Skip to content

Political Psychiatry and Doublethink in Peer Reviewed “Exploratory Study” of Gang Stalking

Stalking primarily concerns the actions of individuals. However, some victims report stalking by organised groups, this being known as ‘group-’ or ‘gang-stalking’. This phenomenon has not been subject to systematic study. An anonymous questionnaire was completed online by self-defined victims of stalking. One thousand and forty respondents met research definitions for stalking, of which 128 (12.3%) reported group-stalking. One hundred and twenty-eight individually stalked cases were randomly selected as a comparison group. All cases of reported group-stalking were found likely to be delusional, compared with 3.9% of individually stalked cases. There were highly significant differences between the two groups on most parameters examined. The group-stalked scored more highly on depressive symptoms, post-traumatic symptomatology and adverse impact on social and occupational functioning. Group-stalking appears to be delusional in basis, but complainants suffer marked psychological and practical sequelae. This is important in assessment of risk in stalking cases, early referral to psychiatric services and allocation of police resources.

(PDF) Complaints of group-stalking (‘gang-stalking’): an exploratory study of their nature and impact on complainants. Available from:


This abstract is alleged to be an attempted clinical analysis exploring the high number of group stalking (aka “gang stalking”) cases currently found in stalking studies conducted throughout the English speaking world. It is Orwellian, even Kafkaesq in many respects. Its authors are gatekeepers and tools for the most heinous deep state actors that have afflicted humanity since Mao Zedong, Stalin and Hitler.

Firstly, both the abstract and study find 100 percent of gang stalking victim accounts to be delusional. The DSM 5, and its previous iterations, never defined a group delusion because the implications for those with religious and spiritual beliefs made such a finding politically untenable. However, there are group beliefs that most outside the group would find delusional (e.g., alien abduction accounts). However, the above study recommends that the “100 percent delusional” accounts of self-identified group stalking targets (accounting for 1 of every 8 cases of stalking studied)  be investigated further:

All cases of reported group-stalking were found likely to be delusional, compared with 3.9% of individually stalked cases. (page 1).

Group-stalking constituted 12.3% of the cases in our main sample. This compares with the figure in the US Department of Justice study of 6.8% for those stalked by three or more people…(page 13).

Furthermore, if at least 1 in 8 reports of stalking are false (i.e. group cases
without including other false victim subtypes), this must be of practical importance
to the police and to psychiatrists…(page 18).

This study would appear to be the first on the topic of group- or gangstalking.
As such, its results are of particular note, at least until further studies
appear. Our findings can assist psychiatrists and those involved in the criminal
justice system in dealing correctly with such cases, whilst cautioning against
dismissing people reporting group-stalking, given the associated effects on
mental state and social functioning. The study is, however, exploratory in nature,
and replications of its findings are necessary before they can be considered
to be clearly established. We suggest that there may be extant databases held
by other research groups, to which the above study methodology could be
applied, and that the findings of this study support the case for the inclusion of
questions regarding group-stalking in methodologically more rigorous, representative
random population surveys, such as the British Crime Survey, to
which questions on stalking have previously twice been attached (Budd &
Mattinson, 2000; Walby & Allen, 2004). (page 20).

Note: You have to cut and paste the above link.

The paper begins by introducing the topic of gang stalking as a 100 percent delusional thinking system shared by a large segment of stalking victims, to wit, about 1 in 8 cases. It goes on to note that the size of the self-identified gang stalking targets make them of putative interest to psychiatrists and police. It ends by suggesting further methodical study.

It seems there is a logical non sequitur in the argument. if all accounts are found to be likely delusions then what makes this different from analyzing other widespread, bizarre beliefs? Why not recommend the further study of alien abduction trauma or other paranoid thought systems. It seems that the instruction advising further study  is a hedge against the finding of 100 percent delusion for self-identified gang stalking targets.

Furthermore, the paper finds that the underlying study found a greater occurrence of PTSD and Complex PTSD in self-identified gang stalking victims than in stalking victims as a whole. The logical inconsistency here is that the DSM V, and all of its former iterations, require some physical or psychological reality-based trauma for any diagnosis of PTSD. Therefore the authors of the paper chose to use Orwellian doublethink and avoid any discussion of how a large sample group of 12.5 percent of all stalking victims developed a severe psychological disorder for which there was a completely lacking “trauma-based” prerequisite requirement for diagnosis.

The group-stalked scored more highly on depressive symptoms, post-traumatic symptomatology and adverse impact on social and occupational functioning. (page 1).

This seems to this blogger to be unethical and illogical. The literature on PTSD and its DSM V definition are clear on the necessary precondition of a distinct and identifiable causal “trauma”.

This “study” is an exercise in Soviet-style propaganda and political psychiatry that would best be ash heaped, in the annals of historical anomalies, alongside the Soviet Gulag camps.




%d bloggers like this: