Talk:Targeted Individuals

	This Conspiracy related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

(arbitrary break)

(Reset) Online there will be a lot of false positives whatever terms are selected (including 'let's annoy the authorities', 'follow on from news stories/TV programs,' and 'not that #### writer with their weird stories again'); and there may be some evidence of trends (eg actual or potential candidates in the 2020 US elections, colloquial terms for 'interesting subjects of choice') etc; but if you are up to something dubious or 'interesting to the authorities' you will be ingenious in your methodologies, and possibly use windows of communication that are longer than 24-48 hours and going via several routes.

There will always be some level of monitoring - but above a certain level the amount of material generated will be too much to be useful.

Are the authorities after you - or is it merely that the traffic lights are badly synchronised etc? And if you suspect you are being targeted, then deliberately 'game the system.' Anna Livia (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Livia "Where do the security services get the financial and other resources to'stalk'...?". See the affidavit referenced above. I'll quote a portion relating to your question here: "This conspiracy is far too active to be controlled or operated by private enterprise whose goals are achieving financial gain. These operations require extensive financing with no return on the investment. This program's operations are financed by illegal black operations, i.e., narcotics, prostitution, child kidnapping (children sell at covert auctions for up to $50,000 per child), human trafficking, gambling and other rackets." ^{— Unsigned, by: 208.66.38.184 / talk} 16:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh Noes!! Scary sounding stuff!!! PIZZAGATE IS TOTES TRUE!!! TOTES!!!! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Seriously though, why would you even bother breaking the law? Our finance laws are so loose that you could funnel money in via a superPAC for a political candidate, then just have them drop out and either fail to disclose their financial records or just have said records doctored. Further, why bother bringing in so many people? It would smarter to run your operation with 5-8 people embedded inside an existing agency or even better, a sub-contractor. This is the problem with conspiracy theories, they go into needlessly complex bond villain-like levels of theatrics that make zero sense outside of movies. I swear, people like you don't even bother trying to learn how actual intel gathering works, you just base all your crap off bond movies and call it a day. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention that with a conspiracy that big, someone within the conspiracy will inevitably reveal its existence (possibly by accident), and if it genuinely spans the globe there is no reason that someone hasn't already yanked away the curtain. No group of people that large can possibly ensure all of its followers are both loyal and able to keep their mouths shut under any conceivable circumstance.

Plus, even if what you say about their finances is right (which also requires them to somehow not butt heads with any other major crime ring since they're not exactly big onnsharing, or at that matter another conspiracy also trying to control those so-called black operations), they still have no good reason to waste their time fucking with you when they could be wielding their power far more effectively. If they genuinely wanted to conquer the world or what have you, they would have already done so by now. Sure, it would be obvious, but if they were even a hundredth as powerful as you say they are then they'd be unstoppable anyway. (And if that is the case, why even bother trying to do anything about it at all? You're just going to fail and get them to go after you even worse.) --Logos (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

After thinking it over some more I take back my previous financial assessment. For less than $20,000 you could run the most if not all of the passive surveillance part of the operation out of the backroom of a coffee shop that, provided your agents know hwat their doing, could net enough profit to pay for itself. Thus ensuring even less risk to the surveillance operation, since their would be less of a paper trail to track. Or, you could even use an investment firm as a front, raking in even more cash and minimizing the risk to the operation even further, since you could just doctor the books to cover any initial cash input as merely investors, plus you can use a confidentiality policy to make even that redundant. So, 5-8 people with a starting budget of $20,000-$30,000, a decent front that pays for itself over time, and a few morally grey choices. Thus and entire convert surveillance operation could run with little to no risk. And by the way, that covers a passive computer surveillance system, which at most would cost a total $10,000 up front for the hardware and software. the team's budget could be internalized, removing another avenue of discovery. Or, in other words, I could run this conspiracy better than your alleged bogymen. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

5-8 people with a starting budget of $20,000-$30,000? Good luck getting IT staff willing to work for under $6K/year each. Millennium Scallion (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Millennium Scallion Feds get payed shit wages, plus, like I said, it could make more money over time. An easy scam would be to (mis)use surveillance records to commit insider trading, meaning the operation could increase revenue quite quickly. Besides which, it's better than the BoN's conspiracy, in which a massive number of people conduct a mass surveillance campaign for no apparent reason at all. At least mine has motive, methodology, and opportunity. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I found out more about Ted Gunderson. Turns out he was a promoter of the Satanic Panic. Gee, it's not like the most if not all of the main proponents of that little bit of hysteria turned out to be frauds who lied for fame and money... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree you could set up a passive computer surveillance system on the cheap. But the TI's claim "rogue agents" are not just keeping tabs on their computer activity, they're doing fantastic things like following them around, misplacing objects in their homes, beaming thoughts into their heads, having workers at fast food joints insult them, projecting electronic waves (that are simultaneously ultra-high microwave frequency and ultra-low-frequency) at them to make them sick or anxious. It would take a Truman Show level of coordination that would cost a shitload of money to pull that off. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Millennium Scallion - have you come across this chap? Anna Livia (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No, but thank you for the pointer to Tilly. It shows that delusions of "high tech stalking" have been with us since the 1700s. This specific delusion ("bad thoughts, bad experiences, bad luck, bad feelings etc. are not my fault - I'm being targeted by a conspiracy!") seems to have been confined to a tiny fraction of the population, but with the rise of the internet, it's now able to spread and amplify like never before. Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The author of the book The Air Loom Gang states that this was the first case of someone 'blaming technology' rather than 'blaming witches/deamons/other such' (paraphrasing from memory). I was not certain whether I was comparing like to like. Anna Livia (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Also beloved by Brits: : The Corley Conspiracy. Millennium Scallion (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Half-way point

The screed linked-to is badly edited (no paragraph breaks, repetitive etc) - and gives no indication as to why 'the authorities' would be intensively and abusively monitoring so many people, turning other people into weaponised morons etc etc. You say 'they' are spending 'a very large amount of money' on this activity - which would bankrupt the economy, 'they would soon be in conflict with each other (have you ever tried to organise a street or office party and get everybody to agree?).

IP - answer the question: why are 'they' targeting you in particular? Anna Livia (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Livia Wouldn't we all like to know! ^{— Unsigned, by: 208.66.38.184 / talk} 19:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

So... You allege that a massive Bond villain-eqsue conspiracy exists, which does all of these surreal and outlandish things, which targets you in particular, for no known reason? And your evidence for it is multiple opinion pieces by one reporter for Medium.com and an Ex-FBI agent whose credibility is roughly nill. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No... I know based on my personal experiences. I have nothing to prove here. The willfully ignorant and foolish can remain that way for all I care. Time is on my side. Time is on the side of truth, for truth is eternal. Truth is truth, no matter what its source. ^{— Unsigned, by: 208.66.38.184 / talk} 20:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

"No... I know based on my personal experiences. The willfully ignorant and foolish can remain that way for all I care. Time is on my side. Time is on the side of truth, for truth is eternal. Truth is truth, no matter what its source." Fun fact, if you assert something, you have to prove it. "My farts are magical. My farts can cure cancer. If you don't believe me, you're just ignorant." That's basically what you sound like. You made a claim. You provided evidence for that claim. When I pointed out that your evidence was shit you doubled down and asserted that the claim was true. I can assert shit too, that doesn't make what anyone asserts true. And for the record, if you didn't care about whether we thought you were correct or not, you wouldn't have started this discussion to begin with. So, with all of that in mind, do you have anything better than "Ex-FBI guy said so" and "reporter says lots of people believe this"? Because right here, right now, from where I'm sitting, you got jack shit. You assert there is a conspiracy, yet, if challenged to prove it in a court of law (conspiracy to commit a crime is an actual set of charges, look it up, law 101) you'd be laughed out of the room and the case dismissed. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

IP - you have been asked to provide direct evidence, and you merely go for name-calling and declare us wilfully ignorant.

If 'the powers that be' were investing that much time and money in pursuing 'millions of people' - there would be many millions more people doing #### all for the economy and being 'rather psycho' in keeping tabs on the original people (and the USA would probably be more than bankrupt) - and there would be no mass shootings.

Consider IP - whether you are being targeted because you present as being a vexatious nuisance who merely parrots the same phraseology and 'they' think you might cause problems.

The truth #is# out there - and you, dear IP, are not part of it. Anna Livia (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Now you've added a link to a site that pretends claim to provide legal support for TIs ( See this disclaimer "Targeted Justice is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. Please consult an attorney for legal advice.") ... Who have this lovely quote at the top of their "whistleblower" page "There is no al-Qaeda. The so called al-Qaeda that we see are actually with Mossad and CIA ...trained mercenary gangs". Ok, so that's bullshit. And another source gets chucked out the window. NEXT! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Just finished digging around, and I found the original source that the Al'Qaeda quote should be part of. The quote in question appears nowhere in the article, leading me to believe it was made up wholesale after the article was published, then spread around conspiracy websites until the original was forgotten. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Comrade GC - I presume your remark is addressed to the IP - my links are either somewhat relevant, discussion topics, or Brithumour/weak puns. Anna Livia (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Livia You presume too much correctly. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think it's safe to say the OP is full of shit. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Will they go LANCB?

What is the likelihood of self-defined TIs of this kind actually being targets of official conspiracies (beyond 'Stop vexing us, or you will be sent 'cease and desist' messages/we will ask the tax people to do a thorough investigation of your accounts, so you are otherwise busy' and similar'?)? ^{— Unsigned, by: Anna Livia / talk / contribs}

@Oxyaena I'll be back after time proves the truth. In the meantime, there is no sense in arguing with idiots; they'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. God bless.^{— Unsigned, by: 208.66.38.184 / talk} 21:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

How many points for my prediction? And is the IP being self-descriptive? Anna Livia (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Make sure you don't forget your tinfoil. — Oxyaena ^Harass 01:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I prefer to give my 'pet theories' best quality jackets of gold and platinum foils. Anna Livia (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: the likelihood of TIs being the target of "official conspiracies" — is small. Sure, there may have been one or two isolated cases in history where an agency started a tax investigation in retaliation for someone being a pest. But such comic-book villain tactics are not standard procedure in the real world. Emails containing crazy complaints and wild accusations would likely get your name put in a file describing the complaint, but no further follow up. Threats and violent language would probably result in a follow up, checking your records and background, etc. depending on level of threat and resources available. Millennium Scallion (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

'The authorities' will monitor various people for a range of reasons - various intending politicians (someone with 'a large number' of speeding tickets is probably not a safe pair of hands), some activists, 'collateral to policing and similar investigations', checking that someone is up to nothing more dangerous than writing lurid fiction, some statements seem bizarre but have to be investigated, 'and all the other examples we can think of and a few more besides.'

We probably all have occasions when we think 'them in charge are out to annoy us' (the form that should have been filled out some other way, a remark on TV aligns with what you just said etc) and 'weird coincidences do happen' (which politician was in Dallas the day JFK was shot?).

So why do TIs 'being of the ordinary people category' think that 'the authorities' would wish to spend so much time and resources on them? Anna Livia (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Information on the TI program

Targeted Individuals are often taken to conspiracy sites (cover). The forum of Godlike Productions contains many psychological warfare and grinding attacks directed at Targeted Individuals. It's a highly political site masked as conspiracy sites- most conspiracy sites are used as bait and brainwashing sites. Targeted Individuals can deduct out the entire program in the crumbs and hints between the tens of thousands garbage posts. Visit these sites only using a VPN because you will end up on the target list if you analyze the content from your home IP. It requires a serious amount of time and knowledge of analysis and psychological deduction.^{— Unsigned, by: 2620:7:6001::117 / talk / contribs}

That's sure a theory there. What kind of knowledge would say I lack? Since I am a person who has put in a fair amount of analysis and psychological deduction into the question and arrived at the conclusion that this phenomenon is better described as a combination of common traits of paranoid psychosis disorders and internet-driven confirmation bias than you know, a real thing. What knowledge should I specifically develop? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the self-proclaimed TIs do not appear to be those that 'the authorities' would consider to be high-priority (beyond the 'nuisance' category). Anna Livia (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

BoN wants to add stuff

I would like to add:

10 000 victims of zersetzung were humiliated for years and considered paranoid delusional schizophrenics. It was later proven that they were all speaking the truth about their severe harassment. The tactics of zersetzung resemble claims made by modern day covert harassment victims. Today there are still mental health clinics available to these victims to specifically cater to the severe psychological trauma they experienced. Did anyone consider that if the stories of targeted people are even half true, that they would be severely disorientated/paranoid/hypervigilant? You can be delusional about aspects of your harassment, but still be a victim of harassment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zersetzung

The same thing happened with COINTELPRO. Even Ernest Hemingway's friends thought he was delusional when he said the FBI was stalking him. Turns out he was right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

- Targeted individual groups were invited to participate in Nils Melzer's work on cyber torture and psychological torture https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Torture/SRTorture/Pages/CallGA75.aspx

- Rather shockingly UN special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer validates the techniques that many targeted individuals have complained about for years, including victim mobbing, illegal surveillance, and even the potential abuse of nanotechnologies, implants, and directed energy weapons https://undocs.org/A/HRC/43/49

- There exists companies that will severely harass someone for reasonable prices. You can hire a team of up to 8 people to target someone you know, coming up with ways to ruin their life and scare them 24/7 for weeks. The work is carried out overseas to avoid legal issues and reduce costs. https://www.vice.com/en/article/ppmpe8/a-revenge-for-hire-business-exists-in-san-francisco

- Psychopathic people with a lot of power will go to incredible lengths to destroy people, even for very petty reasons: https://www.wired.com/story/ebay-employees-charged-cyberstalking-harassment-campaign/

- Cops get involved in illegal stalking campaigns in order to discredit victims and ensure they don't get help: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-police-corruption-trial-morton-mcnish-braile-day-4-1.4527518 ^{— Unsigned, by: 2001:56a:f391:7200:8049:5250:8613:fdeb / talk}

Havana Syndrome

Something about the Havana Syndrome should be worked into this page. FairDinkum (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Clarification needed

'Anyone found searching up Tails' - what does this mean? (It does sound dubious - unless one is a vet.) Anna Livia (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Anna Livia This almost certainly refers to Tails (operating system), a security and privacy-focused Linux distribution. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Some slight rephrasing to remove the ambiguity for non-experts/the brain's normal tendency to choose the less appropriate meaning - eg 'researching/investigating Tor or (operating system) Tails' (given that people are likely to recognise 'Tor' more readily). Anna Livia (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Clean-up?

I think this page needs a wee bit of clean-up, for a specific reason: I think this page comes off as mean-spirited in some specific sections that I think are caustic. It's very clear to me that many of these people are experiencing psychosis, and that should be treated with a bit more kindness. Mostly a tone thing. If I make a lot of small edits, that's why. Monochroma (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The Venn diagram between conspiracy theory and actual mental disorder varies a lot depending on the subject, but in this case I agree there's got to be a lot of overlap with people who simply have a kind of persecutory delusion. I think there might be some benefit to linking to the concept of "improbable things happen" in the main page somewhere since, looking at the talk page archive, I saw a T.I. show up here who would have benefited from reading it. From a quick skim of RW's T.I. page, I didn't spot a mention of how T.I.s often accuse random people in public places of being in on the plot against them, as that guy in the talk page archive did. So I think "improbable things happen" is relevant for that reason, or maybe "apophenia" or whatever. Because they'll chalk up people coincidentally being in their way somewhere in a grocery store to being a part of a plot against them for instance. Or they'll read something meaningful into meaningless (for this purpose) behavior from others they see. On the other hand, something also "improbable" I've considered is that a very small proportion of them may actually be telling the truth (more or less), and they may have stumbled across T.I. terminology as the only way to express what they're experiencing. Based on studies about T.I.s this is probably indeed only a very, very small number of them. Chillpilled (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Beyond just it being kind of mean to people who are already going through something really painful, it could make things worse. Unfortunately, due to the nature of this stuff, it is going to be really hard to actually have any positive effect on these kinds of people with a wiki page; we will always be perceived as part of the conspiracy, no matter how gentle we are. We can't really write a page and narrowcast it to those types, either. It has to be for everyone. But I do think it would be good to at least avoid exacerbating their troubles in ways we can, and I think being a little less sarcastic and a little more clear would be an improvement in that regard, which is probably what most of my edits will look like. Monochroma (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)