder. Does this mean blacks are a murderous people as a race?

Did blacks make laws making it legal to kill whites and there would be no penalty?

Answer the question: Does this mean blacks are a murderous people as a race?

A principle is a principle that applies to everybody. If whites are a weak race or guilty based on the principle of their skin color then so are blacks and everybody else. Correlation is not causation.

So did the Tutsis.

The problem in Rwanda was a result of white colonization. You were shown that.

Is it or is it not true that the Tutsis agreed with the laws and participated in their enforcement and practice?

If that is true then you need to present research, study and peer-reviewed scholarship to that effect. Otherwise it's just more "I hates whitey" rhetorical dog vomit.

Really?

“I am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient GERMANS, the present TARTARS, have still something eminent about them in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant differences could not happen in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negroe slaves dispersed all over Europe, of which none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity, tho' low people, without education, will start up amonst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In JAMAICA indeed they talk of one negroe as a man of parts and learning; but 'tis likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments like a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly. “

David Hume, “Of National Characters”

In three separate works Kant claimed that the Negro is, in most respects, the lowest of all races. He also referred to blacks as the “bad race” and whites as “the good race,” argued that the white race contains “all incentives and talents,” and felt that whites were the “only ones who always progress toward perfection.”

To my knowledge, Kant never repudiated any of these explicitly racist claims.

Ryan Very, Kant’s Racism

How White People Invented Racism

Drawing from the Encyclopedia Brittanica (a surprisingly good resource for race theory), racism’s core ideology has three components. First, it’s the belief that humans are separated into biological categories called “races”. Second, it posits that racialized physical traits are the source of personality characteristics like intelligence, sexuality, and work ethic. Finally, the ideology holds that these racial categories exist within a hierarchy and that some races are superior to others.

While scientists have challenged race’s biological foundation, and many of us now understand race to be a social construct, “race has not lost its biological origins“. Although ethnocentricism, nationalism, and tribalism all predate race, it’s racial hierarchy’s pseudo biological foundation that sets it apart as a distinctly European invention. The treatment of the Ainu and burakumin in Japan, which was based in part on a biology-like concept of “polluted blood”, is the only precolonial non-European social hierarchy with similar characteristics to racism. Given the overall lack of precolonial non-White concepts of race, racism (and race itself) is the original “white people problem”.

How White People Invented Racism

Groups of humans have always identified themselves as distinct from neighboring groups, but such differences have not always been understood to be natural, immutable and global. These features are the distinguishing features of how the concept of race is used today. In this way the idea of race as we understand it today came about during the historical process of exploration and conquest which brought Europeans into contact with groups from different continents, and of the ideology of classification and typology found in the natural sciences.[35] The term race was often used in a general biological taxonomic sense,[15] starting from the 19th century, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.

Marks, Jonathan (2008). "Race: Past, present and future. Chapter 1". In Koenig, Barbara; Soo-Jin Lee, Sandra; Richardson, Sarah S. Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age. Rutgers University Press.

"Race2". Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 5 October 2012

Lie, John (2004). Modern Peoplehood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674013271.

Thompson, William; Hickey, Joseph (2005). Society in Focus. Boston: Pearson. ISBN 0-205-41365-X.

Keita, S. O. Y.; Kittles, R. A.; Royal, C. D. M.; Bonney, G. E.; Furbert-Harris, P.; Dunston, G. M.; Rotimi, C. N.; et al. (2004). "Conceptualizing human variation". Nature Genetics. 36 (11s): S17–S20. doi:10.1038/ng1455. PMID 15507998. Retrieved 5 September 2015.

Race (human categorization) - Wikipedia

There are many or citations in this link.[/quote]

From Stephens' article: "Although ethnocentricism, nationalism, and tribalism all predate race."

Ethnocentrism, nationalism, tribalism and racism are variations on the same theme: Thinking your group is superior. And tribalism has been going on throughout all of human history all the way back to before the first migrations out of Africa up to 150,000 years ago.

You're not white so how would you know?

It's pretty simple. I lived in a majority white town. I went majority white schools including college. I worked with white people for most of my working life. I had teammates on my sports teams that were white. I've had girlfriends and a wife that was white. I don't think you have had the same kind of exposure to blacks. Whites like you have been singing this sorry sad song for most of my life..

You still don't get it. You are not talking to blacks who have newer personally ben around white people.[/quote]

It was sarcasm. The only reason I said it is because you're always playing the "You're not black so you wouldn't understand" card.

First of all, these whites aren't criticizing themselves per se, they are criticizing the white race. Secondly, as I said above, I don't criticize everybody else, I criticize you. And if Handler or the professor were here now I would challenge and criticize them.

And why can't whites criticize the white race for things they have done and keep doing wrong?

Criticizing the actions of racist whites is one thing, criticizing the entire race, including non-racists, for the actions of racist whites is quite another.

I think that the whites who have done wrong should be ashamed for the things they have done. Should Muslims be ashamed for 9/11?

But those who benefited from the wrongs?

If they knew it was wrong then yes, maybe they should be. But if they didn't know, the solution is not telling them they are shit or should be ashamed. The solution is to educate them.

This is just incredible, I don't know what to say. Asclepias says outright that whites are the weaker race and you basically agree with him. And yet in spite of that, you turn it around on me and accuse me of the same fucking thing you guys did even though I never any such thing about blacks. Jesus Christ what an unmitigated hypocrite you are.

I never said anything about blacks being morally and mentally weaker and I don't think they are.

Well I'm no hypocrite.

If you say whites are the weaker race and then falsely accuse me of thinking the same thing about blacks and then call me a racist for doing the exact same thing you did then yes, you are a hypocrite.

When you look at what whites have done, what does it say to you about your own race?

Racism by whites doesn't tell me anything about the white race when I know that it was also whites who started the abolition movement in this country and that it was whites who abolished slavery.

Because whites do not say what they do about us based on a pattern of behavior or abuses that run the spectrum. And you want to ignore why things are said to make your conclusion because you are not able to deal with the truth. I can say that since I have dealt with negative things blacks have done. I have criticized blacks for bad behaviors and I have worked to change things I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING. So in my view YOU are weak because you can't do that and you are full of excuses of why you can't do that in the white community.

Good for you. I simply treat and regard blacks as equals and love my black grandniece and grandnephew unconditionally and respect their black father. If my black grandniece and grandnephew learn that their skin color doesn't matter to me and that they will always be loved equally by their white aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents then that is enough for me.

You see, the concept of race in the social and relationship aspect is a non-issue with these kids and I'd like it to stay that way. The last fucking thing they need is to hear someone like you say that their white mother is morally and mentally weaker because of her skin color. I am going to protect my black grandniece and grandnephew from blacks like you for as long as I can.

 

[Asclepias]

"How do you reconcile "weakness as a race" and "There are whites who know how to end it"?"

Pretty easy. Just because you know something is wrong doesnt mean you have the mental strength to correct it. Your question is akin to asking why do some financial advisors go broke.

You didn't say some whites know racism is wrong, you said some whites "know how to end it."

So you're saying some whites have the mental strength to know how to end racism but don't have the mental strength to end racism. Does that about sum it up? This is akin to saying a financial adviser has the mental strength to know how to make money but doesn't have the mental strength to make money.

Do you ever stop and read what you post? How is it that your head has not exploded by now with all of the cognitive dissonance clanging around in there?

"How does "I now hate white people" teach whites not to be racist?"

Probably because hating something doesnt mean you are racist. What kind of stupid question is that?

And if he had said: "I now hate black people.", would you still say it doesn't mean he is racist?

No I didnt say that but I do agree. Whites do know how to end it. If they dont then they are way less intelligent than I gave them credit for.

No. I am saying whites know how to end it. The fact that they dont shows they lack mental strength and or the will to do it.

Who's "they"? Whites? So no whites endeavor to stop racism?

Yes I stop to read what I post and I wonder how you graduated from school with your lack of reading comprehension. Youre asking questions anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the english languge should already know the answer to.

You're absolutely right, most of my questions can be answered by anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the english languge. But you would be surprised how often they are dodged and not answered.

A lot of my questions are designed to get my debate opponent to look at other aspects of an issue through the filter of their own biases and inconsistencies. IM2 contended that the professor who said "I now hate white people" was not necessarily racist. So I asked if he would feel the same way if the guy had said "I now hate black people". You know and I know and IM2 knows goddamned well that if he had said that, he would be called racist on the spot by both of you. After all, the both of you have called me racist for much less than that.

Yes "they" are whites. See here how I purposely ignore your deflecting question designed to float the "good white person" dynamic?

You answered the question and then say you purposely ignored it. WTF?

We are talking about whites as a race. Spare me the juvenile attempt to change the subject.

You always talk about whites as a race. That is precisely the problem and why I'm here.

Your questions are nothing to dodge. They just show you have bad reading comprehension. I dont waste time answering questions you should already know the answer to by reading my statement.

I did know the answer to the question. The idea was to get you to realize that you are painting white people, as a race, as weaker mentally and morally which is exactly what whites used to say about blacks a hundred years ago.

Unfortunately your design lacks any substance that would necessitate me using a different filter.

Okay, keep your biases.

I agree with IM2. Out of context you have no real knowledge of what he meant by that statement. The best bet would be to be in the room so you can observe his body language, contextual clues and past history to determine what he meant. I disagree. I dont call people racist unless I know the context of their comments. I learned long ago that sentences taken out of context typically are designed to elicit a specific response.

If you couldn't be bothered to go and read the original post for context then don't lecture me about context and hand me that puke about being in the same room. It was right fucking there for you to read.

If I called you a racist its because you are and have proven it to me. Dont get bent out of shape over it. Lots of people are racist.

Nothing has been proven to you, it is simply your opinion, nothing more. Besides, what you think of me is none of my business.

I answered your first question then I ignored the second deflecting question. Cant you read?

Of course I talk about whites as a race. You being here isnt going to alter that.

If you knew the answer to the question why ask a dumb question instead of just answering the question put to you?

Who told you I wasnt going to keep my biases?

Dont get angry. Get a better argument. You cant get context just by reading a quote. What kind of fool thinks thats true? You have to understand the context. In my case I go even further before making a determination.

I disagree. You have proven yourself to be a racist if I have called you a racist. See my above statement. There are a lot of criteria you have to meet in order for me to label you a racist. When I do there is no argument or discussion needed. You are a racist.

 

[fncceo]

I do, all the time. But 'gang-stalking' is a concerted effort on the part of a community at large to ruin every part of a person's life, social, professional, and economic.

To claim to be gang-stalked, you're saying that 'everyone' is out to get you.

You feel everything is part of a vast conspiracy aimed directly at you.

That's more commonly known as paranoia.

I noticed you didn't answer my question about what your law enforcemetn role is, nonetheless your definition of "gang stalking" is not the accepted definition. By no means does it "everyone" needs to be involved, it's merely a crimina/civil conspiracy to cause harm. As the statutes indicate only two or more individuals need be involved.

The reason that I asked if you work with domestic violence victims is because if you do, you would know that stalking is very often a component of domestic violence and all it takes according to the statutes in my jurisdiction is for one other individual to do anything on behalf of the abuser involved keeping tabs on the victims movements/location, tracking, following or maintaining surveillance for it to be considered "stalking-by-proxy" or "third-party-stalking. Only licensed investigators are allowed to conduct surveillance, anyone else is in violation of our stalking laws, however that doesn't mean that licensed investigators cannot be stalkers as well. There's a pretty famous case here where the investigator was never referred to as a stalker but without her license (which she lost) that's exactly what anyone would have been charged with.

Aside from the civil/criminal conspiracy, gang stalking can also be thought of as a malicious/criminal flash mob. This much has been documented and the FBI has evidence of "gang stalking" in America which was revealed through a discovery request in connection with a FOIA lawsuit.

Attempting to paint the victim(s) in the false light of paranoia is a known tactic deployed to defeat or hinder their ability to obtain assistance.

My state has stalking laws and violating them is criminal ... there are laws against bullying (often very similar) ... violating them is criminal.

Third-party stalking isn't mentioned in legislation but is just as criminally prosecutable, against the third party (stalking doesn't require any family or relational connection). Conspiracy to commit stalking is a possible charge against stalker zero that could apply if you could prove the third-party is acting on the behest of that person.

However, if a person takes out an restraining order with the courts, the court decides what behaviors are and aren't breaches of that order. Police don't have to make a judgement. Restraining orders are civil actions (not criminal statutes) but violating an intervention order is a criminal act, sometimes a felonious criminal act. Police don't take out restraining orders except in cases where there is immediate risk of harm and then it still has to be approved by the court as it is a civil document (a fast track restraining order).

Judges decide what the provisions of the restraining order will be and I've seen some pretty weird ones. But, a common one is prohibiting someone to commit an act AND prohibiting anyone else from doing that act as their proxy. Violating any provision of a restraining order is a criminal offense, but only against the person named by the order.

But, what I've read about 'gang-stalking' -- and, at least in my state, it's not mentioned in any legislation -- this is the definition that I most readily find:

"Gang Stalking is a systemic form of control, which seeks to destroy every aspect of a Targeted Individuals life. Once a target is flagged a notification is sent out to the community at large, and the target is followed around 24/7 by the various communities that they are in.


The community notifications will go out to various places. Apartment rentals, future employers, stores and communities where the target visits, will be notified. Doctors offices, fire departments, police, etc. A covert investigation might also be opened, and electronic, means used by the civilian spies/snitches as part of the overt and covert monitoring and surveillance process.


Individuals can be flagged designating them as having a history of aggressive or inappropriate behavior. This notification system will follow the target if they move, change jobs, visit other areas. It let’s the community believe that the target is a person who needs to be watched or monitored."

Do you believe that is happening to some people? I've never seen any evidence of such a vast conspiracy to stalk anyone. I myself, am a fairly active member of my community and I have never received a text telling me to stick it to someone.

A Justice Department report says that a large percentage of persons reporting stalking claim to have been stalked by 3 or more people (about 13%). At least half of those investigations revealed the act of stalking to be carried out by a single person, not multiple people, as reported. In the other case, the group of stalkers was found to be related to that person by a work or school connection, not individuals acting on the part of the community as a whole.

An interesting study in the UK and Australia (Sheridan and James 2015) looked into 128 self-declared victims of 'gang-stalking' randomly selected and found that all 128 judged to be delusional (compared to fewer than 4% of individual stalking victims).

That's pretty strong evidence that when people say, 'everyone is out to get me', they have a pretty inflated sense of their importance to the world.

 

[fncceo]

I don't know enough about fncceo to say that his response is typical, but this is a very typical response from cops unless you're someone who has a family member or friend in law enforcement who can either pull some strings. The point is if no one believes the victim then they're not going to do anything to attempt to assist the victim which then assists the perpetrator.

I'll give you a bit of insight into why cops hate family violence ... which makes up a huge percentage of our daily workload.

Most people believe family violence is like they see on TV, a male bully, abusing a poor, helpless female. In a very small amount of cases, this is the actual case and it's always a pleasure to intercede and help a poor woman sort our her life. Some of the most satisfying policing I've ever done.

But most of these cases are two idiots drunk, stoned, or just emotionally stunted, who are using the police to stick it to their partner. So, we get called, and we listen to both of them yell at each other. If there is a case of a physical assault, it's easy, someone's going away in cuffs. Without it, we have to wait for one of the partners to say the magic words. Once those words are spoken, the situation become black and white. The person who says, "He/she make me afraid of ..." first becomes the victim. The other person is automatically the perpetrator. It's not a matter of who we believe or don't believe... it's a race to be the first one to say the magic words. Family law in my state, and Department policy, says that we take out an restraining order against the perpetrator and hold them in police custody until that order is approved by the court. It doesn't matter if the victim says, "Oh wait ... I don't want him to leave. I just wanted you to make him stop ...." Which they often do. Once you call the police for a domestic in my jurisdiction, it's automatic.

So, we do the forms, process the offender, try and help him find a place to stay for a while ... orders generated by a person who is in fear almost always contain exclusion clauses ... and start the paperwork for prosecution (fun).

Now, it's morning, they sober up, or just forget why they were mad at each other and become lovey-dovey again. Doesn't matter, we still raise case. So, the victim provides a retracting statement so the perpetrator can come back home. So, we raise more paperwork to cancel out the prosecution for the charge (the charge itself never goes away). Then next week, they get high and argue again, rinse, repeat.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I do, all the time. But 'gang-stalking' is a concerted effort on the part of a community at large to ruin every part of a person's life, social, professional, and economic.

To claim to be gang-stalked, you're saying that 'everyone' is out to get you.

You feel everything is part of a vast conspiracy aimed directly at you.

That's more commonly known as paranoia.

I noticed you didn't answer my question about what your law enforcemetn role is, nonetheless your definition of "gang stalking" is not the accepted definition. By no means does it "everyone" needs to be involved, it's merely a crimina/civil conspiracy to cause harm. As the statutes indicate only two or more individuals need be involved.

The reason that I asked if you work with domestic violence victims is because if you do, you would know that stalking is very often a component of domestic violence and all it takes according to the statutes in my jurisdiction is for one other individual to do anything on behalf of the abuser involved keeping tabs on the victims movements/location, tracking, following or maintaining surveillance for it to be considered "stalking-by-proxy" or "third-party-stalking. Only licensed investigators are allowed to conduct surveillance, anyone else is in violation of our stalking laws, however that doesn't mean that licensed investigators cannot be stalkers as well. There's a pretty famous case here where the investigator was never referred to as a stalker but without her license (which she lost) that's exactly what anyone would have been charged with.

Aside from the civil/criminal conspiracy, gang stalking can also be thought of as a malicious/criminal flash mob. This much has been documented and the FBI has evidence of "gang stalking" in America which was revealed through a discovery request in connection with a FOIA lawsuit.

Attempting to paint the victim(s) in the false light of paranoia is a known tactic deployed to defeat or hinder their ability to obtain assistance.

Gang stalking is not referred
My state has stalking laws and violating them is criminal ... there are laws against bullying (often very similar) ... violating them is criminal.

Third-party stalking isn't mentioned in legislation but is just as criminally prosecutable, against the third party (stalking doesn't require any family or relational connection). Conspiracy to commit stalking is a possible charge against stalker zero that could apply if you could prove the third-party is acting on the behest of that person.

However, if a person takes out an restraining order with the courts, the court decides what behaviors are and aren't breaches of that order. Police don't have to make a judgement. Restraining orders are civil actions (not criminal statutes) but violating an intervention order is a criminal act, sometimes a felonious criminal act. Police don't take out restraining orders except in cases where there is immediate risk of harm and then it still has to be approved by the court as it is a civil document (a fast track restraining order).

Judges decide what the provisions of the restraining order will be and I've seen some pretty weird ones. But, a common one is prohibiting someone to commit an act AND prohibiting anyone else from doing that act as their proxy. Violating any provision of a restraining order is a criminal offense, but only against the person named by the order.

But, what I've read about 'gang-stalking' -- and, at least in my state, it's not mentioned in any legislation -- this is the definition that I most readily find:

"Gang Stalking is a systemic form of control, which seeks to destroy every aspect of a Targeted Individuals life. Once a target is flagged a notification is sent out to the community at large, and the target is followed around 24/7 by the various communities that they are in.


The community notifications will go out to various places. Apartment rentals, future employers, stores and communities where the target visits, will be notified. Doctors offices, fire departments, police, etc. A covert investigation might also be opened, and electronic, means used by the civilian spies/snitches as part of the overt and covert monitoring and surveillance process.


Individuals can be flagged designating them as having a history of aggressive or inappropriate behavior. This notification system will follow the target if they move, change jobs, visit other areas. It let’s the community believe that the target is a person who needs to be watched or monitored."

Do you believe that is happening to some people? I've never seen any evidence of such a vast conspiracy to stalk anyone. I myself, am a fairly active member of my community and I have never received a text telling me to stick it to someone.

A Justice Department report says that a large percentage of persons reporting stalking claim to have been stalked by 3 or more people (about 13%). At least half of those investigations revealed the act of stalking to be carried out by a single person, not multiple people, as reported. In the other case, the group of stalkers was found to be related to that person by a work or school connection, not individuals acting on the part of the community as a whole.

An interesting study in the UK and Australia (Sheridan and James 2015) looked into 128 self-declared victims of 'gang-stalking' randomly selected and found that all 128 judged to be delusional (compared to fewer than 4% of individual stalking victims).

That's pretty strong evidence that when people say, 'everyone is out to get me', they have a pretty inflated sense of their importance to the world.

I haven't seen a statute that addresses gang stalking by that name, but as I mentioned earlier it's the behavior that constitutes the crime, not what it's called, at least not in this instance. And I have evidence of a communications that have been sent out to entire companies, government agencies, neighborhoods, buildings, etc. I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe that people, including cops & investigators, can be this fucked up. Just look at the comments and behaviors right here on this message board.

You as well as many others have your own opinion on gang stalking. I dont' deal in opinions unless they are expert opinions made after reviewing mounds of evidence. If a person is unable to counter the evidence presented (ignoring it doesn't count) then they're doing nothing else than just blowing smoke, usually in an effort to further some agenda. And what happens or opinions proferred in the UK & Australia have no bearing on the laws here in the U.S.

 

[fncceo]

And I have evidence of a communications that have been sent out to entire companies, government agencies, neighborhoods, buildings, etc.

I'd love to see them.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I'd love to see them.

Actually I'm in the process of having my data uploaded to an ftp site and creating an archival record. Some of it has already been uploaded but it's not organized which is the purpose of the new site, to make it searchable by various topics.

I had to request police assistance about 6 years for a highly distressing situation which I needed documented via a police report. I'll never forget the officer who responded, he literally changed my life by just 3 little words he said to me. He also backed me in the dispute, not that it did any good in the long run but still, how he handled the situation made a difference to me.

 

[katsteve2012]

For example the fact that no one can be openly racist doesn't mean the majority of public opinion rejects racism.

You under the impression that it's ILLEGAL to be a racist? Hope not. Because you'd be a fugitive from justice if that were true..

It's not. Because there's not a "bright line" to being a racist. Especially if you think most everyone who questions your opinions and theories to BE a racist..

Well I heard this idiot just got charged after spewing all her "I'm white" "I'm hot" and "I'm beautiful" drunken bs so being a racist ass finally is having a downside: White woman fired after harassing two black women in parking lot
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...i-m-hot-fired-job-n926151?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

Garris eventually did call police, and in the video indicated that she had to call twice because the first dispatcher hung up on her.

"Is she white, black, Hispanic or Asian," that dispatcher had asked among a series of other questions. The next responder told Garris that officers were on their way.

It's unclear if police ever responded to the parking lot, but Westwood is facing four criminal summonses for communicating threats and simple assault, NBC affiliate WCNC reported.​

And then there is this. I think it used to be referred to as the Anti-Klan act (see the second paragraph)

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.​

She must be looking in a broken mirror. She sure as hell isn't "beautiful or hot".......0bnoxious and ugly? Absolutely.

 

[Marion Morrison]

That being said, we will never truly eliminate racism from our society until we stop deriving our identity and self-worth from our group and begin celebrating our individuality.

Bullshit. We won't get rid of racism until whites stop making punk ass excuses like the one you just made and do what is necessary to rid racism from your communities.

How about we arrange a racist swap? I'll get to work on the lists. That ought fix things.

From where I sit -- racists of ANY color are pretty much interchangeable and use the same tactics anyways.

Apparently you sit on the floor.

When you find a racist non white that has enacted laws and policies denying whites of opportunity, then we'll talk about racists of any color.

Does Obama count??

Yes!

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I did know the answer to the question. The idea was to get you to realize that you are painting white people, as a race, as weaker mentally and morally which is exactly what whites used to say about blacks a hundred years ago.

And on what were they basing the opinion that black people were inferior? Nothing more than their desire to commit violations against blacks which if it were even suggested that the same crimes be perpetrated against any of them would have resulted in them torching the entire earth (sort of like they did in the Tulsa Oklahoma Race Riots).

In other words, there was no basis for this belief other than a self proclaimed declaration that they put into law that allowed them to exploit other human beings for profit. That's one of the reasons why black people were deemed to not have souls so that they could rationalize, justify and reconcile their Christian beliefs with their selling, whipping, raping, lynching, murdering, etc. of people of African descent.

This is pretty much common knowledge

Whooosh Right over your head.

What difference does it make why the whites did it if you are both wrong?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

You get that the people who appear on 'Dr Phil's" show are actors, right?

Not true. I know someone who was on his show.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Blacks cant practice racism

You practice it everyday

Nothing they do can be a detriment to whites since whites own all the resources and opportunities.

False. That's the narrative poverty pimps like Al Sharpton and white regressive cucks have given you in order to excuse your racism towards others.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You have insulted my intelligence a number of times and called me every name in the book - stupid fucker, dumb bastard, moron, bitch, punk, foo', etc. - and you think you should get back respect and love. Not how it works.

Whites like you are funny. I don't give a fuck about your respect. If I did, I would not have said those things.

Obviously you're not looking for respect by calling me stupid fucker, dumb bastard, moron, bitch, punk and foo'. So what do you hope to get from me by insulting me?

You do this all the time.

"Because most whites have not been trained to think with complexity about racism, and because it benefits white dominance not to do so, we have a very limited understanding of it (Kumashiro, 2009; LaDuke, 2009). We are th e least likely to see, comprehend, or be invested in validating people of color’s assertions of racism and being honest about their consequences (King, 1991).

If whites are inherently weaker morally and mentally then what good would it do to try and train them to think with complexity about racism?

Then you do this.

At the same time, because of white social, economic, and political power within a white dominant culture, whites are the group in the position to legitimize people of color’s assertions of racism.Being in this position engenders a form of racial arrogance, and in this racial arrogance, whites have little compunction about debating the knowledge of people who have thought deeply about race through research, study, peer-reviewed scholarship, deep and on-going critical self-reflection, interracial relationships, and lived experience (Chinnery, 2008).

Every time.

I scanned the entire article and discovered something interesting in its conspicuous absence: Nowhere does it say that whites are the weaker race. In fact, from the same article:

"Scientific research has shown that there are no biological or genetically distinct races as we have traditionally understood them (Sundquist, 2008). The differences we can observe, such as hair texture, skin tone, and facial features, occur at the most superficial genetic level. There are actually much more genetic differences between members of what we think of as a racial group, rather than across racial groups."

Kind of blows that whole "whites are the weaker race" thing out of the water, doesn't it?

I know what racism is.

Maybe. But sometimes you don't know when it is not.

I don't make up racism. I have worked with, lived with, partied with and have maintained life long friendships with whites who are not racists. Not one of them say what you do. And we have had and continue to have the same types of conversations I have with you.

Do these same white friends know that you consider them morally and mentally inferior?

The comment how whites were weak because laws they made i discussed with white friends in the 1990's. A white republican lawyer said that to me in a discussion. He was one of our states best lawyers and his wife was a high ranking state elected republican official.

Trump is a high ranking elected republican official but we all know how you feel about him.

You are two years older than me so you should know by now that people who are experts in their field and well educated can still be morons and/or hold to misguided ideas. So none of this proves anything but that they don't understand the complexities of human nature any more than you do.

Provide us with research, study and peer-reviewed scholarship from recognized sociologists and biologists (not lawyers and politicians) that whites are the weaker race, then we'll talk.

In recent years when talking to them I've not heard them ever crying about white guilt or how whites are being taught to hate each other. So you are out of tune there buddy You have been brainwashed by white victimization and alt right crap.

They're probably not crying about it because they agree with it.

Your white friends may not be crying about it for whatever reason but even some blacks see it happening and have commented on it. Besides, I didn't say whites are being told to hate each other, I said they're being told to be ashamed of their race.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You didn't say some whites know racism is wrong, you said some whites "know how to end it."

So you're saying some whites have the mental strength to know how to end racism but don't have the mental strength to end racism. Does that about sum it up? This is akin to saying a financial adviser has the mental strength to know how to make money but doesn't have the mental strength to make money.

Do you ever stop and read what you post? How is it that your head has not exploded by now with all of the cognitive dissonance clanging around in there?

And if he had said: "I now hate black people.", would you still say it doesn't mean he is racist?

No I didnt say that but I do agree. Whites do know how to end it. If they dont then they are way less intelligent than I gave them credit for.

No. I am saying whites know how to end it. The fact that they dont shows they lack mental strength and or the will to do it.

Who's "they"? Whites? So no whites endeavor to stop racism?

Yes I stop to read what I post and I wonder how you graduated from school with your lack of reading comprehension. Youre asking questions anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the english languge should already know the answer to.

You're absolutely right, most of my questions can be answered by anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the english languge. But you would be surprised how often they are dodged and not answered.

A lot of my questions are designed to get my debate opponent to look at other aspects of an issue through the filter of their own biases and inconsistencies. IM2 contended that the professor who said "I now hate white people" was not necessarily racist. So I asked if he would feel the same way if the guy had said "I now hate black people". You know and I know and IM2 knows goddamned well that if he had said that, he would be called racist on the spot by both of you. After all, the both of you have called me racist for much less than that.

Yes "they" are whites. See here how I purposely ignore your deflecting question designed to float the "good white person" dynamic?

You answered the question and then say you purposely ignored it. WTF?

We are talking about whites as a race. Spare me the juvenile attempt to change the subject.

You always talk about whites as a race. That is precisely the problem and why I'm here.

Your questions are nothing to dodge. They just show you have bad reading comprehension. I dont waste time answering questions you should already know the answer to by reading my statement.

I did know the answer to the question. The idea was to get you to realize that you are painting white people, as a race, as weaker mentally and morally which is exactly what whites used to say about blacks a hundred years ago.

Unfortunately your design lacks any substance that would necessitate me using a different filter.

Okay, keep your biases.

I agree with IM2. Out of context you have no real knowledge of what he meant by that statement. The best bet would be to be in the room so you can observe his body language, contextual clues and past history to determine what he meant. I disagree. I dont call people racist unless I know the context of their comments. I learned long ago that sentences taken out of context typically are designed to elicit a specific response.

If you couldn't be bothered to go and read the original post for context then don't lecture me about context and hand me that puke about being in the same room. It was right fucking there for you to read.

If I called you a racist its because you are and have proven it to me. Dont get bent out of shape over it. Lots of people are racist.

Nothing has been proven to you, it is simply your opinion, nothing more. Besides, what you think of me is none of my business.

I answered your first question then I ignored the second deflecting question. Cant you read?

"Deflecting"? You're the one who said that whites don't try and stop racism. I'm just asking for clarification as to whether you mean all whites or some whites.

I think you are the one who deflected by not answering. If you had said "Yes, no whites endeavor to stop racism", you know you would be full of shit and everyone would see that. To say otherwise would have required you to crawfish and qualify your remarks. And we can't have that now, can we?

Of course I talk about whites as a race. You being here isnt going to alter that.

First of all, why would I think my being here would alter that? Secondly, if my being here altered that, you wouldn't do it and I would not be confronting you about it.

If you knew the answer to the question why ask a dumb question instead of just answering the question put to you?

First of all, I went back through our entire conversation and found only three questions asked by you:

"How fucking stupid are you?"
"What kind of stupid question is that?
and
"Doesnt it bother you that your ancestors and your current fellow racists feel you need a head start?"


The first two were obviously rhetorical and I answered the last one. So what question are you referring to?

Secondly, my question was what is called a r-h-e-t-o-r-i-c-a-l question. Surely you're familiar with the concept, given your artful mastery of the craft with questions like "How fucking stupid are you?"

Who told you I wasnt going to keep my biases?

No one. But if you're not going to give up yours then don't give me any shit for my white biases and defending the white race from your biased "Whites are the weaker race" and other such nonsense.

Dont get angry. Get a better argument. You cant get context just by reading a quote. What kind of fool thinks thats true? You have to understand the context. In my case I go even further before making a determination.

How could you go any further than me in analyzing context when you were looking at the same words and context I was?

I disagree. You have proven yourself to be a racist if I have called you a racist. See my above statement. There are a lot of criteria you have to meet in order for me to label you a racist. When I do there is no argument or discussion needed. You are a racist.

Oh Jesus, I think I just threw up a little.

You have proven yourself to be full of shit if I have called you full of shit.There are a lot of criteria you have to meet in order for me to label you full of shit. When I do there is no argument or discussion needed. You are full of shit.

 

[Asclepias]

No I didnt say that but I do agree. Whites do know how to end it. If they dont then they are way less intelligent than I gave them credit for.

No. I am saying whites know how to end it. The fact that they dont shows they lack mental strength and or the will to do it.

Who's "they"? Whites? So no whites endeavor to stop racism?

Yes I stop to read what I post and I wonder how you graduated from school with your lack of reading comprehension. Youre asking questions anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the english languge should already know the answer to.

You're absolutely right, most of my questions can be answered by anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the english languge. But you would be surprised how often they are dodged and not answered.

A lot of my questions are designed to get my debate opponent to look at other aspects of an issue through the filter of their own biases and inconsistencies. IM2 contended that the professor who said "I now hate white people" was not necessarily racist. So I asked if he would feel the same way if the guy had said "I now hate black people". You know and I know and IM2 knows goddamned well that if he had said that, he would be called racist on the spot by both of you. After all, the both of you have called me racist for much less than that.

Yes "they" are whites. See here how I purposely ignore your deflecting question designed to float the "good white person" dynamic?

You answered the question and then say you purposely ignored it. WTF?

We are talking about whites as a race. Spare me the juvenile attempt to change the subject.

You always talk about whites as a race. That is precisely the problem and why I'm here.

Your questions are nothing to dodge. They just show you have bad reading comprehension. I dont waste time answering questions you should already know the answer to by reading my statement.

I did know the answer to the question. The idea was to get you to realize that you are painting white people, as a race, as weaker mentally and morally which is exactly what whites used to say about blacks a hundred years ago.

Unfortunately your design lacks any substance that would necessitate me using a different filter.

Okay, keep your biases.

I agree with IM2. Out of context you have no real knowledge of what he meant by that statement. The best bet would be to be in the room so you can observe his body language, contextual clues and past history to determine what he meant. I disagree. I dont call people racist unless I know the context of their comments. I learned long ago that sentences taken out of context typically are designed to elicit a specific response.

If you couldn't be bothered to go and read the original post for context then don't lecture me about context and hand me that puke about being in the same room. It was right fucking there for you to read.

If I called you a racist its because you are and have proven it to me. Dont get bent out of shape over it. Lots of people are racist.

Nothing has been proven to you, it is simply your opinion, nothing more. Besides, what you think of me is none of my business.

I answered your first question then I ignored the second deflecting question. Cant you read?

"Deflecting"? You're the one who said that whites don't try and stop racism. I'm just asking for clarification as to whether you mean all whites or some whites.

I think you are the one who deflected by not answering. If you had said "Yes, no whites endeavor to stop racism", you know you would be full of shit and everyone would see that. To say otherwise would have required you to crawfish and qualify your remarks. And we can't have that now, can we?

Of course I talk about whites as a race. You being here isnt going to alter that.

First of all, why would I think my being here would alter that? Secondly, if my being here altered that, you wouldn't do it and I would not be confronting you about it.

If you knew the answer to the question why ask a dumb question instead of just answering the question put to you?

First of all, I went back through our entire conversation and found only three questions asked by you:

"How fucking stupid are you?"
"What kind of stupid question is that?
and
"Doesnt it bother you that your ancestors and your current fellow racists feel you need a head start?"


The first two were obviously rhetorical and I answered the last one. So what question are you referring to?

Secondly, my question was what is called a r-h-e-t-o-r-i-c-a-l question. Surely you're familiar with the concept, given your artful mastery of the craft with questions like "How fucking stupid are you?"

Who told you I wasnt going to keep my biases?

No one. But if you're not going to give up yours then don't give me any shit for my white biases and defending the white race from your biased "Whites are the weaker race" and other such nonsense.

Dont get angry. Get a better argument. You cant get context just by reading a quote. What kind of fool thinks thats true? You have to understand the context. In my case I go even further before making a determination.

How could you go any further than me in analyzing context when you were looking at the same words and context I was?

I disagree. You have proven yourself to be a racist if I have called you a racist. See my above statement. There are a lot of criteria you have to meet in order for me to label you a racist. When I do there is no argument or discussion needed. You are a racist.

Oh Jesus, I think I just threw up a little.

You have proven yourself to be full of shit if I have called you full of shit.There are a lot of criteria you have to meet in order for me to label you full of shit. When I do there is no argument or discussion needed. You are full of shit.

You keep contradicting yourself. You just got through saying you already knew the answer to my question. Why would you need clarification?

"I did know the answer to the question."

I cant deflect from something you brought up that I never mentioned. You brought up the deflection. I just refused to be deflected.

Obviously you think you matter. If you didnt why would you say that you were here to address what you see as a problem?

"You always talk about whites as a race. That is precisely the problem and why I'm here".

If your question was just rhetorical you should state that so everyone knows its rhetorical.

I'm definitely going to give you shit about your opinions that are wrong. Thats what I do here.

Who said I could go any further than you in understanding the context? I am pointing out your criteria is terribly inadequate and mine is more comprehensive. You only saw the same words as did I. To come to the conclusion that he was being racist is foolish. You simply need more context. Your ignorance in this regard has been highlighted by your question.

Thats your right to feel but like I always say what you think of me is really none of my business.