My friend Medawar has posted a new piece that has important implications for Central Texas as well; he even alludes directly to the situation here if you know what to look for. I am reprinting the entire post here with his permission.
WEDNESDAY, 15 JULY 2020
How Can Organised Stalkers Afford to Do It?
The simple answer to a question which has perplexed victims and
investigators of organised stalking for years is easily answered by
the video below:
They
can afford to stalk because they use someone else's money, and if
you own shares in a big dotcom company, that money could well be
yours!
The
video also leaves those psychiatrists and policemen who argue that
organised stalking never actually happens and that all the victims
are deluded, with no place to hide except behind their own wall of
baseless denial.
However,
the conspiracy theorists who claim that the involvement of big
corporations in organised stalking is proof of a massive
super-conspiracy may also be missing the point:
There
was a conspiracy in this case, between a fairly high-ranking
executive who instigated it all because he felt the victims had
affronted him personally by criticising E-bay, and other employees
who appear to have enjoyed being ordered to persecute the victims,
but who probably had no easy choice but to comply with the executive
in any case. The stalking was not company policy and it definitely
was not in the interests of the company or the shareholders, who may
yet lose substantial monies from this.
The
explanation for this and probably most organised
stalking that takes place in the world (no explanation ever
covers every case!)
is that the sort of sociopath who is moved to sadistically persecute
and destroy innocent people for some perceived slight (which is
rarely substantial), tends to seek positions of power that he can
abuse. Just as paedophiles seek positions where they have control of
children, such as in social services or residential education. In
fact the mentalities are so similar that Medawar is confident that a
fair proportion of the people directing organised stalking will also
be paedophiles because that's the sort of personality that will be
involved.
And
because it is so important to them to occupy a position of power,
they incline to extreme reactions whenever they, in that prestigious
position, encounter opposition, criticism, or just unwelcome facts.
If
the case in the video is what can happen when a sociopath has a
position in an organisation with as little involvement in covert
operations as E-Bay (it wasn't even the notorious Facebook or
YouTube!) what do readers suppose might happen if the same sort of
sociopath has a senior position in the police, or the FBI, or the
CIA, or even your local hospital? Do the senior positions at the
local Masonic Lodge actually go to the most upright and trustworthy
men, which is what is supposed to happen, or to those driven to
attain such positions by their own vanity, who are the ones most
likely to turn the collective resources of the Lodge against those
who, wittingly or unwittingly, prick their vanity?
The
other characteristic of organised stalking very clearly seen in this
case is that the immediate reaction to possible discovery was not
flight or denial, but a coordinated effort to frame other people for
the crime.
One
afterthought is this: given the reasoning laid out above, wouldn't
it make a lot of sense if the Chinese Communist Party had been
colonised by all the sociopaths in China? Officials being terrified
of having to tell the truth, critics being suppressed with
ridiculous levels of force, an institutionalised refusal to admit
any fault or error whatsoever in any circumstances! Medawar has read
a novel which
advances just this theory.
LABELS: CORPORATIONS
UNWITTINGLY PAYING FOR STALKING TO HAPPEN,POWER
CAN BE ABUSED IN ALL SORTS OF SMALL CORNERS, SOCIOPATHS
EMBEDDING THEMSELVES IN POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY
