First, to cover some definition. Indoctrination is when someone sets out with the intent to influence another by limiting their perspective. More generally, indoctrination means to instruct or teach someone how things work. But as we are each complete microcosms and endowed with reasoning, accepting indoctrination is a denial of these basic functions of consciousness. How indoctrination differs from the sharing of one’s beliefs with an intent to add their perspective (which may or may not be useful to another) is the topic if this post, as partly inspired by recent email communication from one of my friends-turned-stalker.

It seems that there is a rather wide spread problem of conclusion-based reasoning (which is, in short, faulty/incomplete reasoning), and this tendency leads to being easy prey for indoctrination. Conclusion-based reasoning means that rather than suspend judgment when new information is brought to the attention of a person, the person dismisses the claims as being false, or accepts them, without bothering to investigate or compare notes with their own observations and intuition.

Common examples of this are reactionary dismissal of various sets of ‘fringe knowledge’ -along with many metaphysical explorations, gang stalking mechanics and related information fit into the category of ‘fringe knowledge’  for many people. Sometimes when people are confronted with unpleasant information their reaction is to dismiss it as impossible and untrue, without bothering to sort fact from theory. A more developed response when new information is presented and one is either unwilling or unable to investigate claims, is to suspend judgment.

This kind of reactive (unconscious) dismissal of information works the other direction too. For those who are not keen on consciously exploring their experiences, information presented in a convincing manner is just as likely to be accepted without conscious thought or awareness.

New information does not have to be right or wrong. Applying critical thinking and trusting one’s observations and intuition afford for abilities like suspending judgment until one has the necessary info…understanding to decide if something is true and relevant, or not.

Recent Gaslighting via Email: an interjection leading up to some analysis of indoctrination versus critical thinking

On my birthday I received an email with the subject line Happy Birthday from M, someone who was once one of my best friends, but who ended up taking part in gang stalking via cryptic messages, malicious knowing comments… various forms of gaslighting and  generally helping to chute me toward further dangerous events. I knew him for over 10 years and so I put up with a lot of this in the hope that he would come to his senses.

The happy birthday email had a few clues that showed knowledge on his part of ‘betrayal by friends’, for example, “I hope you’ve found people who care at least as much about you as they do themselves“.

This refers to a repeated theme from the friends-turned-stalkers that says something about their own internal struggles. In several instances these friends would imply that I’m snobby or think I’m special because I expect common respect like I offer to others. On a different note, there is something for compassionate people to learn about kindness when it comes to malicious people/events: unless you really think there’s a possibility of their acknowledging consciousness of their actions  (as we each offer in truly transparent/equal discussion), compassion in the form of full acceptance of the dubious character or their continuing to be in your life, unquestioned, is just not worth it; not everyone is compassionate as you may be. To comment on the line above, of course I do not expect friends to value me above themselves. This, to me, speaks volumes of M’s struggles with STO versus STS types of behavior and reasoning, and the STS indoctrination he’s been influenced by (more on STO-STS explorations here). In general, the whole ‘but show me the proof of deleterious actions on my part” is the Eichman of modern covert harassment and indoctrination; because such collaborators do not act in objectively malicious ways they fancy that their involvement is not substantial, though clearly such involvement is cumulative.

By STS standards, looking out for one’s self above all else, above any concerns for a larger community, is the motto. STS leader types indoctrinate subordinates into thinking that the best possible path is to look out for #1 and that STO stances of acceptance and sharing are inane, and less developed ways of moving in the world. So, to someone looking through the lens of STS indoctrination at someone who believes in service to others, compassion and a greater good, this STO type of person is seen as stupid and snobby, to think that anyone is special or deserving of respect if they do not gain respect through force and domination.

Respecting someone out of fear or hoping to learn how to dominate others, is how STS hierarchy works. STO types form groups of individuals, where STS forms a pecking order (each member is bid and fed on by higher ups).

The message was on the surface quite warm around the bits of inconsistency. He closed it by saying that he had too much ‘baggage’ to ‘walk the path with me’ just now. [This reference to 'baggage' refers to this post where I rant about how the stalkers’ problems with awareness and personal development are ‘their own bag’.]

M was always a pretty decent guy. For the majority of the time I knew him he was one of my best friends because he acted in compassionate ways involving inclusiveness. Earlier on in our friendship we had many philosophical discussions and respected each other’s explorations and development.

Anyway, because of our past closeness and these signs of development and responsibility he’s displayed in the past I decided to respond to the email after some time had passed in which I weighed the pros and cons. I decided that the possibility of us both learning something from my being direct about how his actions had affected me, and possibly opening up a line of meaningful dialog, was worth the small (but probable) risk he might decide to continue along the lines of gaslighting and whatnot. So I sent him a matter-of-fact email telling him how he may not realize the larger impacts but that he is responsible for his actions that put me and my family in danger. I did my best to add in how I understand that pressure to conform and things may have played a part, but that his message of warmth is dubious at best when there is no mention of why he hadn’t bothered to contact me in 8 months, if he’s so innocent, and why no mention of the events or anything in the way of an apology.

Well, he responded with ‘righteous shock’ claiming that he just doesn’t see how I could think those things of him and that ‘THEY’ made me believe things that aren’t true, and that it’s “all your own [my own] bullshit“. How he’d never been given a chance to disprove the allegations. He adds, “…show me the proof, but there isn’t any“, and “but how can you have faith when your faith is all messed up. [...] meh, I know you’ll figure this out..“.  In both messages he implies that I’m too screwed up to know what’s going on, and (but) that I’ll figure it out… he’s sure of that. Proof, hunh? I know and he knows, but of keen interest to organized stalking perps is the fact that there is usually little in the way of proof -this makes them feel very mighty while continuing to ignore their own self development and trying to stunt the freedom and growth of others. Maybe you perps can all save us from the oh so horrible proposition of growing up, hunh?

The thing is that I know he remembers and is falling in line with the #1 stalker motto of denial, yet there is also the possibility that he does not consciously remember the way he treated me (that he does not remember the most meaningful negative interactions because he does not want to see them), because he’s allowed his reality filters to get all gunked up with the STS leader’s lessons and disinformation. That doesn’t mean that I’m open to letting him back into my life, because either way that’s a potentially dangerous person. If I hadn’t known him as well as I did I might think it’s possible he was so unaware that he acted more like a robotic agent, but I did know him well, and I have seen what it’s like when people turn into robot puppets; he was aware of his actions, if not the larger picture of the impact these actions had on me. I think he’s afraid of losing his place in the pack of little boys he calls family. I also think that he was one of the last friends in this group to even be aware of the campaign against me. This waiting to fully ensnare my couple of closest friends is also what put this better friend into his own tailspin of confusion and doubt. When he finally realized what was going on there was so much inertia and self-incriminating evidence brought forth by the group against him that it was simply much easier for him to acquiesce and play the part of in group member. Going more than 10 years back, the leader STS type has been picking them off using the same tactics of  ‘damning evidence’ they wouldn’t want others to know about –events or admissions, etc, that the leader manufactures or manifests himself with the express intent of blackmailing them -though not in so many words, it’s all psychological pressure applied with increasing intensity until they cave to it, along with the whispers pulling them toward being accepted in this now even more elite group. I’ve seen this love-hate-love kind of spinning manipulation throughout this group and every more targeted attack made against me. Its main purpose is to confuse so that the person gives up thinking for themselves and finally caves to what the little voice in their ear whispers. Poor M.

Intuitive signs of turmoil

Throughout the stalking ordeals I’ve had the benefit of some very intuitive messages relayed to me in dreams, many of the symbolism involving these friends didn’t make sense at the time, but show me things in hindsight. Around the time that I’d moved back to the city and started spending more time with M, one night I was staying at his place and woke up with the most horrible feeling that I was missing something, something dear related to a friend had slipped away without my noticing. I couldn’t put my finger on it. Then several months later, just as the overt stalking by friends was in full swing (though overt and as yet left undecided by myself), I had a dream in which I was downtown and there was some kind of cataclysmic natural disaster like an earthquake. All the buildings were falling down and people were running everywhere. I’m in a building that remains standing, but through the huge plate glass walls I see a huge furrow of rubble tumbling toward the wall/window. Just as it reaches the building I’m in I notice M who is pressed up against the window/wall, trapped between the rubble and the building I’m in. I try to save him, but then the dream gets weird and floats away, as dreams are wont to do.

Similarly, earlier on (after the overt stalking and before the better known friends took part) M would sometimes say strange things indicating an internal struggle and depression about friends not seeming the way they once did, and circling issues of how a person knows when a friendship is not good for them any longer, etc. When I offered to talk about it more, he would get quiet.

So, to me it’s pretty clear that he is one of those cases where the pressure to fit in, and perhaps the threat of becoming a target, played key roles in his deciding to become a stalker-critter. I really don’t think he understands that the person/people feeding him limited perspective are essentially feeding on him.

To revisit some STO v. STS differences, it seems that when someone is relatively less conscious and less willing to take the reigns of their free will, they are prone to being sucked into an STS hierarchy. When that happens it can be exciting because they are given super secret info and tactics on dominating other people. Then, on the fear side of things, STS initiates are scared that the only recourse they have is to learn the ropes and try to gain power within that system, or at least not piss off someone who has demonstrated the ability to carry out long term terrorism against others. To me M does not really fit the profile of someone who enthusiastically decided to turn down an STS path. He seems very undecided and confused, and wanting to remain as irresponsible for his own life as possible.

As covered in my article STO and STS, or Good versus Evil: a philosophical exploration, it seems he is churning in external influences rather than consciously making decisions about these things; rather than consciously learning to discern between the polarities, understanding the differences and using that knowledge to continue his personal development. That may sound judgmental, and that’s right, it is, but it’s based on years of observation and much energy put toward understanding his actions and other outward signs of struggle, all with the intent of offering insight only if/where it may be useful. Apparently he’s exercising his right to suspend judgment or dismiss my responses altogether. Well, time is meaningless in the neverending quest for development. I wish him the best of luck. Meh, I’m sure he’ll figure it out.

Back to blog post -proper

Around when the first signs of Houston friends acting like stalkers was happening, M would sometimes imply indirectly that not everyone has room for information, the message being that my sharing of perspectives could be taken as indoctrination. I recall responding that it’s up to each person to take what they find useful in another persons expressions, and leave the rest. But this idea, through further observation of friends(turned-stalkers), proved to be more of an accusation aimed at me. Namely, that all the times I’ve shared my philosophies I was trying to control their perspectives.

A few days ago as I was checking email and catching up on forum discussions I realized I was feeling really conflicted. I was feeling confused about some emotions and impressions rolling around in my mind. On one level I kept playing through the various (false) accusations of these ‘friends’ and there was something left unresolved for me. As I continued turning inward I came to the wall where I questioned the merit of the accusations. Note: A lot of this conflict comes from longer term attacks and even post-hypnotic suggestion, but on another layer are valid explorations of the STO and STS polarities.

So I got to thinking, had I ever tried to indoctrinate someone, to limit their perception of reality? I can be very boisterous about my ideas and love sharing them, but I’m equally open to hearing and getting excited about other people’s ideas.

So, how can someone tell if a person is sharing their perspective in a neutral way or if their intention is indoctrination/control. I came to the conclusion that, like with most considerations in life, it has to be up to individual discernment based on observation and intuition. For example, M had known me for over 10 years and so had a lot of material to base observations on. Did I ever share my perspective and philosophies with the intent to limit his perception or control his ideas? Well I know that I have only ever intended to share my bits of knowledge and opinion as possibly useful bits of information and hope that others will add their own. But how could M have discerned whether or not I was sharing or indoctrinating? Well, did I ever voice my opinion and then not remain open to the opinion of someone else? No. Did I ever say that someone else’s perspective was wrong? No. The closest I came to that was saying, yes, but… or I don’t know, it seems to me… and adding some more of my own perspective. Did I show signs of being interested in other’s opinions? All the time. He had many opportunities to see how excited I can get about considering someone else’s ideas and siting and talking exploring alternative theories.

So again, it comes down to personal discernment and trusting one’s observation and intuition over the indoctrination by someone else who is doing their best to cover up their misdeeds by projecting them onto someone else. But then again, if M could discern such things our friendship wouldn’t have been sacrificed to slander campaigns and his seeming lack of personal responsibility.