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.

Learning the Wrong Lessons from the Murder of George Floyd

With regard to the murder of George Floyd: many people are determined to learn the wrong lessons.

Recently Medawar saw an answer on Quora which suggested, probably factually, that in a single month at the beginning of this year, American police managed to kill more people than British police had killed between 1900 and 2019.

Other answers had highlighted the apparent fear which American police had of American citizens and vice versa.

There is no way that American police have been running up such a huge body-count solely by killing black Americans who do not pose an imminent threat to the police or anybody else. They have to be killing white, brown and yellow Americans who do not pose an imminent threat to the police or anybody else as well.

There is something wrong, somewhere, in either the culture or training of American law enforcement officers which biases them towards killing people to a quite incredible extent compared to other countries. Whether this is paranoia, arrogance or just a conditioned reflex arising out of training procedures, or a combination of these, is unclear. But there is something badly wrong in the way that American police and citizens are reacting to each other and it is not solely about race.

If anyone wants to make comparisons between America and Apartheid South Africa, well: Medawar was in South Africa when J.W. Vorster was president and America currently seems to be worse. In most provinces of South Africa, the right of self-defence extends to shooting policemen invading property without a warrant, and police tend to talk to you, loudly and generally from behind a brick wall, before taking any action. Taking proper cover enables the police to communicate without shooting someone out of panic. American police seem to expose themselves to the "suspect" and confront them at gunpoint whilst establishing threat rather than communication: this escalates most situations very effectively.

When Arab policemen suspected Medawar of being a burglar (he had a door open in a factory unit and they had never seen him before) they were nervous, but they came and talked, said they were concerned about the door, and accepted Medawar's assurance that the door was open in the middle of the night to let members of their own armed forces into the factory without being too visible and alarming anyone. He would NEVER have been able to explain that one to American law enforcement without getting thoroughly drilled through the head. They would have given him no real opportunity to explain himself at the scene. The act of explaining, by itself, is to a psyched-up American policeman a challenge and a threat.

Americans have the right to bear arms, but they are MUCH more likely to be shot by police than in almost any other democratic country (Medawar's non-lethal interaction with the Arab police did not even happen in an actual democracy), and in most cases there will be no legal remedy and the officer responsible will stay out of jail and generally keep his job.

The officer charged with the murder of George Floyd reportedly did something (kneeling on the neck to restrain George for a prolonged period) that was more or less guaranteed to kill him (this would count as murder under English law without needing any proof of premeditated intent, because you can be convicted of murder if, without a reasonable excuse, you perform an action which any reasonable person would expect to cause death.) BUT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT ALL OFFICERS IN HIS DEPARTMENT HAD BEEN TRAINED TO DO. (Which will be why his colleagues did not stop him and why he may be acquitted when tried.) There is something wrong with the whole premise and philosophy of the training programme and the culture behind it. A sudden outbreak of anti-racism will not cure this, because nearly as many people will go on being killed by police on some non-racist trigger.

Trusting China

A very short post this.
Don't trust communist China, and below is just a brief glimpse of why you shouldn't.