How I almost died. The Swedish Advent Calendar 19-24.

Like the song in the first window, the calendar started with a humorous flair, then touched on the big structures of power which hold societies together in its current order. Now it gets dead serious. It unearths abuse in recent history, where it is least expected. It describes how the author nearly died. Furthermore, the obscure mosaic ends in spectacular fashion as the author is forced to explain his work to the Swedish police after they try to break into his apartment.

A generic Advent Calendar usually consists of 24 windows with a secret content to be revealed each day until Christmas Day. The theme of this year’s Swedish calendar is power through magic. Each window gives a clue to how magic is weaved.

Window 19. This Advent Calendar is not about Vulgar Displays of Power

People avoid you, and do not greet you. Colleagues that you hardly have met behave unnecessarily rude. The dates of your documents change. They laugh at your idea until someone with comparable or worse qualifications than you gets acknowledged for it – even after you had suggested cooperation to that particular person, about the very same idea (aka the oldest joke in academia). Softer bullying techniques to ignore and marginalize you in front of others.

Events like these may be disheartening, and I do not intend to downplay their impact. However, this set of events does not constitute what I intend to address here, at least not on its own.

I had my share of most of the aforementioned under my PhD studies at the Department of Economics at Lund School of Economics in Sweden. Vulgar displays of power and other unfortunate incidents induced me to lower my expectations. I will not linger on the vulgarities from my supervisor for long but to fix ideas, here is a short list:

• Humiliation: Ranted that my work was worthless in front of
my assistant supervisor. When I confronted my assistant
supervisor about it, he bluntly denied it had happened.
• On one occasion he fixed his eyes on me, and then
suddenly engaged in an intense nose picking. The days
before I would present my first paper, he sat in his usual
silence while I talked. He then broke the silence with the
remark: ‘no one will come to your seminar’. That was pretty
much everything he had to say.
• Ignored: Refused to reason with me. Instead, he recycled
my own suggestions, especially when others were present.
Insisted on progress, then neglected it.
• Conflicting advice: Habit of commenting on details. When
changes were made he could say that there were still
things to be done while refusing to specify what he actually
meant.
• In contradiction with his rather loud evaluation of my work,
and his advice about details, he subsequently claimed that
he had not read it.

To underscore my point, I publicly announce that I take full responsibility and blame for most of these relatively minor vicissitudes of life. What I refuse to take responsibility for is the chain of events that in retrospect nearly killed me, and the subsequent coordinated harassment and threats unworthy a free and open society, years after I had left the academy.

Song of the day: Sleeper in Metropolis by Anne Clark.

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/track/0BnMXGSKIOTqroiBpXgLTV?si=k5ufaquATQCrecc8YZfsKA

Window 20. In the Interest of the Nation.

In summary, this is how I almost died:

• The 28/5 2012, I had an appointment with my supervisor
who was in a good mood - I had no sleep in over a week
from that day. (LU)

• Two days later (30/5), I had a presentation of an idea to a
paper about the education system. It was then my
supervisor got agitated and had his outburst (Without any
arguments whatsoever).(LU)

• A week later, the 5th of June, I attended to a feedback-
session in pedagogy in Lund, in order to complete the
course. It was no use to stay at home daytime due to the
heavy drilling that recently had moved far too close to my
flat.

• I was obviously very tired at the session but was sure that I
would be able to sleep as soon as the drilling stopped in
the afternoon. Three PhD students, the lecturer and I
attended. I did not pay much attention to the discussion
of the first two until the Lecturer said something about
biting someone’s head off.

• The PhD student from my department was up next. He had
not submitted his essay but said he wanted to present his
idea. Instead, he begins rhyming some gibberish about
himself in third person – about being a promising kid who
had run into trouble. That he still had to complete his
doctorate.

• I lowered my head visibly (to ‘play dead’), whereby he said:
– It’s in the interest of the nation. I realized that I was in
real danger so I reacted with a stratagem: I pretended to
be even more tired than I was, and dropped my head
once again. He replied by repeating his phrase – It’s in
the interest of the nation.

• Once in Malmö, in the afternoon, I bumped into a person I
used to know but had not seen since he came out as
some sort of Fascist. I decided to break bread with this
person to kill some time, check his intentions, and talk
down potential hostility. My head feels like it flakes off by
then.

• When I try to sleep, my body temperature drops, I feel cold
and I start shivering in the middle of the summer. The
combination of physical restlessness in contrast with
mental tiredness bordering fatigue is an unpleasant
surprise which nearly induces panic. I take refuge in the
apartment of some acquaintances where I am able to
sleep a couple of hours after a while.

• The 6th of June is the Swedish National Commemoration
Day. When I call the medical service for sleeping pills,
they tell me it’s closed, and that I should wait to the next
day. Most of the physical symptoms are gone by then.

• I meet the other PhD student under my supervisor. He
shakes my hand, and tells me not to worry about the
thesis work. My thesis work was perhaps the last thing on
my mind then.

• June 7: I tried to get sleeping pills in Malmö but an
unpleasant receptionist told me I was still registered in
Lund. I managed to get a lunchtime appointment with a doctor in
Lund . I chose to describe my situation in
general terms, as an ordinary workplace conflict. The
doctor’s observations (also attached):

Status; psych: Good and unmoved. Neat, good formal and emotional contact. Very private about the social, tells a bit more about the conflict at work. Nothing suicidal or psychotic appears, does not seem to be depressed but seems to have a neutral mood. States that it is probably a combination of him enduring things for a long time, and that some tough things have happened in a short span of time lately.

Assessment: Does not seem depressed, states that he never had sleeping pills before. No noticeable suicidal tendencies, seems to be a crisis reaction due to different things that have happened. Advise him to contact a curator at his new care centre if he does not experience an improvement after a couple of weeks with more stable sleep. Gets prescription on Stilnoct 5 mg 1-2 when needed at night and Atarax 25 mg 1-2 when needed against anxiety.

Diagnosis: Sleep disturbance, unspecified. Acute stress reaction.

• June 8. My assistant supervisor denied that the outburst of my supervisor had happened, at an appointment made at least several days earlier (this date has not been cross-checked however). (LU)

• The sleeplessness was an isolated phenomenon, and so was the use of psychopharmacologic drugs (I managed with one dose). I never had problems sleeping before or since that day, although I do have a marked tendency to be awake until late at night since childhood.

LU = Lund University, Department of Economics at Lund School of Economics in Sweden. #Lund #LundUniversity #Power #Terrorism

Window 20 1/3. In the Interest of the Nation. Additional Context:

My supervisor behaved like a different person in our tuning-in meeting two days before his outburst. He was forthcoming, nodded in agreement with what I would present at the upcoming seminar, and even made me a cup of coffee. I felt comfy because I had by then come to terms with a writing-down of my ambitions which meant I had an excess of time to settle with at least a Licentiate of Philosophy*, and have a good time doing it.

For reasons unknown to me then, I was unable to sleep since the unusually congenial check with my supervisor. Also in contrast to the previous seminar, plenty of colleagues showed up. They asked questions, gave constructive feedback, until a sudden burst of laughter spoiled their otherwise impeccable behavior. My supervisors insisted on a meeting and it was then one of them suddenly got agitated and subsequently started his rant about my work being completely worthless (Without any arguments whatsoever). I felt that something was seriously wrong with my supervisor back then, and I can still recall his incoherent ravings while seemingly stuck in a route back and forth in front of the whiteboard. I restrained myself and thanked both politely for their feedback.

It was of no use to stay at home because of the heavy drilling that now took place near my apartment in Malmö. It was virtually impossible to fall asleep during the day. I had managed to get a flat in Malmö in a complex under renovation above a shopping mall. I was in need of an apartment after I was kicked out from my former unexpectedly. I did not mind to stay away from the maze of sparsely populated corridors after some sleepless nights.

Thus, I decided to attend a feedback-session to get through a pedagogy course. I bumped into some PhD students on the way near the facility. One of them talked about a former PhD student that presumably dropped out, who had said that ‘the postgraduate education was to assort the dumb from the dumber’. He or she even had signed a paper in order to resign the PhD-candidate status.
...
*A Licentiate of Philosophy is an old Swedish research title which corresponds to a M.Sc. that you get paid to do.

Source: https://images.app.goo.gl/uy7PPcRZfHW3D3Gw7

Window 21. Sherlock Holmes

We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
– Sherlock Holmes

There are five individuals with research background in the room. The participants are:
BE, Faculty of Economic History, Lund School of Economics
DR, Department of Economics, Lund School of Economics. (Interest of the Nation)
EB, Centre for Educational Development, course leader.
XY, Media- and Communication Science. (Only one who agreed to be interviewed by me)
I, Manuel Echeverría (ME), Department of Economics, Lund School of Economics.

Departing from the assumption that it was an ordinary exercise, the following conditions characterize the situation:

(i) The physical dimensions, sound and visibility
• All the participants sit within a radius of two meters.
• The room was isolated from external sound under the whole session.
• Everything that is said is expressed in a normal conversation tone
• The light is soft but did not interfere with the visibility notably
• DR sits right in front of me

(ii) Estimated capacity and mood among the participants
• All participants have a research background and have in addition displayed good communication skills, both verbally and in writing.
• No one has acted in a deviant way under the course. No one showed signs of suffering from temporary mental instability, nervousness, signs of extreme stress or similar symptoms under the session.
• Specially, DR (Interest of the Nation) acts normally both under and after the event when we meet at our work place.

(iii) Shared expectations
• All the participants in the room have an assignment that they will get feedback on. The exercise is standard.
• There are established forms to give feedback: everyone is given space to make oneself heard, ventilate opinions, and EB is particularly acquainted with the procedure because she is a pedagogy specialist and course leader.

The points (i)-(iii) make up different aspects of the context under the assumption that it is an ordinary or ‘standard’ exercise. Only obvious or highly reliable information that is the result of repeated observations over an extended period of time is in the set above.

When DR gives what is to be regarded as a highly divergent message (among other things: ‘it is in the interest of the nation’), the message is according to (i) of good quality and the distance from the source to the recipient is at most four meters. Everyone must therefore have heard the message, especially considering that he took his time to express that he had not finished his assignment, but still wanted to present it.

No one in the room gave any kind of noticeable reaction on DR’s deviant message, in spite of the rather lengthy digression and the fact that the most deviant part is repeated. For example, no one questions his peculiar ‘approach’ or at the very least warns him about that if he employs such an odd ‘perspective’, then he will probably not pass, even if he aims to complete the task. No one asks if he is all right or laughs. No one makes a comment like ‘what do you mean’ or makes any attempt whatsoever to question, what according to the conditions (ii) and (iii), should be regarded as a conspicuously divergent message considering the context. To underscore the obvious, the behaviour of EB under the whole course, including this session, was otherwise professional, and she at the very least tried to give constructive and honest criticism, me included. In spite of this, she does not say anything that matches the highly deviant content of DR’s message. To reiterate, in spite of the sufficient capacity and space, but perhaps most informative of all, was a key item of the curriculum and part of the exercise – it was her responsibility to do so, according to the conditions. The session proceeded as normal otherwise.

XY will later on sit with me on the bus to Malmö. The trip takes around 20 minutes, but XY does not comment the peculiar event, although XY was talkative otherwise. Everyone should have noticed how tired I was except perhaps DR for some instances while he spoke, e.g. might have had eye contact with different people in short intervals, DR must have seen that I was tired to the extent that I lowered my head (i), and he made sure to convey the most divergent part of the message when I did so, twice.

In summary: If it was an ordinary exercise where the context which is constituted by (i), (ii) & (iii) above is true, then DR's message is understood as deviant. If the message is understood as deviant, then people will react when they hear it, especially the course leader. But no one reacted, especially the course leader did not. Their silence is odd under normal circumstances even if attention is limited only to the two deviant statements about ‘the interest of the nation’. More concretely: If one is willing to assume sloppy students with low probabilities of acting as if they had a mind of their own (and thus capable of independent inquiry), then complete silence can be discarded as a likely outcome at the 5 % level already if BE, XY and EB only have a 40% chance each to say something after each raving about ‘the nation’. More realistic settings, consistent with (i)-(iii) would obviously yield an unbelievable low likelihood of silence. Therefore, the message was not conceived as deviant, which implies that (i), (ii) or (iii) cannot be true. But I know that (i) is true, and it is possible to exclude that the message was not heard by the participants. What about the facts (ii) and (iii)? The only question mark may be found in (iii) and is that the exercise was not standard after all.

Therefore, if the facts (i)-(iii) are true and we assume that it was a standard exercise (where the exercise was about giving feedback, and the pedagogy course leader had the job to lead the session and give her professional opinion etc.), a contradiction emerges. According to these conditions, someone should have reacted, but they did not, hence it cannot simultaneously be true that the assumptions are true. Therefore I conclude that it was not an ordinary exercise. Other objections could be that there are other important conditions, like that the participants did not dare to speak or abstained for some other reason . I do not think there are any other reasonable excuses, and reasons like ‘they were afraid’ or ‘chose to look the other way’ are not in direct conflict with my thesis.

Objections in the realm of semantics do not deserve attention, still it is worthwhile to clarify the meaning of the statement that ‘it was not an ordinary exercise’: – If it is not an ordinary exercise, then the message is not conceived as deviant in spite of (i), (iii) and (iii) being true otherwise. This can be due to the fact that the people in the room knew what was going on, they understand that the message has another purpose than contributing to a standard pedagogy exercise, and thus is nothing peculiar, whereby no one reacts – without arriving at a contradiction.

Note that according to (i)-(iii), DR is a highly educated man in the social sciences who understands that these conditions will hold, and can therefore anticipate that his actions will be regarded as highly deviant within the terms of reference of an ordinary seminar. Because DR knows that the message is highly deviant within the framework given by an ordinary exercise in pedagogy, especially in relation to EB, and is not crazy, temporarily mentally disordered or mentally deficient, then he must have had another purpose with his message, and it is in the capacity of this purpose that the message is endowed the quality of not being divergent to the extent that DR does not appear as mad or mentally deficient etc. His message, or rather, the true meaning of it, must in other words have been expected, and DR must at least have expected that it was expected (i.e. to the extent that he did not risk making a complete fool of himself). Therefore: DR must have known that it was not an ordinary exercise, if his actions are to be consistent with (i)-(iii) (but with a different interpretation of ‘standard’).

Once we accept that DR knew what he was doing, because the alternative is absurd, then the situation can be seen as one where DR communicates with his message, and I ‘reply’ with a signal (I lower my head) that DR reacts to by reiterating ‘in the interest of the nation’, we can see this sequence as a conversation. Because the others remain silent, in spite of them knowing what is happening, they participate in this conversation with their silence (figuratively speaking). When the absurd or impossible alternatives have been excluded, it is our intellectual duty to carry out the reasoning to the end. We must proceed by establishing that it was unlikely that the participants in the room where selected at random – if we simultaneously make the assumption that it is not the case – that almost the whole body of PhD students in the social sciences in Lund are also corrupt, assuming that the pedagogy course was a representative sample of the social-science doctoral candidates. Because then someone would most likely have reacted. If DR in such state of the world had misjudged the situation, and made the mistake of appearing as a highly deviant considering the context, alternatively DR would not have dared to make such a scene, because he of course would not want to risk to appear crazy or mentally deficient. The risks involved would have been too high.

Therefore, considering (i)-(iii); intelligence profile, risk or cost of a divergent message of this kind, the sound quality of the message, EB’s otherwise professional actions, the routine character of the proper exercise, and the evaluation of the psychological status of the participants – it stands to reason that EB, could have chosen participants that were initiated or could be made to understand at a low cost without risking that the information was forwarded (EB could obviously be influenced by others etc.).

I got rewarded for my pains with a diploma after having corrected the assignment in line with the feedback. On the back of the diploma one can find the curriculum of the course on which point (iii) is based. The curriculum gives the official frame of the content of the course, its aim, admission requirements and specifies how the grades should be given. As always, logical reasoning is based on assumptions that can be more or less reasonable. My reasoning is based on uncontroversial facts and that it is not the case that almost all doctoral students in social science at Lund University are corrupt, and that EB had read or by other means understood the significance of paragraph 1-3 below on the back of my diploma:

General information:

1. The course is an obligatory part of the qualifying university pedagogy education at the social science faculties. It is an introduction to university pedagogy, and aims to give lecturers and doctoral students the possibility to develop their role as teachers, and fulfil their teaching duties with a greater degree of confidence and professionalism. The course is also the basis for continued and deeper studies in the theoretical basis and applications of university pedagogy. The duration of the course encompasses an effort equivalent to two weeks full time work.

2. The aim of the course
   • In order to pass, the course participant should
   • Be able to relate knowledge about learning and its conditions to the situation of the students;
   • Be able to structure the content in the different parts of the teaching experience;
   • Be able to activate students to independent learning;
   • Be able to reflect on relationships between theory and practice in one’s teaching;
   • Be able to give and take feedback;
   • Be able to apply different methods of teaching based on one’s qualifications and the character of the subject, in a manner that is beneficial for the learning of the students;
   • Be able to take part in design and implementation of examination and evaluation.

3. The content and design of the course
   The course focuses on learning and the conditions of learning, and relates these to the rules and regulations which constitute the framework for higher education. The theory of university pedagogy about student learning is problemized and integrated with the experiences of the participants in a series of applications. Different parts in the education process are discussed, from the goals to the choice of the methods of work, and evaluation. The theoretical and practical elements of the course are constantly related to ethics, gender and equal treatment in higher education

Window 22. SS.

Consider the following sequence:
(1) Sleeplessness during about a week (S1)
(2) Abusive treatment (S2)
(3) Disturbing psychological abuse (S2)

Neglecting the isolation rituals, the sequence involves sleeplessness (S1) which increases the vulnerability to subsequent attacks (S2) - that may induce something similar to a reactive psychosis. An individual who is sleepless 6-7 days can demonstrate symptoms similar to psychosis: Confusion, paranoid reactions, skewed view of reality, and distorted perception. In addition, sleeplessness increases the vulnerability to psychosis. [1]

A socially calibrated strategy requires (i) The abusers have no interest to confess; (ii) the abuse must be masked for a third party and; (iii) the victim must not go public with a credible witness statement. In my case (ii) is trivially satisfied & (i) depends on how much pressure there is on the offenders.

The third condition is the most interesting. In general, there are two main outcomes in terms of health status. Either the victim becomes impaired or not. If a psychosis is induced, then (iii) is more readily satisfied, because either society, the victim or both will tend to agree that the experience is due to an illness, thus the offence is not revealed. If psychosis is not induced, the strain after an attack like this is still not exactly to your advantage when you are writing a thesis for instance. This may lower the likelihood of going public due to a drop in cognitive capacity. If the victim is still functional to some degree, the bargaining position is still eroded. The victim becomes dependent and silence may be bought at a lower price. Loss in mental capacity may in turn lead to psychosis [2] or depression-like conditions, and thus dampen the likelihood of contradicting (iii).

More interesting, even if SS does not result in psychosis or other plausible mental illness, it will still be the case that the data generated is close to identical to an ordinary progression of illness. Many psychiatrist are sceptical to the Scandinavian psychosis nowadays but the information is all the same in line with what most people would consider crazy on top of other possible adverse health outcomes. A credible dispelling of the SS strategy requires a coherent explanation of the events. Such explanations are more likely among persons with big alternative cost in terms of a good career. In terms of incentives, the main difference is that the bargaining position of the individual is better, and thus the price of silence higher.

In the previous window, I avoided to interpret the content of the message as much as possible. The phrase ‘it is in the interest of the nation’ gives in this context a direct association to Sweden’s official interests, arguably the state. For instance, In the Interest of the Nation is the title of the third book about the Swedish intelligence officer Carl Hamilton, involving a highly ranked Soviet deserter, by the famous Swedish writer Jan Guillou. This fact is interesting from a psychiatric point of view in relation to the syndrome associated with the archetypical Scandinavian diagnosis of reactive psychosis. The psychotic reaction mirrors the triggers of the psychosis in such cases and is temporary. The psychological attack was in my case in direct connection to June 6, the Swedish national commemoration day. Not exactly a dream scenario for an aspiring critic of society.

Even if the first basic illusion of mental illness is resisted, the target may still fail to see that what he or she thought was the attack in terms of the aforesaid, in fact is the concealment of a more direct criminal attack involving drugs, for instance.

In a dystopia, the shivering of an isolated oppressed, is not a sign of poison entering the body. It is abstinence as a consequence of increasing aptitude in self-defence against the persistent grip of power, the infancy of resistance.

[1] See e.g. APA (2007). Those who have studied torture know that sleep deprivation and isolation are deemed efficient, and combined with other abuses (see e.g. Gardell). For instance, Cullberg (2004, s.93-104) takes the middle ground between the US and Scandinavian tradition. He argues that the usual suspects like hormone imbalances, drug-induced brain damages, sleep deprivation and isolation may lower the psychosis threshold.
Cullberg, J. (2004). Psykoser: ett integrerat perspektiv. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
Gardell, M. (2008). Tortyrens återkomst. Stockholm: Leopard förlag.
Vandenbos, R.G. (Ed). (2007). APA Dicitionary of Psychology.
[2] Ibid. Cullberg.

Window 23. Stockholm-Malmö.

E1. You have just been at your nephew’s baptism, where a performance took place with the contribution of his older brother. The performance involved a fake-laughter recording. Call the older brother Y. When you sit on the train home, you suddenly hear a piercing cough, and two men suddenly get loud. The men put on a recording, which involves fake laughter, similar to the one used in the performance at the baptism. They mention Y. Thereafter, you hear panicked screams from children. The men laugh. No one coughs again.

If there is nothing more to add, and you think this is some sort of threat, then chances are that you are paranoid. However, if you are subjected to a series of such incidences under a short period of time, then chance can be seriously questioned as the sole explanation. Under such circumstances, it is simply no longer reasonable to treat such a sequence of events as unrelated coincidences. Especially if related to previous threats or abuse, in particular of the type discussed in this series.

The threat E1 is based on a personal experience which arguably fulfils the criteria of S2: (i) The perpetrators have no incentives to confess; (ii) I was threatened in a crowded train in the middle of the day, but it was invisible to third parties. – the threat could reasonably only be deciphered by me; (iii) I would have made a fool of myself if I had reacted in proportion to their abuse – it would have seemed as if I had overreacted or simply gone mental to everyone else. The strategy is efficient – could be over in a couple of seconds in principle. Its deleterious effect is primarily limited to a person who at least has some minor expectation of a threat. Otherwise, it could potentially induce people to doubt their own judgment and perception of the world around. For instance, in combination with sleeplessness or unstable mental state due to previous threats, the abuse could make the individual to become suspicious of other people in the wagon. The private information employed in this attack may have been retrieved by illegal means. Otherwise, someone close disclosed the information or more costly snooping must be assumed.

How about the targeting of Bratt & Lindberg? [1] There is an important circumstance that makes their situation beneficial to study in some aspects but less so in others. These whistleblowers acted wisely, took precautions, and they won moral victories. They endured a classic retaliation but that involved whole communities. Publicity shielded them from a fatal outcome, but at the same time, virtually anyone could attack them. For that reason, celebrities are unfortunately not ideal to study from a methodological point of view. This is unfair, considering that organized harassment could depart from pretending to be the average Joe or a mentally ill citizen in order to approximate the design of the ideal type of abuse.

Rumors fulfil (i) and can in principle be twisted in order to make unsuspecting people spread the information without realizing the harm done. However, rumors by their nature do not fulfil (ii) in general. There are even algorithms to pin down the source of a rumor. Although the target can be put in a serious disadvantage by even denying a correctly designed rumor, (iii) is not fulfilled in general. Aggressive moves like spitting, yelling and open threats do not qualify in general. Avoiding someone is categorized as a ‘normal’ dislike if taken as an isolated case. Targeting the economy and social life of someone’s family does however fulfil (i)-(iii) with ease because it can be made to look as an ordinary event in a cost-effective manner. As such, this type of attack relates directly to the general aim of a socially calibrated attack – it must look like a natural or logical progression of the state of affairs or a credible accident.

The most interesting abuse is the social vacuum, i.e. empty space that formed around Bratt and the headshot signs against the temple that Lindberg could see everywhere. These two strategies have the potential to fulfil (i)-(iii) in a cost-efficient manner, are most likely organized, and belong to the set S2. A person who is subjected to Bratt’s social vacuum while experiencing open social exclusion is reminded of his situation in a symbolic and intense way. A person who is unaware of organized abuse could be put out of balance due to an intense reminder of the isolation endured.

The social vacuum and ‘headshots’ may be understood as partially induced by uncoordinated individuals who are afraid to approach the target or want to make a statement or both. However, while the natural scientist is wise to discard intention in nature as superstition and craziness in most settings, a social scientist who is unaware of self-interested intention, planning and agreements behind closed doors is at best a useful idiot or just plainly cynical due to the undeniable evidence to the contrary throughout the history of humankind. In the end, what may distinguish a proper theory from a conspiracy theory, is a mature understanding of chance and opportunism in settings when both the intentional and unintentional elements are present. For our purposes, it suffices to conclude that the two aforementioned may both be classified as psychosis triggers and as paranoid reactions induced by a psychosis.

• The King & The Little Prince -
  E2. You complete a paragraph of your upcoming book and take a break. You talk for a while about your recent work in detail with a person close to you over the phone. Then you decide to take a stroll in the nearby park to enjoy the weather. After a while, you register a small anomaly and look up. A person who just walked slowly on the road in front of you picks up the pace, and you realize that he will catch up with you as you cross the road. As the man gets close, he gives you a nearly literal rendition of the paragraph you just wrote and talked about over the phone. You notice that he has a phone in his hand as he walks by in a hurry.

This assault is felt by the victim while remaining invisible for others in the middle of the day. The strategy is potent enough to shatter the everyday life of the victim and distort future prospects, without interfering with the usual course of the unknowing crowd. If you just conjectured that the paragraph was E2, you are erring with honors, because then you have a good grasp about what this harassment is about. I have had a few summaries of my work rendered to me since that summer of 16, but not word by word.

The strategy described in E2 has the same elements as E1. However, this strategy is either based on information given up instantly by that one person close to you on the phone or it is extracted by illegal means. Moreover, the word-by-word rendition is risky. As such, it is not quite as elegant as the E1. Cameras on every phone makes it easier to record harassment like the one that Lindberg and Bratt endured in the 80’s. Then again, contemporary technology makes nearly everyone more vulnerable to surveillance. These conflicting tendencies cause an adaptation pressure in the sense that those who wield power must take into account the increased risk of detection, while the private information available to exercise power with higher accuracy is more abundant.

The offence is always associated with a signal that the target must be able to discern in order for it to possess potential to do damage. The part of the signal which is not harmful can be seen as a buzz that increases the probability of detection if it does not obey the principles of S2. The likelihood of causing real damage can be increased with the degree of how private and sensitive the information is. However, the possibility of recording could expose an attack if it is easy to show that illegally attained private information is used. Therefore, it is convenient to use a certain degree of buzz to camouflage the assault in the ordinariness of everyday life.

For purpose of exposition, it is convenient to think of strategies with the purpose of camouflaging ongoing mischief and enforce previous attacks, as a type of meta-strategy denoted as S3. There is a natural temporal aspect between S1, S2 and S3 which however is not necessary to assume. S3 may satisfy the conditions (i)-(iii) but has the purpose to lower the credibility of reaching out with the truth about all experiences of S1 and S2. It is about avoiding leaks by keeping things tight and reinforce (iii).

It is also an unpleasant way of keeping in touch if the victim seems to be under reasonable control. Resistance leads to a phase where the psychological warfare turns into a war of attrition. This means that months or even years have elapsed. At this stage, the targeted person could feel worn down. Further pressure could give an impression of a never-ending conflict. The struggle is by then reaching its endgame under normal circumstances. It is always costly in terms of time, energy and resources to keep the pressure up, and this is certainly a disadvantage to the oppressor who also risks getting exposed each time harassment is undertaken.

What S3 then does, is to turn these drawbacks into an advantage by exploiting ignorance. Reaching out for support will become futile if the rebel does not fully understand the underlying economy of democracy-adapted power, and therefore fails to explain why someone would spend so much energy to mess with him or her in particular. The specific attacks could moreover appear as bizarre, which furthermore lowers the credibility of a witness statement. One of the points is to put the rebel in the seemingly unsolvable dilemma of giving witness statement with omissions or speak about things that will sound incredible to most if not explained. The rebel may be tempted to say A without B and C, because he doubts the credibility of a complete and truthful future witness statement, which at this stage may already seem inexplicably drawn out and filled with bizarre occurrences.

The connection between condition (iii) and psychiatric diagnosis has so far been discussed one strategy or attack at the time. The point here is rather to make a future witness statement seem incredible, even to those who would normally support the rebel. It employs the simple wisdom of the boy and the wolf. Most people will have no problem to grasp the purpose of well-timed strategies in the vein of S2. Most people will however not believe in the occurrence of repeated bizarre events without the same shock factor, seemingly without any reasonable purpose. This feat threatens to make the whole history of abuse incredible if the rebel speaks about a strategy of the type S3 for one reason, and threatens the whole story if he remains silent for another. As usual, if the rebels does not reach out with his or her statement, then the abuse can continue indeterminately. The perplexity now regards the reflection about the whole set of experiences and a future statement. It is in a sense a sarcastic commentary on the exposed position of the rebel.

• Ironical Satanism -
  E3. When you return to your apartment, you immediately realize that someone has intruded with a key. Things have been moved around like a mini-version of the pranks in the movie Die fetten Jahre sind vorbei. Because nothing is stolen, there are no traces, and the interference with the interior is minimal, you figure that it is virtually meaningless to call the police and tell them about the event.

I am not a big fan of cops but I would fully understand if the Malmö police laughed at me if I were to approach them with such story, considering that quite a few people get shot on the streets without anyone being jailed for it. The only similar case I have heard about in Sweden ended up in about that way. The victim was thought to be paranoid until a friend was in charge of the apartment during that person’s vacation. On one occasion the apartment was found to be upside-down but nothing was stolen, and no one else had been trusted with a key. The police just gave a blank stare when approached with the testimony.

Trespassing is a severe violation of personal integrity, indicates a total disrespect and is a direct threat to personal security. To deny someone the sensation of privacy and security in his or her home, is essentially to deny someone the feeling of security anywhere, which of course is the purpose. Such an intrusion does not aim to rob victims of things, but of their freedom. It is about domination, to induce helplessness and to enslave.

The goal is to force the target to live in helplessness, then surrender, and reach out for mercy. Besides the shock, it also has other ominous properties. Even if you refuse to feel helpless, it is still in your best interest to take precaution. Perhaps you stop leaving private notes or documents on view in your own house, stop downloading while you are at the gym or purchase a safe hoping to have some kind of private life. These relatively favourable behavioural changes consumes energy, and it takes discipline not to worry. Nevertheless, the fact remains that a person with a malicious intent and access to your home can cause you major harm directly – or indirectly through psychological abuse. The intrusion implies an informational advantage, although in a rather vulgar fashion. This strategy, and the summaries of my work from strangers before I even had the chance to get feedback from trusted sources, may both be used within the domain of S2 with the purpose to exert control and extract private information.

It is rather remarkable that the victim has strong incentives to be careful with how and with whom to speak about such an abuse, i.e. (iii) can be satisfied. An intrusion without leaving any traces of sabotage or theft is a prank that at first glance does not make sense in terms of a cost-benefit analysis. The costs outweigh the benefits by far if the strategy is seen as some sort of prank. However, the calculus does add up if the motive is to exert power over a person under surveillance, who will stay away for a while or has few contacts. On downside, it requires special conditions and requirement (i) is costly to maintain if the operation is exposed. Its strength is in terms of the psychological damage dealt, and that the victim will appear deranged if he fails to communicate what is happening. The assertion that meaninglessness makes this risky strategy meaningful from the perspective of power, is more than play with words.

[1] The experiences of Bratt & Lindberg are but two in a mountain of evidence about whistleblower harassment. The methods in these studies range from interviews and qualitative approaches, to quantitative, state-of-the-art statistical studies. The SS framework pretty much summarizes the modes of attacks in this literature.

Window 24. The Cops Tried to break in last Night! – How I received A Christmas Present from the Police

The Cops Tried to break into my apartment last night. While sleeping with my headphones on, I woke by a rather loud drilling on my door. It was the Malmö Police. When I asked what on earth they were doing, they soon enough started to ask questions about my recent Facebook posts – told me that people were worried, and that at least one had interpreted it as some sort of countdown.

I politely invited them into my living room, and answered them that whoever had sent them, obviously did not have my best interest in mind. Everyone I know, and most people that I used to know, know that I have been repeating pretty much the same things since I was about 16. Most of the specifics in recent post have been communicated by me for almost a decade now, some since 2012. This includes former colleagues, family and friends. To suggest that my writing will end as something more serious than an academic digression is offensive, among other things due to the fact that I am writing an Advent Calendar!

For the record, a few theoretical details which are salient in recent posts were circulated 2015. I also told them that my recent posts treated the fact that I was almost harassed to death under torture-like conditions. What then happened was, that my colleagues bluntly denied that it had happened (for the record: or that I tried to find excuses, I still do not know for what). I had reached out for help but no serious efforts were made on their behalf. This includes persons posing as champions of justice and equality, and that their baroque intrusion, at best is an act of a guilty conscience. I also told them that I do not think the police is the right way to help, as most of these attacks are social in nature, and devised to lurk about in a grey-zone beyond the reach of the law. I also encouraged them to read my Advent Calendar.

Someone had apparently even bothered to lie to the cops – claiming I had said that I would not live past my 40th birthday. They refused to reveal who had smeared me. I told them that it did not sound like me at all, because although I am an Atheist, I happen to maintain quite orthodox Christian values in that regard. Hence, such proposition is preposterous to me to the extent it is taboo.

The drilling stopped while we were chatting, and on their way out, they told me that they had changed the lock, perhaps as an early Christmas present. I gave them my sincere appreciation and received three brand-new keys. They never told me if there is a fourth.

In most countries, everyone will know what being oppressed or robbed means, especially if it is decades of your life. The difference here in Sweden might be, that some people not only will tell you they were doing you a favour – that happens everywhere – in addition, they expect you to sincerely believe the nonsense, and thank them for the insult!

Video of the day: The Nightmare Before Christmas, The Town Meeting

---

This Advent Calendar in three parts provides additional background and other info for the non-Swedish audience. Each window was originally published each day 1-24 of December, in accordance with tradition.

Part 1: https://steemit.com/power/@critico/the-swedish-advent-calendar-1-12

Part2: https://steemit.com/power/@critico/the-swedish-advent-calendar-13-18