The origins of the term “targeted individual”: intelligence and policing popularized since the UK’s “National Intelligence Model,”began to target ordinary citizens in the year 2000

The National Intelligence Model (NIM) was implemented in the U.K. in 2000, just before the Iraq war, and around the same year that internet searches for “targeted individuals” and “gang stalking” began to fill search engines with questions about that topic.

From the UK’s National Criminal Intelligence Service explainer in 2000 (.pdf here)

The National Intelligence Model is the product of work led by the National Criminal
Intelligence Service on behalf of the Crime Committee of the Association of Chief Police
Officers. Research, design and testing of the model has been completed by police officers,
analysts and intelligence specialists from a number of police forces and agencies.
It represents the collected wisdom and best practice in intelligence-led policing and
law enforcement.

The Model provides important opportunities for law enforcement managers whether
from the Police Service or another law enforcement agency.

Hmmm. Opportunities for “managers” raises a flag for me, how about you? I don’t recall reading anywhere that policing is supposed to be “opportunistic.” Let’s dig deeper, because at its heart, and in the literature and studies produced on its behalf, we see that the NIM is primarily a “business model” first, and a policing model only after that.

From Paige Keningdale of the BSC Policing Network, whose motto is “Connecting Policing Researchers In The UK And Beyond,” we find that the NIM, aka “intelligence led predictive policing,” the same kind of policing that is used in arch-conservative and anti-democratic places like Pasco County FL, iis some funny business indeed, putting profits above policing.

The National Intelligence Model The NIM is a business framework which provides structure in a police investigation to process information and turn this into actionable intelligence.

When viewed through this lens, it suddenly makes sense that the police are incentivized to drive people crazy, and lock them up on mental health charges, because the model is strictly business. If that sounds like a ridiculous claim–that people are actively trying to cause people to have mental health crisis, then look no further than the case study of Richard Moore, of Union County, Mississippi. Use my search feature, keywords “Richard Moore,” and “Union County Mississippi” for that evidence. Such cases are happening all over the west now, in sync with other for-profit policing schemes.

These for-profit policing are widely discussed online as a problem, rather than a soultion for democracies, because underpinning democracies everywhere is the fundamental rights and liberties that such for-profit policing schmes stand directly to impede..

Take a look at this diagram of that model, and note that business is its goal:

Diagrams via Researchgate, and Richard Adderley

Note the circularity of such a model–it all but guarantees constant targeting of individuals who are cast into the many traps of for-profit policing, exactly as we see in the Pasco Couty lawsuits, where individuals are stalked 24-7 by Sheriffs deputies, until they “move away or sue,”according to one former deputy who spoke on record, anfd according to the sheriff, Chris Nocco, who said that his program derives from the British NIM model. Use my search feature, keyword “Pasco County.” Image source: Richard Adderley

Many online who mock targeted individuals frequently seed the discussion with crackpot psychobabble, such as “the term gang stalking and targeted individual is from the CIA!! The Government!!”

And in fact, when we slice away the fat and hyperbole from the the fat and hyperbolic police-state agents and pro-police psychologists online who do that stuff, we find that –in fact–these claims to the origin of such terms are true to an extent which anyone can observe, merely by reading policing manuals and other official source literature.

Though the specific spy agency or government agencies that “invented” these terms is ambiguous. Ambiguous, because intelligence and policing have always used the term “targets” in one form or another. But under the weaponized, for-profit policing scheme known as the National Intelligence Model, the meaning of the term “target” is very clear: profit, at the expense of civil liberty.

In such a model then, and as seen in the images above, people become “inteligence products,” once placed into the NIM framework, rather than human beings. The NIM has effectively allowed and encouraged police to “manufacture intelligence products,” whether that product is a crazy person rambling online about how deputies won’t leave them alone, or another online talking about “24-7 harassment”

Again–such claims would seem a bit off if we didn’t have so manhy examples to point to. The case of Richard Moore above reveals endless false arrests that get tossed out of court in just the year or so I have been following his case. There are many similar cases online too.

And the New Zealand man who went on a stabbing rampage awhile ago literally had a detail of 30 police, from several departments following him around “24-7″for 53 days straight before he finally picked up a weapon and attacked anyone. A very curious outcome, leading one to wonder why police would encourage and incite such behaviors, but I think the business model of the NIM provides the best answer–those police had no real crime to police for 53 days, and they needed to create some products to satisfy the business demands of profit. Otherwise, what do “we” pay these guys for?

And that’s what happened there, and elsewhere, most notably the immense outlay of resources and boots on the ground before, during, and after mass shootings, with many of those shooters claiming they were targeted “24-7” before they went ballistic too.

WIth zero doubt, the NIM and its related ILPP programs are for-profit, they turn people into “products” and they circle around the “target” until they create the finished work. The only question is “who finances this insanity directed at democracies?”

And that is a question for a later post.