If a person’s beliefs are altered through a program of psychological torture, that person can be said to be brainwashed. Used by cults and military/intelligence organizations, brainwashing can be thought of as forced indoctrination into untrue, implausible and even indefensible belief systems.

Both of these are excellent terms describing what has been done to, or attempted on, a majority of targeted individuals.

The tactics used against targets can be characterized as terrorism. The tactics play on individual targets’ fears, bypass the conscious mind with extreme harassment episodes¹, and/or use frightening misinformation - disseminated by others the target trusts.

Many targets will experience psychological torture and/or physical abuse. Some may suffer debilitating/crippling electronic harassment. These things can be grouped together as torture.

However, using torture to describe individual episodes may be inappropriate. And after hearing this word, some listeners will ask for examples of how you’ve been tortured. If you’re not prepared to answer questions like those, don’t use this word.

Surveillance abuse is the abusive use of surveillance in ways that defy societal norms. The information gathered about a target of surveillance abuse will be used against that target, in harmful or distressing ways.

Referring to the entire ordeal as harassment might not convey what the problems are. It’s pretty obvious that harassment is only one tool serving a broader objective.

Psychological warfare, psychological operations, and psychological manipulation are the use of sophisticated techniques originally developed by military and intelligence organizations to change a target’s attitudes and perceptions. This terminology is important to be aware of, but it doesn’t cover damaging assaults or attacks on a target’s livelihood.

High-tech stalking by proxy is probably the best explanation of what’s happening to a solid majority of targets who have found their way to sites like this one. It satisfies targets who perceive they are being stalked - the explanation is that they are, but by a much smaller number of people than they assume - and also explains much of the electronic harassment targets are reporting.²

Organized harassment is the broadest phrase I’ve been able to come up with to describe what many targets experience. “Organized harassment” encompasses the organized use of surveillance abuse, psychological warfare tactics, actual vandalism, secret boycotts and blacklisting, and even electronic harassment.

Community-based harassment is similar to organized harassment, and its wording is more potent in some ways, as it assigns blame (answering the question, “Who is doing this?”) while not singling any particular group out. However, it doesn’t address the issue of how problems follow the target from one area to another, nor does it address many kinds of electronic harassment. In short, community-based harassment may be “the answer” for some targets; but for other targets, community-based harassment may only be one component of the target’s ordeal, or may not apply at all.

The use of the word stalking gives undue weight to the target’s perception that large numbers of people are persistently following him, not allowing for mobbing (instinctual out-group hostility) or the possibly of highly deceptive operations intended to look like stalking³.

However, stalking/harassment by groups of people does happen, and it can take a while to learn whether things are as they seem, or whether one is targeted⁴.

Mobbing is a form of group bullying that may have a ringleader; it seems to develop naturally out of covert communications between group members. I’ve written before that mobbing is essentially instinctual behavior⁵, exhibited by birds, small animals, and even insects⁶.

While targeting might seem to be mobbing, especially in the beginning, this explanation falls short of explaining multi-year, multi-location harassment.

Even though targeting is much more comprehensive than mobbing, mobbing may be an element of an individual target’s ordeal. A target might truthfully say, “I was mobbed out of my last job,” for example.

Gang-stalking (note the hyphen) is a popular term describing highly coordinated patterns of harassment, break-ins, conspicuous surveillance, and so on. This should only be used as a verb or gerund, and never to describe a person. One might say “[an organization] gang-stalked me for years”, or, “they’ve been gang-stalking me”, but one should never say “[he] is a ‘gang stalker’”.

The term rolls off the tongue, and I use it. The problems come when you use the term in ways which suggest there is a gang who is stalking you. (High-tech stalking by proxy, above, can fool a person into thinking actual “gangs” are “stalking” him.)

I’ve concluded that organized stalking, a phrase invented to address the perceived shortcomings of other terminology, is more misleading than gang-stalking, the neologism it’s meant to replace. Organized stalking implies agency (knowledge, cooperation, and ill intent) on the part of the people the target perceives to be stalking him. The contrived controversy over “gang-stalking” versus “organized stalking” distracts from the real issue, namely that the people on the street aren’t really stalkers.

Terrorist stalking (political stalking) and vengeance stalking are in print, and even recognized as a problem by government sources⁷. Both types of stalking differ from classical stalking in that the objective is not to seek a personal relationship with the target, but to cause harm to the target (vengeance) or coerce the target (terrorist/political).

However, terrorist/vengeance stalking aren’t nearly as coordinated or sophisticated as what targets are talking about. Meanwhile, high-tech stalking by proxy (above) can be disguised as these things.

Cause stalking: you have to understand the history of this phrase, first put into print in 2001. The term was used to describe religiously- or ideologically- motivated terrorist stalking.⁸ That year, Lawson published a book describing some harassment tactics targeted individuals were complaining about, and followed up in 2007, claiming cause stalking as his own phrase.⁹ This book has been discredited.¹⁰

A person who gives signs suggesting knowledge of a target’s private activities, or who is participating in a street theatre skit, will often be accused of perping, targeting, or triggering the target. That person might not be doing what he’s doing knowingly.

There will be incidents where a person has been informed that particular phrases or actions bother a target, and does them anyway. This could be called malicious.

Electronic mind control is a catch-all term covering all kinds of mind-invasive technologies. Recommended in most cases. It may seem like overkill if you’re just referring to synthetic telepathy / V2K (below).

A wide range of possible hazards or weapons have been identified as possible instruments of electronic harassment, defined as the use of electronic devices to remotely harass, torture, and/or physically harm a person. If you’re getting electronically harassed, it’s debilitating or crippling, and you can explain why, it’s appropriate to refer to it as electronic torture or simply torture.

This terminology has been claimed by others with different meanings¹¹, and can be misleading in other ways. As previously discussed, electronic mind control can be disguised as any form of electronic harassment that doesn’t leave traces behind, and sometimes, even some that do.¹²

If you’re unable to categorize an electronic harassment episode as a form of electronic mind control with certainty, it’s better to use this phrase - you might volunteer that “it could have been mind control”. If an episode is definitely some kind of electronic mind control, you should categorize it that way.

Mental surveillance is the form of surveillance that many targets have reason to believe they’re under, through a lengthy process of elimination and eventual direct feedback. Mental surveillance could gather information on every sensation and impulse that passes through the brain - including sensory input and verbal/visual thoughts.

This terminology doesn’t presuppose any specific kind of technology. You can think of it as a more focused way of talking about mind reading or thought reading.

Like other forms of surveillance, this is essentially unprovable, and a person only knows he’s being surveilled if he’s ‘tipped off’.

Many targets refer to mental surveillance (above) as remote neural monitoring, citing a questionable early 90’s court filing. The terminology seems to make the speaker sound more authoritative, but:

1. there’s no reliable source talking about this subject;
2. the speaker can’t prove that a particular surveillance technology is being used against him.

Some targets describe the surveillance they’re under as satellite surveillance, referring to a self-published book about the subject¹³. This is a really bad idea, as they have no proof they’re under surveillance by any particular device, including a satellite. It also may lead listeners to believe the speaker is saying a satellite is dedicated to watching him.

This is exactly the kind of phrasing that leads most people to label targets as delusional.

Synthetic telepathy is only one aspect of what’s possible with electronic mind control. Nevertheless, it conveys the unwanted invasion of privacy or harassment that comes with these technologies. Furthermore, this terminology has been used by the US military and picked up by the mainstream media.¹⁴

Evoked actions or subconsciously evoked actions refer to the use of electronic mind control technology to get individuals to act out. The work of Jose Delgado corroborates what many targets have learned the hard way: the conscious mind rationalizes externally-evoked behavior; a person being made to act wouldn’t be aware his actions weren’t the product of his free will.

The terminology supersedes “subliminals” (below).

I’ve come to the conclusion that “subliminals” or subliminal messages are a potentially misleading framing of mind control technology. The use of these phrases/words helps to support the vague idea that the problems targets have stem from the abuse of “voice to skull” technology (below). Subconsciously evoked actions (above) is a much better way of describing actions that individuals are made to take.

However, it’s possible subliminal messages may be used to jumpstart a train of thought, or to influence a target into thinking about a subject. One person has suggested inner voice cloning to describe this.

Psychotronics was a term used by Dennis Kuchinich in HR 2977 to refer to mind-invasive technology. Other than that, it’s terminology that’s not widely used. Plus, it just sounds weird.

Mind control: many unaware targets will search for sites using this terminology. However, the phrase means different things to different people. There are methods of mind control that don’t have anything to do with the use of technology. Even if you restrict the use of this term to the context of government abuses, you’ve got at least a few different groups of people with different issues (and a lot of overlap), such as targeted individuals, MKULTRA/Monarch survivors, and victims of brainwashing.

Mind reading doesn’t convey what else can be read. Also, targets might be misled into believing there is some sort of ‘brain scan’ capability, when in fact it’s the target’s thoughts or mental activities that are being read. Finally, there is some confusion over the use of this terminology in other contexts; for example, “mind reading” scanners are being marketed for use in airports, when what they really are is “nervousness reading” scanners¹⁵.

“Remote neural” is sometimes used to refer to both remote neural monitoring and electronic mind control.

“Holograms” are sometimes used to refer to instances of augmented reality.¹² Unaware targets may think they’re experiencing holograms, so any use of this terminology online should at least explain the possibility of augmented reality.

V2K or voice to skull is terminology originally invented by the US military to describe the military use of the microwave auditory effect, and pulled from military web pages a few years ago¹⁶. The term “V2K” is misleading to targets because it misrepresents the real capabilities of the technology:

1. It makes them think shielding that blocks microwaves will block what they’re experiencing;
2. It suggests that the only kinds of noises generated by this technology are voices;
3. The microwave auditory effect makes sounds appear to be coming from inside the head, but I’ve recently mentioned that electronic mind control can be used to make sounds appear to be coming from anywhere.¹²

A handlerstrong> is a person watching a targeted individual and managing his life, using mind control techniques such as persuasion, threats, and deception. This term suggests a real-time and highly invasive connection linking the handler to the target.¹⁷

An operative or op undertakes long-term operations, some of which may involve a target. An operative will be aware of mission objectives, but might not be aware of their significance, due to the need-to-know principle.

Operative is a catch-all term encompassing agents, informants, and assets. A good example would be the reports of small teams of men taking up residence near some targeted individuals.

Patsies are criminally versatile or criminally-credentialled individuals manipulated into committing specific criminal acts on someone else’s behalf; they take the brunt of the blame for what happens. In the event a patsy acts out, most onlookers will assume that everything is as it seems, and be satisfied with official explanations. Investigators may not be so easily fooled, but the availability of an obvious culprit (and a lack of incentives to dig further) will usually thwart a more thorough investigation.

Many targets are in agreement that the tools used against them are also sometimes used to create patsies.

Dupes are manipulated into acting out, or acting against a target.¹⁸ Unlike patsies, their actions fall short of serious illegality, usually only involving overt (obvious) hostility. Because they don’t feel they have anything to hide - that is, they aren’t doing anything illegal - they will at least be willing to tell the authorities what they’ve been told about a target; this is how one over-the-top smear campaign was recently exposed.¹⁹

Many targets believe that certain authoritarian venues or social networks are used to spread smears about them, thereby creating dupes.

Pawns are unwittingly used against targets.¹⁸ I’ve previously suggested that most “covert aggression” targets perceive is actually coming from mind-controlled pawns²⁰, or from other innocents who are unaware of the significance of their actions with respect to a target.²¹

An agent is employed by an organization, such as a government, and acting on its behalf. Experienced agents like to operate under the cover of the law (if they think there’s a chance they might get caught), and will try to manipulate lower echelons, informants, assets, or local yokels into doing their dirty work for them.

“Local yokels” is an example of derisive terminology used by federal authorities to refer to local authorities who are told a pack of lies about a targeted person or group.¹⁸ The locals act on the bad information, and they have to deal with the consequences.²²

Informants (or snitches) are individuals who provide intelligence to an organization (or an agent of the organization). Some informants may be paid for tips, which creates perverse incentives to manufacture evidence. Police informants may be motivated by non-monetary factors, such as staying out of prison in exchange for the tips they provide. Volunteer informants, whether affiliated with an organization or not, have their own perverse incentives; they may see snitching as a way to get rid of someone they dislike, or to bring down the competition.

Assets are individuals with no formal ties to any organization. An asset has particular skills, talents, credentials, or other qualities which make him useful to a controlling organization, and will be moved into place to use in a particular assignment - such as operations involving a target. The asset will be controlled, often via blackmail.

Assets act knowingly. Professionals who risk their licenses to punish a target would fall into this category.

A case officer is like a handler, but the use of the term implies the person is acting under lawful orders, and has been “assigned” to the target through a chain of command.

Perpetrators are individuals involved with your ordeal who have committed actual criminal acts.²³ What distinguishes a perpetrator from a patsy (above) is the intent and knowing participation; the perception of many TI’s that perpetrators are “evil” is right on the mark.

This label should not be applied lightly. Just because you feel someone nearby is acting funny, doesn’t mean he’s a perpetrator.

Targets will often label perceived perpetrators - that is, anyone who (in the target’s opinion) is “in on it” - as “perps”.

A less common use: anyone who has perpetrator psychology (manipulative, exploitative, corrupt) but isn’t necessarily hostile to the target.

Stalkers are perpetrators who are guilty of stalking. According to law and common use, a person who persistently follows a person would be stalking him. Most of the individuals targets encounter don’t qualify as stalkers under this definition.

If you encounter strangers who seem to be hanging around, and give subtle signs they’re “in on it”, that doesn’t mean anything; it could be more of that covert aggression I’ve been attributing to mind control technology abuse²⁰. This label, too, is overused.