Non state vs. state actors

I had this guy come up to me and say that "you know social groups doing this are alot different than the govt doin it" after describing to me one person who was now targeted who is crazy now. He said the mob did it to him becuz he was straight up competition in business.
He said that is when you really get messed up when its NOT the govt doing it.

Now I hate using terms like 'the govt' but lets say non state and state actors then.
He continued to say that social groups can get into alot of trouble for doing this to people.

There is much wondering in the TI community:
'Its the govt, its community watch groups, its vigilantes' auughghg!

Doesnt anybody know?

It is very confusing.
Especially when people say that a certain intelligence agency is the govt and others say that they are actually a private corporation.
That the CIA is an up and up agency, but there is a 'department' that is separate that did the MK ultra experiments.
Then the CIA becomes this mythical creature and conspiracy theorists run with it
some of whom are disinfo people anyway.
Then anyone who says CIA is a nutter and the very mention creates a slide in peoples minds (they stop listening). [As always you'd need documented proof or at least show cause or some reasonable deduction.]

Then becuz there is speculation among the ignorant, disinfo people can throw in all kinds of crap. The TI becomes handled via trauma and disinfo.

This is why its important to keep a TI in the dark about what is going on. It is important to keep slaves stupid.
So that is what is going on for anyone confused still. There are social groups but not always.

You'd have to judge for yourself on your own situation.

A plea to all activists posting info

Without the internet I would not have found out what was happening to me on the level of gangstalking and on more involved levels.

But I try to remain reasonable and not go conspiracy nut...I also try to illustrate my points when I can and show proof.
There is so much great info on the web but alot of sites or pieces done by well meaning people, and maybe not so well meaning (disinfo agents) mix up thier research practices. Like there will be some of it that shows a link or reference to documentation to prove the info has a reference and then the same piece will have quotes from people in supposed printed articles but with no reference to prove they exist. Then there is alot of so and so said to so and so " blah blah blah" without any reference as to where this info was obtained from or a person used as reliable sources or testimony.

In order to get anyone to listen to us we have to act like we are already in a court room. Without a forensics lab unfortunately, to prove that any documents aren't fakes..nowadays this is very easy if you have the equipment for such deceptions. Especially if you are from the shadow world of covert warfare where I am sure that brilliant, creative minds came up with such things long ago before the public even heard about such capabilities.

So if you can leave references next to info and use words like 'alleged' next to here say my already tired mind would be appreciative. I want to beleive but its so easy for the naysayers to just write the official line and that squashes any doubt supposedly.

Besides I would be very curious to see the original sources of alot of info out there.

I know that alot of books came out on various subject matter before the internet...some of these had quite good credentials and ....you were allowed to write books like that back then.

When you are writing a piece just pretend that the enemy is right beside you..nay saying you already. Then when it comes out, they are already all done before it even hits them. What can they say?
Awww, the 'conspiracy theorists' wrote a piece with YOU in mind naysayer! And the anecdote is already in it before you can administer your poison.