When governments fail, or are intentionally implementing policies which the majority of the population rejects, they often resort to two diversion tactics. Waging war and the creation of scapegoats.
Perfect example, Nazi Germany.
The practice of scapegoating pre-dates the nation state. It is a very old tactic applied consistently in tribal and peasant societies, and the formula is very simple. The leadership, anxious to deflect resentment and attention away from themselves create an internal bogeyman, low ranking members of the society who are demonised, made out to be depraved and dangerous to the group, and the group is encouraged to freely persecute them. Resentment which might otherwise become focused on the ruling group, the direct instruments of the group’s problems, but who are usually hard to get hold of, is displaced onto conveniently available vulnerable members of the group who cannot defend themselves.
The targets chosen are so consistent, you could almost call the selection traditional.
The majority are low ranking women. The terms “crazy old woman” and “crazy old witch” were once commonplace, showing at once the people viewed as being acceptable and deserving targets. Note the word “crazy”. Calling someone crazy is a very convenient term of abuse which covers a lot of bases. It immediately invalidates the person; it generates fear and derision; it reduces the status of the person to sub-human; and the real gem is a perfectly sane person can be made to appear crazy by meddling with their environment and how they are treated (gaslighting) until their adaptation to their unique circumstances, makes them look odd, thus providing evidence for the accusation. The term”witch” is a nice one to throw in too, in case some people’s consciences might be upset at the victimisation of a helpless old woman = she is not really helpless, she is a witch.
The selection of women as scapegoats serves a number of social functions. Targeting low status, young women so that they are socially isolated and made social outcasts, socially disempowers them and sets them up for rape and conscription into prostitution. They become a group men can rape with impunity, so channelling male social aggression from the powerful in society, and mollifying them with sex. Revolution can wait.
In misogynist societies, and the majority are, very intelligent women are often targeted. Males feel threatened by women leaders. The establishment, whatever it is, does not want anyone wising-up other people to their game. As a rule, men want to keep the collective status of women beneath themselves. Take out the leaders and you can keep them all down. Another useful application of the term “witch”.
Targeting old women, and to a lesser extent elderly men – the elderly targeted are usually alone, widows or widowers, serves several functions. The elderly are often wise to the power games played in society. Like everyone else, they were mugs when young, but with more than a half century of experience, they have “seen it all” and they have learnt from their own, and others mistakes. They can warn the young they are being gulled, if only the young would listen. Perhaps those with most wisdom to impart and a gift for finding an audience, are at the forefront of those targeted.
Getting rid of the elderly on trumped up charges, usually the accusation they have lost their marbles , can be used as the basis of stripping them of their life’s savings. Poor people, who after a lifetime’s work could have passed something onto their children to help them out of poverty, are robbed. Their children remain poor, and exploited through their lives too.
Another old stereotype is “the village idiot”. Not usually someone extremely insane, as such will be avoided, but people a little different from the norm. Perhaps a “simpleton” or someone with a minor physical and/or mental impediment that marks them as different. Another traditionally “safe” category for deflected social resentment. The charm here for the demonisers is that the targets are unavoidably visible and are safe targets to attack as they are usually non-violent and may have qualities which makes it difficult for them to defend themselves.
Gay men are not a particularly vulnerable group. But the heterosexual male psyche fears them. So it is relatively easy to channel aggression towards them.
When one considers the people selected for scapegoating, some qualities are outstanding. Criminals are never scapegoated. If scapegoating was a logical process, only criminals would be scapegoated. It would make sense for the group to protect itself with collective persecution of criminals, to drive them from the group to protect the group from crime. But the objective of scapegoating is NOT to protect the group, although that is the propaganda used to set sections of society up for attack. The objective is to channel resentment away from the rulers onto SAFE targets for group fears and frustration. Attacking criminals is not safe. They will retaliate. Scapegoating does not work if the victim can retaliate and hurt their persecutors. Also, it is quite possible that the rulers are perfectly happy for criminals to run loose in communities providing they confine their attention to the lower classes. Keep dumping problems on the lower classes and they will never be in a position to rebel.
Scapegoating then, is a deliberate policy of the powerful in a society or group, to deflect social resentment from themselves – the cause of the resentment – onto helpless, marginal people who cannot defend themselves so as to “take the heat” off the rulers.
So where does gang stalking fit into this? I am suggesting that gang stalking is an old routine in a new guise.
Post 2WW a social revolution occurred. Previously oppressed groups, working class women, blacks, gays, disabled, were suddenly able to access education, living-wage jobs, and were freed from traditional prejudices. Their socio-economic status was raised to full citizen status. Some were obtaining top degrees at top universities and competing with the children of the elite for prominent jobs.
The major group of beneficiaries of the social revolution were working class women (including ethnic). En masse they sought education, competed with the middle classes and men for middle class jobs, and walked away from forced child-bearing, dependency on men, bad marriages, below subsistence jobs, and being forced into prostitution to stay alive.
The status quo was threatened and the fight back was immediate. COINTELPRO, under the banner of protecting the state from enemies, infiltrated and sabotaged such harmless and beneficial movements as the civil rights movement, and women’s and gay lib. The methods used were an encyclopedia of dirty tactics, with heavy reliance on extensive smear/slander campaigns, meddling with intimate relationships, interference with targets education and job opportunities, unwarranted surveillance, attempts at entrapment and framing, etc.
What is the difference between COINTELPRO and gang stalking? None that I can see, but there is one big similarity. The existence of COINTELPRO was denied until it was forced into the open. Then COINTELPRO was officially ended. Now gang stalking which follows the same formula is officially denied, the mention of it is vetoed in the MSM, and victims who complain are accused of insanity.
And the victims of gang stalking are the same people who have always been selected for scapegoating/community harassment, from the very origins of human society. – Low status women, old women, poor people with aspirations, gay people, people with minor physical and/or mental disability.
Harmless people, slandered with every despicable crime and depravity which humans are capable of – terrorist, drug dealer, paedophile, prostitute, insane.
This is how our ruling classes through the ages have protected their interests. Fomenting hatred against vulnerable, harmless groups in society. Setting them up for attack and condoning their abuse.
Nice people, eh?