Perpetrators of gang stalking come from all facets of society. Stanley Milgram proposed that people were largely unwilling to question authority in his ‘obedience experiment’ where volunteers were asked to deliver what they thought were lethal or near-lethal electric shocks to strangers. About 70% of them obliged simply because an authority figure requested them to. In summary of this experiment Milgram said,

The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.

In my experiences perpetrators of gang stalking, though they come from all walks of life, can be broken down into those who are more witting and those who are less witting accomplices. Those who are less witting are often those with limited financial resources, are mentally deficient or unstable. Of these types of perpetrators of organized stalking, the simple proposition of making a few dollars to say some things to a target is all that is required to enlist agents for harassment and low level street theater. I’ve run into legions of these riding the Metro rail and similar places where ‘extras’ are easy for the organizers to come by.

A common ploy with the more witting type is to present  harassment of a target as being part of some secret investigation of the target. Very often cultural groups (whether anti-abortion, gay/lesbian, ethnic or political groups) are approached by someone (usually a man) who claims to have connections and heroic experiences with a large intelligence network, such as the CIA. Using this tactic would-be perpetrators are made to feel special and part of something big and important. The more willing agents usually do this as an elaborate play geared to externalize their own shortcomings and make someone else miserable rather than promote consciousness and development of their own lives.

As for the individual cultural groups, any evidence (evident OR manufactured) showing that a target is opposed to the standards of one of these groups is presented to the corresponding cultural group as an enemy agent. In many gang stalking cases, the target is presented to several such groups so as to blanket the effects of targeting by these groups.

When it comes to the mask of ’serious investigation of undesirables’, the more intelligent and duplicitous stalkers tend to, whether they truly believe that the target is in the wrong and deserving of a psychological intervention or not, use this excuse of ‘helping to take the target down a notch’ in order to justify their personal needs for boosting their self esteem or as a mask for their sociopathic desire to find thrill in the harming of other people.

Overall, it seems the most active stalking roles are carried out by people looking for thrills at the expense of another. The auditions being more on-the-fly than scheduled –the pressure and challenge being who can come up with the most daring performances, as judged by the others in their little circles of stalker critters who watch and listen via reports and surveillance gear.

In my own case where longer-known, once-trusted friends become perpetrators, in hindsight I can see how each person had their own motivations and reasoning for involvement. Some have always been prone to hold current trends and public opinion higher than their own judgment and falsely think this is independence –freedom from control of others through falling in line with a system of control. Others were worn down over a longer period of time, eventually giving in to the pressure from their social circle. At first the various personal histories seem quite unique, just as I regarded each friend and their individuality; I respected their uniqueness.

Yet, during further personal assessment of these ‘friends’ it became clear that the psychological make ups of these people were in fact quite similar, namely they each have a seeming inability to think for themselves and tend to listen to orders from anyone who claims or seems to be an authority.

The core perpetrators are usually a hierarchical group with each member being handled and fed the information the main handler decides is the best way to get them to do what he wants. This is not obvious to the main body of stalkers, and is not how the game is perceived by them. To these critters, the goal is thrill, fitting in, being a part of something super secret and whoever provides useful framing of what the goal/mission is, and what the target is supposedly guilty of is irrelevant, or in the cases were group organizers hand out such propaganda, they are seen as knowledgeable sources of useful information.  Again and again, for most participants there is a desire to feel part of some elite gang. For some it’s fear that they will be ostracized or even fall prey to what the target is going through if they do not participate.

In my case many of the core perpetrators seem to truly believe that they are acting out some kind of vigilante justice for past slights they perceive that I’ve enacted against them. In truth, their choosing to involve themselves in torturing me has more to do with their shortcomings than anything I may have unwittingly done to offend them. But through a carefully schemed system of lies and dissemination of disinformation, the handler primes and cultivates them to blow up their own fears and weaknesses, while also exaggerating whatever they can about the target’s flaws so the agents have a clear picture and target for their angst. This is pretty basic psychological warfare where the leaders pit one group against another; everyone loses except the top controllers who learn even better ways to control people.