4 ms·

Why was there a fatwa against you?

vorg 12y ago
You won't find the reason in any public court document, nor will asking the populace involved reveal the real intent because the reason such puppeteers give their intermediaries, often different reasons to different intermediaries, is never the real purpose behind surveillance. Much targeted surveillance using human agents becomes interference of some sort by those same agents. Often when surveillance becomes interference, the puppeteers tell their intermediaries they're trying to "help" the mark, but in reality, they're only pretending because the real intent of anyone behind this type of activity is always to harm. I experienced this when someone up here tried to shunt me out of work teaching college students and into work teaching children, telling people I should do the work that pays the most. They pretended to be helping so they would appear to be "good guys" to their intermediaries, but their puppeteers were really conducting harmful manipulation for their own ends. They ultimate reason behind surveillance, whether one-to-one or broadcasted "fatwas", seems to be to protect free cash flows, or maintain power structures, and what not.
- vorg 12y ago
  A day after posting the above reply came an event I was half anticipating: the Person of Interest episode 79 broadcast on 6 Jan 2015 in the U.S. featured a preachment saying "Anyone who treats life as a game of chess, treating people like pawns, deserves to lose". This could have been placed in response to a bait comment I left on Hacker News 2 months ago ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8548483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8548483 ) but they are usually placed deniably. I've learnt from experience what the lagtime is between letting on I watch some TV show and something apparently targeted at me appearing in it, though this is the first time I left one on purpose. The preachment as presented was only pretending to be aimed at me, but was actually aimed at others. What I was being told was "My blog is bigger than your blog, our budget is bigger than your budget", a message given many times via CBS, ABC, Fox, etc over the past few years. The actual preachment line is for certain TV viewers, especially in places like Australia and China, saying it's OK to target me because I treat other people like pawns. This latest fatwa-style call to arms is of a similar method to many previous ones for surveillance like the one that came from Melbourne Australia 12 years ago which I mentioned 3 comments up in this thread. The preachment relies on erroneous assumptions of course. I never liked fighting other people, prefering instead co-operation and group activities like bush hiking (tramping) and camping, but I've since learnt that a more appropriate line instead of Harold Finch's is one by Leon Tolstoy: "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you". I've been attacked in various psychological ways over the past few decades, which I now recognize as being a formulaic and ongoing operation by some people to wear me down, originating in New Zealand but spreading to Australia and the U.S. These are the people the Groovy/Grails managers got into bed with when I first started to respectfully work my way into that community. And I've since learnt I have to respond to war with war, using many varied tactics such as timing bait comments with a 2 month lead. Another erroneous assumption in that preachment is that I use other people like pawns. I don't know any other people very well, and if I make an effort to build relationships with others, sometime down the line they'll start to experience anonymous harrassment in an apparent attempt to get to me. Warning someone that this might happen isn't sufficient because a warning is only words, and they wouldn't really know what I was talking about until it starts happening to them. I know this because 20 years ago someone in NZ said the same to me about himself and I had no concept of what they were really saying. I wouldn't want to ever knowingly be the cause of this to be in someone's future. It's the sociopaths behind these fatwas, who hide themselves behind layers of intermediaries, who are the real users of other people. I'm fighting the war as a lone guerrilla. Anyone involved as an intermediary in some action against me should realize that the reason they're being given is just a cover story to make their handlers look like "good guys". I know far more names of people involved than the very few I've mentioned on my blog but only wanted to name and shame the sociopath puppeteers, not their pawns, because the intermediaries "know not what they do". The only smart response by someone to a fatwa to fight me is to refuse to take part, but of course that might also suit the sociopaths now that I'm "losing" as a result of their previous attacks.

vorg 12y ago

You won't find the reason in any public court document, nor will asking the populace involved reveal the real intent because the reason such puppeteers give their intermediaries, often different reasons to different intermediaries, is never the real purpose behind surveillance. Much targeted surveillance using human agents becomes interference of some sort by those same agents. Often when surveillance becomes interference, the puppeteers tell their intermediaries they're trying to "help" the mark, but in reality, they're only pretending because the real intent of anyone behind this type of activity is always to harm. I experienced this when someone up here tried to shunt me out of work teaching college students and into work teaching children, telling people I should do the work that pays the most. They pretended to be helping so they would appear to be "good guys" to their intermediaries, but their puppeteers were really conducting harmful manipulation for their own ends. They ultimate reason behind surveillance, whether one-to-one or broadcasted "fatwas", seems to be to protect free cash flows, or maintain power structures, and what not.

vorg 12y ago
A day after posting the above reply came an event I was half anticipating: the Person of Interest episode 79 broadcast on 6 Jan 2015 in the U.S. featured a preachment saying "Anyone who treats life as a game of chess, treating people like pawns, deserves to lose". This could have been placed in response to a bait comment I left on Hacker News 2 months ago ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8548483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8548483 ) but they are usually placed deniably. I've learnt from experience what the lagtime is between letting on I watch some TV show and something apparently targeted at me appearing in it, though this is the first time I left one on purpose. The preachment as presented was only pretending to be aimed at me, but was actually aimed at others. What I was being told was "My blog is bigger than your blog, our budget is bigger than your budget", a message given many times via CBS, ABC, Fox, etc over the past few years. The actual preachment line is for certain TV viewers, especially in places like Australia and China, saying it's OK to target me because I treat other people like pawns. This latest fatwa-style call to arms is of a similar method to many previous ones for surveillance like the one that came from Melbourne Australia 12 years ago which I mentioned 3 comments up in this thread. The preachment relies on erroneous assumptions of course. I never liked fighting other people, prefering instead co-operation and group activities like bush hiking (tramping) and camping, but I've since learnt that a more appropriate line instead of Harold Finch's is one by Leon Tolstoy: "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you". I've been attacked in various psychological ways over the past few decades, which I now recognize as being a formulaic and ongoing operation by some people to wear me down, originating in New Zealand but spreading to Australia and the U.S. These are the people the Groovy/Grails managers got into bed with when I first started to respectfully work my way into that community. And I've since learnt I have to respond to war with war, using many varied tactics such as timing bait comments with a 2 month lead. Another erroneous assumption in that preachment is that I use other people like pawns. I don't know any other people very well, and if I make an effort to build relationships with others, sometime down the line they'll start to experience anonymous harrassment in an apparent attempt to get to me. Warning someone that this might happen isn't sufficient because a warning is only words, and they wouldn't really know what I was talking about until it starts happening to them. I know this because 20 years ago someone in NZ said the same to me about himself and I had no concept of what they were really saying. I wouldn't want to ever knowingly be the cause of this to be in someone's future. It's the sociopaths behind these fatwas, who hide themselves behind layers of intermediaries, who are the real users of other people. I'm fighting the war as a lone guerrilla. Anyone involved as an intermediary in some action against me should realize that the reason they're being given is just a cover story to make their handlers look like "good guys". I know far more names of people involved than the very few I've mentioned on my blog but only wanted to name and shame the sociopath puppeteers, not their pawns, because the intermediaries "know not what they do". The only smart response by someone to a fatwa to fight me is to refuse to take part, but of course that might also suit the sociopaths now that I'm "losing" as a result of their previous attacks.