7 Tips: How to outreach, preach, or beseech if a Targeted Individual
by H. Michael Sweeney, copyright © 2011, ProparanoidPress, all rights reserved permissions to reproduce available on request to pppbooks at comcast (net)
Dateline Portland, OR July 20, 2011 Updated July 27, 2012
Calling the Cops or Writing your Congressman can Backfire
But there are ways it can work better
This is being written for the TIs among us. It will become the seed basis for a new chapter in the next edition of my book, MC Realities.
I get three kinds of people who contact me for help: a) Targeted Individuals; b) persons claiming to be targeted individuals but who are actually part of the targeteers (new word); and c) persons who are either paranoiac and/or schizophrenic and wrongly believe they are targeted individuals. There can be combinations; you can have fake TI perp who is, in truth, also an unwitting TI and does not yet know it. You can have TI who was selected for targeting because they already suffered a mental issue, or who is driven to it through targeting, over time. In any grouping of TIs, these types of persons exist (e.g., my clients, groups such as the Free Will Society to Aid Targeted Individuals or facebook groups, and at public gatherings such as Conspiracy Con). I make no initial judgements on the viability of claims or beliefs, nor conclusions as to the type of TI with whom I am actually dealing. Such things become evident in time. Moreover, what good am I to anyone I if I judge them the same way as everyone else, and turn them away on a mere conclusion based on brief contact? It is NOT MY JOB. I’m here to help, regardless of the reason help is needed.
I cannot, for if I simply dismissed them based on a degree of incredulous description or conflicting facts or details, I might make a serious mistake. For one reason, a TI can be made to believe almost any unreal or incorrect thing, and commonly do as direct result of the targeting process. It renders them unable to fight the correct fight, and it also makes them less believable if they choose to speak of their problems to others. Which is exactly what this article is about; the problems and solutions in making such dialogs yield good results. For another, of course, we both miss a possible chance at improving their situation, perhaps ending the torture entirely, sometimes even with compensation or remuneration for their losses. A fellow can always use some more pocket change.
The problem in attempting to talk about targeting to any other person, even another TI, is that their credibility can easily be strained, were it to exist in the first place. As a rule, it does not pre exist except perhaps with another TI or someone like myself (though to my knowledge, I’m the only one of my kind doing quite what I do). Even a friend or loved one will tend to follow the thought patterns evidenced in LEA (Law Enforcement Agencies), officials, and medical practitioners, which is to presume the TI in need of mental health care. Sad, but true (the thinking, not the reality — at least when involving an actual TI).
My first advice to new clients is almost always “Do not go to Police, government, or professionals with this problem.” The answer I get is almost always, “I already have.” The description of results is almost always, “they did not help, they think I’m crazy.” Well, to a degree they were crazy… crazy to believe they would be believed and get help. But the reason for such conclusions on the part of would-be helpers can at least potentially be negated. There are ways to do it which establish improved believability and increase the likelihood of actual useful helps, or at least obtaining next-step advice.
Sadly, most such contacts are not equipped, willing, or able to help in any useful direct way. The kinds of helps truly useful are found elsewhere, and have an extremely high and unreachable price tag: a good Technical Security CounterMeasures (TSCM) and Private Investigator investigation can easily cost $50K, and there are no guarantees it will produce good result without more than one attempt. Should the ‘perps’ engaged in targeting get wind, they can simply shut down operations while the investigation takes place. Further, there are plenty of con men out there looking to make a quick buck pretending to be such experts when they are not – the first clue being they charge a fraction of the price. It costs what it costs. Anything less, is less.
If one MUST talk to others, there are a few basic rules of behavior and procedure which can make a good deal of difference, even with LEA and medical professionals, who are otherwise quite trained and disposed to presume mental illness. There are steps to take, all well before opening one’s mouth. Let’s call them tips, since they are hardly sequential steps.
Tip 1: establish plausibility
The very first step is to be armed with factual information which establishes the validity and existence of targeting technology, and its use on Citizens at large in the past. A very good source (sorry for the plug) is my third book in the series, The Professional Paranoid Defensive Field Guide, which contains a wealth of information which should be mandatory reading for any TI about to open their mouth, or not. This gives them factual ammunition which can be cited to back up the notion of a potential for truth in the TI’s claims. Key among such proofs and citations in the books are lists of documented Political Control Technology among which can be found many capable of producing each and every symptom of schizophrenia in a TI. You therefore establish plausibility. If you do not obtain it by such attempt, there is no point in continuing on unless you also have good evidence, which is the next step to consider.
political control technology
Tip 2: have useful evidence
An almost impossible goal, but quite key to being believed. LEA, unfortunately, requires a much higher standard of evidence before they can actually respond, but lesser levels of evidence can at least forestall notions of mental issues being involved. Fortunately, the medical community may be far more easily convinced by lesser evidence, since their goal does not involve actions which put them into potential conflict with targeteers, as would be the case for Police. For the record, LEA requires courtroom quality evidence which is seldom available. I talk to countless victims who claim to have such evidence, but in over a decade, there has been perhaps only three instances where such evidence was actually that good… but further suffered the problem of easily being neutered by alternative explanations. Targeteers are simply too good at what they do to make the kinds of mistakes needed to provide superior evidence.
But fortunately, there are kinds of evidence which can be useful for establishing some credibility. Video or audio of strange doings, if clear and if context is visually present, can be useful. Eye witness reports are quite useful. Lists of repetitive events, such as noting the same license plate at odd times and places in your life, or the discovery of a listening device, or even proof of tampering or sabotage in the form of a repairman’s statement… or the like… can be useful. While all can have alternative explanations, they take away from the ‘suffer’s schizophrenia notion’ and moves toward ‘ could be paranoia’ (worst case result), or shows enough of a pattern of questionable matters to exceed probabilities and shift thinking toward actual belief in the possibility of actual targeting. The later is where you want to end up, of course..
Lesser evidence and general event histories should only be mentioned in passing as existing, but add a phrase such as, “I’m not sure what that means,” “I know it proves nothing,” “I don’t know if that’s a clue, or not,” or some other diluting statement. You mention it to add ‘bulk’ to the evidence even though it has no ‘substance.’ It makes you sound more rational and cautious in your thinking by volunteering the disclaimer as to value. NEVER say you KNOW something as fact based on observations of this sort, as that immediately destroys you in their eyes as not being rational.
Tip 3: make a proper presentation
This is essentially a matter of learning to religiously apply dos and don’ts in framing descriptions of your problem and associated experiences:
Do NOT use terms or phrases like “they or them,” which sounds conspiracyish (new word). Do not presume who they might be (e.g., they are NOT government, military, CIA, Masons, etc.) Instead say “person or persons unknown”. It is not your job to identify the perps, only to establish they exist and are a mystery worthy of a look see. There are many such conspiracy related terminologies and references which should be avoided at all costs. Instead use generic terms which leave it open and enforces the mystery element.
Do NOT make statements of fact, draw conclusions, or claim to know something is true. Remember, you could be made to believe any unreal thing, so your conclusions and beliefs are NOT useful at this point, at all. Instead imply the possibility of such things using qualifying expressions (see next).
DO use qualifier terms to show your own uncertainty or a willingness to accept alternate explanations (being rational would demand this kind of thinking). Things like “I reasoned this might mean,” “I wondered if it was possible that,” “If that was true, then it might mean,” and so forth. Use these as verbal vehicles to explore possibilities in personal dialogs, and if they probe you for conspiratorial beliefs, it is OK to admit “Well, that thought has crossed my mind…” but temper it again with reason; “but there isn’t enough evidence, yet. That’s one reason I need your help.”
DO stop briefly and ask a question of the listener in an attempt to get an sense of useful agreement. Its a check to see how you are doing and to make sure you don’t walk over a cliff by going on and on beyond their plausibility threshold. Baby steps here — don’t go for the gold. “Was that an unresonable assumption on my part?” “Am I crazy to think about it in those terms?” “Does that seem like a lot of coincidence to you, too?” This works in written material as well as conversations, though you don’t enjoy an answer, but it shows the reader you are considerate of their beliefs, which again shows you as a reasoning person.
political control technology
Tip 4: choose your listener carefully
There is a reason you are selecting a given listener. Make sure you understand what it is, and tell them up front in generic terms what it is you are trying to accomplish. “I’m very concerned about some strange events that lead me to believe someone is doing strange things to me… a kind of harassment.” Conclude your presentation with precise request for specific actions you hope they can take to help you. Don’t aim too high. They can volunteer more if warranted. “Could someone look at my video and give me advice?” is a lot better than “I want these people investigated and jailed!”
When it comes to a given listener from among many in a possible group, such as when choosing a lawyer or other professional, I usually advise going out of your primary community to any nearby smallish city of about 40-50K population, and seek a minority person relatively new in the trade. This increases the likelihood of their being hungry for business, and decreases the likelihood of their being co opted. When it comes to family members, co workers, and neighbors, church members, etc., you want to evaluate what you know about them as well as what might go wrong should they absolutely disbelieve. Are they likely to say inappropriate or unwanted things to others, or remain quiet as you prefer?
Most important of all, if as you proceed in any verbal presentations, you are getting signs that the listener is not buying what you are selling, if you have already produced your biggest guns… thank them for your time and excuse yourself. Do not let them detain you with encouragements. This is a case where anything you do say will be held against you. As there will likely be an official record, you need to cut and run and avoid that record being overly negative. “Possible paranoiac tendencies.” is better than “Exhibits Schizophrenic behavior.” Better to seek out an alternate listener for another day. If they are in the same agency, you are likely doomed to a repeat failure as commentaries of the first listener will be made available to the second… so an alternate agency may be in order, or at least some means to reverse whatever is believed to have caused the negative view (e.g., evidence). That’s another reason your pitch should be as good as it can be the first time ’round, which means well thought out — exactly why you are reading this.
Tip 5: rehearse an organized presentation
If you feel you are under surveillance (you are, most likely), you may want to prepare a written outline or index card set and read them quietly to yourself while imagining to be speaking. Open with an introduction by name and a brief generic description of who you are and where you are in life – a bit like describing your life situation to an old High-School chum met randomly on the street. “I’m a homemaker with two kids holding down a job as a secretary for a military contractor, etc.” Follow with a brief explanation of your targeting in VERY generic and brief terms and the up front request for help from step 4.
Outline your basic problem with somewhat more details (e.g., gangstalking, EW targeting symptoms, etc.)., without giving precise examples and AVOID THOSE TERMS in favor of generic symptoms or observations. Once you start talking the terminology you will likely be at a disadvantage and need to ‘educate’ them in the terms and that will again paint you as a conspiracy nut. Introduce evidence availability along the way, including the Field Guide proofs as may be appropriate, and likewise with the baby-step questions of agreement. Close with the specific request for help. It is more than OK to work from your notes or index cards in the actual presentation. That shows methodical and organized thinking, as opposed to emotional response. Express your feelings about this or that at key points in the presentation, perhaps in the form of an agreement question, “I felt like I was being treated like a criminal. Wouldn’t you feel that way if it happened to you?”
political control technology
Tip 6: be prepared to answer questions
Try to make a list of likely questions and prepare ready-made answers which are truthful but which otherwise adhere to the advice, herein. Do expect unexpected questions, at unexpected times. It is OK not to quickly answer, but if you are a bit at a loss for words, express it with something neutral, such as “Well, I hadn’t thought about that, much,” or “That’s an interesting question. Hmm.” Don’t get flustered or nervous. It is also OK to say you don’t know, or that you are unsure but have a theory or belief.
Tip 7: be honest but constrained
Be as honest and direct as you can while still observing the above points. It is OK to withhold things which are not directly related to the precise element under discussion if they risk damage to credibility. For example, talking about general targeting observations and symptoms when describing gang stalking and suspected (use that word a lot) electronic weapons does not require you to admit to hearing voices, which is the one thing most likely to get you judged up front as mental — despite the fact there are many technologies known to create the effect, including some now being used commercially, such as Quad S or Silent Sound commonly found in museum tours and the like. Your goal is to paint enough of a picture to provide a useful image of an existing and real problem, not to provide complete disclosure at the risk of blowing away any possible acceptance of its reality. You want them interested enough to want to go to the next step with you, not so well informed as to want to send you packing due the limitations of their own belief structures.
In the end, that’s really what it is about. You need to overcome their existing belief structures sufficiently to hear you out and conclude a possibility exists sufficient enough that the next step seems appropriate, even if for no other reason than curiosity. That’s where mystery comes to be valuable. You may even want to include in your opening statement something to the effect of, “What I’m about to tell you will probably sound like nonsense. So I’m asking you to please briefly suspend your belief structure just as if sitting down to watch a sci-fi movie. But what I have to say is no fiction, it just sounds implausible on the face of it.”
Regardless of if using these seven tips, or not, I sincerely wish you the best possible outcome in any outreach effort. Please ask for my free Helps Kit if a TI or a helper to a TI. Anyone can ask for my free sample newsletter on Political Control Technology. Email me at proparanoid at gmail (com).
- How do you act smart in front of other people (wiki.answers.com) An 8th tip, perhaps? Couldn’t hurt.
- Reason seen as a Weapon, not a Path to Truth (dinmerican.wordpress.com) Sometimes things are not as they seem on the surface, and ‘help’ is worse than the bite in need of mending. You can spot clues that this is happening, and walk away.
- 1 Cor 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. (Bloodofthelamb.wordpress.com) The one person who, if you follow him, will ALWAYS listen, care, and do the right thing.
- Technical Surveillance Threat Series, “Cellular Threats”. (comsecllc.blogspot.com) A bit of an insight into the World of TSCM.
- See also Granite Island Group, one of the few such TSCM specialists I personally would choose — contributors to my books, The Professional Paranoid and The Professional Paranoid Defensive Field Guide.
Posted on July 8, 2011, in How to Get Help, Targeted Individuals. Bookmark the permalink. 4 Comments.
Chris Cannon here. I’ve been overtly harassed, attempts on my life, mobbed, stalked, noise harassment, color anchoring etcetera since 2001. I have many videos I’ve put up on YouTube showing this on a few channels. Benjamin Jacob and Slowpoke are my go to channels. My email is email@example.com I love what your doing. Please keep it up.
Thank you for your kind remarks. I can see you are a TI survivor, not a TI victim. Kudos!
Having read this I believed it was very informative. I appreciate you spending some time and effort to put this information together.
I once again find myself spending way too much time both reading and commenting.
But so what, it was still worth it!
Pingback: Links | Electronic Harassment