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.
Posts
