"Hell is empty and all the devils are here."
- – William
Shakespeare, The Tempest
This report addresses phenomena which are, in large measure, considered as “conspiracy theories”, rather than as actual events, involving very real conspiracies.
Conspiracies
to perpetrate all manner of evil deeds, each by an organized group of
persons, against a designated Target or Targets, individually or
collectively.
To
be more specific, my focus here is on conspiracies which target
individuals, or designated groups of individuals, for the following:
Harassment;
persecution; stalking; sex crimes (rape and/or pornography);
defamation (libel, slander, false light, injurious
exploitation/appropriation of name/images); invasions of privacy;
criminal menacing/death threats; physical assault; intentional
infliction of emotional distress; blackmail/extortion; attempted
murder (either by an acute attack or 'slow kill' incrementally).
In
my analysis, I will reference two separate articles which address
some of these issues. I should make it clear up front that there is
no connection between these websites or authors (not that I have
seen), and that I chose each one because the name of Barbara Hartwell
was included therein, either by the writer and/or by those commenting
on the article. In one article, the name of my friend/professional
colleague Geral Sosbee appears as well.
As
my regular readers will know, my reports are based on actual events
and name the names of real people (individuals or groups). I have
been accused, repeatedly and continually of “attacking” the
persons whose names have been exposed; of spreading “disinformation”;
of being a “character assassin”; of running a “libel site”,
etc. etc. And most often, I am called a “CIA disinfo agent”.
From
my observations, the accusers fall into one or more of these
categories: criminals (especially government agents/officials and
their minions), attempting to cover up their crimes against persons;
aggressive/ambitious persons who have tried to latch on, or horn in
on my professional work, and/or exploit my name for a self-serving
agenda; busybodies who lack all respect for privacy, personal
boundaries and unalienable rights of the individual (in this case,
me.)
One
more issue: I do not run an “interactive” website. I do not host
a platform, nor provide a venue for airing the opinions of every Tom,
Dick and Harry who comes down the pike, or who has an axe to grind.
Nor do I participate in the pervasive free-for-all Internet culture
of social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) I do not join discussion
groups, nor do I respond to the writings/broadcasts of others in a
section reserved for “comments”. I do not engage in personal
arguments or debates with others, be they my detractors/adversaries,
or otherwise. In cases where someone has used my name in their
broadcasts and/or articles, my policy is to address the issues in my
own reports. Just as I am doing here.
The
first article comes from a site called THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CONSPIRACY
THEORIES.
This
article was authored by one Mike Wood.
"The
psychology of gang stalking, and the difference between conspiracy
theory and delusion"
Here,
some excerpts copied from the opening paragraphs.
"If you’ve spent enough time on the Internet, or read the New York Times yesterday [link removed] you might have come across the phenomenon of gang stalking – the alleged stalking of particular individuals by organized groups. It might seem like gang stalking is a sort of conspiracy theory, and that we can maybe understand it in the same way that we think about things like the 9/11 Truth Movement and beliefs in UFO coverups. I’m not sure about this. There are some pretty major psychological differences between the two. It’s probably not helpful to conflate run-of-the-mill conspiracy theories, which are not considered to be an indicator of psychopathology, with gang stalking, which is widely considered to be the product of delusional thinking.
In gang stalking [link removed] large gangs of perpetrators will (allegedly) use subtle methods of manipulation and harassment – muttering hurtful phrases or insults while passing their target on the street, repeatedly driving past the target’s house, preventing them from sleeping by making loud noises at odd hours, and so on. Many people who claim to be victims of gang stalking (search YouTube for a reasonably representative sample) allege more exotic stalking methods – in particular, “electronic harassment,” the use of advanced technology to torture, annoy, or even control the mind of the target from afar.
If you think this sounds pretty far-fetched, you’re not wrong. Stalking is real, of course – there’s no denying that. And there are situations where multiple people participate in bullying or even stalking – often close friends or family members. But “gang stalking” – the type that involves muttered insults, dozens of strangers working together, electronic harrassment, secret hand signals – is not really an accepted thing. In fact, suspicions of gang stalking are considered to be markers of delusional disorders like paranoid schizophrenia."
[See link to article for referenced material.]
I will start by stating that my professional background is in counterintelligence and psychological operations, which include a wide range of disciplines.
I
am not a “psychologist” (as a term protected under licensing); I
am trained in psychoanalysis, in intelligence analysis (both of which
include profiling) and as a Christian minister (ordained 1979),
specializing in pastoral counseling.
Equally
relevant, I have been a designated Target of counterintelligence
operations and psy war, especially by CIA and to a lesser extent FBI
(as well as other domestic and foreign entities), for more years than
I care to remember, but which, unfortunately, I cannot possibly
forget.
I
have investigated numerous cases of persons who were/are targeted for
what is known as a neutralization campaign, over a course of more
than three (3) decades. Most of the cases involved former military,
law enforcement, and intelligence professionals. But there were also
others, including journalists, activists, dissidents and especially,
among them all, Christians.
I have written extensively on these topics, my reports published on the Internet since 1995, and my websites online since 2000.
So, when I see an article such as this one, by Mike Wood, which offers a theory, such as, that Targets of persecution (in this case, labeled as “gang stalking”, a common term, but one I do not like, or use), may be “delusional”, that some form of psychopathology (such as schizophrenia) may be responsible for the “beliefs” of the Targets, I will state, for the record, that such a theory is only that, a theory.
A theory with very sinister connotations. Labeling a person who has been targeted for persecution (of any kind) as “delusional” is an attempt to negate, to invalidate, to discredit, and ultimately, to blame the victim. And so it follows, if the victim is responsible for what is visited upon him, then the perpetrators cannot be held accountable. Because, according to the would-be “debunkers” (including, but not limited to the adherents of conventional psychology) no such perpetrators exist. No, it is all in the unbalanced psyche of the Target.
Those
of us who have actually studied these phenomena, in real time, in the
field, (not at a remove, in some theoretical, academic environment)
as well as those who have personally experienced them, will be in no
doubt of their horrific reality.
Then,
there is the fact that a significant part of the purpose of these
harassment campaigns against individuals is to attempt to induce
neurosis, even psychosis, through the constant or intermittent
stressors and trauma (psychological and/or physical) heaped upon the
Target. Aside from all the other damages, they hope to “drive the
Target crazy”.
And
even if they don't succeed in that objective, they may well have
achieved another: That at least some of the people close to the
Target, family, friends, associates, colleagues, hearing some of the
“implausible”, even bizarre stories related to the Target's
experiences, will view that person as “paranoid” or “delusional”.
After all, they think, such things could not possibly be happening.
And
so, the Target may end up ostracized, even by those from whom he/she
believed there should have been a reasonable expectation of concern
and support.
As
I've stated many times in my reports, the perps of these campaigns
aim to drive the Target into a state of affairs in which he
suffers isolation, alienation, deprivation. (CIA psy ops protocols.)
He
often finds himself alone, poverty-stricken, chronically ill,
abandoned and/or betrayed by friends, family and colleagues. He is
marginalized, discredited, invalidated.
No delusions, no paranoia, except that falsely attributed to the Target by those perpetrating the crimes, and those who, in their lack of understanding, fail to see the brutal truth.
Now,
an item from the “comments” section of the website by one “PFA
Beacon”. That seems like a screen name, rather than an actual name,
the usual device of anonymous cowards hiding their identities.
PFA Beacon:
"Mike-
in the spirit of enlightenment, I would like you to revisit this
post, and have a look at some of the glitterati amongst the disinfo
crowd in the organized gang stalking community.
Here’s one of the classic “gang stalking” spats that broke out between several former intelligence agents from the FBI and the CIA from around 2007, Barbara Hartwell, James F. Marino, and Geral Sosbee (who sued the FBI at one point for gang stalking)"
http://barbarahartwell.blogspot.com/2007/08/james-f-marinos-rampage-of-libel.html
"These agents use the organized stalking discourse to communicate and cross communicate data. Part of disinformation operations is the flip side- to gain information, or to relay information in coded language. Another part is attempts to vindicate themselves after a discrediting narrative has been run about them, and more.
Odd,
but true. Have a read, and try no to laugh. But it is a real thing
that can and does involve mental illness, but also feigned mental
illness, and sometimes, mental illness as a result of contradictory
signals, or intelligence quandries, similar to Bateson’s porpoises
experiment which created ‘schizophrenic symptoms’ in a double
bind simulation."
This character, Mr. Beacon (as I will refer to him) makes one false statement after another, beginning by referring to Barbara Hartwell and Geral Sosbee as
"the
glitterati amongst the disinfo
crowd in the organized gang stalking community."
Here,
he is apparently parroting the party-line widely disseminated, since
circa 2000, a plot spawned by the late FBI Chief/COINTELPRO Kingpin
Ted Gunderson et al, to label Barbara Hartwell as a “CIA disinfo
agent”. And repeated ad infinitum, ad nauseam by the hordes of
ignorant, malicious government stooges ever since.
For the record, I
am not, nor have ever been, part of any “organized gang stalking
community” in any way, shape or form. I don't use the term
“gangstalking”, since I find it inaccurate. Nor have I ever
participated in, nor been affiliated with any such “community”. I
am not a member of any organizations or groups connected to these
issues.
Next
item:
Mr. Beacon now brings in the name of one James F. Marino, and lumps it in with Barbara Hartwell and Geral Sosbee, as if there were any commonalities, which in fact, there are not.
James F. Marino is not a “former intelligence agent”. Marino, in fact, is merely one of a number of government stooges who tried to latch on to Sosbee and Hartwell, to ride our coattails in attempts to gain credibility for his own claims of being a target of a “FBI COINTELPRO sting operation” .
Mr.
Marino is a name-dropper and gate-crasher, who was shamelessly
exploiting the names of Sosbee and Hartwell, and promoting a plethora
of false information in the process. These characters are a dime a
dozen, but in Marino's case, he was extremely aggressive and refused
to back off when he was told to stop promoting false information, to
stop exploiting our names.
He
then, predictably, began to libel us on his website, accusing us of
all sorts of dastardly deeds, including (you guessed it) of being
government disinfo agents.
There
were no “spats” involved. Only one aggressor (Marino) engaging
in offenses against two legitimate persons (Sosbee and Hartwell) in
attempts to discredit us. And his libelous falsehoods against Sosbee
and Hartwell remain online to this day.
Mr.
Beacon claims that Geral Sosbee “sued the FBI for gangstalking”.
Since I have a copy of the WRIT (which is posted on Sosbee's
website), I can say that this is an inaccurate statement, but beyond
that I won't presume to speak for Geral. Anyone who wants the facts
of the case may easily find them on the website, Sosbee v. FBI.
"These agents use the organized stalking discourse to communicate and cross communicate data. Part of disinformation operations is the flip side- to gain information, or to relay information in coded language. Another part is attempts to vindicate themselves after a discrediting narrative has been run about them, and more."
I think that maybe, Mr. Beacon has been reading some grade B spy novels. He does not know whereof he speaks, but continues with the “disinformation” theme, promoting it AS IF this is established fact, and AS IF he is some sort of expert on these operations.
"Odd, but true. Have a read, and try no to laugh. But it is a real thing that can and does involve mental illness, but also feigned mental illness, and sometimes, mental illness as a result of contradictory signals, or intelligence quandries, similar to Bateson’s porpoises experiment which created ‘schizophrenic symptoms’ in a double bind simulation."
Now, he attempts to ridicule us (“try not to laugh”), bringing in the old standby, used to discredit legitimate expositors of counterintelligence operations, “mental illness”.
But
who is this character, really? What is the source of his
“information”? Why all the technical jargon, with no references,
no connection whatsoever to the individuals he is trying to
discredit?
What
is Mr. Beacon's real name? Whoever he is, he has failed to establish
any facts, and presents no evidence for his claims. Case closed.
Now, the author of the article, Mike Wood responds to Mr. Beacon.
Mike Wood:
"I’m
not really sure what to make of that post. Marino said something
about remote satellite neural monitoring (which anyone who has
experience in imaging would tell you is pretty ridiculous, because
it’s hard enough to do reasonable brain imaging when you’ve got
someone sitting in a damn fMRI machine) but most of it isn’t really
gangstalking-related. It seems like a chapter in a weird ongoing
internet slapfight that doesn’t make a lot of sense without knowing
the people involved."
Well,
here we go again...with an accusation of a “weird internet
slapfight”.
But
before I address Mr. Wood's comments (at least he uses what appears
to be his real name) I advise anyone who is interested in reading my
report on James F. Marino to view it here:
The
link given in the comments is from an old website (2006-2010) where I
no longer post, though I have left it online for reference purposes.
I
won't bother repeating myself in regard to James F. Marino. Those
interested may also find other reports exposing him on this website.
But
I do take issue with Mr. Wood's statement about the existence of
remote neural monitoring. Marino's claims (most of which in my
opinion are not credible) aside, this technology does exist. Look it
up (NOT on Marino's site), especially in connection to a lawsuit
filed by John St. Clair Akwei re NSA.
And
speaking strictly for myself, no, Mr. Wood does not know me, nor
anything at all about me. He is free to believe what he will, and
promote his theories about delusions, paranoia, schizophrenia, though
I can't imagine that anyone who is informed on these issues would buy
into his doctrinaire biases.
Next
up, another article, this one named as a “book review”, by one
Anita Dalton, on a website called Odd Things Considered
Anita
Dalton
Author: John W. DeCamp
Type of Book: Non-fiction, conspiracy theory, Satanic Panic, politics
Again,
you may read the entire article (link above), but my focus is once
again on the use of the name Barbara Hartwell, in connection with the
principals, Ted Gunderson and John DeCamp, as well as Ms. Dalton's
opinions on some of the issues addressed in DeCamp's book, The
Franklin Cover-up.
Here,
some excerpts from the book review and the comments section, all by Anita Dalton:
[Highlighting
is mine, BH.]
"Hoo
boy. This is some excellent conspiracy theory, in that it is
amazingly insane and involved. On one level, I actually believe about
1/8th of this book. The rest is just so whacked and beyond the realm
of reason but with just enough grains of truth here and there that
you can’t help but get sucked in.
This
book has it all, for the seasoned conspiratologist. It has Satanic
Panic, with cabals of Satanists killing children, burning their
bodies and grinding up their bones and teeth. It has a ring of
pedophiles all the way up to the White House, flying out kids from
Nebraska for sexual purposes. It makes reference to militias,
Oklahoma City, the Montana Seven, the Monarch Project, Bohemian
Grove, the Gosch kidnapping (but no Jeff Gannon, alas – perhaps
DeCamp will issue a new edition?)...
But
on the most basic level, there is a kernel that can be believed in
this book, though like I said, 7/8 of it, if not more, should be
dismissed.
Nor
was it a surprise to find the unpleasant, sticky presence of Ted
Gunderson, former FBI agent, in this book. The man believes in
Satanic Panic to this day, but he also believes all kinds of bizarre
things, as I will discuss in a moment. He is either a loon or crazy
like a fox and either way, he is dangerous. He
is also lawsuit happy, suing people whom he thinks slander him,
including people who have clear screws loose and should be pitied
rather than sued. (Google Ted Gunderson and the name Barbara Hartwell
and just marvel at the sadness of it all.) I can say without
any hesitation that his investigative presence in the Johnny Gosch
kidnapping (and sadly, as most believe, murder) has kept the
vulnerable Noreen Gosch in a realm where she will believe anything as
long as it means her son is alive. It has made her prey to con men
and people who torment her.
I
dream of seeing Gunderson in a whacked-theory cage match with someone
– I just can’t think of whom I would inflict Ted on. Art Bell has
already won an out of court settlement against him for calling him a
child molester so it will have to be someone else (and since it was
an out of court settlement with a gag order, there are no firm facts
and all the information out there comes from sources that I would
rather not link to, lest I become overrun with avid true believers
from the whole rainbow spectrum of conspiracy, and if you think I’m
verbose…).
Gunderson
to this day believes the McMartin preschool molestation/Satanic
ritual abuse case happened and has been a force behind sending
innocent people to prison. He is wicked, nasty and preys on the
unstable and it’s not entirely logical for me to say that I
automatically believe the opposite of anything he has to say, but
that’s actually close to the truth.
Wait.
How is L. Ron Hubbard a Satanist? And how come you associate
Satanists with power. I don’t know any with power. Anton LaVey had
little, Aquino less, and current Satanists all work wage slave jobs.
Not to disrespect a way of thinking I find bizarre (as an atheist,
Satanism makes less sense to me than Christianity, but never mind),
but it seems that Glenn Danzig is the most powerful Satanist around
and he denies being a Satanist and has memes made about him taking
care of his cats. I just don’t see the menace of Satanists."
I'll
start with Ms. Dalton's characterization of Barbara Hartwell:
"people
who have clear screws loose and should be pitied rather than sued.
(Google Ted Gunderson and the name Barbara Hartwell and just marvel
at the sadness of it all.)
So,
Dalton believes Barbara Hartwell has “clear screws loose” and
that I should be “pitied”. I wonder, on what does she base this
opinion? How does she presume to know anything that would cause her
to slur my name in this smug, arrogant and condescending manner?
Well,
aside from the fact that she is glaringly ignorant about the issues
she addresses, such as child sex-trafficking, satanic ritual abuse,
even the practice of satanism itself, it appears she is attempting to
discredit the very existence of these things on which she
pontificates.
"Gunderson
to this day believes the McMartin preschool molestation/Satanic
ritual abuse case happened..."
And
how, pray tell, would Ms. Dalton know, one way or another, whether or
not it “happened”?
Does
she know anyone connected to the case? Has she conducted her own
investigation of the case? Since she never cites as much as one
reference or source to back up her claims, she is merely engaging in
speculation.
As
it happens, I knew Ted Gunderson very well, and worked with him for
three years. I also know Jackie McGauley, the principal whistleblower
in the case, a journalist and the mother of one of the children who
suffered the satanic ritual abuse by the predators.
I
also know, from multiple sources (including McGauley) that Ted
Gunderson was not the person who “investigated” the case; he only
swooped in to try to take over the case, and then used it on his
“resume” for years, for bragging rights.
I
have a number of reports on this website which relate to the McMartin
case. I don't claim to be an expert on the case, I did not personally
investigate it. But I do know credible sources who were involved, and
who are armed with the facts.
Same
holds true for the so-called “Franklin Cover-up”. It was, in
fact, a double coverup, a coverup of a coverup. John DeCamp himself
was a pedophile, a fact of which Ted Gunderson was well aware, and
who admitted this to me in 1999, when I informed him that I had this
information, from multiple trustworthy sources.
When
I exposed this information publicly (beginning in 2003), DeCamp was
the one who threatened to sue me, mounting a libel campaign
extravaganza in electronic media in 2005. He never followed through on the threat.
But
according to Ms. Dalton, I should be “pitied rather than sued”.
Dalton
states:
"But
on the most basic level, there is a kernel that can be believed in
this book, though like I said, 7/8 of it, if not more, should be
dismissed."
So,
she pulls a fraction out of thin air, that “7/8 of it, if not more,
should be dismissed.”
Yes,
indeed, just one of those whacky conspiracy theories, which “should
be” dismissed.
Simply
because, without presenting any credible sources, no evidence,
operating on a total lack of knowledge, Ms. Dalton says so.
And
consider this statement:
"And
how come you associate Satanists with power. I don’t know any with
power. Anton LaVey had little, Aquino less, and current Satanists all
work wage slave jobs. Not to disrespect a way of thinking I find
bizarre (as an atheist, Satanism makes less sense to me than
Christianity, but never mind), but it seems that Glenn Danzig is the
most powerful Satanist around and he denies being a Satanist and has
memes made about him taking care of his cats. I just don’t see the
menace of Satanists."
Ms.
Dalton says she is an atheist. That might explain (though maybe not)
why she dismisses the idea that there is any menace from Satanists.
And
how would she know how much “power” to attribute to the various
satanists she names?
So,
she does not believe in God and perhaps as a corollary, she does not
believe in Satan.
I
can only say that in my opinion Ms. Dalton has been greatly deceived;
that she thinks she knows far more than she does; and that what she
thinks she knows is based on speculation, erroneous assumptions, and
probably on buying into some very well-crafted disinformation, meant
to discredit legitimate sources who have exposed the very real
horrors of child sex trafficking/pornography; the epidemic of
satanism, which has reached unprecedented proportions, worldwide and
which is drawing in millions, especially through the heavy
metal/devil worship culture.
Satan
does not exist? His minions don't really exist and have no power to
wreak havoc and destroy the lives of innocent children?
Try
telling that to the victims, the countless children abducted every
year, to be used as sex slaves, and then merely disposed of. Tell it
to those who are kept in cages, who have experienced the worst of the
worst soul-shattering evil, from which they can never completely
recover, even if they live to tell their stories. Tell it to the
parents and the families whose lives have been ruined in the wake of
these devastating crimes.
In
summary, I ask the readers to please seriously consider the topics covered here; if you are not concerned about them, you should be, even if only
for the sake of your children and grandchildren.
Don't
allow self-proclaimed 'experts' or pontificating pundits, to determine your
beliefs.
Those
who would have you believe, Oh that? That's just a whacky conspiracy
theory. Pay it no mind.
After all, it is clear that those who talk about such things are delusional, paranoid, mentally ill, they have a few screws loose....
Believe
this at your own risk, because mark my words, it will eventually
involve you, your family and loved ones, one way or another, whether you think so, or
not.
Barbara
Hartwell Percival
March
3, 2018
